The History of the Genesis of the 'Second' Temple (?)

[StephenGoranson]

Sometimes, rgprice, you did use the word "suspect."
Other times not, for example, above, with my emphasis:

"Yes there were temples to Yahweh. There may even have been a large main temple to Yahweh in Jerusalem. But the stories about it, written sometime between the 5th century BCE and the 2nd century BCE, are NOT based on historical accounts of such a temple, they are JUST INVENTIONS of the writers."

[rgprice]

Fair. I was discussing that within the framework of my "suspicions". I agree that is certainly not proved.

[StephenGoranson]

Thank you, rgprice, for your reply.
Would it be fair to say that your "suspicions" similarly also are the basis of your NT book advertised as reducing accounts of Jesus to gMark?

[andrewcriddle]

See Ostracon 18 for probable extra Biblical evidence of the First Temple.

Andrew Criddle

Other scholars doubt whether the inscription refers to the Jerusalem temple.

And anyway, I don't doubt that there were temples dedicated to Yahweh going back into the 9th century or earlier. I'm saying that I don't think the narratives about the Temple have any historical basis. They aren't based on real knowledge about a real Temple, they are more recent imaginings about a presumed temple.

It's like if today I were to write a story about a "tribe of Native Americans". I can invent a story about Native Americans from the 1600s. And there were actually native Americans living in the 1600s. And I may even use the name of a real tribe that existed in the 1600s. But my story is just a modern invention, it is not based on any real recollection of such a tribe.

Just look at something like 2 Baruch. 2 Baruch uses the soc-called First Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians. But it isn't based on that writers real knowledge of the so-called First Temple, nor on real accounts of it. It is an imagined narrative used allegorically to describe the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

I'm saying I think the narratives from most other Jewish scriptures are no different.

Can you clarify please ?

Are you just saying that you think the account of the building of the temple in 1 Kings is legendary ? Or are you saying that you think that almost none of the references to the First Temple in the prophets e.g. Isaiah are related to actual knowledge of the First Temple ?

The second claim is much more radical than the first.

Andrew Criddle

[rgprice]

Can you clarify please ?

Are you just saying that you think the account of the building of the temple in 1 Kings is legendary ? Or are you saying that you think that almost none of the references to the First Temple in the prophets e.g. Isaiah are related to actual knowledge of the First Temple ?

The second claim is much more radical than the first.

Andrew Criddle

The prophets all have to be addressed independently, and I haven't studied the works of each in detail regarding this matter. But, I would not be surprised if all or virtually all the works of the prophets are from much later, like the 5th - 2nd centuries.

I see many similarities between the works of the Jewish prophets and Sibylline works. If we take, for example, the 3rd book of the Sibylline Oracles and look a the parts that are presumed to be remnants of an original Greek work, which talk about the Trojan War, etc., then that can serve as a sort of guide.

And unto life-sustaining Phrygia
Straightway shall there a certain token be,
When Rhea's blood-stained race, in the great earth
Blooming perennial in impervious roots,
Shall, root and branch, in one night disappear
With a city, men and all, of the Earth-shaker
Poseidon; which place they shall sometime call
Dorylaeum, of dark ancient Phrygia,
Much-bewailed. Therefore shall that time be called
Earth-shaker; dens of earth shall he break up
And walls demolish. And not signs of good
But a beginning of evil shall be made;
The baneful violence of general war
Ye'll have, sons of Aeneas, Dative blood
Of Ilus from the soil. But afterwards
A spoil shalt thou become for greedy men.
O Ilium, I pity thee; for there shall bloom
In Sparta an Erinys very fair,
Ever-famed, noblest scion, and shall leave
On Asia and Europe a wide-spreading wave;
But to thee most of all she'll bear and cause
Wailings and toils and groans; but there shall be
Undying fame with those who are to come.
And there shall be an aged mortal then,
False writer and of doubtful native land;
And in his eyes the light shall fade away;
Large mind and verses measured with great skill
Shall he have and be blended with two names,
Shall call himself a Chian and shall write
Of Ilium, not truthfully, indeed,
But skillfully; for of my verse and meters
He will be master; for he first my books
Will open with his hands; but he himself
Will much embellish helmed chiefs of war,
Hector of Priam and Achilles, son
Of Peleus, and the others who have care
For warlike deeds. And also by their side
Will he make gods stand, empty-headed men,
False-writing every way. And it shall be
Glory the rather, widely spread, for them
To die at Ilium; but he himself
Shall also works of recompense receive.

