JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES Books VI-VIII, David - Solomon, SOLVED

[alon]

Nov 17, 2019 23:57:05 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Nov 9, 2019 13:31:46 GMT -8 alon said:

For Question 10, I agree that it's a possible desecration. In fact, since corpse contact renders someone unclean, wouldn't Joab dying on the altar make the altar unclean? Or are objects not able to be made unclean according to ? Objects can not only become unclean, they can transmit that uncleanness to other objects or to people.

Numbers 19:22 (ESV) Anything that an unclean person touches becomes unclean, and anyone who touches it becomes unclean till evening.”

You wrote that the only alternative was that Solomon's men could have forcibly removed him. In fact, says that this is what they needed to do. But I don't know that the fact that they violated means that the object, the Ark, becomes unclean. Rather, it's the fact that it touched a corpse that makes it unclean, right? Both sin and defilement of a corps could make it unclean. To the Jew, the physical and the spiritual are related:

Luke 11:39 (ESV) And the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.

[rakovsky]

Nov 18, 2019 12:15:38 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 17, 2019 23:57:05 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 10, I agree that it's a possible desecration. In fact, since corpse contact renders someone unclean, wouldn't Joab dying on the altar make the altar unclean? Or are objects not able to be made unclean according to ? Objects can not only become unclean, they can transmit that uncleanness to other objects or to people.

Numbers 19:22 (ESV) Anything that an unclean person touches becomes unclean, and anyone who touches it becomes unclean till evening.”

Good solution by you for Question 10.  Pretty clearly the answer must be Yes. 

[alon]

Nov 14, 2019 21:05:03 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

"Behold, I show you a mystery"(1 Corinthians 15:51); which is his usual style in introducing matters of a profounder and more mystical nature, and such as are fittingly concealed from the multitude, as is written in the book of Tobit: "It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to reveal the works of God", — in a way consistent with truth and God's glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude.

And "Behold." we are instructed to look as the "mystery" is shown to us; and lo, there is no more mystery!

It's still a mystery to the world, but hot to us, because the works of God are revealed to us in scripture. If any would convince you of a great mystery, it is probably because they want to solve it for you, and in their own terms. 

[alon]

Nov 14, 2019 22:41:46 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 11 (Did the Temple have an upper level or a second story, and if so, what was there?) , Solomon's Temple did have an upper level, since 2 Chronicles 3:9 and other verses refer to it. "aliyyah" in Hebrew means a "roof chamber", a loft, or a second-story chamber.
1 Chronicles 28 uses the word "wa-‘ă-lî-yō-ṯāw", meaning "and its upper chambers", when it says about the designs for the Temple:

11. Then David gave to Solomon his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place of the mercy seat, 12. And the pattern of all that he had by the spirit, of the courts of the house of the Lord, and of all the chambers round about, of the treasuries of the house of God, and of the treasuries of the dedicated things

2 Chronicles 3 says about Solomon's building of the Temple:

8. And he made the most holy house, the length whereof was according to the breadth of the house, twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof twenty cubits: and he overlaid it with fine gold, amounting to six hundred talents. 9. And the weight of the nails was fifty shekels of gold. And he overlaid the upper chambers with gold.

In fact, it sounds like there were three floors, starting with a bottom one, based on 2 Kings 6:

5. Against the walls of the temple and the inner sanctuary, Solomon built a chambered structure around the temple, in which he constructed the side rooms. 6. The bottom floor was five cubits wide, the middle floor six cubits, and the third floor seven cubits. He also placed offset ledges all around the outside of the temple, so that nothing would be inserted into its walls. 7. The temple was constructed using finished stones cut at the quarry, so that no hammer, chisel, or any iron tool was heard in the temple while it was being built. 8. The entrance to the bottom [literally: the middle, hat-tî-ḵō-nāh,] floor was on the south side of the temple. A stairway led up to the middle level, and from there to the third floor. 9. So Solomon built the temple and finished it, roofing it with beams and planks of cedar.

Also, a close reading of Josephus' Book VIII of the Antiquities shows that he was saying that the main sanctuary area was 60 cubits tall but that there was a second story on top of it so that the whole building stood 120 cubits:

. They erected its entire body, quite up to the roof, of white stone; its height was sixty cubits, and its length was the same, and its breadth twenty. There was another building erected over it, equal to it in its measures; so that the entire altitude of the temple was a hundred and twenty cubits. Its front was to the east. As to the porch, they built it before the temple; its length was twenty cubits, and it was so ordered that it might agree with the breadth of the house; and it had twelve cubits in latitude, and its height was raised as high as a hundred and twenty cubits.

Joseph Patrick theorizes about the second story of the Second Temple in his article "Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built":

The Upper Chamber, which formed a second story above the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies, was 40 cubits (69 feet) high; its walls were cubits (9 feet) thick. A mosaic strip of paving (r‘ashei psifasin) 1 cubit (21 inches) wide, separated the eastern part of the Upper Chamber extending over. the Sanctuary from the western part over the Holy of Holies. Like the double curtain between the Sanctuary and the Holy Holies, a curtain probably hung here as well. The entrance to the Upper Chamber, reached by walking from the top of the mesibbah upon the roof of the cells, was on the south; the entrance itself certainly opened into the area over the Sanctuary rather than the area over the Holy of Holies. Close by the entrance were two cedar posts that served as a ladder by which one could climb to the roof of the Upper Chamber, 45 cubits (78 feet) above the floor level.



In the western Part of the Upper Chamber, above the Holy of Holies, there were chimneys (lulin) (see the second sidebar to this article) or holes cut in the floor, through which maintenance artisans were let down in boxes open only towards the walls of the Holy of Holies. In this way the workmen could not see inside the Holy of Holies.

