Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

Dear Peter,


> >As for the viability of mud-brick buildings in the archaeogical
> >record, that is primarily what there is, and they are continually found
> >in excavations throughout Israel. Often there are also stone foundations.
> >
> >
> >
> But not necessarly. If there was a mud-brick temple, could we tell the
> difference from regular houses? And then what if the temple had been
> made of wood? Nothing would have remained.

Even mud-brick temples can be distinguished from ordinary houses
by the fact that they are larger, being public buildings. They also
may have cultic paraphernalia about.
>
> >I would suggest that bayit and hekal denote structures that were
> >intended to be permanent and to house the deity (=the ark). The
> >ark would not have been kept out-of-doors.
> >
> >
> >
> No one has ever suggested that it was. It was of course sheltered in a
> structure called bayit and heykal. But that in itself does not imply
> that the structure was permanent.

Well, I disagree here.
Liz Fried

>
>
>
> --
> Peter Kirk
> peter AT qaya.org (personal)
> peterkirk AT qaya.org (work)
> http://www.qaya.org/
>
>