Other Temples

[John2]

I'm about to run out of computer time at the library, so I can't say much at the moment, but I've been thinking about other ancient Israelite temples besides the first and second Temples in Jerusalem lately, such as the one in Shiloh. And this book, Temples and Temple-service in Ancient Israel, has a list of others, such as at Dan and Bethel, and I thought I'd start a thread about it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=iHsee ... le&f=false

I don't understand why such a fuss is made about the location of the first and second Temples in Jerusalem. Not only do people sacrifice at other places in the OT with God's approval (e.g., Samuel), there were other temples too, and I don't see why a "third" temple couldn't be built in those places (or any other place) today without upsetting anyone.

[MrMacSon]

Good points.

I have wondered if some temple events recorded in ancient BC/BCE Judaism occurred at temples other than 'The Temple'.

[John2]

The above book (which I'm now reading) is fascinating. It lists even more temples than I was aware of that are mentioned or alluded to in the OT. It also lists the two temples in Egypt that I always forget about for some reason (in Elephantine and the Temple of Onias in Leontopolis). Josephus even describes the latter and says that it was destroyed shortly after the second Jerusalem Temple.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... 15110.html

I don't see any reason why the ruins (or locations) of these temples, especially the Temple of Onias or the Shiloh Temple, should be any less revered today than the ruins and location of the first and second Jerusalem Temples, or why another temple (or even the Tabernacle) could not be built and located somewhere besides Jerusalem. Even Aaron, after all (whether he was fictional or real) did not offer sacrifices in Jerusalem (or even in Israel).

I suspect the reason for the present restrictions (i.e., only on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, even though actually the Torah only refers to the place that God will choose to put his name, which in my view means wherever the ark was, which could be rebuilt and put anywhere, like Shiloh in Jer. 7:12) is due to the OT on the whole being a product of the Kingdom of Judah and its priests and descendants, who centralized the sacrificial cult to their capital, coupled with the destruction (by foreigners and Judeans) of other Israelite temples and the incorporation of the writings and traditions of the Kingdom of Israel (the E source, according to the Documentary Hypothesis) into Judean writings (the J, P and D sources). But even after this there were temples in Egypt, with the Temple of Onias lasting three years longer than the second Jerusalem Temple, and Josephus does not seem to have had a problem with its existence (War. 7.10.3-4; Ant. 13.3.1-3).

I suspect another reason for the present restrictions for the location of a "third" temple is that most Jews, even those who are more "radical," are at least a little uncomfortable with the idea of offering sacrifices again (which may have even been the case, at least among some, when the Emperor Julian attempted to build a third temple in Jerusalem, IIRC, but it's been awhile since I've thought about it. As Schiffman notes, "Many Jews, both in Palestine and in other countries, were enthusiastic about the project. Julian corresponded with Hillel II, but the patriarchal house was more restrained."

https://books.google.com/books?id=nQDkL ... II&f=false

I gather (as I refresh my memory) that this restraint may have had more to do with not wanting to offend Christians and thus bring repercussions on Jews, but it shows that there was uneasiness in certain circles about rebuilding a temple in Jerusalem (for whatever reason) as far back as at least the fourth century CE.

As a vegetarian, I don't see any difference between sacrificing and eating meat in a temple and killing and eating meat in a slaughterhouse or a butcher shop or a farm or a steakhouse or picking out a lobster at a seafood restaurant. It's all equally "ghastly" to me. But in my view, the majority of the Torah (and thus Judaism) pertains to sacrifice and the priesthood, and I don't see any reason why it couldn't (or shouldn't) be reinstituted. It's just a barbecue with rules, and people seem to like barbecues.

[John2]

MrMacSon wrote:

"I have wondered if some temple events recorded in ancient BC/BCE Judaism occurred at temples other than 'The Temple'."

Check out 1 Samuel 1, for example.

http://biblehub.com/niv/1_samuel/1.htm

[BDJ]

Obviously, Israelites worshipped their God in various places prior to Salomon building the Temple in Jerusalem. The 'confusing' aspect is that - apparently - other temples continued to be used even when the 1st and 2nd temple in Jerusalem were standing.

I think this is due to the diversity of the religious ideas and practices described in the OT. The religion had variations in different places, and evolved over time. So the role of the Jerusalem temple is assessed differently in different books of the OT.

The focus on the exclusivity of the Jerusalem is ascribed to the Deutoronomist authors in the Documentary Hypothesis. Hence, you will find 'other' temples in writings of other authors n the OT.

[John2]

BDJ wrote:

"The 'confusing' aspect is that - apparently - other temples continued to be used even when the 1st and 2nd temple in Jerusalem were standing."

Well, it's not confusing (at least in regards the first Jerusalem Temple) when you consider that the centralization of the sacrificial cult to one place is only mentioned in Deuteronomy and that it was not known until the time of Josiah. As 2 Kings 23:22-23 says:

Neither in the days of the judges who led Israel nor in the days of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah had any such Passover been observed. But in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, this Passover was celebrated to the Lord in Jerusalem.

BDJ also wrote:

"The focus on the exclusivity of the Jerusalem is ascribed to the Deutoronomist authors in the Documentary Hypothesis. Hence, you will find 'other' temples in writings of other authors n the OT."

But the references to the Shiloh Temple are in the Deuteronomist History (e.g., 1 Sam 1, which I linked to above). I am persuaded by Friedman's idea that the DH was written by Jeremiah (and/or his scribe Baruch), and Jer. 7:12 also mentions the Shiloh Temple in a positive light. And I don't recall all the particulars of the argument offhand, but IIRC, Friedman sees a connection between the priests of the Northern Kingdom and the E and D sources, and this could explain the positive references to the Shiloh Temple in the DH.

[John2]

I think what is "confusing" is the Temple of Onias in Egypt, which co-existed with (and lasted a few years longer than) the second Jerusalem Temple. I'm unaware of any rabbinic references to this temple (and I'm still reading the above book I linked to so I don't know if it mentions any), but again, Josephus doesn't appear to have any problem with it.

[John2]

The above book does mention rabbinic sources regarding the Temple of Onias (on pg. 46-47, though I don't see any specific references, so I will look for some elsewhere).

It is also referred to in the talmudic literature where it is regarded ambivalently -some sages say that the sacrifices offered there were considered idolatrous, while others claim that they were intended, albeit illegitimately, for the God of Israel.

Edit: I found specific references in footnote 4 on page 47. I didn't notice them on my first look.

[John2]

Duh. They're in the other link I gave from the Jewish virtual library.

The Talmud takes a somewhat relaxed view of this temple. It claims that it was not an "idolatrous shrine" because Onias had based himself on Isaiah 19:18, which says that, "One day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt," and because he was a legitimate Zadokite priest, a descendant of the high priest Simon the Just (Men. 109b). The Mishnah states that some vows made in the Temple of Jerusalem could be redeemed in the Temple of Onias and, while a priest who served at Onias was precluded from serving in Jerusalem, he could nevertheless eat the terumah (consecrated food) there together with his priestly brethren (Men. 13:10).

[John2]

I can't find Men. 109b online, but here is Mishnah Men. 13:10:

"I take upon myself an olah” - he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias (A temple made by Onias in the Egyptian city of Heliopolis, contemporary with the Second Temple in Jerusalem), he has not fulfilled his obligation. “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias” - he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. “I will be a Nazirite” - he must shave in the Temple. And if he shaved in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. " that I will shave in the Temple of Onias” - he must shave in the Temple, but if he shaved in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this one is not a Nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else [a euphemism for idolatry]; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices.

http://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Menachot.13.10?lang=en