Dear Mr. xxxx,
Many thanks for your letter and your compliments to my work, which mean a lot to me. To get right to the point, I have to tell you that that translation that you read is simply wrong. The phrase in Hebrew does not contain the word "turned" — or any verb. In my Commentary on the Torah, I translated it quite literally: "and their faces each towards its brother." The most thorough and brilliant commentary on Exodus ever done, in my judgment, is William Propp's two-volume Exodus for the Anchor Bible. He, too, translates it literally: "and their faces (each) man toward his brother." See also his discussion of the issues on pp. 323 and especially 391-392.
In the Silbermann translation that you mentioned, which accompanies his translation of Rashi, the word "turned" is printed in italics. As he explains in the Preface to his Genesis volume, italics are used for words that do not actually appear in the Hebrew. So, in this case, it is only Silbermann's opinion that he is expressing, and there is no basis for it in the text.
The problem of why the arrangements of the ark cherubs and the Temple cherubs differ is an old one, and I admit I don't have a great answer. It would be easier to answer if we knew which came first. If the ark arrangement is the earlier one, then it fits with my idea that the Temple cherubs have to be arranged so that their wings meet flat in the middle of the Holiest of Holies; that is, the Temple cherubs had to be turned to accommodate the Tabernacle space under their wings. If the Temple arrangement is the earlier one, then there may be some other practical reason. For example, when the ark is carried on the two poles by men, it would not be symetrical if the two cherubs faced outward to one side or the other. Alternatively, as Propp suggested, perhaps the idea was to have them both looking downward (toward center) rather than up at God enthroned above them.
I hope this helps. With good wishes,
Richard Elliott Friedman
Davis Professor of Jewish Studies, University of Georgia
Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus, University of California, San Diego
------------------------
Ok to click on this image now!
Dever's key points are that the Biblical description is "vague" and that the seat of God "was only symbolic, a literal reading or picture is irrelevant."
In Dever's book did God Have A Wife, I found a picture of two human-like cherubs facing 
opposite each other with their wings extended out symbolizing the divine presence of Horus (who is depicted there). This is from a 9th century Syrian relief, so perhaps after my whole long megillah, we can imagine the cherubs on the Ark of the covenant as human-like, facing each other. Perhaps we only have to accept that they represent the divine presence not necessarily actually physically depicting an actual throne of God. As Dever writes in the above letter, "a literal reading or picture is irrelevant."
Now if we accept Dever's non-literal approach, does this impact on REF's innovative idea that the space underneath the wings of the Temple cherubs had the exact dimensions of the tabernacle (which he then used as support for his contention that P was written during the first temple era not the second)? Or are all the other aspects of his proofs sufficient to prove his case regardless of whether his conception of the wings of the cherubs are correct? For instance, P emphasizes ark, cherubs, urim v'tummim, and tablets which weren't in the second temple. Also, why would P write that sacrifices could only take place at the entrance to the Tabernacle (re:temple) forever if it was to be destroyed! Also, REF's analysis of the dimension of the tabernacle are compellingly correlated to that of the first temple. So why would a second temple source focus on first temple aspects which were only memories but not current realities? I'm still considering this and trying to make sense of other writers like Gabriele Boccaccini who dates P to second temple period based on political realities that in his approach jives well with the priestly class overshadowing the old monarchic rule. (More on this in the future).
-