Ernest L. Martin notes in his essay, "Water Management
in Herod's Temple", quotes Massecheth Middot Perek II that the Temple courtyard (which is different from the Temple) had a second level which was a courtyard for women:

Abba Shaul said: "There they put the wine and the oil; it was called the chamber of the house of Schamanyah." And it [the wall] was at first flush, and they surrounded it with a gallery, so that the women looked from above and the men from beneath, for the purpose that they might not be mixed together. 32 And fifteen steps went up from there to [[from]] the Court of Israel, like the fifteen degrees in the Psalms [Songs of Degrees in the Psalms]. Upon these the Levites stood singing the songs. 
FOOTNOTES:
The Court of the Women was simply the second story (or a superimposition) of the Court of Israel – so the two courts were identical with the same lateral and linear dimensions. The Court of the Women was simply the second story of the Court of the Israelites.

This brings to mind how women are traditionally on the second level of Orthodox Jewish synagogues as Mark Kleiner writes in his article "Acoustics of music and voice in Jewish worship spaces":

Orthodox worship requires that men and women
pray physically separated. The upper section in Figure
6 shows one form of the traditional orthodox layout
where women pray on the upper level, as in the
synagogues of antiquity.

I am not sure that you can infer that women would be allowed into the second floor of the temple though. What do you think? The second floor of the Temple proper would be for kohanim (priests) only. I don't know where much of the information you give above originally comes from; where the authors got it. So I don't know about its accuracy. However the comments at times shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Judaism. For example:

Judaism has always held men and women to be equal, while still acknowledging their separate roles. Women are separated in synagogue to maintain order. Their primary role is care of children, which at times necessitates dealing with crying babies, toddlers, or unruly kids. Also, they are a distraction for young men in the congregation. My wife has told me that primarily the younger women and girls in the women's' balcony at synagogue are lined up checking out the men. And in literally every men's group I've been in (in churches) the topic has come up of the problem of lust; and invariably the consensus has been the worst place for it is in church services. So there are good reasons for the separation, all relating to keeping order.

Also, different sects have different levels of separation. So blanket statements about "the Jews" tend to be misleading. And it's the same in MJ. Until recently, y synagogue would allow shaking hands or even hugging women. The parent synagogue here allows no contact with a married woman. Most MJ synagogues require modest dress for both men and women, however details vary; especially with things like head coverings. 

Isaac Newton, in his "Drafts concerning Solomon's Temple and the sacred cubit", wrote about the sanctuary as if the sanctuary was really on the second floor, but I find his wording confusing. Newtown wrote:

And Josephus clearly confirms that this was the case when he asserts that the sanctuary above was a square and surrounded by its own wall. For he means not the whole sanctuary including the court of the women, as Capellus [Editorial Note 33] suggested, but the upper level of the sanctuary to which one ascended by 15 steps from the court of the women, and which was called the sanctuary in the proper sense. His words τετραγὼνον δὲ ἄνω square above, very clearly indicates an upper level.

Tim Hegg, in his essay "Separating the Most Holy from the Holy", on the other hand claims that the floor over the Holy of Holies was "entirely" for workers to be lowered down for maintenance. Hegg cited citing M. Middot 4:5; b. Pesachim 86a. Here is Middot 4:5:

And a winding-stair 34 went up from the north-eastern angle to the north-western angle, by which they went up to the roofs of the chambers. One went up the winding [[inclined]]-stair with his face to the west, and went all along the north side, until he came to the west. He came to the west, and turned his face to the south, and went all along the west side till he came to the south. He came to the south, and turned his face eastwards, and went along the south side, till he came to the entrance of the Alijah; for the entrance to the Alijah opened to the south, and in the entrance to the Alijah were two beams of cedar, by which they went up to the roof of the Alijah, and the heads of the beams divided in the Alijah between the Holy Place and the Most Holy Place. And trap doors opened in the Alijah into the Most Holy Place, by which they let down the workmen in chests, that they might not feast their eyes in the Most Holy Place.

This passage in the Middot doesn't actually say that the only purpose was for workmen. On the other hand, Hegg might read it that way since the Middot doesn't specify any other purpose for the second level.
This upper level was called the "Alijah" or "Aliyah" in the Middot. Aliyah means an ascent. I don't know for how long it (making Aliyah) has also referred to Jews traveling to the Land of Israel/Zion.

Jews have always referred to going to Mt. Tzion and Yerushalayim as "Going up." Jerusalem being the center of their worship (not the object), and always thought of as the capitol of Isreal. 

Psalm 104 refers to God making his house in heaven like in upper chambers:

Who layeth the beams of his upper chambers (‘ălî-yō-w-ṯāw) in the waters who maketh the clouds his chariot who walketh upon the wings of the wind

The Encyclopedia of Freemasonry's entry on Alijah notes that Freemasons, who emphasize Solomon's Temple, as a rule meet on the second floor. It also points to the verse in Psalm 104. It theorizes that the upper room in ancient Jewish homes was for private devotion facing Solomon's Temple and that early Christians/apostles took on this practice and worshiped in the Upper Room (as is mentioned in the NT). In contrast, the book NKJV Word Study Bible: 1,700 Key Words that Unlock the Meaning of the Bible says that upper rooms were for guests, citing 2 Kings 4, and that kings had them to enjoy the coolness that they provided, citing Judges 30 and 2 Kings 1.

