spin

The remains of this Egyptian temple were identified by Flinders Petrie at Tell al-Yahudi, Leontopolis, in the Heliopolis nome.

stephan huller

Have you read the study? It is a fanciful interpretation at best. What was found is no way resembles the description of Jewish temple. Petrie's conclusions have been repeatedly questioned. There never was a Heliopolis temple. Some later editor of Josephus's hypomnema took Isaiah literally and made up the story about a Jewish temple there. So think I.

spin

Yes, I have.

Here's what he says about the identification:

[T2]The indications about its position,--Leontopolis, the distance from Memphis, in the Heliopolite nome, the existence of a temple and a great mass of building material, and the Jewish names in the cemetery,--all these agree with what we find at Tell el Yehudiyeh, and cannot be all assigned to any other site. The statements about the height of the place, and the copying of the temple of Jerusalem on a poorer scale, exactly agree with the great mound and its buildings, and this place reconciles the apparent contradictions of Josephus. The nature of the site agrees with the requirements of the structure of Onias, and with no other purpose. An immense mound was constructed all at once, with a great number of sacrifices at its foundation, pointing to a concourse of a people. This mound was strongly fortified, but differs from any Egyptian fortification in its nature. It comprised a town, and an isolated building higher than the rest, and even more strongly protected, the precious part of the whole place. This building had just the proportions of Solomon’s temple, and had an inner and outer court before it. The bricks were partly supplied by Jews. And outside of the town on the north was thrown a.great quantity of burnt bones of the sacrificial animals, as from the burnt sacrifices. The external connections, or the structural evidence, would either of them be sufficient to make the purpose of this place almost certain. Together, they seem to leave no possibility of question that we have here the New Jerusalem and Temple of the rightful High Priest Onias. (Hyksos & Israelite Cities, p.27)[/T2]
By which archaeologists and how questioned exactly?

stephan huller

Today's a bad day because I am trying to fit in a bunch of other things. However at my blog I have the lay out of the 'Jewish temple' and the list of professors who ridicule the assumptions. It's garbage. Thire was a hill from what I remember and a small building. Nothing convincly suggesting that it was a Jewish temple

Toto

From Stephan Huller's blog

Why We Shouldn't Believe the Christianized Texts of Josephus When it Tells us that the Jewish Temple in Egypt was in Heliopolis

How the Jewish Temple of Alexandria Became the Jewish Temple of Heliopolis

stephan huller

Wow I have a secretary. Toto, when you're finished what typing the letters in my inbox can you grab me a cup of coffee at Starbucks when you come back from putting out the evening mail?

Toto

Microsoft has secretaries?

stephan huller

It just doesn't make sense that the Jews of Alexandria would have to 'drive' all the way to Leontopolis. It's like building Disney World in Seattle, WA. Then there is all the rabbinic references to an altar at Alexandria. Its a massive leap of logic to say that the Jews didn't know the difference between 'Alexandria' and 'Egypt.' Then there is the fact that there was a massive house of God - like a building of epic proportions - which was known to Philo and the early rabbinic tradition. Then there is the fact that Boucolis was the Jewish quarter in the first century, and Philo's description of the Jewish 'house of God' (he never calls it a synagogue) is in the exact spot the Church of St. Mark was located (although Pearson disagrees with that assessment). Then there is the fact that Clement seems to know things about a Jewish temple and also uses temple metaphors (stromateis, naos, adyton, mysterion etc) in association with Christianity.

The only church in Egyptian Christianity up until the late third century was the one at Boucolis.

My 'theory' was that Christianity was developed from Alexandria and the Christians reused the old building (which Josephus interestingly says was locked up but not destroyed after 70 CE).

My guess would be that Christian theology was centered around the idea that Israel was back to the days of the desert wandering. 'Redemption' was to come. Baptism was still tied to the crossing of the sea because Israel was back in Egypt.

It wasn't so much a separate theology but one which naturally developed from the idea that the old holy places had been polluted and so God abandoned Jerusalem and Gerizim.

That's my idea

stephan huller

No secretaries at Microsoft. Contract workers.

spin

Wrong logic, I think. We're talking about c160 BCE. There certainly was a Jewish community at Tell el-Yehudiya. You need the cleruchy mentality that was employed by the Ptolemies. Land is provided in exchange for military obligations. According to Josephus (C.Ap. 2.5), when there were problems after the death of Ptolemy VI, the army under the control of Onias came to Alexandria in defense of Kleopatra II. This is consistent with a Jewish army living not in Alexandria, but elsewhere, such as in the NW of the nome of Heliopolis. The temple was destroyed 250 years later. The reason for the temple was because of the family of Onias, the high priestly line. There is no justification for a temple in Alexandria. You may as well argue for a temple in Ephesus, for the same amount of data available on the issue (ie none).

And how tenable is that? How can you justify a temple there without suitable priests?

What is the exact source? Bavli Talmud? I'll go with Josephus.

God, I'll have to wait for your documentation.

When does the word synagogue first get used for the institution, Stephan?

What language do you want him to use for a place of worship??

I think I'll go with Petrie for the moment. A temple requires a priesthood.