The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom

[klm120861]

The other important thing to remember is that the High Priest could only enter the Holy of Holies once a year. On the Day of Atonement the High Priest would burn incense and sprinkle the blood on the altar, first for himself, then for the people. When the veil was torn, it wasn’t the abolishment of the priesthood. It was a sign that the priest could now go, at any time, to the Holy of Holies and obtain mercy for himself and his people. Jesus explained this to his disciples when, on Easter evening, “he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them and whose sins you retain are retained.’” (John 20-:22-23 NABRE)

 

[patrick457]

I’d like to approach this from three different angles, one for each of the synoptic gospels.

In Mark’s gospel, the tearing of the Temple veil is a sort of sign of condemnation upon it: for Mark, like the fig tree that was cursed for bearing no fruit, the Temple “made with hands” would be replaced by a new one “not made by hands.” (cf. Mark 14:58) This new temple would be the Church, which is open to people of all nations. (cf. Mark 11:7) There is also a sort of allusion to the first appearance of Jesus in the narrative: when Jesus is baptized by John, the heavens are “torn apart.” (Mark 1:10) Similarly, at the death of Jesus, the temple veil, which symbolized the heavenly canopy (as per Philo and Josephus), is “torn in two.” (Mark 15:38) Thus, in a sense, Jesus’ ministry, which is bookmarked by these two heavenly ‘tearings’, usher in the end of the old age and the beginning of a new one. In other words, in Mark’s view, the death of Jesus, the real eschatological event which splitted the timeline, is what sparks the chain that will lead to the Temple’s eventual destruction: the ‘end of the (old) world’ and the beginning of a new one. In this, it foreshadows the actual end of the world.

Matthew pretty much shares the same perspective as Mark’s here. In fact, he places great emphasis on the “end of the old-beginning of the new” theme in his passion narrative. In Matthew, it is not just the temple veil (the heavens) that is torn, but also the rocks (the earth) and the tombs (under the earth): in other words, the whole universe symbolized by these three elements literally splits itself in half, as if to visibly mark the boundary line between the old age and the new. Matthew thus presents a somewhat positive meaning behind the tearing of the veil: it is a liberating act that is linked to the freeing up of the dead from their tombs. You can say that Matthew brings the eschatological imagery to the fore here with his mention of the dead saints raised to life: after all, the resurrection of the dead is a crucial element in Jewish eschatology. There might also be an allusion here to Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones: just as God through Ezekiel breathed His Spirit into the corpses, restores them their flesh and give new life to them, so did God through Jesus had effected the final salvation promised to Israel. A new people, built on the saints who fell asleep awaiting redemption (cf. Daniel 12:1-2), would now be raised up.

Luke interesting describes the tearing of the veil before he tells about Jesus’ death, linking it with the darkening of the sun. Some interpret Luke’s perspective in a positive way. In this idea, the curtain being opened is a sign of revelation: God in a way symbolically reveals Himself from ‘behind the curtain’, prompting Jesus to say His last words of trust and resignation to the now-manifest Father (“into thy hands I commend my spirit;” cf. Stephen’s vision in Acts 7:55: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God”). In other words, it is not so much about humans going in but the divine presence going out into public view. At the same time, there is also a negative meaning: as in the other gospels, the tearing of the veil may also be a sign of judgment upon the Temple itself. The darkness and the tearing of the veil are connected by Luke, as if to intensify the connotation of catastophic doom. Not even the Temple will be spared the judgment against a sinful age. Luke shows respect for the Temple, but for him that same building was controlled by the chief priests, who for Luke was the prime agents of Jesus’ death and the same ones who would expel the apostles from it (Acts 4:1-3; 5:17-18), and thus would not escape the purifying divine judgment.

 

[steve53]

Where did that coin come from, Patrick?

 

[patrick457]

Where did that coin come from, Patrick?

Those coins were issued during the Bar Kochba rebellion in AD 132-135. Meanwhile, here is the Torah niche from the Dura-Europos synagogue (last phase of construction AD 244):

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[patrick457]

I recently visited the biblical tabernacle in Lancaster PA. The veil that the bible speaks of was a thick, 4 -layer curtain separating the inside room of the tabernacle from the holy of holies. It’s great to be able to stand inside this recreation an get a feel for it. I highly recommend taking a trip there and getting a feel for the place.