Elijah, in resurrecting the boy in 1 Kings 17, took the boy up to his upper room, using the same Hebrew word for a loft (aliyah), to revive him and brought him down again:

19. And he said unto her, Give me thy son. And he took him out of her bosom, and carried him up into a loft, where he abode, and laid him upon his own bed.
20. And he cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, hast thou also brought evil upon the widow with whom I sojourn, by slaying her son?
  21. And he stretched himself upon the child three times, and cried unto the Lord, and said, O Lord my God, I pray thee, let this child's soul come into him again.
22. And the Lord heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.
23. And Elijah took the child, and brought him down out of the chamber into the house, and delivered him unto his mother: and Elijah said, See, thy son liveth.

The Freemasons are a cult in the negative sense of the word. I'd give no credence to anything they say or do.

In his book The Temples of the Jews and the Other Buildings in the Haram Area at Jerusalem, James Fergusson says that the question of what was in the Alijah of the Temple has been a neglected question and that it hasn't been answered by scholars. He theorizes that it was the "great congregation" of the priests and people referred to in Maccabees 14:28 (“At Saramel in the great congregation of the priests, and people, and rulers of the nation, and elders of the country, were these things notified unto us.”), but he notes that this theory is contradicted by the Talmud saying that only the kings of the House of David could sit in the courts of the Temple. Plus, the Temple isn't Saramel, right?
Saramel is a term used to my knowledge only in 1 Maccabees, and its meaning is unknown. 

Fergusson also theorizes that the Aliyah served the purpose of a meeting hall for the priests, and he theorized that they lived in the side chambers on the side of the Temple, which I also saw referred to as places for storage chambers. He says that the first floor lacked the equipment for liturgy, like a bema and a place for chanting the Psalms, so the daily services must have happened on the Aliyah floor.

I think that the second part of this question, what was in the second level is tough. It seems to me that it could be living quarters, since God's upper chambers are the heavens where he lives. Or maybe they could be a place for the priests to meet as Fergusson theorized.

[rakovsky]

Nov 19, 2019 16:06:49 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 14, 2019 22:41:46 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

For Question 11 (Did the Temple have an upper level or a second story, and if so, what was there?) ...


Joseph Patrick theorizes about the second story of the Second Temple in his article "Reconstructing the Magnificent Temple Herod Built":Ernest L. Martin notes in his essay, "Water Management
in Herod's Temple", quotes Massecheth Middot Perek II that the Temple courtyard (which is different from the Temple) had a second level which was a courtyard for women:

This brings to mind how women are traditionally on the second level of Orthodox Jewish synagogues as Mark Kleiner writes in his article "Acoustics of music and voice in Jewish worship spaces":Orthodox worship requires that men and women pray physically separated. The upper section in Figure 6 shows one form of the traditional orthodox layout where women pray on the upper level, as in the synagogues of antiquity.

I am not sure that you can infer that women would be allowed into the second floor of the temple though. What do you think? The second floor of the Temple proper would be for kohanim (priests) only. I don't know where much of the information you give above originally comes from; where the authors got it. So I don't know about its accuracy. However the comments at times shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Judaism. For example:

Judaism has always held men and women to be equal, while still acknowledging their separate roles. Women are separated in synagogue to maintain order.

In his book The Temples of the Jews and the Other Buildings in the Haram Area at Jerusalem, James Fergusson says that the question of what was in the Alijah of the Temple has been a neglected question and that it hasn't been answered by scholars. He theorizes that it was the "great congregation" of the priests and people referred to in Maccabees 14:28 (“At Saramel in the great congregation of the priests, and people, and rulers of the nation, and elders of the country, were these things notified unto us.”), but he notes that this theory is contradicted by the Talmud saying that only the kings of the House of David could sit in the courts of the Temple. Plus, the Temple isn't Saramel, right?
Saramel is a term used to my knowledge only in 1 Maccabees, and its meaning is unknown. 

Dan,
When you write, "The second floor of the Temple proper would be for kohanim (priests) only", do you say this because the Temple was only for priests to enter? If so, how do you know this? I remember reading different claims or theories as to whether only kohanim could be in the Temple. For instance, the second century Nazarene Hegesippus wrote that Yeshua's brother James entered the Temple. Paul/Shaul had a vision of Yeshua while praying in the Temple. Acts describes the apostles preaching in the Temple. Do these stories just mean that they were in the courtyard, not in the Temple building?

I do not take Mark Kleiner, in the passage that I posted, as referring to Judaism as seeing women as inferior. He just talked about them being separate. So I am not sure why you wrote:

However the comments at times shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Judaism. For example:
Judaism has always held men and women to be equal, while still acknowledging their separate roles. Women are separated in synagogue to maintain order.

I read that Saramel was the KJV's rendering of Asaramel. The US CCB website's Bible notes on Maccabbees say:
Asaramel: perhaps a Hebrew name meaning “court of the people of God.”
Do you agree with this potential Hebrew translation?
This would suggest that Fergusson thought that Saramel referred to a court, and that he further theorized that the Temple could be a possible location for this court.

[rakovsky]

Also regarding Question 11 (about the Upper floor), Yarden writes on the Judaism Stackexchange page (my comments are in parentheses):

When the Leviim guarded the temple, did they sit down?
In Tamid 25b, at the end of the explanation for the term "היו עליות" (Aliyah, upper chamber/ascent), Rashi writes that no one, except from members of the House of David, could sit down in the Azarah (Temple Courtyard). The Cohanim stood "above" Beit haNitzotz and could rest there, since the higher floors where not sanctified. However we know, from the same massechet (ie. "tractate") and Middot 1:6, that part of the guarding of the Temple was done by Leviim, who stood "below". Does that mean that Leviim could not sit down during their guarding service?

