Diogenes the Cynic

That doesn't mean there was no pre-exilic Temple or cult center on that mountain. I would hazard a guess that there was probably more than one tabernacle there, and that it would have been a place of sacrifice going back to pre-Judaic time (who knows why, some natural geological feature, now lost, may have attracted them, perhaps a natural altar stone or something). There was no Temple of Solomon, as such, but that could have been an allegory for an institution, not so much a single building (though later it was literalized that way), but for, as I keep saying, the LOCATION of those buildings. I'd guess there were a bunch of them, not just one, and it might have even been a pre-Israelite, Canaanite acropolis of sorts. Eventually it got sanded down to Yahweh only, but even then, I would bet the temples were periodically rebuilt or refurbished. "Solomon's Temple" could have been a series of ten temples.

Sheshbazzar

I don't see why the first one, the Tabernacle would most certainly be fiction.
For a primitive nomadic people a portable tent housing their 'holy place' would be the practical arrangement,
and quite likey.

The next natural and practical step upon becoming settled and urbanized people, would be building a permanent cult structure.

Sheshbazzar

My point here, in contrast to Stephan's argument that the Jews ought not to have valued their Temple nor its site, is that the Jewish people have a very long history of strong attachment to the city of Jerusalem, and to Mount 'Zion'. One that was certainly there long before Herod was even born.

Whatever failings Herod or any other political figure may have had, the people maintained their attachments to the locale, and to that never yet realized ideal that it represented.
'Next year in Yerusalim', has now only taken on a further significance. A yearning for that day when that promised and long sought after lasting Peace will at long last be achieved in Jerusalem, and upon earth.

outhouse

Shesh, that part of Israelite history is a literary creation.

Israelites factualy evolved from displaced Canaanites.



Some nomad semetic tribes may have joined those in the highlands of Israel, but they were not Israelites in any shape or form.


Israelites were never nomadic as a whole, unless you want to call the Babylonian exile nomadic.

Sheshbazzar

And you know this from certain knowledge, that it is impossible for YHWH worship to have initially been conducted in a tent within a fenced enclosure as described in the Torah?
Tell me. How did you arrive at this conclusion?
I am not arguing that.
However if they were 'displaced' Canaanites, or chose to separate themselves from the Canaanites for religious reasons, they may well have left Canaanite settlements for a nomadic existence.

From the Torah perspective, if they circumcised themselves, and subjected themselves to YHWH and his priesthood, they became Israelites.

Those born 'Israelites' themselves admitted being the descendent's of Abraham the Chaldean (Babylon), and to have been joined by a 'mixed multitude', not as though 'Israel' the nation was ever any one particular ethnic group.
And no, I'm not arguing that Abraham is a historical figure. But in the Israelite origins myth they do not even claim to have been 'The Nation of Israel' or of 'The Nation of Israel' from their beginnings.

By the time they started using the name 'Israel' for their Nation and for their political identity, they were a mixed people with their own very distinctive identity and culture, one moved far from their ancestral ethnic and national origins.

I am an American. What does that tell you about my race, religion, or my ancestors origins?

I first left the religion of my family, and the place where I was born, and where my family had lived for generations, took up an entirely different set of beliefs, and then moved to a State hundreds of miles away.

I am an American, and I am not a Christian, although my ancestors all were for as far back as can be traced.


You are making an assertion about Israeli living conditions circa what? -1200 BCE? (Merneptah stele) but there is no evidence that your assertion is correct.
These ancient Israelites did not endure in any of the places that they settled. All that's left of their settlements are the scattered archaeological remnants of a people that -moved on- or were moved on, again and again.


.

stephan huller

It is likely that those of Judah originally sacrificed to Molech at the place where the Jews rededicated to their god. Let's take that as a given and let's suppose that these heathen felt uncomfortable almost from the beginning of the Persian period when worship was established at Mount Gerizim (see Charlesworth's article on this above). The point is not that I think that Jerusalem is illegitimate (I do but that's not the point of this discussion). The point here is that I can't help but suppose that Herod's temple marked a complete departure from the explicit dictates of the Pentateuch (and thus God and then Moses).

Stephen in Acts was murdered for stating that there is no prescription for a stone building in the Torah. We need only go back to the idea of the 'booth' that Jews are commanded to make at the festival of the tabernacles. The idea is that these tabernacles or booths are supposed to be impermanent. It isn't simply because they were 'primitive' nomads but because there is a spiritual principle here - viz. that people shouldn't get accustomed to being here on the earth.

When Herod transgressed the explicit commandment to establish a flimsy impermanent and portable sanctuary it must have represented a completely new paradigm and one which upset many people. As such it is impossible to believe that Christianity - which is clearly based on opposition to this permanent structure (qv) would have arisen at all if there had been a long history of permanent structures on Mount Zion.

Again, it was the solid, roofed nature of the sanctuary which upset Stephen and Christianity as a whole. In the original sanctuary only the Tent of Meeting had a roof, but it was still a tent and the roof was cloth. In the Jerusalem temple it was a stone cube with a solid roof.

Sheshbazzar

Where do you get the idea that it was Herod that 'transgressed the explicit commandment' ?

There had been a stone constructed solid roofed Temple of YHWH on that site since it was constructed by Zerubbabel in 515 BCE, all Herod did was have the Priests replace it with a larger version. (which by the way, was still accounted as being the same 'Second Temple' because the daily sacrifices and observances were never halted during its construction.)

If there was an unacceptable departure in constructing the Temple out of stone and with a solid roof, it was with the story of Solomon and the First Temple, and then again with Zerubbabel in constructing the Second Temple in 515 BCE. Herod's rebuilt stone and solid roof Temple would not have been any departure from what Jewish worshipers were long since accustomed to.

Having a stone constructed solid roofed Temple had not seemed to have upset too many Jews for all those hundreds of years they worshiped there before Herod came along with his Temple 'home improvement' campaign.
I think you are reading something into this Stephen speech that was not intended.
The (mythical) Christian 'messiah' "Iesous Christos" was extremely zealous for that 'stone cube with a solid roof' Temple.
His disciples, continue to meet, teach, and preach in The Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1-3)
And 'Paul' even continues in Temple ritual (Acts 21:21-26) and can state that "Neither against the law of the Jews, neither against THE TEMPLE, nor yet against Caesar, have I offended any thing at all" (Acts 25:8)
Simply stated, the NT does not display any contempt for The Jerusalem Temple building simply for the sake of it having been a 'stone cube with a solid roof' Temple not complying with the building code of that Tabernacle that Moses trucked around the Sinai, as you imply.



.

stephan huller

As Hjelms notes "a nice way of solving the ambiguity in biblical tradition that the sanctuary at Shiloh might refer to a tent rather than a temple." http://books.google.com/books?id=Vzy...ent%22&f=false

So we move slowly from the tabernacle sanctuary to Shiloh on our way to the establishment of the Jerusalem temple ultimately.

stephan huller

If we fast forward to the gospel, I have always been puzzled by the significance of the 'removing of the roof' in Mark 2:4

Sheshbazzar

I just love quotations that begin with "it is said that...." ___Who was it that said it? Where? and When?

Fast forwarding to the gospel, The self-same sentence tells you the reason that they removed the roof.