LXX1024 said
Robert,
Thanks! When the authenticity of such a significant piece of a Gospel is called into question, EVERYTHING becomes mere speculation.

Not mere speculation, but the art of plausible historical reconstruction.

On that score, when I did my course on John, I spent a lot of time on verses 14b (the part that comes after "dwelt among us") through 18 of John's Prologue - the verses that just happen to contain the names of Gnostic "aions". (Yes, I've read Elaine Pagels' analysis, as well as Irenaeus' refutation of the Gnostics.) Now, every time I read a commentary that treats those verses as if there was nothing out of the ordinary about them - takes the words at face value - I wince.

Indeed, not at all ordinary!

So maybe I'd better just stop here and resign myself to the likelihood that there will always be questions that can't be answered from a point in time some 2000 years after the events occurred.

They can be tentatively answered in the peer-reviewed work of historians and other scholars. Definitively answered, no, but a scholarly consensus of a large number of historico-critical scholars is not nothing.

At least we DO still have John's Prologue - maybe the most significant (for Christians) piece of theology in the entire Bible. If anyone calls into question the authenticity of verses 1 (In the beginning) through 14a (and dwelt among us), I'm just going to have to tune that out. 

We certainly agree on that!

Thanks! When the authenticity of such a significant piece of a Gospel is called into question, EVERYTHING becomes mere speculation.

On that score, when I did my course on John, I spent a lot of time on verses 14b (the part that comes after "dwelt among us") through 18 of John's Prologue - the verses that just happen to contain the names of Gnostic "aions". (Yes, I've read Elaine Pagels' analysis, as well as Irenaeus' refutation of the Gnostics.) Now, every time I read a commentary that treats those verses as if there was nothing out of the ordinary about them - takes the words at face value - I wince.

So maybe I'd better just stop here and resign myself to the likelihood that there will always be questions that can't be answered from a point in time some 2000 years after the events occurred.

At least we DO still have John's Prologue - maybe the most significant (for Christians) piece of theology in the entire Bible. If anyone calls into question the authenticity of verses 1 (In the beginning) through 14a (and dwelt among us), I'm just going to have to tune that out.

LXX1024 said
... But when Jesus comes before them for trial, they don't act like people with so much Greek background. Perhaps not everyone who was exposed to Greek philosophical concepts was equally open to receiving them. The cries of "He has blasphemed" when Jesus accepted the title "Son of God" at his trial (Matthew 26:63 - 66) tell me that Caiaphas had probably heard of the "Logos doctrine" (the belief that the Word of God was a Person) and had rejected it. (If he had never heard of it, he might have asked Jesus to say a little more about how he came to make this extraordinary claim. But he jumped directly to the charge of blasphemy.)

This part of the trial before the Roman-created and staffed  sunedrion (subsequently a Greek loanword into Aramaic as the Sanhedrin, the most important of the sunedria created by Aulus Gabinius in 57 BCE) if not the whole trial, is almost certainly histirical fiction created by the author of the gospel of Mark (or less likely a pre-Markan passion narrative). Much more plausible from an historical perspective is that Jesus was condemned for the claim that he was the Messiah, ie, the king of the Judeans, which was certainly punishable by death if defiance the of the Roman Senate and Emperor). The sunedria had the express purpose of eliminating or blunting the role of any Judean dynasty having a claim to royal power. Thus it and Pilate and any other Roman official would have been disposed to the execution of Jesus. The accusation against Jesus nailed his cross was indeed, "King of the Jews," which was never a Christian title and which is thus probably historical.

Or perhaps Caiaphas allowed his political ambitions to take priority - although it is hard to imagine anyone who thought that there might be even a smidgen of truth in the Logos doctrine to operate in that way when he comes face to face with someone who JUST MIGHT be the Son of God.
Of course, this is all speculative. I wouldn't normally think in these terms. But I've been watching a lot of Agatha Christie mysteries lately.

I agree this is highly speculative, but the author(s) of the gospel of John may have been inclined to a similar thought rocess in their reading of the synoptic accounts, especially the gospel of Mark.

Thanks for responding! I did most of my digging in preparation for leading a study group on the Gospel of John in my parish (Episcopal). I love the Prologue to John's Gospel - I'm old enough to remember hearing it in Latin as "The Last Gospel" in every Roman Catholic Mass up until Vatican II (I was brought up Catholic) - and wanted to learn all I could about its origin. I recently took Bart's course on "Did Jesus think he was God?" There was a lot of pertinent information there, but some of my questions remained to be answered.

I didn't know anything about the high priests of the Temple in Jerusalem other than their names. So I thank you for the background information.

But when Jesus comes before them for trial, they don't act like people with so much Greek background. Perhaps not everyone who was exposed to Greek philosophical concepts was equally open to receiving them. The cries of "He has blasphemed" when Jesus accepted the title "Son of God" at his trial (Matthew 26:63 - 66) tell me that Caiaphas had probably heard of the "Logos doctrine" (the belief that the Word of God was a Person) and had rejected it. (If he had never heard of it, he might have asked Jesus to say a little more about how he came to make this extraordinary claim. But he jumped directly to the charge of blasphemy.)

Or perhaps Caiaphas allowed his political ambitions to take priority - although it is hard to imagine anyone who thought that there might be even a smidgen of truth in the Logos doctrine to operate in that way when he comes face to face with someone who JUST MIGHT be the Son of God.

Of course, this is all speculative. I wouldn't normally think in these terms. But I've been watching a lot of Agatha Christie mysteries lately.