The best answer on that Stackexchange page was: "The Ra’avad at the beginning of Tamid says that for the sake of guarding the Beis Hamikdash (The Temple or "Sanctified House") they were allowed to sit in the Temple courtyard." I take this to mean that the Levites were allowed to sit in the Temple courtyard, and that the priests could rest on the Beit haNitzotz, or House of the Spark, one of the gatehouses on the walls of the Temple Courtyard.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article Administration and Service of Temple expands on this:

The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while. At night the elder priests slept here on divans placed on rows of stone steps one above another. The younger priests slept on cushions on the floor, putting their sacred garments under their heads and covering themselves with their secular clothing (Tamid. i. 1). The elder priests kept the keys of the Temple, putting them at night under a marble slab in the floor; to this slab a ring was attached for lifting it. A priest watched over or slept on the slab until the keys were demanded by the officer in the morning.



The king when visiting the Temple had no rights beyond those of the ordinary Israelite; only the kings of the house of David were privileged to sit down in the 'azarah (Soṭah 41b; Tamid 27a).

Here is a diagram. The Azarah is the Inner Courtyard:


The Jewish Encyclopedia's article on Temple Administration says:

The priests' hall was reserved for the priests and Levites; occasionally, however, men and women presenting sin-offerings, sacrifices on which they were required to place the hands ("semikah"), made use of it. At the festivals, to accommodate the large crowds, all Israelites were permitted to enter the priests' hall, on which occasion the curtain of the vestibule was raised to show the people the interior of the "Hekal". [The Hekal being the Temple]

In this article it sounds like non-priestly Israelites were able to enter the priestly courtyard, but not the Temple. Does that sound right? I thought that Paul/Shaul had a vision in the Temple and the disciples preached in the Temple?

[rakovsky]

I think that basically the answer to question number 11 is that there is no clear answer to the question. Based on the records the upper floors were special because of the gold walls and there were maintenance workers that came through it in order to take care of the holy of holies according to the rabbinical writing that I quoted. One can reasonably guess that there were Treasures in the upper floors, like there were in the first floor with the menorahs. There would have been likely Temple items on the second and third floors. It makes sense that since the temple was a House of Prayer that there could have been prayers on the upper two floors. Also the priests would likely have used those floors for preparing for the services on the first floor. So they could have washed or prepared equipment or prepared recitations on the upper floors. Beyond we are stuck with speculation like speculating that women associated with the temple were there, or that the priests had meetings there. The theory that national leaders were meeting there is in conflict with the rule that I read that only priests went inside the temple building, which I took from the fact that on festivals Israelite men were allowed inside of the courtyard of the priests but the priests held up the curtain so that they could look inside of the building of the Temple. I take the references in the New Testament to the apostles being inside the temple as references to them being inside the temple Courtyard areas. What do you think?

[alon]

Nov 19, 2019 20:42:27 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Nov 19, 2019 16:06:49 GMT -8 alon said:

Dan,
When you write, "The second floor of the Temple proper would be for kohanim (priests) only", do you say this because the Temple was only for priests to enter? If so, how do you know this? I remember reading different claims or theories as to whether only kohanim could be in the Temple. For instance, the second century Nazarene Hegesippus wrote that Yeshua's brother James entered the Temple. Paul/Shaul had a vision of Yeshua while praying in the Temple. Acts describes the apostles preaching in the Temple. Do these stories just mean that they were in the courtyard, not in the Temple building?
Exactly. "In the Temple" did not necessarily mean in the Temple proper. It could more often refer to the entire Temple complex. Like saying "I'm going to the nationa's capitol" might actually mean the capitol building, but more often means just the city (e.g. Washington, DC). That the upper floors of the Temple building was only for the priestly class to enter is just what I've learned  in my studies. However unless specific mention from credible sources of the time the Temple stood can be shown whee others were allowed entrance, I'll go with that

I do not take Mark Kleiner, in the passage that I posted, as referring to Judaism as seeing women as inferior. He just talked about them being separate. So I am not sure why you wrote:

However the comments at times shows a fundamental lack of understanding of Judaism. For example:
Judaism has always held men and women to be equal, while still acknowledging their separate roles. Women are separated in synagogue to maintain order.

Whenever Christian writers say men and women are kept separate, they generally mean the Jews hold women as inferior. It is implicit in their writings. So perhaps I read too much into his statement. But past experience says I did not.

I read that Saramel was the KJV's rendering of Asaramel. The US CCB website's Bible notes on Maccabbees say:
Asaramel: perhaps a Hebrew name meaning “court of the people of God.”
Do you agree with this potential Hebrew translation?
This would suggest that Fergusson thought that Saramel referred to a court, and that he further theorized that the Temple could be a possible location for this court.
I neither agree nor disagree, as the meaning is lost to us. I'd agree it's possible.

[alon]

Nov 20, 2019 11:43:48 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Also regarding Question 11 (about the Upper floor), Yarden writes on the Judaism Stackexchange page (my comments are in parentheses):

When the Leviim guarded the temple, did they sit down?
In Tamid 25b, at the end of the explanation for the term "היו עליות" (Aliyah, upper chamber/ascent), Rashi writes that no one, except from members of the House of David, could sit down in the Azarah (Temple Courtyard). The Cohanim stood "above" Beit haNitzotz and could rest there, since the higher floors where not sanctified. However we know, from the same massechet (ie. "tractate") and Middot 1:6, that part of the guarding of the Temple was done by Leviim, who stood "below". Does that mean that Leviim could not sit down during their guarding service?

