Cherub's Again

In a recent post, I discussed the Cherubs. I sent letters to Richard Elliot Friedman and William G. Dever and both were kind enough to respond. Letter from REF is the following text.

Dear Mr. xxxx,
Many thanks for your letter and your compliments to my work, which mean a lot to me. To get right to the point, I have to tell you that that translation that you read is simply wrong. The phrase in Hebrew does not contain the word "turned" — or any verb. In my Commentary on the Torah, I translated it quite literally: "and their faces each towards its brother." The most thorough and brilliant commentary on Exodus ever done, in my judgment, is William Propp's two-volume Exodus for the Anchor Bible. He, too, translates it literally: "and their faces (each) man toward his brother." See also his discussion of the issues on pp. 323 and especially 391-392.

In the Silbermann translation that you mentioned, which accompanies his translation of Rashi, the word "turned" is printed in italics. As he explains in the Preface to his Genesis volume, italics are used for words that do not actually appear in the Hebrew. So, in this case, it is only Silbermann's opinion that he is expressing, and there is no basis for it in the text.

The problem of why the arrangements of the ark cherubs and the Temple cherubs differ is an old one, and I admit I don't have a great answer. It would be easier to answer if we knew which came first. If the ark arrangement is the earlier one, then it fits with my idea that the Temple cherubs have to be arranged so that their wings meet flat in the middle of the Holiest of Holies; that is, the Temple cherubs had to be turned to accommodate the Tabernacle space under their wings. If the Temple arrangement is the earlier one, then there may be some other practical reason. For example, when the ark is carried on the two poles by men, it would not be symetrical if the two cherubs faced outward to one side or the other. Alternatively, as Propp suggested, perhaps the idea was to have them both looking downward (toward center) rather than up at God enthroned above them.

I hope this helps. With good wishes,
Richard Elliott Friedman
Davis Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Georgia
Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus, University of California, San Diego

------------------------
Ok to click on this image now!

Dever's key points are that the Biblical description is "vague" and that the seat of God "was only symbolic, a literal reading or picture is irrelevant."

In Dever's book did God Have A Wife, I found a picture of two human-like cherubs facing opposite each other with their wings extended out symbolizing the divine presence of Horus (who is depicted there). This is from a 9th century Syrian relief, so perhaps after my whole long megillah, we can imagine the cherubs on the Ark of the covenant as human-like, facing each other. Perhaps we only have to accept that they represent the divine presence not necessarily actually physically depicting an actual throne of God. As Dever writes in the above letter, "a literal reading or picture is irrelevant."

Now if we accept Dever's non-literal approach, does this impact on REF's innovative idea that the space underneath the wings of the Temple cherubs had the exact dimensions of the tabernacle (which he then used as support for his contention that P was written during the first temple era not the second)? Or are all the other aspects of his proofs sufficient to prove his case regardless of whether his conception of the wings of the cherubs are correct? For instance, P emphasizes ark, cherubs, urim v'tummim, and tablets which weren't in the second temple. Also, why would P write that sacrifices could only take place at the entrance to the Tabernacle (re:temple) forever if it was to be destroyed! Also, REF's analysis of the dimension of the tabernacle are compellingly correlated to that of the first temple. So why would a second temple source focus on first temple aspects which were only memories but not current realities? I'm still considering this and trying to make sense of other writers like Gabriele Boccaccini who dates P to second temple period based on political realities that in his approach jives well with the priestly class overshadowing the old monarchic rule. (More on this in the future).

-

Cherubs

What do you get when you integrate Biblical archaeology, Biblical criticism, and a touch of the Bible? ....Certainly not an audience. Yet for those who remain, I would like to share an interesting insight I had into the representation of the Keruvim (cherubs) in the mishkan and first temple.

In Who Wrote The Bible, Richard Elliott Friedman has a very satisfying architectural breakdown of the dimensions of the mishkan. I have tried year after year to follow the cubit measurements to see how it all pieced together and always felt there was a fudge factor. Well he clears it up very nicely. It is critical to understand the correct dimension to grasp the importance of the dimensions used in the first temple. He shows that beneath the wingspan of the two side-by-side cherubim of the first temple there was actually the exact space (in cubits) to fit the mishkan. He demonstrates from pesukim and other sources that the mishkan was actually housed within the first temple whether in the space beneath the wings or stored somewhere in the temple but with the space between the wings delineating the proper holy dimensions. {Apparently there is an Israelite temple in Arad that also uses these holy dimensions so there must be something special about those specific dimensions}.To the Left: depiction of cherubim in first temple (REF p.182).

