The Priestly Document: Anti-Temple?

Abstract

It is commonly maintained that Priestly tabernacle is description of a temple, under guise of a portable tent 1). It is assumed that, for P, the Jerusalem temple is only legitimate 2). The Priestly writers could not use temple for their sanctuary because they were governed by their chosen setting, pre-temple period. It is this assumption which we call into question. In fact, we would maintain that Priestly writers were basically opposed to idea of a temple, believing that only a portable sanctuary such as tabernacle was consonant with true Yahwism. Moreover, we suggest that Priestly document is crystallization of a long-standing tent tradition that is to be tied up with circles that were opposed to building of first temple. It is quite common for scholars to date P sometime during fifth century B.C., thus reflecting cultic situation of that period 3). There is now, however, an increasing tendency to regard P as stemming from exile 4) sometime shortly before completion of second temple in 515 B.C. 5). The latter position is probable in light of purpose of work as a whole. This purpose was programmatic 6). As R. E. CLEMENTS 7) puts matter, P is product of exile in which traditions of past