Sheshbazzar

The Mishna is 2nd century CE and is certainly no contemporary witness to anything to do with Shiloh some 1200 years previous.

There is no more reason to accept any statements about Shiloh as being accurate history than any of the other obviously un-historical hokey tales contained within the Mishna. That is not religious history, it is only religious legends.

stephan huller

The Samaritans say much the same thing

Clivedurdle

Are we talking slight refurbishment or complete flattening and rebuild to new design or a mixture? Might the dome be Herod's?

Would going to a sphere from a cube cause theological problems?

Remember Herod was doing a vanity project - might he have been a true modernist using the latest technology of domes?

Was this not the largest construction project on the planet at the time?

semiopen

I'm terrified of being accused of Temple_Denial but I think that might mean the Second Temple. It seems there has to have some kind of first temple in Jerusalem though.

Our tour guide in Jerusalem said the second temple was the largest structure in the world. Based on some of the other shit he said, I had my doubts, so I asked our guide in Rome who claimed to be an archeologist and he confirmed it. So maybe it is true, although that guy also thought St. Peter actually showed up in Rome.

The Third_Temple might not be what Steve is discussing but -

The above seems to be dubious about Ezekiel. Ezekiel 40-47 is one of the few parts of the bible I've tried to read without commentary. My impression was that the guy who wrote it had no concept of the instructions in the Torah for the first temple. Since this was supposedly written before the construction of the second temple, one would think he was giving instructions for the second temple especially since he doesn't mention the third temple specifically.

The concept is clearly Rabbinic, although previous posts (and the wiki) have doscussed various rebuilding attempts prior to the Rabbis. My Rabbi gives the most amazing third temple "hints" from the Torah. The theological concept is based on the three patriarchs so obviously there has to be three temples... kind of amazing nobody thought of it until the second temple was destroyed.

Duvduv

If that is so, then the entire array of claims of their history has to be called into question in terms of the story of their origins as well as the existence of their sanctuary structure. I do not recall whether Talmudic sources ever said the Samaritans had a building, or whether any Samaritans have ever claimed there was.
However, they do not claim a special messianic role for Dositheus, although there is some confusion over that perdon versus another named Dostis or similar.
Perhaps the writing of Moses Gastner and others could be reexamined in light of what you are suggesting.
I seem to recall that they claim that Eli the priest broke away from Gerizim and established the sanctuary at Shilo, but did not claim that a building existed on Gerizim at that time or at the time of Ezra. Whatever was destroyed by the Hasmoneans was done easily, and doesn't sound like it was a building.

It also seems that the Samaritans never accounted for the fact that the books of Samuel and Kings, which had alot to say about the sins of the northern kingdom and the sanctuaries of Dan and Bethel NEVER mention any worship at Gerizim. Samaritans claim they represented a third Israelite faction : some Israelites worshiped at Dan and Bethel, some were idol worshippers, and others worshipped at Gerizim. But the books do not mention a single word about such a scenario.

If as is mentioned in Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Gerizim) the Christian regime prohibited worship on Gerizim, then it is no surprise that a piece of the Gospel of John 4 has the Samaritan woman speaking about worship on Gerizim in the PAST TENSE in this very strange episode:

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.”

26 Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am he.”

I had previously noted that it is strange that a Samaritan would adhere to a "Pharisee" belief in the messiah, and that this self-identifying messiah would claim that at some time in the distant future neither Jerusalem nor Gerizim would be a place of worship. Not to mention the cryptic comment with no context about salvation being from the Jews.

stephan huller

I can explain all of this - and it fits the thread perfectly - but I am really, really busy this week. Just one point though. The Old Syriac here has the woman says "the messiah called Christ" which is very odd. Many people have puzzled over this. The early use (and abuse) of nomina sacra might help explain this.

Duvduv

I am not sure I understand what you consider to be the traces in Samaritanism of their adherence to a belief in Dositheus as the Tahib Restorer or the syncretic messiah figure etc.

semiopen

It's hard to believe that this could just be a vicious circle, but it is even more unbelievable to imagine anyone taking the sacrifices seriously much less the vast majority of the local Jews.

I think that the centralization of the cult at the first temple was a problem because you couldn't have a hamburger without sacrificing the animal at the temple.

Why do Jews no longer sacrifice animals?

I can't conceive of people putting up with this for hundreds of years, plus how do you tell the poor shmucks who were used to sacrificing at the high places, that they have a month long drive to Jerusalem and back. I can't argue with Dr Friedman but how long could such a thing go on and was it actually going on when the temple was destroyed.

Maybe towards the end it was just bitches sacrificing birds or something.

Duvduv

What does it say that the verse in John refers to Samaritans worshiping at Gerizim in the PAST when we also know (which Samaritans themselves do not challenge as far as I know) that the Christian regime prohibited worship at Gerizim in the 4th century when reconstructing a story taking place before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple?

That GJohn or "at least" the story of the Samaritan woman was written in the 4th century at a time when the writers of GJohn did not know (or at least assumed that their audience did not know) that Samaritans did not follow the Jewish concept of messiah?

19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our ancestors worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.”

Of course the whole statement in the mouth of Jesus does not make sense but to the readers who are not familiar with Judaism or Samaritanism the confusion would escape them.

21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem [why?].
22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know [which is what exactly?]; we worship what we do know [which is what exactly?], for salvation is from the Jews [what is that supposed to refer to exactly?]. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” [What does this have to do with the Messiah or with the location of the Sanctuary, or the fact that the acknowledged messiah is supposed to rebuild the Temple?]

Sheshbazzar

The Law did not specify that all of any herders animals needed to be brought to the Temple, and each one presented as a sacrifice.
The Law only required the 'firstling' of the flock. Ex. 13:12-13, 34:19-20, Lev 27:26-27, Num 18:15-18, Deut 15:19-20.
The rest of the edible animals could be slaughtered for food by their owners where they lived, and even certain of the required sacrificial 'firstlings' could be redeemed (bought back for a price, or by a substitute acceptable for exchange)
First born sons were required by Law to be redeemed (bought back) for five shekels of the Sanctuary (Num 18:15-16)