Philip Church. Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 171. Leiden: Brill, 2017. 615 pp.

Abstract

Reviewed by: Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews by Philip Church Daniel L. Smith Philip Church. Hebrews and the Temple: Attitudes to the Temple in Second Temple Judaism and in Hebrews. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 171. Leiden: Brill, 2017. 615 pp. doi:10.1017/S0364009420000185 The Epistle to the Hebrews might seem an odd focus for a monograph on "attitudes to the Temple." After all, there is no explicit mention of the Jerusalem Temple in all of Hebrews, and the one mention of Jerusalem is modified by the descriptor "heavenly" (12:22). While the wilderness tabernacle appears, along with Moses (e.g., in 8:5), the author of Hebrews nowhere refers to Solomon, Zerubbabel, or Herod. Undaunted, Philip Church sets out to address the "temple symbolism" in Hebrews; he is convinced that the Jerusalem Temple "lies just beneath the surface" of the text at hand (16). Like the author of Hebrews, however, Church fixes his attention on things heavenly. His main claim hinges on the exegesis of a controversial verse, Hebrews 8:5, which many scholars have understood to describe the wilderness tabernacle as a mere "copy and shadow" of the heavenly sanctuary. Instead, Church proposes that the wilderness tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, and the Second Temple—which he believes was still standing at the time when Hebrews was composed—all "prefigured the heavenly temple, which is to be understood as the eschatological dwelling of God with his people" (433). It is the "heavenly temple" that constitutes the ultimate telos of Church's investigation, which will canvas ancient views of sanctuaries both terrestrial and celestial. [End Page 422] This important contribution is a "revised and abbreviated" version of the author's dissertation (ix), written at the University of Otago under the supervision of James Harding and Chris Marshall. The introductory chapter starts off on a worrisome note, when Church announces that this treatment of "temple symbolism" will "use the terms 'symbol/symbolism' and 'metaphor' more or less interchangeably, depending on the context" (5 n. 14). Such a carefree approach to terms so foundational to the study does little to inspire confidence in the reader; fortunately, Church proves to be much more responsible and careful in the chapters that follow. Church divides his work into two parts. Part 1 surveys "Attitudes to the Temple in the Literature of Second Temple Judaism," classifying this literature into four categories. Texts that manifest a positive view of the Temple, from Sirach to the Letter of Aristeas to 2 Enoch, are gathered in the second chapter, entitled "Temple Affirmed." Chapter 3 collects relevant passages from the Dead Sea Scrolls under the heading "Temple Rejected," and the fourth chapter, "Temple Contested," characterizes 1 Enoch, Jubilees, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Testament of Moses as texts reflecting "dissatisfaction" with the Temple. Chapter 5 rounds out the first part with a treatment of texts that respond to the destruction of the Second Temple, including 4 Ezra, the Sibylline Oracles (books 4 and 5), and Josephus. In these chapters, Church has compiled a valuable resource for scholars of Second Temple Judaism, as he assembles not only direct references to the Jerusalem Temple, but also a wider range of texts that include related imagery and language —hence, the broad label of "temple symbolism." Categorizing, though a useful task, often flattens out ambiguities and complexities that are worth preserving. This project is no exception. For example, Church acknowledges that 1 Enoch is a "composite document" (145), yet he files the whole text under the label "Temple Contested." The Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85–90) supports this classification, as it describes the rebuilding of a temple (or "high tower") that is furnished with unclean bread and that stands among those who are "blinded" (1 Enoch 89:73–74). However, the Book of Watchers (1–36) is likewise said to "imply some critique of the temple and its priesthood" (146), even though the heavenly visions and cosmic travels of the antediluvian Enoch appear to be more concerned with a heavenly sanctuary than with the Jerusalem Temple. Should silence be so easily equated with critique? If these two texts were not transmitted...