The best answer on that Stackexchange page was: "The Ra’avad at the beginning of Tamid says that for the sake of guarding the Beis Hamikdash (The Temple or "Sanctified House") they were allowed to sit in the Temple courtyard." I take this to mean that the Levites were allowed to sit in the Temple courtyard, and that the priests could rest on the Beit haNitzotz, or House of the Spark, one of the gatehouses on the walls of the Temple Courtyard.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article Administration and Service of Temple expands on this:

The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while. At night the elder priests slept here on divans placed on rows of stone steps one above another. The younger priests slept on cushions on the floor, putting their sacred garments under their heads and covering themselves with their secular clothing (Tamid. i. 1). The elder priests kept the keys of the Temple, putting them at night under a marble slab in the floor; to this slab a ring was attached for lifting it. A priest watched over or slept on the slab until the keys were demanded by the officer in the morning.



The king when visiting the Temple had no rights beyond those of the ordinary Israelite; only the kings of the house of David were privileged to sit down in the 'azarah (Soṭah 41b; Tamid 27a).

The priests' hall was reserved for the priests and Levites; occasionally, however, men and women presenting sin-offerings, sacrifices on which they were required to place the hands ("semikah"), made use of it. At the festivals, to accommodate the large crowds, all Israelites were permitted to enter the priests' hall, on which occasion the curtain of the vestibule was raised to show the people the interior of the "Hekal". [The Hekal being the Temple]

In this article it sounds like non-priestly Israelites were able to enter the priestly courtyard, but not the Temple. Does that sound right? I thought that Paul/Shaul had a vision in the Temple and the disciples preached in the Temple?

See the post above. "In the Temple" most often means "In the Temple complex," not in the Temple proper.

As to the specifics of service in the Temple, I'm not familiar enough with the subject to say yes or no. The Jewish Encyclopedia is a credible source though.

[alon]

Nov 20, 2019 13:28:59 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

I think that basically the answer to question number 11 is that there is no clear answer to the question. Based on the records the upper floors were special because of the gold walls and there were maintenance workers that came through it in order to take care of the holy of holies according to the rabbinical writing that I quoted. One can reasonably guess that there were Treasures in the upper floors, like there were in the first floor with the menorahs. There would have been likely Temple items on the second and third floors. It makes sense that since the temple was a House of Prayer that there could have been prayers on the upper two floors. Also the priests would likely have used those floors for preparing for the services on the first floor. So they could have washed or prepared equipment or prepared recitations on the upper floors. Beyond we are stuck with speculation like speculating that women associated with the temple were there, or that the priests had meetings there. The theory that national leaders were meeting there is in conflict with the rule that I read that only priests went inside the temple building, which I took from the fact that on festivals Israelite men were allowed inside of the courtyard of the priests but the priests held up the curtain so that they could look inside of the building of the Temple. I take the references in the New Testament to the apostles being inside the temple as references to them being inside the temple Courtyard areas. What do you think?

Actually it's all speculation. Probably it was common knowledge at the time what that floor was for, or what occurred there. As such it was never thought to record it somewhere. So we are left to search for clues and speculate.

And yes, we do know that being in the Temple usually meant being in the Temple complex, because it was used that way. There is no way everyone coming to the Temple for daily prayers would all fit inside the Temple itself. We also know that entering the complex presented increasing levels of holiness, and only priests were kadosh/holy/set apart for service in the Temple proper. And only the cohen hagadol/High Priest once a year set himself apart to the level required to enter the Holy of Holies. The public only prayed in the courtyards. They didn't mill around the Temple itself.

I remember as a kid growing up we explored every inch of every church I went to after Sunday service. My first kiss was hidden away in a part of a church. We held nothing sacred, you might say! The Jews did not treat the Temple that way. Messing around there could get you 'smitten', either by God, the guards, the priests, or any Jew in attendance.

[rakovsky]

Good answer by you when you said, "That the upper floors of the Temple building was only for the priestly class to enter is just what I've learned in my studies."
Thanks for clearing up my confusion about the disciples being in the Temple. I had been imagining them preaching to crowds in the building.

[alon]

Nov 16, 2019 20:42:06 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Question 13 (A) Is there a connection between the number of talents of gold brought to Solomon for the Temple's construction (666) being the same as the number of the beast or AntiChrist in Revelation? 

The answer to A) is that Yes there is a connection because of the similarity of the context. The amount of gold brought to the Temple was 666, and the number required for buying or selling in Revelation was also 666. Revelation 13 is saying that the number of the beast and his name are 666, and that the number was required to buy or sell:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is six hundred threescore and six. (Revelation 13:17-18)

I got into the similarities in my opening thread post, like Solomon making the Temple at a time of his spiritual slide into multiplying his earthly power, foreign wives, and worship of pagan gods. Deuteronomy 17 bans kings from multiplying their gold, which Solomon did by getting the same amount each year. Revelation uses alot of OT images and figures, like the commander Magog at Armageddon being a commander in the apocalyptic battle in the Book of Ezekiel.
As it should! There is nothing "New" in the "New Testament." It is a thoroughly Jewish book- actually just a continuation of the OT. One book, One Author, one message. And everything is woven together as a tapestry; intricate and beautiful in so many ways, not the least being the correlation of everything to everything else! Remember too this was written to Jews of the diaspora, particularly believing Jews who were undergoing severe persecution. Despite its apocalyptic nature, Revelation was meant to be a comfort to them. It said "Life is bad now, but in the end, you win!" Stay the course, hold true to . 

The name “Nero Ceasar” spelled in Hebrew is נרון קטר neron qesar, which adds up to 666. He was the major oppressor of the time this was written. And of course there are others throughout history. We believe there will be a final one, the worst of them all! But this does not make Revelation any less relevant to the believing Jew then, Corrie Tenboom in a Nazi camp, or of course believers in the last days.