I know I’m one year late, but I’d comment on the OP. Sorry to burst any bubbles folks, but the idea that the veil which separated the ‘Holy’ from the ‘Holy of Holies’ was thick really can be found originally (and only) in later rabbinic literature, and even then, the context is clearly speaking about examples of hyperbolic language used in rabbinic commentary. Oh, and so does the idea that the high priest’s ankle (or even waist) was tied when he went into the Holy of Holies during the atonement ceremony.

 

[steve53]

Those coins were issued during the Bar Kochba rebellion in AD 132-135. Meanwhile, here is the Torah niche from the Dura-Europos synagogue (last phase of construction AD 244):

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fjOLfIqPGdE/TmenXy3DAkI/AAAAAAAABbc/7X3ynVyQMXA/s1600/dura+apse.jpg

Thanks.

Funny that Josephus would not mention columns when he described the temple. He takes pains to detail the height of the columns that supported the temple complex cloisters and other construction elements.

So the coins would have been over three generations after the Temple’s destruction. Certainly, that would be the facies of the the standard Roman building. Would the Jews have incorporated Roman features in their most-holy building? Herod had a heck of a time even convincing the high Priesthood in 20 B.C. rebuilt it. The Jews hated the Romans, and Herod.

 

[patrick457]

Thanks.

Funny that Josephus would not mention columns when he described the temple. He takes pains to detail the height of the columns that supported the temple complex cloisters and other construction elements.

So the coins would have been over three generations after the Temple’s destruction. Certainly, that would be the facies of the the standard Roman building. Would the Jews have incorporated Roman features in their most-holy building? Herod had a heck of a time even convincing the high Priesthood in 20 B.C. rebuilt it. The Jews hated the Romans, and Herod.

You mean at least at least one or two generations, going by the traditional idea that one generation = forty years. At least it was just about sixty-two to sixty-five years after AD 70.

The thing about the building shown on the Bar Kochba coins is how un-Roman they are. There are the columns, yes, but the portrayals show a flat-roofed structure (in some coins you even had a wavy pattern on top).

 

[patrick457]

You mean at least at least one or two generations, going by the traditional idea that one generation = forty years. At least it was just about sixty-two to sixty-five years after AD 70.

The thing about the building shown on the Bar Kochba coins is how un-Roman they are. There are the columns, yes, but the portrayals show a flat-roofed structure (in some coins you even had a wavy pattern on top).

I did not make it past the 20 minute limit, so here goes again.

Some coins, usually ones dating from Year Three (such as the ones below) generally show a sort of wavy line, which could be a representation of a parapet. Other coins usually have a series of dots or a horizontal line. There is also some slight differences in the way the podium and the roof is represented between coins: in most, the podium is shown as a horizontal ornament ornamented with vertical elements arranged in a pattern (almost ladder-like), although in Year One coins there is only a single horizontal line (as in the portrayal at Dura-Europos), while there are three horizontal lines suggestive of steps in others.





http://www.amuseum.org/book/coin_images/101.jpg

There is even some variance in the number of columns: while most do show four, some show two. It is true that there is no mention in literary sources of any detail about the sanctuary’s external decoration; in fact, some interpret the columns (especially the two-column version) as allusions to the ones which stood in the Temple of Solomon, Boaz and Jachin. And that’s the thing: while there is only a time gap of 62 to 65 years between the Herodian Temple’s destruction and Bar Kochba (and thus the depictions of the sanctuary may well have elements based on eyewitness testimony - so argue people like Michael Avi-Yonah), others like Ya’akov Meshorer think it is also possible that these portrayals are not so much portrayals of Herod’s Temple but may well be allusions to either the original one built by Solomon or the one from the Hasmonean period or even a future ‘third Temple’.

There’s also the question of what exactly that arched thing in between the two inner columns is. While there are those assume that it was the doorway, others think that it may be something else, perhaps one of the Temple’s sacred vessels. After all, drawing a parallel from other foreign coins, this item is where a given temple’s idol or patron deity is usually represented. There are those who think that it is supposed to be the Ark; others meanwhile seem to think that it is the table of showbread or the altar of incense.



http://www.utexas.edu/courses/ancientfilmCC304/lecture24/images/19caesar.jpg

 

[patrick457]

Here’s a page from Michael Chyutin’s Architecture and Utopia in the Temple Era (2006).

