Temple Talk

by peacefulpete 8 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  peacefulpete

  Recall the famous charge made against Jesus in his trial in the Gospel Mark:

  “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”

  Matt has a shorter version which likely reflects what he saw in his copy of Mark *:

  “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.’”

  Whether the authors understood Jesus as having actually said that is uncertain as both say this charge is brought by false witnesses. G.John on the other hand takes places the line in Jesus' mouth and offers an explanation as a symbolic metaphor. Temple=Jesus's body. (theological problems aside).

  Regardless, something I had never learned as a JW was the second temple period expectation that the Temple would be destroyed and subsequently rebuilt by the Messiah. The primary text lending to this is Zech 6:12

  12Then say to him, ‘The LORD of armies says this: “Behold, there is a Man whose name is [f]Branch, for He will [g]branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. 13Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the majesty and sit and rule on His throne..."

  While a lot from that period has been lost, sometimes we get lucky. The famous and renown first century Rabbi Yohana ben Zakkai is quoted as declaring after the doors of the Temple opened by themselves:

  "O Temple, Temple, why dost thou frighten thyself? I know of thee that thou shalt be destroyed; Zechariah the son of Iddo [Zech. xi. 1] has already prophesied concerning thee: 'Open thy doors, O Lebanon, that the fire may devour thy cedars'"

  The same R.Yohanan is said to have spoken with general Vespasian, addressed him as Lord Emperor to which Vespasian objected given he was not the emperor to which R, Yohanan announced:

  "If you are not the king you will be eventually, because the Temple will only be destroyed by a king's hand".

  As we know shortly later he did become the Emperor so millions of Jews see him as a prophet. But note the resignation with the Temple being destroyed.

  There is more on this topic, but what do you think? If one of the most influential Pharisee of the time interpreted Zechariah as foretelling the destruction of the Temple so that it could be rebuilt by the Messiah, why the accusation in Mark? Was it evidence that he was declaring himself the Jewish Messiah? Why does Mark seem to be insisting the charge was a lie? Was the writer indicating Jesus was not the Messiah they were expecting?

  As for the author of G.John he seems to be in his own way also distancing Jesus from the charge by reinterpreting it as a prophecy of Jesus's death and resurrection. Maybe feeling the need to after the many years the Temple was not fully rebuilt. (btw. they did start)

  *(G.Mark was likely interpolated to harmonize with John's spiritual take.)

  Discuss.
• 

  truth_b_known

  The Book of Mark or the Gospel According to Mark is probably the on book in the entire Bible of any value.

  The Book of Matthew or the Gospel According to Matthew (Matthias) is a plagiarized version of the Book of Mark intended for Jewish readers.

  The Book of Luke or the Gospel According to Luke is a plagiarized version of the Book of Mark intended for Roman readers.

  The Book of John or the Gospel According to John is a plagiarized version of the Book of Mark with some added make-believe miracles and the deifying of Jesus.

  Jesus was a faith healer who had a psychedelic experience induced from starvation and dehydration. This led Jesus to being Enlightened. Jesus used the Jewish mythology to teach his fellow Jews what he had learned. The Book of Mark sums this up nicely.

  So, in short, whatever is in Mark is more likely to be true if true. By the time the Book of John rolls around a lot of magical nonsense has been added to the story and the whole point of Jesus life and ministry is glossed right over in favor of "Jesus is God in human form" and "salvation is all that matters".

  To the point - Jesus is not the Messiah the Jews were anticipating. If Jesus were the Jews would have overthrown the Roman Empire and Jesus would have been the King of the Earth right then and there.
• 

  peacefulpete

  You likely know the Gospels were written anonymously. Some editor in the 2nd century gave them names using some tradition perhaps. That the same person named them all is evident from the same formula "The Gospel According to...). I can't really call it plagiarism then. They were local community revisions. And there were many as is even evidenced in the opening of G.Luke where the author said there were many.