The original text behind this section of Book III was likely composed between the 5th and 3rd century BCE. The text is making reference to lore about the 12th century BCE or earlier. This is not based on real knowledge of that time period.

In many ways, the destruction of the "First Temple" serves a very similar function in Jewish lore as the Trojan War in Greek lore. As has been noted, in Genesis 1-11 the Flood also serves a similar role as a market between the ancient past and historical times, like the Trojan War. But in Jewish lore, the destruction of the First Temple is also very similar to the Trojan War.

Another story to keep in mind is the story of Judith. Again, is Judith based on passed on oral traditions about something that happened during the time of Nebuchadnezzar? No, clearly not. The writer doesn't betray any real knowledge of such history. Judith is a much later writing, from like the 2nd century BCE, that is set in some made up past, much like a Conan comic set in some imaginary age of barbarians.

Now, when we look at the works of the prophets, what are they really about? What is the purpose behind their writing? Almost all of them relate to conditions and situations found in the 3rd through first centuries BCE. They use accounts of the destruction of the First Temple as indicators of prophetic virtue and they use stories about these supposed ancient cataclysms to provide moral guidance for the present.

What I'm saying is that many of the works of the prophets are no different than 2 Baruch. And look, we have so many examples now of Jewish works that we know were produced in the Hellenistic era, but were set in a much earlier time, and which attempted to convince readers that they were indeed actually written at that much earlier time.

Now we are in a situation of special pleading, where we have a collection of like 50 Jewish writings that are set prior to the 5th century BCE, and of those we've now determined that at least half of them were actually written after the 4th century BCE. But we still have people wanting to claim that the remaining writings that we haven't yet determined were produced after the 4th century "really were" authentic. Its like we have the large collection that was at one point believed to be a collection of 100% authentic ancient prophecies that actually foretold the future. And little by little it has been concluded that this writing and that writing were not actually ancient, but in fact are much later forgeries. But people still hold out that there are still authentic works remaining in the set. Ok yeah, we can throw this one out and that one out, but look, there are still dozens of "authentic" Jewish works! No, no there aren't. It's all forgery, just like 100% of Sibylline writings were forgeries. Every single Jewish scripture is a forgery, every single one, just like every single Orphic writing is a forgery and every single Sibylline writing is a forgery and for that matter, every single Homeric writing is a forgery. Every one of these writings misrepresents itself and its provenance.

The reality is that most of these works, were produced from the 5th century BCE on. They describe some mythic past and build upon literary traditions. They are like Western movies written by people whose only knowledge of the American West comes from watching Western movies. There came to be an agreed upon view of the ancient past among Greeks, Romans, Jews, Babylonians, etc., that was not based on any real memories or passed-on traditions, but rather was essentially invented by story writers.

And so, when people in the 4th, 3rd or 2nd century BCE were writing about the "First Temple", their frame of reference wasn't real knowledge or memory of the Temple, it was knowledge of other stories about the Temple. Its a matter of stories begetting stories. And we can see this very same thing happening almost in "real time" with the Gospels. How long have scholars claims that the Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony or real stories that were passed down from people who witnessed the ministry of Jesus. As I show in Deciphering the Gospels, and in many of my posts here, the story of Jesus really all begins with an entirely fictional 100% made up allegory, and every single other account of the life of Jesus is derived from this original story, with no one at any point ever introducing any ""real knowledge" about any real Jesus person. This all occurred over a period of 100 years, in which the original narrative was copied and expanded upon many times by different people, inventing a history that never existed, through story writers building upon the stories of prior writers.