{REF's analysis is also critical to rejecting those who claim the mishkan is a pious fraud perpetrated during the second temple period. He shows how there must have actually been a mishkan even before the first temple period. I attended an archaeology lecture at Queens College where the speaker told of a find (I think in Moab) that resemble the mishkan in design and materials. Apparently in the early Iron Age royalty may have traveled in such a manner, so our Lord also traveled in style}.

The dimensions of the mishkan and the first temple are correlated but why would there be a difference in the layout of the Keruvim on the Ark of the Covenant as opposed to the way Solomon had the massive Keruvim in his temple?

The cherubs in the mishkan sat on the kapporet, the cover, on the Ark of the Covenant. Image credit

Exodus 25:20 says: "The cherubim shall have their wings spread upwards, shielding the ark cover with their wings, with their faces toward one another, toward the lid shall be the faces of the cherubim." The common rendition depicts two figures facing each other with heads bowed and wings extending over their heads until they meet in the middle over the lid. This photo above is similar to Artscroll image.

However, when Solomon built the Temple, "He set the cherubim within the inner house and they stretched forth the wings of the cherubim, and the wing of the one touched the wall, and the wing of the other cherub touched the other wall and their wings in the midst of the house touched one another" (I Kings 6:27). Solomon's cherubs stood parallel to each other rather than facing one and other. Image credit.

I wondered whether this common interpretation is faulty.

The Encyclopedia Judaica describes cherubim as having "wings [that] come together constituting the throne on which the glory of YHWH appeared." William Dever in Did God have a Wife p.165 describes how "lion thrones" were "very common in Ancient Near Eastern art and iconography...always associated with deities...often represented as cherubs-potent symbols of the divine presence and power...with wings." Below: Cherub throne on Hiram's sarcophagus (credit).

Now considering the fact that winged lions (cherubim) were so commonly used to represent thrones of deities and the Israelites obviously were exposed to this and even incorporated it into their practice, I have been drawn down the following path. While many translate Exodus 25:20 as implying that the cherubim faced each other thus being directly opposite, I have found a translation by Rabbi A.M. Silbermann as follows: "...and their faces turned (italics in original) towards one and other..." It does not say they stood opposite ('mool' or K'neget or No'chach) one and other but rather that their faces were turned towards each other.

The Artscroll chumash (Sapirstein edition) shows the cherubim (incorrectly as humans with wings) with the wings extending upward, over their heads and forward towards its mirror image facing it, wingtips touching. I guess even a griffin-like creature can be imagined to lift its wings up, over its head and forward in front of itself towards it own mirror image. Those wings then become the throne on which the glory of God 'sits'. But that is a very odd way to set up a throne especially in light of the familiar manner where the cherubs are side-by-side forming the two sides of the throne and their wings are to their side creating the seat. Why deviate from that? Solomon didn't. It is our reading/interpreting of the verse that leads to this odd image and awkward throne.

It makes for a more realistic throne similar to the manner described in Solomon's temple, two small cherubs on opposite sides of the lid in parallel with each other, wings up and out to the side thus covering the lid and looking like the throne of God. Their face turned towards each other and inclined downward towards the lid (as per the end of the verse-perhaps it is a gesture of bowing before the king) [I think that possibly their eyes looked at each other while the heads were turned towards each other and inclined downward]. There is no indication that the cherubs in Solomon's temple turned in any way. I have no explanation for that but Sedra Shorts has a nice dvar torah about why one set faces each other and the other looks staight ahead.

I can't know for a fact whether my approach is correct and certainly later sources may be unduly influenced against it. I don't know that we can ever know but there certainly is room within the interpretation of the verse and in light of the archaeological representations to at least seriously consider this possibility. As far as I know this is a novel interpretation that I thank Moshe Abelesz for inspiring this within me by his interesting post. I hope this offers an interesting way to imagine the iconography of the mishkan's ark. Although I later found this image to the left on google, someone else must've thought of it too.

Some afterthoughts: The way Artscroll depicts the cherubim on the ark reminds me a lot of the birckat cohanim (priestly manner of blessing the congregation).

NJG thought it made a great handle to lift the lid. Probably the original inspiration for the Swiss army knife; not only is it a throne but it can lift the cover right off the Ark with just one hand!

Part 2

---