  Interestingly the root document, G.Mark, is written with a structure and character of a public performance in the style of other playwrights of the day. (I'm abbreviating this position but if you like it can be examined in depth by googling.) That raises some interesting new questions. Was the play written for didactic purposes? an introduction of Christianity to a Jewish or Greek audience? Since nearly every story element was drawn from the Tanakh and other earlier works related to the Tanakh (and Homer), I see it as much like movies and plays we call historical fiction. According to this reconstruction, it became available as a transcript and became popular enough that revisions and expansions of it were distributed, each with a particular shade. Voila, we have the Synoptics. They shaped Christianity and the world like no other writing. And sadly the playwright must go nameless.

  G.John like many other gospels of the second century reflects a hybrid Christianity of the post-Synoptic era. IMO it actually represents an earlier gnostic stage struggling to blend with the Jewish Messianic branches of Christianity rooted on the Synoptics. It stands as different from the Synoptics precisely because the community that created it was different. It's impossible to understand their positions without understanding the Jewish gnosticism and wisdom traditions.
• 

  Phizzy

  Thank you PP ! before I read this Thread I didn't think of the possibility that "Mark" was written as a Play , purely for entertainment perhaps, or maybe with a didactic motive as well.

  What you suggest as to several Copies makes sense, it was already noted that, if memory serves, "Luke" and "Matthew", though reproducing the bulk of "Mark" , they differ on the wording in places, most likely meaning different copies in front of them as they wrote their Fiction. This make more sense if it were a Play, the Scribes making copies would not be as careful perhaps with a Play as they would with a supposed devotional Work.

  The writers of Matthew and Luke did not think it was a Play though ?? but maybe thought that the content was factual, even if dramatized ?
• 

  Diogenesister

  The same R.Yohanan is said to have spoken with general Vespasian, addressed him as Lord Emperor to which Vespasian objected given he was not the emperor to which R, Yohanan announced:

  "If you are not the king you will be eventually, because the Temple will only be destroyed by a king's hand"

  Absolutely fascinating I had no idea and certainly didn't know about the temple destruction expectation. Why would the people react so negatively to Jesus taking about rebuilding the temple, then, after all someone had to be the messiah and rebuild it??

  I'm afraid I'm not knowledgeable enough to contribute or "discuss" but I've certainly learned a lot!

  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  Among Christians there is great confusion about the NT temple concept. For example, there is no temple in heaven. As for the earthly temple, it's much closer than one thinks. Paul explains:

  16 Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you?
  17 If someone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him. For God's temple is holy, which is what you are. (1 Cor. 3:16, 17)
  16 And what mutual agreement does the temple of God have with idols? For we are the temple of the living God, just as God said, "I will live in them and will walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." (2 Cor. 6:16)
  21 In him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord,
  22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. (Eph. 2:21-22; cf. 1 Pet. 2:4-9 NET)
• 

  peacefulpete

  https://www.amazon.com/Two-Gospels-Mark-Performance-Text/dp/0578505312

  Phizzy, splitting hairs just to clarify the suggestion by Danila Oder. She follows the suggestion of a number of scholars before in recognizing many elements about G.Mark having relationship to theater. Her proposal is that the play form of what we now call Mark was subsequently summarized into a narrative that retained the 5 act format. This narrative then took on a life of its own so that by 20-30 years later it had been expanded eventually including birth story and incorporated more 'sayings' that were in either oral form or part of the hypothetical Q document.

  It is my opinion that Q can be dispensed and follow Goodacre/Farrer reconstruction of (Mark-Matt+Mark-Luke).
• 

  Fisherman

  “I will build it up “ is also symbolic poetic language because dead Jesus could not raise himself up from the dead referring to the temple of his body being resurrected. It is also an ironic allusion to the Temple that would be destroyed and replaced by the new Jerusalem consisting of his joint heirs and himself in heaven. Jerusalem will be trampled by the nations— trampled implies the earth compared to heavenly Jerusalem which cannot be trampled.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Fish.... I understand you to be saying the Temple was a metaphor for Jesus' body which was a metaphor for the new Jerusalem which is a metaphor for the church.