Edit:the second part of this will require some thought and research, if I have the time. So I will have to get to it later. 

[alon]

Nov 16, 2019 20:42:06 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Question 13 is in two parts:

B) is asking whether the number 666 itself has an underlying or inner meaning that could apply to the gold for Solomon's building the Temple and to Revelation's Number of the Beast.
One theory that I can imagine is that 666's meaning here is that it is the name-number of Caesar Nero or emperor Domitian, and that it shows up in the story of Solomon's Temple as a prefigurement of these powerful Roman emperors because Solomon was evincing his power. (The letters of Neron Kaisar in Greek add up numerically to 666). That his name adds up to 666 in both Hebrew and Greek is interesting. But the Greek is a transliteration of the Hebrew, and so is very similar; so it isn't all that remarkable. However it is the Hebrew that counts, since Gematria is a Hebrew practice. Also Hebrew is he language all God's oracles were given to the Jews in. This includes the NT.

Scott Pauline, on the Catholic 365 website, makes a theory based on the underlined premise below, but I am unsure if his premise works:

A mystical way to look at this symbolism is to reverse the relationship between God and man. We see this by first recalling that 7 is the number of perfection and so, in one sense, of God. It follows that 6 is a symbol of imperfection and therefore of man, who falls very short of God. But then, just as God is three Divine Persons in one Nature, so three 6’s in one number symbolizes man [6] making himself as God [three in one]. Well, if this does work, you have a problem. If 666 is three men in one number, godhead, or whatever, then it would symbolize the church making God as three persons in one divine essence. Man has thus created God in his own image! Whereas if God is One supreme and all powerful being then He is what He says He is!
Consequently, whereas GOD made man in GOD'S Image and Likeness, the flip side is that, through the evil number above, MAN makes God in MAN'S image. The number is a symbol, not a vehicle for making God anything. While symbols have meanings and evoke emotions and even passions, thus helping to convince or reinforce a belief system, it is man in the evil of his mind who both perverts the truth and makes the symbols to prove that view. This is one of the problem we as Meshiachim have with icons, and especially statues. Even paintings reinforce bad theology. Our minds think in images at the basic level, and so an image is a powerful tool for those whose plans are evil.
Subsequently, when MAN makes God into MAN'S image, one greater result is paganism, which is precisely the nature of man projecting his image onto the Divine. For, in paganism, the deities are largely a reflection of the fallen nature of man, themselves finite in power and in constant struggle according to diverse, and many times arrogant and selfish, passions. Biblically, there are 2 kinds of people: Hebrews and pagans. If you are truly grafted into the cultivated olive tree (truly saved) then you are adopted into Israel. If not, you are a pagan, whether you are like what is described here or not. And this may be a bit offensive, and I apologize. But idols (statues), icons, praying to saints instead of to God, and many other practices of the church are typically pagan practices. I have a whole long list of things the RC's do that are pagan. But I don't know what all EO does similar to them; so I'll leave the list there. 
An additional severe form in the nature of man making God into his image is the blasphemous tendency of humanity to even deify themselves, presuming utter independence from God, the makers of their own destiny and fulfillment, and the final arbiter of truth. That, sadly, is true. And we've all done it to some extent or another. But yes, some (think Pharaoh's) have taken this to the extremes of actually, like ha'satan, tried to place themselves on the throne of the Almighty.

The website Science alert claims that the translation the points to Nero comes from Hebrew (as opposed to Greek):

if you translate the Hebrew spelling of 666, you actually spell out Neron Kesar - the Hebrew spelling of Nero Caesar. Yes. See my reply above here as well as to part A.

The video on Youtube, "666 - Numberphile" says that 666 is a "Triangular number". It says that in Greek, the instructions in Revelation 1 say that the reader should "calculate" the number of the beast, which is 666. Counting names in Hebrew is Gematria, and in Greek it is called Isosophy. The video presenter writes out Nero Caesar in Hebrew. Nero in Hebrew is Neron, and the letter N in Hebrew Gematria has the value of N. Adding the number values up comes to 666. A triangle number is a number that results from summing lesser consecutive numbers starting with 1. For example, 1+2+3=6, so 6 is a triangular number. A practical example is that the roulette table has numbers running from 0 to 36, and the sum of their values comes to 666. The video notes that Nero Caesar without the n at the end of Neron comes out to 616 in Gematria, and it notes that in some early manuscripts of Revelation, the number of the beast is 616, so the editor must have recognized that the basic name was Nero's and he was using a different way for writing Nero's name with Hebrew letters. This is likely what happened. It is one more proof the NT was written in Hebrew, not Greek. If the scribe had to adjust the number to make the original translation/transliteration work, it must have been something else before. And the only logical language of the true original would have to be Hebrew!

Noam D. Elkies, a Jewish mathematician, in his 2004 "Morning Prayer Talk" article "The Numerology of the Beast" says:

Nero Caesar in Hebrew is NeRON QeiSaR; adding up the letters we get 'the number of the man', 666. ...  It made sense for an early Christian Jewish believer to represent Nero, and the pagan and powerful Empire that Nero stood for, as the Beast. It also made sense to use the code of gematria. If you write plainly that Nero and Rome are doing the Devil's work, then you're an enemy combatant [in the eyes of Rome], and the Roman legal code had no Bill of Rights. This is part of what a Jewish person means when they say scripture is written in code- although they typically don't mean the NT. ... But the really suggestive hint is that the oldest manuscripts don't agree on the number: some have 616 instead. See both your and my discussion on this above. It's much harder to concoct an explanation that fits both numbers, and only one of the proposed interpretations of the Number of the Beast accounts for both: Nero. Remember it was NeRON QeiSaR in Hebrew. But the final N of NeRON is optional: the name can also be rendered NeRO, subtracting the letter N [Nun] and its value of 50 to get -- 616. ... 
Going back to chemistry, some have even seen the Beast... in life itself, based on the carbon atom with its 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons! Imagine that! The building block of life itself is the number/mark of the Beast! Talk about perverting the meaning of God's very work at creation! Now if he'd said something like it was prophetic that man would pervert His work I'd at least give him credit for trying to deflect, but I still wouldn't buy it. You can take these analogies too far, and this is a great illustration of that. 

