A Jerusalem Celebration—Of Temples and Bamot

022

“Temples and High Places in Biblical Times” was the subject of Jerusalem colloquium held last spring to commemorate the centennial of the Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion. A distinguished group of archaeologists and Biblical scholars from all over the world—from as far away as Australia—gathered to deliver papers and offer comments.

Dr. Abraham Biran, Director of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology set the tone in his opening address: “Where people worship is as important as how they worship,” he said.

One of the most provocative lectures was delivered by Professor Menahem Haran, Chairman of the Department of Bible of Hebrew University. Cult complexes such as shrines, sanctuaries and altars, whether Canaanite or Israelite, preceded the Jerusalem Temple which Solomon built, said Professor Haran. A sharp distinction must be made, he said, between a temple and an altar. A temple is a god’s house (the Jerusalem Temple is referred to in the Bible as the “House of God”). A temple is a building with a roof. It is equipped with furnishings reflecting and symbolizing the divine presence. An altar, on the other hand, is found only in the open. The altar served only for the ceremony of sacrifice.

A temple often had an altar which stood in an adjoining courtyard, but most altars were not attached to temples. Professor Haran observed.

Only priests could officiate in a temple, but any layman could serve an isolated altar. Moreover, certain types of sacrifices could be offered only at a temple altar.

Many altars were scattered throughout the country in Biblical times. But the number of temples was quite limited; the Bible refers to only about a dozen.

A bama (plural, bamot) was a special kind of altar. Most English versions of the Bible translate bama as high-place. The New English Bible calls it a hill-shrine.

Yigael Yadin’s description of a bama in “Yigael Yadin Finds a Bama at Beer-Sheva,” BAR 03:01, notwithstanding, it is still unclear, according to Haran, what distinguishes a bama from other altars (although it is clear that a bama is definitely a type of altar). We are not even sure of the derivation and meaning of the word bama, Haran said.

In addition to temples and isolated altars, open, unenclosed cult areas, by and large outside cities, served the religious needs of the countryside. These unenclosed cult areas might include an altar, a pillar or a sacred tree. The Bible associates unenclosed cult areas mostly with the Patriarchal Age.

Professor Moshe Dothan of Haifa University 023described a cult complex he excavated in the mid-fifties at Nahariya, now a seaside resort a few kilometers south of the Lebanese border. Dothan found a platform with three or four steps leading up to it. A nearby roofed building was littered with the debris of food and charred wood. The building was once thought to be a Canaanite temple, but obviously a temple floor would not be kept in this unclean condition. Moreover, the architecture did not contain a single element characteristic of Canaanite temples. How ever, it may have been a Canaanite bama.

On the platform and on the steps leading up to it, the archaeologists found a multitude of offerings—about 200 vessels with seven openings (perhaps the Canaanite ancestor of the Jewish Menorah); seven-wicked lamps; a vessel with a monkey covering its eyes (reminiscent of but unconnected with the Far Eastern “see no evil” monkey); over a thousand beads; scraps of bronze and silver; a jar containing six figurines of bronze and silver; and, most important, a mold for a figurine, 024most probably the goddess worshipped at this shrine. She is naked—tall and slim, quite different from opulent fertility figures found elsewhere—and she wears a horned headdress. (See illustrations.)

Who was the god or goddess worshipped at the Nahariya shrine? Dothan thinks it was probably Asherat-Yam (Asherah-by-the-Sea), one of the three principal goddesses referred to in the Ugaritic texts. The Nahariya cult installation passed through several phases before it was destroyed about 1500 B.C.

Zev Herzog, one of the excavators at Beer-sheva, discussed the Israelite sanctuaries at Arad and Beer-Sheva. These excavations were directed by Herzog’s mentor, the late Yohanan Aharoni in whose name Herzog spoke. From the archaeological evidence at Beer-Sheva and Arad as well as from the Biblical evidence, it is clear that in the early Israelite monarchy, official sanctuaries (in addition to temples at Jerusalem, Bethel and Dan) existed in many major Israelite cities (see 2 Kings 17:9). When worship was exclusively concentrated at the Jerusalem Temple—under the religious reforms of King Hezekiah in the late 8th century B.C. and under King Josiah in the late 7th century B.C.—the provincial sanctuaries were condemned by the Biblical narrators as “high places” or bamot. The archaeological evidence suggests that at Beer-Sheva, the sanctuary was dismantled during the religious reforms of King Hezekiah; and at Arad, the sanctuary was destroyed, at least in part, during Hezekiah’s reforms and again during Josiah’s reforms.

As to Yigael Yadin’s suggestion in the March 1977 BAR that the Beer-Sheva sanctuary occupied a small building to the left of the city gate, Herzog called this suggestion “stratigraphically and chronologically unacceptable.” (See “Beer-Sheva Excavator Blasts Yadin—No Bama at Beer-Sheva,” in this issue).

“Temples and High Places in Biblical Times” was the subject of Jerusalem colloquium held last spring to commemorate the centennial of the Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion. A distinguished group of archaeologists and Biblical scholars from all over the world—from as far away as Australia—gathered to deliver papers and offer comments. Dr. Abraham Biran, Director of the Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology set the tone in his opening address: “Where people worship is as important as how they worship,” he said. One of the most provocative lectures was delivered by Professor Menahem Haran, Chairman of the […]