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7572/templum.jpg

The thing is, later possible depictions of the sanctuary do become more Greco-Roman like. In the synagogue at Dura Europos for example, we also have a depiction of the Tabernacle which, for all intents and purposes, is virtually a Greek temple complete with the triangular roof and columns.



In later eras, the portrayal of a facade or a Torah shrine alongside the implements (the menorah was a common choice) was a common Jewish imagery meant to evoke the Temple:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-yfYO6IlUNAc/TkOrEEiqMKI/AAAAAAAAE_Q/H0aAOQ-l8hk/s1600/kish.jpg
Khirbet Susiya (4th century)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zOsVxQomaT0/TkOsY5M8_RI/AAAAAAAAE_Y/GcV-dT6s90Q/s1600/JSTOR++Bulletin+of+the+American+Schools+of+Oriental+Research%2C+No.+223+%28Oct.%2C+1976%29%2C+pp.+43-53.png
Beit She’an/Scythopolis (ca. 6th century)

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d-N7S4IV7...RpDxqNEztk/s1600/Villa+Torlonia+Catacombs.jpg
Villa Torlonia (2nd-3rd century)

http://oholiav.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Hamat-teveriah1-300x193.jpg
Hamat Tiberias (3rd-4th century)*

• P.S. The synagogue was actually recently vandalized by unknown assailants with what seems to be ironically ultra-Orthodox sympathies.

 

[steve53]

Josephus would surely have mentioned supporting columns if their was a porch in front of the building proper.
As to the gates of the inner temple complex, he notes the golden vines that decorate it.
But nothing on the face of the sanctuary building.

The building is one hundred feet high, so either it had embedded columns that were faced over with external block, or large enough block was used that 100 feet could have easily been achieved. Herod’s wall had humungous large blocks at its base, so that is possible.
The outer face of the both the walls of the temple complex and the inner temple were so constructed- columns used but the spaces filled in with block.

The tabernacle originally was a tent, and so the priests would likely keep to that theme. Remember, this is where they thought God actually dwelt.

And it likely was flat-roofed, as Josephus stated that projecting spear-tips were placed on it to keep the birds from alighting on it. Also, as Astrology was central to Second Temple Judaism, the roof of the sanctuary building could have been a dandy place to observe the skies.

So a Greco-Roman style temple is highly unlikely. The Asamoneans came about through a revolt from the Greeks, who were using the Temple as a Greek-style gymnasium. And while the Second Temple priests tolerated the Romans, it was out of expedience. And they hated Herod.

A plain tent-like external face to the sanctuary building is more likely than not, as much as could be structurally allowed. And they fastened on gold plates somehow as well.

Isn’t a generation generally though of as 20 years?

 

[patrick457]

The tabernacle originally was a tent, and so the priests would likely keep to that theme. Remember, this is where they thought God actually dwelt.

The thing about the Temple of Solomon (yes, not the Tabernacle) is that it pretty much (obviously) conformed to the general plan of other ancient temples in the Levant and surrounding areas, which is not surprising, given that Hiram of Tyre provided the materials and manpower for the job. The same can be said to the Tabernacle, which is basically a temple in tent form. In Solomon’s Temple, you had the ‘Holy of Holies’ (qṓḏeš haq’qŏḏāšîm) or the dəḇîr, functioning as the inner sanctum or adyyon, the ‘Holy’ (qṓḏeš, aka hêḵāl) or the nave, and the 'ûlām (‘porch’) or the entryway to the sanctuary building. The Tabernacle, by comparison, only has the ‘Holy’ and the ‘Holy of Holies’.

Compare it for example with the plans of the temple in Ain Dara (Syria) and Tell Ta’yinat below, from the same general time period.

http://fontes.lstc.edu/~rklein/images/taindw.jpg
Tell Tayinat (also here)

http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/3589/ad5.gif
Ain Dara

And it likely was flat-roofed, as Josephus stated that projecting spear-tips were placed on it to keep the birds from alighting on it.

