Biblical Temples in North America

Introduction

One of the best examples of diffusionism (cross-cultural exchange across vast distances) is the clear influence of Semitic culture and practices on the ancient peoples of North America. Various scholars, from Frank Joseph to Richard Dewhurst, have discussed this phenomenon and even mainstream scholars have reluctantly admitted that there is evidence for it (though they have relegated their findings to the appendices of their textbooks). Semitic influence is arguably most prominent in the cultures of the Hopewell and Adena peoples-pre-Native American inhabitants of the continent who built up a significant empire in the Great Lakes region between 500 BCE and 500 CE.

Their most notable achievement was the creation of various ceremonial mounds and earthworks. In their excavations of these mounds, archaeologists have also found numerous inscriptions in a variety of Semitic languages ranging from Hebrew to Egyptian. In addition to the inscriptions, Hopewell society exhibits other signs of cultural affinity with the Near East as seen in their fertility figurines which share significant parallels with the Judean pillar figurines from the Iron II era.

This article will provide yet another example of possible Semitic influence on ancient American culture looking specifically at parallels between Hopewell and Israelite temples. In it, I will argue that the design and layout of Hopewell temples-specifically the side bed chamber-corresponds to the design and layout of pre-monarchic religious sites in Israel particularly the “temple” at Shiloh mentioned in the Deuteronomic history in the Old Testament (Joshua thru II Kings). I have put “temple” in quotes here because officially no temple existed in Israel until the monarchic period with Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem. Yet, as with many things in the Bible, the archaeological evidence as well as the alternate traditions within the biblical text itself suggest otherwise.

For decades, the majority of archaeologists were reluctant to assign a specific function to the Hopewell mounds. It is mainly in recent years that researchers such as Dr. Greg Little and the late Dr. Mark Lynott have provided strong evidence that the mounds were religious sites maintained by a shamanistic/priestly caste. Yet, there are always exceptions to the general rule as seen in the work of the late William E. Scheele, director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History from 1949 to 1972. In his book, The Moundbuilders, Scheele explicitly designates the Hopewell ceremonial mounds as “temples” and, drawing on the archaeological work of his day, provides readers with a diagram of the different compartments and sections of a Hopewell temple.

This temple, as Scheele presents it in his diagram (p. 40), is rectangular in its shape with two different compartments. The first compartment is the main temple with a doorway, posts and ritual fireplace. The second compartment consists of a bedroom or chamber that the shaman or priest would sleep in. In examining the diagram, my background in Near Eastern and biblical studies immediately noticed similarities between the Hopewell temple and structures described in the Bible. At the same time, the Hopewell temple does not correspond to the layout of the Jerusalem temple provided in either the Deuteronomic history or the book of Ezekiel. The most notable contrast, besides the dimensions (which were much larger for Solomon’s temple), is the lack of any secondary chamber for the priestly class. In fact, the biblical witness-both Old and New Testament-strongly implies that Levites (the Israelite priestly class) lived some distance from a temple in a separate spot of land allocated to them. This is seen in the following statement from Holiness Code in Leviticus:

Elsewhere in the Pentateuch, in the book of Numbers, it is also suggested that the Levites live nearby but not actually in the confines of the temple:

It must be noted here that although the legal material in the Pentateuch is set in the time of Moses when no official temple existed (just the traveling miskkan or “tent”), this material was actually composed after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 586 BCE. Hence, the “tent” is really a code word for the temple and the type of idealized worship that the biblical authors projected into Israel’s past. Hence, the authors and editors of the priestly material were actually stating that, as they could recall, the priests in Jerusalem did not abide in the temple and hence the Jerusalem temple had no compartment or chamber for them to live in.

One last point of evidence for this position is found in the New Testament account of John the Baptist’s father, Zechariah, who is of priestly descent. According to the Gospel of Luke, Zechariah is appointed by lot to officiate in the temple (rebuilt in the time of Ezra). The text then notes:

Based on the biblical witness itself, it is clear that the Jerusalem temple contained no residential space or bed chamber for its priests. Yet, this raises another question: Was this always the case in ancient Israel? Might there be another temple tradition in the Bible that suggests otherwise and as such more closely parallels the type of structure we find in the Hopewell temples? The answer to this question, fortunately, is yes.

In the 1820s, Joseph Smith claimed to have found in America an ancient record of its inhabitants which he later translated as the Book of Mormon. The book would become the central text for a new religious movement, Mormonism. If his claim to the Book of Mormon being translated from an ancient record is true, it provides several insights in regards to the question of possible Israelite influence on the Hopewell. According to the Book of Mormon, Jewish refugees from Jerusalem sailed across the Atlantic to North America in the late 6th century shortly before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 586 BCE. These Jews claimed to be descendants of the biblical patriarch Joseph and his children who form the half tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh.

The Book of Mormon concludes with the destruction of these refugees, referred to as the Nephites, by their arch-enemies the Lamanites slightly before 500 CE. Many researches of ancient America have noted parallels between the description of the Nephites and the culture of the Hopewell in the mid-West as well as chronological congruence given that the Hopewell empire rose and fell between 500 BCE and 500 CE. Interestingly, in the Old Testament, the territory of Shiloh was apportioned to the tribe of Ephraim as seen in this statement from the book of Joshua which in the Vulgate reads:

Again, if the Book of Mormon is indeed an authentic account of the ancient inhabitants of North America and if the Nephites mentioned in the book are synonymous with the Hopewell, then this would serve to explain why the Hopewell temples are based on the Shiloh model rather than the Jerusalem one. Clearly, the Hopewell inherited the Shiloh temple tradition from their Ephraimite ancestors.

In closing, this article has noted a parallel between Hopewell temple sites and ancient Israelite temple sites as possible evidence for diffusionism between the Old World and the New. While initially the Hopewell mound temple bears little resemblance to the Jerusalem temple, it does conform very well to the structure and layout of an older temple tradition in Shiloh which, like the Hopewell temples, contained a sleeping chamber and sacred fire area. Given the other Semitic features of Hopewell culture the layout of the Hopewell temples is strong evidence for the influence of ancient Israelites on the culture of pre-Columbian America.