As the Halexandria website notes, a magic square where the number of each side adds up to 111 contains the consecutive numbers from 1 to 36 and those numbers add up to 666. This brings to mind the Roulette wheel's numbers discussed earlier. The Halexandria website's article on 666 notes that pi (3.14159.....) times phi (.618033........) times 7 times 7 times 7 might calculate to 666. "phi" is a number that is part of the Golden Ratio. The Golden Number.net website explains how one reaches "phi":

Divide a line so that:


Sectioning a line to form the golden section or golden ratio based on phi
, the ratio of the length of the entire line (A)
to the length of larger line segment (B)
is the same as
the ratio of the length of the larger line segment (B)
to the length of the smaller line segment (C).

This happens only at the point where:
A is 1.618 … times B and B is 1.618 … times C.

Alternatively, C is 0.618… of B and B is 0.618… of A.

The Halexandria website argues that the beast in Revelations having the number 666 does not mean that the number is inherently bad. For instance, the article notes:

There is, of course, the matter of the beast having seven heads, but as modern parlance goes, wearing seven hats is nothing more sinister than being an "A personality" or workaholic. Ten horns is also potentially a good thing in that horns have traditionally been a connecting link between the bearer and the universal source, and ten (or nine more than one) sounds even better. He makes some leaps here that he doesn't explain or back up. And numbers themselves, as I pointed out earlier are not inherantly bad. However they can be used to represent a bad thing: i.e. the Beast in Revelation.

Wikipedia's article on 666 notes that 15, 21, 36, and 666 are triangular numbers, that the sum of the consecutive numbers from 1 to 36 = 666, that 15 + 21 = 36, and that 15^2 + 21^2 = 666. On the other hand, in the TALK section of the article, a commentor cast doubt on this being remarkable, writing:

True enough, but in general, any square number can be written as the sum of two consecutive triangular numbers, and the sum of the squares of these triangular numbers equals the number triangled. For example,
4=1+3; 1+2+3+4=10; 12+32=10.

9=3+6, 1+2+3...+9=45, 32+62=45.

Yeah, I'm not following that. 

The Wikipedia article also says:

666 is the sum of squares of first seven primes: 2^{2}+3^{2}+5^{2}+7^{2}+11^{2}+13^{2}+17^{2}


The Roman numeral for 666, DCLXVI, has exactly one occurrence of all symbols whose value is less than 1000 in decreasing order (D = 500, C = 100, L = 50, X = 10, V = 5, I = 1).

You were the kid in math class everyone hated, right?

The Wikipedia article also notes that "In the Bible, 666 is the number of Adonikam's descendants who return to Jerusalem and Judah from the Babylonian exile (see Ezra 2:13).
" Adonai means "The Lord/Adonai arises." Elilabs' article on "Adonikam" notes:

Ne 7:18 The children of Adonikam, six hundred threescore and seven.

The discrepancy is that the number reported this time is 667, not 666. This is not really a discrepancy after all, as this second number is just counting Adonikam along with his descendants.
Adonikam was a noble under Artaxerxes sent from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple. He is thus analogous to the craftsmen under Hiram in the time of Solomon.

The article also claims that Shemaiah promoted only non-Levite priests to serve in the new Temple, therefore making them false priests. But Elilabs' article's citation in the Bible (Ezra 8:18) looks to me like it specifies that the minister whom Shemaiah and others found for a priest was a son of Levi, thereby making the priest legitimate and not a false priest. Don't know where the author got his facts, but this looks like a case of forcing your "facts" to fit a preconceived notion or desired outcome.
According to the Wolfram Mathworld article on "Beast Number":

Wang (1994) showed that

phi = -2sin(666 degrees)

phi = -2cos(6×6×6 degrees),

where phi is the golden ratio, which can be combined to give

phi = -[sin(666 degrees)+cos(6×6×6 degrees)]

Milo noted on Graham Hancock's forum that "60 and 360 were used as bases in Babylonian mathematics, as in the degrees of a circle; 360=10x36 and 666 is the sum of the numbers from 1 to 36." Examples of 60 and 360 being used often today and coming from Babylonian mathematics are the 60 minutes in an hour and the 360 degrees in a circle.
But Milo's forum post "666 can be related to the Zodiac" went way over my head. For instance, he starts out by writingg, "For a complete synthesis of the energies embodied in the zodiac, harmony must be established between all 36 decantes (36 times 10 degrees = the full circle).
Every combination or blend of energies must be expressed twice, first as an idea or insight and second, lived out at a practical level." eg. I don't know what is a decante. So I am skeptical of his theory. Not sure either. Only definitions I could find were to be poured out, as in decanting wine. But I wouldn't give any credence to biblical interpretations based on the Zodiac, even if the Hebrews did incorporate parts of it. 