That’s probably what the wavy line/roof pattern was supposed to be on the Year Three coins and on Dura Europos: a representation of the ‘spikes’ on the temple roof. The Mishna’s description of the Temple actually seems to speak of the spikes as well:

The Sanctuary was a hundred cubits square and a hundred cubits in height. The solid basement was six cubits, and the height [of wall built thereon] forty cubits, the wall-frieze one cubit, the place of drippings two cubits, the roof-beams one cubit, and the plasterwork one cubit; and the height of the upper chamber was forty cubits, the wall-frieze one cubit, the place of drippings two cubits, the roof-beams one cubit, and the plasterwork one cubit; and the parapet three cubits and the scarecrow one cubit. R. Judah says: The scarecrow was not taken into account; but the parapet was four cubits.

So a Greco-Roman style temple is highly unlikely. The Asamoneans came about through a revolt from the Greeks, who were using the Temple as a Greek-style gymnasium.

Asamoneans = Hasmoneans = Maccabees.

Isn’t a generation generally though of as 20 years?

There’s really no set duration for a ‘generation’, partly because the word has a broad meaning. While a generation today is indeed reckoned to be around twenty to thirty years, I used the biblical definition for a generation, where one generation equal forty years. Yeah, come to think of it it was stupid of me to do so. At least it doesn’t change the fact that there’s only a sixty-year interval.

 

[NotWorthy]

I mostly agree with you except for the Jeremiah bit.

Did Jeremiah not remove the Ark from the Temple?

 

[Bruce_Killian]

As I understand from Josephus, who was a priest, there were two veils in the temple in Jerusalem in the time of Christ, one separating the holy place from the holy of holies and another separating the holy place from the outside (probably just inside the door). Second on both the high priest and on the temple veil the heaves were depicted. The high priest did not have an easily rippable garment and in fact was forbidden to rip his garment and it was specifically to be reinforced at the neck so that it would not rip accidentally.

My thought is that the ripping of the veil of the temple exposed the nakedness of the temple as did the ripping of the high priest vestments so this was very much like the exposure of Adam and the woman’s nakedness in the garden of Eden, because I believe that they were also clothed with light (as Moses’ face when he communed with God) and they lost that heavenly garment and their nakedness was exposed. There is a website that shows that the design of the tabernacle in the wilderness and Solomon’s temple were shaped like a man www.templesecrets.com that would fit with the temple having two veils.

There is Jewish documents that I have read in the past describing an event 40 years before the destruction of the temple in 70AD where the chamber of hewn stone (the Sanhedrin’s meeting chamber) was made unusable and was abandoned and the door of the temple which took some large number of priests like 30 to close opened by itself, and in another place that the temple veil which took something like 200 priests to hang had to be fixed. I am convinced that the earthquake either at Jesus’ death or resurrection or both cause major temple disruption.

2 Macc 2 talks about Jeremiah taking the ark from the temple and hiding in on Mt. Nebo/Pizgah where I am convinced the transfiguration took place at. The ark would not be found.
grace and peace,
Bruce

 

[Nita]

Did Jeremiah not remove the Ark from the Temple?

Yes. Here’s the passage from 2 Maccabees:

2 Mac 4-7: It was also in the writing that the prophet, having received an oracle, ordered that the tent and the ark should follow with him, and that he went out to the mountain where Moses had gone up and had seen the inheritance of God. And Jeremiah came and found a cave, and he brought there the tent and the ark and the altar of incense, and he sealed up the entrance. Some of those who followed him came up to mark the way, but could not find it. When Jeremiah learned of it, he rebuked them and declared: "The place shall be unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy.

 

[Nita]

Wasn’t the Bread of the Presence kept behind the veil, or was that kept in the outer room in front of the veil?

I’m grasping at a **Eucharistic meaning **here, with the Bread of the Presence now being accessible to all.

Previously the Bread of the Presence could only be eaten by the priests.

Am I mistaken about where the bread was kept?

