I still don’t see Paul’s analogy as evidence for this. Paul’s conception of God being wedded to his followers is more easily traced back to the Psalms or Isaiah. And I do think that it’s far fetched to link the language used in this respect (e.g., Isaiah’s “God will rejoice over you as a bridegroom”) as traces of consort worship.

Holy misunderstanding Batman!!! Wow if this is what you got from my comments then I REALLY didn’t explain it well. Barker and other has suggested that the consort of YHVH concept was not only prexilic but also was around during Christ’s time and afterwards. My only point was that Paul’s (I think I am correct in my attribution here) likening of the Church to the Bride of Christ is evidence that such a concept was still around at the time of Paul. The later Kabbalistic writing also associate the Nukva (Bride) of Ze’ir Anpin (the Messiah figure) with Malkuth (Kingdom) of God .. ie the church. This is well documented in Patai’s the Hebrew Goddess.

That said, the box and those around it were filled with a few of my other books that are relevant. The New Jerusalem Bible states in it’s not for verses 6-8 of 2 Samuel states:

vv 6-7 of seem to be the earliest expression of a current of opinion hostile to the Temple, more overtly stated in 1 K 8:27; Is 66:1-2; Ac 7:48. Nathan is himself a supporter of the ancient tradition represented by the ark, and is opposed to the innovation of a temple on Canaanite lines….

The reasoning of Nathan’s prophecy supports the resistance I ascribe to the Yahwists. Nathan says, in effect, “People don’t build houses for Yahweh. He builds them for others.” And then he proceeds to talk about the House of David, making a promise of dynasty. Verse 12, referring to the building of the temple is commonly thought to be a later addition.

Robert Alter’s commentary disagrees with the thesis that it is an expression of a “pre-Soloomonic” anti-temple ideology. Instead, arguing on grounds related more to the development of the plot line for Samuel, he suggests that this denial sets up Solomon’s temple as a more deliberate enterprise.

Alter’s reasoning strikes me as a bit shaky. There seems to have been a temple in Shiloh for which no deliberate instruction is recorded. It strikes me as Yahweh’s claim that he has not thus far had a house is more indicative of belief that is local to Jerusalem.

The Oxford Bible Commentary suggests that Nathan is a member of the “pre-Israelite Jebusite cult in Jerusalem” and that he opposes the construction of the temple because it will eclipse the Jebusite temple in Jerusalem. Nathan backs Solomon and his temple, because he feels that the Jebusites have an in with him:

A possible interpretation of these events is that Nathan objected to a Davidic temple because it was intended to replace the old Jebusite one, but did not object to a Solomonic temple because the Jebusites were in the Solomonic camp and could therefore influence him.

I view this as unlikely–so much so that it puzzles me. David appears to be a conservative Yahwist, and I think it’s a strain to have him consult a prophet from a non-Yahwistic religion. Moreover, Solomon wasn’t too nice to the Jebusites. So there’s not a good reason to put Nathan in league with Solomon if he’s a Jebusite. Lastly, Jerusalem was a newly concurred city. It doesn’t seem in keeping with the way that conquerors worked in those days to defer to local religious leaders concerning religious practices practiced among the conquering peoples.

This isn’t much in the way of support for my thesis. I know I have a book somewhere that argues for a direct association between David and the conservative Yahwistic cult in Jerusalem, drawing interesting inferences concerning the temple–though it’s evidently not the one that I thought it was. But I can’t find it. But it is surely a matter that is open to quite a bit of interpretation.

The Tabernacle was not moved to Jerusalem with the Ark. As a consequence, the cult of Yahweh at Jerusalem certainly was not concerned with it. I seem to have conflated the Ark and the Tabernacle in regards to importance to the Yahwists.

Also, the sources that I’ve found that mention the influence of Yahwists as an influence in David’s building a temple mention it in passing, taking it for granted.

I’ll look a bit further as soon as I’m home.

About the church as the Bride of God compared to the Hebrew consort of Yahweh, that is pretty far fetched. The church is a literal aggregate, and is only figuratively wedded to God. Asherah is literally a deity, and was worshiped by other civilizations. If I recall correctly, Herodotus even equates her with the Greek Aphrodite.

If my memory serves, Friedman has the Yahwists believing that things built by man were unworthy to represent God. Hence, if you had to build something for God to dwell in, a tabernacle tent was to be preferred, since it (at least) had no pretense of permanence. In like manner, the strictest Yahwists (though definitely polytheists) considered worshiping any God who was happy being represented by the handiwork of man to be a bad thing.

I may be wrong on both these counts. I write all of this stuff on the blogs pretty much off the top of my head. Unfortunately, my brain does not quite work the way that I’d like it to; specifically, I often confuse names, dates, places, and other facts. (But I still feel like I might appear to be so much smarter if my wife just hadn’t have put so many of my books in the basement…)

That is a GREAT book. However I don’t remember anything in it to that effect. Perhaps you meant the Elohist made many comments on the Northern Kingdom’s Bull-El statues. However I can’t think of a single case when he actively enforces it.