One interpretation that would make sense is that Revelation 13 actually says that 666 is the number of man, not particularly the number of "a man". The Greek wording in the verse says, "ἀριθμὸς γὰρ ἀνθρώπου ἐστίν," meaning literally "number for of man it is". On the 6th day, God made man. Tripling the 6's could refer to treating man as a god, since God in the Bible is like a threesome. As I said earlier, this entire book, letters and all was written to Jewish believers in the diaspora who were being persecuted. It was the Gematriatic number of "a" man, Nero. And if it was "a" man then, it will be "a" man in the end times.

On the Wikipedia Talk page for 666, Scott mentioned: 

There is a theory/idea regarding the biblical meaning of 666. Man was created on the sixth day and the Supreme Being is three persons (Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Therefore the number 6 represents man and the fact that it is repeated three times implies that man is trying to be God. Or by that logic that God created man in His image; which He did, but not as a trinity. Oh, I know you can pick 3 things like body, soul, and spirit and say he is. But he is also a mind, a set of thoughts and beliefs which, if we are to be judged will follow us into the afterlife.

Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book V, Chp. 30 says that there are alot of names whose Greek spelling comes out to 666, one of them being Lateinos, meaning "The Latin one". However, he concludes that it is hard to chose one of the possible names for certain until the Antichrist comes. Here is what he says about Lateinos:

Then also Lateinos (ΛΑΤΕΙΝΟΣ) has the number six hundred and sixty-six; and it is a very probable [solution], this being the name of the last kingdom [of the four seen by Daniel]. For the Latins are they who at present bear rule: I will not, however, make any boast over this [coincidence]. Again, what the number is in Greek is meaningless. It is what it is in Hebrew. Isopsephy is not exactly the same as Gematria. And if it is biblical, it is Hebrew. 

It is worth doing some debunking of claims about this number. One writer noted that the Number of the beast is not actually three 6's as one might interpret some numbers (6-6-6), but rather a sum that is equal to Six hundred sixty six.

So for instance, the following diagram might not be relevant:

This diagram shows a way where one can find three 6's in a hexagram, but this is perhaps not the same as the Biblical sum that reaches "666". "666" in the Bible is 600+60+6, maybe not 6,6,6. On the other hand the idea that 666 is the number of man might have the idea of a threesome 6. Gematria is a sum of numbers which are derived from corresponding letters. So really he is "debunking" nothing but a drawing here. And the Magen Dovid represents a pomegranate, not a geometric design. So neither it nor the fruit are inherently evil. 

Also, Seventh Day Adventists have claimed that in Babylonian astrology, the sun was assigned the number 666, and that the Babylonians had Magic Square amulets numbered from 1 to 36, with the sum on each side being 111 and the total sum being 666. However, not only could I not confirm this from real scholarship, I found an article debunking the claim and saying that there were no such 666 Babylonian amulets. A photo shown by the 7th Day Adventists supposedly of the amulet was actually of a square Chinese seal. Yes, well SDA's also believe in Ellen White. 'Nuff said there. 

[rakovsky]

Nov 21, 2019 10:42:07 GMT -8 alon said:

Nov 16, 2019 20:42:06 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Question 13 is in two parts:

B) is asking whether the number 666 itself has an underlying or inner meaning that could apply to the gold for Solomon's building the Temple and to Revelation's Number of the Beast.
One theory that I can imagine is that 666's meaning here is that it is the name-number of Caesar Nero or emperor Domitian, and that it shows up in the story of Solomon's Temple as a prefigurement of these powerful Roman emperors because Solomon was evincing his power. (The letters of Neron Kaisar in Greek add up numerically to 666). That his name adds up to 666 in both Hebrew and Greek is interesting. But the Greek is a transliteration of the Hebrew, and so is very similar; so it isn't all that remarkable. However it is the Hebrew that counts, since Gematria is a Hebrew practice.  

Let me clarify that his Greek name when put in Hebrew letters becomes 666, but I did not find sources specifying that in the Greek system of counting Greek letters as numbers that his name came to 666.
Wikipedia explains:

Nron Qsr
The Greek version of the name and title transliterates into Hebrew as נרון קסר‎, and yields a numerical value of 666,[39] as shown:
Resh (ר) Samekh (ס) Qoph (ק) Nun (נ) Vav (ו) Resh (ר) Nun (נ) Sum
200 60 100 50 6 200 50 666

Nro Qsr
The Latin version of the name drops the second Nun (נ), so that it appears as Nro and transliterates into Hebrew as נרו קסר, yielding 616

You asked, "You were the kid in math class everyone hated, right?" No, my math abilities were not super, just above average in high school, and I wasn't able to finish Calculus II in college. Alot of the math things that I quoted were from what I found online and wouldn't gave noticed myself.

[alon]

Nov 21, 2019 13:17:03 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Nov 21, 2019 10:42:07 GMT -8 alon said:

Let me clarify that his Greek name when put in Hebrew letters becomes 666, but I did not find sources specifying that in the Greek system of counting Greek letters as numbers that his name came to 666.
Wikipedia explains:

Nron Qsr
The Greek version of the name and title transliterates into Hebrew as נרון קסר‎, and yields a numerical value of 666,[39] as shown:
Resh (ר) Samekh (ס) Qoph (ק) Nun (נ) Vav (ו) Resh (ר) Nun (נ) Sum
200 60 100 50 6 200 50 666

Nro Qsr
The Latin version of the name drops the second Nun (נ), so that it appears as Nro and transliterates into Hebrew as נרו קסר, yielding 616
That sounds about right.

You asked, "You were the kid in math class everyone hated, right?" No, my math abilities were not super, just above average in high school, and I wasn't able to finish Calculus II in college. Alot of the math things that I quoted were from what I found online and wouldn't gave noticed myself. I was kidding when I said that. Your educational experience sounds a lot like mine, except that you made it to Calc 2 before having to drop.