-Tim-

NotWorthy pointed out that the Bread of the Presence was not kept behind the veil, in the Holy of Holies. I just wanted to comment on the Eucharistic meaning I find in the fact that it was present outside of the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies represents heaven where God is. The Eucharist is given to us when we are still on earth – when we are not yet present in heaven, the true Holy of Holies. The eucharistic presence of Jesus will not be present in heaven; there we will be present and commune with Him directly.
(Similar to the typology of the manna where the Israelites were given manna from heaven to feed them while they were on their way to the Promised Land. But once they entered the Promised Land, the manna ceased. cf. Ex 16:35 and Joshua 5:12)

 

[patrick457]

Me from a year ago:

Actually, that’s just an urban legend, and a widely-repeated one. We have no contemporary and later sources (not even Josephus or rabbinic literature!) which state something to such effect. The first mention we have of a rope being tied around the high priest’s body or ankle is from the Kabbalistic work Zohar (13th century AD).

Of course, we need not necessarily think the veil was so thick as the other legend purports, or even that it was so filmy thin. I imagine it being perhaps as thick as a modern-day thick rug, if not slightly more. Not as bulky as is often said, but at least still sturdy to some degree.

We don’t know about that. The Ark, along with other important items, are not listed among the cultic vessels looted by the Babylonians (1 Kings 24-25); so what naturally follows is it could have disappeared at that point or earlier. What became of it? We don’t know.

For the record, the reference to Jeremiah hiding the Ark and other stuff occurs in the context of a private letter (1:10b-2:18), where it is attributed ambiguously to “the records”. Personally, I have doubts as to its historical veracity - the story appears a few centuries after Jeremiah lived, and it openly addresses a point which so concerned people at the time the letter was penned: that the new Temple is somehow less holy or probably even illegitimate in the absence of the Ark, the Tabernacle, and the Altar.

As for what the High Priest did in the Ark-less Temple during Yom ha-Kippurim, the simple answer is that he may have performed the usual ceremonies as if the Ark still rested inside. For example, where the blood is sprinkled before the Ark then, he now sprinkled the place where it would have stood.

 

[Nita]

Me from a year ago:

For the record, the reference to Jeremiah hiding the Ark and other stuff occurs in the context of a private letter (1:10b-2:18), where it is attributed ambiguously to “the records”. Personally, I have doubts as to its historical veracity - the story appears a few centuries after Jeremiah lived, and it openly addresses a point which so concerned people at the time the letter was penned: that the new Temple is somehow less holy or probably even illegitimate in the absence of the Ark, the Tabernacle, and the Altar.

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying the Scripture record (2 Maccabees) is false?

 

[patrick457]

I’m not sure I understand. Are you saying the Scripture record (2 Maccabees) is false?

Well, what do you mean by ‘false’? I don’t believe in a simple dichotomy (I know; I’m a very odd person), so you’ll have to qualify.

 

[Nita]

Well, what do you mean by ‘false’? I don’t believe in a simple dichotomy (I know; I’m a very odd person), so you’ll have to qualify.

I’m even simpler - I don’t know what you mean by “dichotomy” in reference to my post.

2 Maccabees records a letter written by Jews (1:10) in which they relate various events including what is recorded in the Jewish “records” concerning Jeremiah’s hiding the Ark in a cave. There is nothing in Maccabees to indicate that what they are relating is questionable history. You said you “doubted the historical veracity” of what those verses of Scripture hand on.
When you say you doubt the veracity, I take it to mean you doubt the truth of what is related; that you think it’s probably untrue - false.
BTW, why would you think it’s not true?

As to the letter being private, so are some of the NT epistles.

 

[patrick457]

I’m even simpler - I don’t know what you mean by “dichotomy” in reference to my post.

2 Maccabees relates the Jewish “records” tell of Jeremiah hiding the Ark in a cave. There is nothing in Maccabees to indicate that what they are relating is questionable history. You said you “doubted the historical veracity” of what those verses of Scripture hand on.
When you say you doubt the veracity, I take it to mean you doubt the truth of what is related; that you think it’s probably untrue - false.
BTW, why would you think it’s not true?

Still not what I’m looking for. IMHO for something to be ‘true’ it does not automatically mean that it has to be ‘factual’. I know it may sound like I’m mincing words here but I’m very particular. So, are you asking me whether I think the account of Jeremiah is ‘factual’?

If you’re asking me about whether it is factual, I’d say probably not. (‘Probably’ because I wasn’t there, and it doesn’t matter to me whether I am ultimately correct or not.) If you’re asking me whether it is true, I’d say yes. Confused? Thank you very much.