I'm saying that the "First Temple" is essentially like Jesus. Were there people named Jesus? Yes. Were there Jews who were crucified by the Romans? Yes. Were there wandering Jewish preachers? Yes. etc., etc. But the story of Jesus is not based on any such person. Its an entirely imaginary invention created in the mind of the writer of the first Gospel. The character of Jesus is allegorical. His actions and teachings are the invention of the writer, designed to serve the writer's allegorical purpose. The story of Jesus is designed to teach a lesson and convey a message that is relevant IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONDITIONS THAT EXISTED AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF THE "SECOND TEMPLE".

What this means is that the whole story, from beginning to end, only can exist in a world in which the Temple had already been destroyed. The story of Jesus never could have been written prior to the First Jewish-Roman War.

The same can be said of many of the accounts of the First Temple. Many of the accounts of the "First Temple", could never have been written prior to the creation of the so-called "Second Temple". Just like 2 Baruch, so many of the accounts of the First Temple are really about the Second Temple, and so many of the accounts of the "Israelite Kings" are really about the Hasmonaeans, just as we see how Daniel is really about the conditions under Antiochus IV.

[Leucius Charinus]

WIKI:

Mount Gerizim is sacred to the Samaritans, who regard it, rather than Jerusalem's Temple Mount, as the location chosen by Yahweh (God) for a holy temple.

Where does the Samaritan temple (destroyed c.110 BCE) fit in ?

[StephenGoranson]

To rgprice.
Your absolute declarations, in effect, that First Temple is fiction
and that equally Jesus is fiction by Mark
are most probably explained imo as your fictions.

[Secret Alias]

I want to remind people that the Pentateuch does not require or advocate the establishment of a permanent "temple" or building of any kind.

[rgprice]

To rgprice.
Your absolute declarations, in effect, that First Temple is fiction
and that equally Jesus is fiction by Mark
are most probably explained imo as your fictions.

Do you think the Sibyls were real? Do you think Orpheus was real? Do you think Aeneus was really the progenitor of the Roman people? Do you think the Jews were really related to the Spartans? Do you want to argue that Aristeas, the supposed author of the letter describing the creation of the LXX, was a real person?

Regarding the supposed First Temple, again I'm not say there never was any temple of Yahweh, of course there were many temples to Yahweh. The temple described in Kings, however, is just as fictitious as the Ark of the Covenant. Solomon's Temple is a pure invention. It's not based on any recollection of some real Temple.

As for prophets talking about the destruction of "the temple". Again we'd have to go through each account one by one, and maybe some account has something to do with reality, but most, and ones that I can think of off the top of my head, like Jeremiah, are just imaginary accounts, no different than 2 Baruch. Do you think the writer of 2 Baruch actually knew something real about the Temple?

Again, if I today, sit down and write a story about a gun fight in a Western town during the 1800s, I can put in some pretty good details just off the top of my head. I've seen enough Western movies and read enough Western stories, that I can plausibly describe some real scene. I can even write a narrative about an Indian massacre. But it would all be pure literary invention, coming from my imagination. I can talk about some train station that got sieged by robbers and then burned down. I can describe a boom town that got overrun by Indians and then turned into a ghost town. And it can all be plausible and all be period accurate, but it won't be based on anything more than my imagination. It won't be a story passed down from my great-great grandpa that I'm re-telling based on what he told me. It won't be based on archival accounts of some real event. I'll just make it all up.

But, I will be describing the type of things that really happened, and places that really existed, and I'll maybe even through in some real names of real people. But it's still just a made-up story. I can even say that this happened 3 years after the end of the Civil War. Yeah, the Civil War was real.

The line between invention and reality is very blurry. But the key is that when we look at works like the Sibylline writings, those writings, which "chronicle" past events, are not really about the past. They aren't written by historians for the purpose of documenting the past. They are written by prophetic forgers who are using the past to talk about the present and the future. Their real interest in the present. The past that they describe is designed to convey a message about the present.

[Secret Alias]

"Real." What's "real" in the study of history? The void. The emptiness, purposelessness and vanity of human existence. All else is "stuff with a limited half life."