Return to Answer

I went Thursday before last with other archeology students and one of the BIU archeology professors, Prof. Aren Maeir, to Tel Lachish. He mentioned there that the Motza temple is most likely evidence for the religious reform of Chizkiyahu's time and not Yoshiyahu's (this is probably based on the dating of the layers and various finds). Evidence for Chizkiyahu's reform may also be found there in Lachish, where one of the city gates' rooms was excavated and discovered to have held an altar upon which a chamber-pot-stone had been placed. Note: I asked, and this is probably not evidence for a Baal Pe'or cultic site because the chamber-pot-stone was found buried over the cultic objects in the room, not in the same layer.

I went Thursday before last with other archeology students and one of the BIU archeology professors, Prof. Aren Maeir, to Tel Lachish. He mentioned there that the Motza temple is most likely evidence for the religious reform of Chizkiyahu's time and not Yoshiyahu's (this is probably based on the dating of the layers and various finds). Evidence for Chizkiyahu's reform may also be found there in Lachish, where one of the city gates' rooms was excavated and discovered to have held an altar upon which a chamber-pot-stone had been placed. Note: I asked, and this is probably not evidence for a Baal Pe'or cultic site because the chamber-pot-stone was found buried over the cultic objects in the room, not in the same layer. For more info on the discoveries in Lachish, see here.

Note: I just heard a lecture by Shulie Mishkin, where she talked about, among other things, a Judean temple found in Khirbet Kayaafah. The archeologist who discovered it, Yosef Garfinkel, thought the city may be the Tanachic Sha'arayim, a stronghold city on the Israeli/Plishti border and that the temple was a model for Bayit Rishon! While some of the other archeologists disagree, if Garfinkel's view is correct, then perhaps that is the origin of the Motza temple: a model for Bayit Rishon (and not the other way around, that it was modeled after Bayit Rishon) that eventually became a place of idolatry.

Note: I just heard a lecture by Shulie Mishkin, where she talked about, among other things, a Judean temple found in Khirbet Kayaafah. The archeologist who discovered it, Yosef Garfinkel, thought the city may be the Tanachic Sha'arayim, a stronghold city on the Israeli/Plishti border and that the temple was a model for Bayit Rishon! While some of the other archeologists disagree, if Garfinkel's view is correct, then perhaps that is the origin of the Motza temple: a model for Bayit Rishon (and not the other way around, that it was modeled after Bayit Rishon) that eventually became a place of idolatry.

Update:

I went Thursday before last with other archeology students and one of the BIU archeology professors, Prof. Aren Maeir, to Tel Lachish. He mentioned there that the Motza temple is most likely evidence for the religious reform of Chizkiyahu's time and not Yoshiyahu's (this is probably based on the dating of the layers and various finds). Evidence for Chizkiyahu's reform may also be found there in Lachish, where one of the city gates' rooms was excavated and discovered to have held an altar upon which a chamber-pot-stone had been placed. Note: I asked, and this is probably not evidence for a Baal Pe'or cultic site because the chamber-pot-stone was found buried over the cultic objects in the room, not in the same layer.

Translation (mine as I only have the Hebrew version of the book): "The information on the spiritual life of the Nation of Israel from the First Temple period isn't very much and it is only natural that references would be first and foremost to the idolatry...however, we should remember that the official cultish practice, at least in Judea, was the worship of Hashem in Yerushalayim and the names of the kings of Judea and Yisrael like the names of the commoners bear witness to this. It seems that even the observance of Shabbat, months and holidays was acceptable, even though the harsh rebukes show that they weren't always observed properly. So too the strict observance on burial outside of the city and the staying away from the deceased made the Israelite citizens of the land unique. Therefore, it seems that the Jewish foundations of the cultic worship were preserved and even accepted by the different groups of the Judean and Israelite populace, but from the POV of the Bible, the idolatry and the social corruptness that came with the idol worship were what cast the judgement of the Israelite and Judean society.

¹ Link.

Translation (mine as I only have the Hebrew version of the book): "The information on the spiritual life of the Nation of Israel from the First Temple period isn't very much and it is only natural that references would be first and foremost to the idolatry...however, we should remember that the official cultish practice, at least in Judea, was the worship of Hashem in Yerushalayim and the names of the kings of Judea and Yisrael like the names of the commoners bear witness to this. It seems that even the observance of Shabbat, months and holidays was acceptable, even though the harsh rebukes show that they weren't always observed properly. So too the strict observance on burial outside of the city and the staying away from the deceased made the Israelite citizens of the land unique. Therefore, it seems that the Jewish foundations of the cultic worship were preserved and even accepted by the different groups of the Judean and Israelite populace, but from the POV of the Bible, the idolatry and the social corruptness that came with the idol worship were what cast the judgement of the Israelite and Judean society."

¹ Source link.