A long-standing trend in NT and Second-Temple Judaic studies has emphasized that the aristocratic elites in Jerusalem and other cities in Israel were already rather well Hellenized. Note already the Gymnasium established by Jason the high priest in the 170s BCE as well as the Antonia Fortress, the Theater, and the Amphitheater / Hippodrome built by Herod the Great. Herod also brought the family of the eventually six Bothusian high priests from Alexandria to Jerusalem. This would hold for the long reigning House of Annas; note especially the 18-year reign of Caiaphas including long collaborations with both Valerius Gratus and Pontius Pilate. We also see Greek influence in the third and final part of the Hebrew scriptures, the Writings, especially in Qoheleth and the Wisdom of Solomon. The Sadducees would have become Hellenized, especially those who would later be known as Epicureans in the Talmud. 

In John's Gospel (7:35), when Jesus says that he will go away for a little while, some of the crowd wonder whether He will go to the Diaspora (Greek / English interlinears use that exact word - English translations vary) and teach the Greeks.

It was natural for those Greek - speaking Jews to look for common ground between Hebrew scripture and secular (I prefer that to "pagan") Greek philosophy. And Jewish scholars like Philo found a great deal of common ground, noting the parallels between the philosphers' "Logos doctrine" and the Hebrew "Wisdom" tradition (Proverbs 8:22 et seq). Modern Jewish author Daniel Boyarin, in his book "Border Lines", makes a case for the existence of a substantial community of Hellenistic Jews who saw the "Logos" as a person - to some, a "second power in heaven". This brought them right to the brink of what Boyarin called "binitarianism" - the belief that God might have begotten a son.

These developments, if I've stated them properly, have profound consequences for both Judaism and Christianity.
They lead me to make a number of observations and speculations, on which comments will be greatly appreciated.

The Jews of Jerusalem (and Judea in general) were looking for a Messiah, but not for a Son of God. I don't know whether the Temple authorities had gotten word of what was going on in Alexandria, but if they had - being, presumably, firm believers in the Deuteronomic view that the Lord is one - they might have been prejudiced against Jesus before He even began His ministry.
The Jews of Alexandria (and in other centers of the Diaspora, including Ephesus, where John moved his community when the environment in Judea became too hostile) would seem to be open to hearing about a Son of God, but perhaps not so much about a Messiah. These differences might account for the differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptics about who Jesus was, and why he came here.
The prologue to John's Gospel (up to verse 13) has much in common with Philo's writings. Robert M. Grant, in "Jesus After The Gospels", sees a great deal of literary common ground, although not enough to draw a firm conclusion. In John's first epistle, the first verse of Chapter 2 ("If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father...") comes pretty much directly from Philo. Of course, John then added the words which only he could have supplied - in verse 14 of his Gospel, "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us", and in verse 2 of his Epistle, "Jesus Christ the righteous."
My general feeling about John's writings is that they are closely tied to the Septuagint. I suspect that Jerome might have valued the parallel construction between John and Genesis that when he developed his Vulgate, he began both books with "In principio" - one of the few times when he chose the Greek text over the corresponding Hebrew.

In the second century, Aquila revised the Septuagint. One of his many changes was to remove "En arche" from Genesis, and replace it with a word (which I haven't been able to locate) derived from Hebrew. Some observers have said that he did this to make the text less useful to Christians. But I believe it is more likely that he did this to break the connection between the LXX and Greek secular philosophy. 
I'll conclude with possibly my most speculative line. In order for Jesus to carry out his mission on Earth, he needed one group of people who would hand him over to be crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, and another group of people who would build a Church around His life story. And that's precisely what he got.

Kris said
For me, i grew up in a very fundamentalist religion and things like the temples were indicators of the end of the world.  Being in this type of religion really messed me up so i have tried to find discrepancies to show myself not to worry about these kinds of things. I always took comfort in the fact that the bible never mentions a third temple. It freaked me out when i found out Tobit might.   
  

Hi Kris,

Welcome to the forum!

I don't know much about Tolbit. I have heard that there were actually two temples in the 2nd Temple period. One built by the Jews newly returned from Babylon, and then one built by Herod. 

I've had some confusion about "the end of the world" messages that we get in the bible myself. Realize, however, that at the very end of the bible, in the book of Revelation, there is the New Jerusalem. The New Jerusalem is like 1,500 miles cubed; it is a very big place. There is also the inside of the NJ and the outside of it as well. The earth is still here. - - I've wondered and have even been told, by a preacher's wife that "the end of the world" actually means the end of worldliness or a kind of worldliness, or "the end of the world as we know it," so to speak.

I've also been told that "fear of God" should actually be translated as "awe of God".

Sorry that I don't know more, but I hope this helps.

Welcome again to the forum. 

NRSVue:* But God will again have mercy on them, and God will bring them back into the land of Israel; and they will rebuild the temple of God, but not like the first one until the period when the times of fulfillment shall come. After this they all will return from their exile and will rebuild Jerusalem in splendor; and in it the temple of God will be rebuilt, just as the prophets of Israel have said concerning it. 6 Then the nations in the whole world will all be converted and worship God in truth. They will all abandon their idols, which deceitfully have led them into their error; 7 and in righteousness they will praise the eternal God. All the Israelites who are saved in those days and are truly mindful of God will be gathered together; they will go to Jerusalem and live in safety forever in the land of Abraham, and it will be given over to them. Those who sincerely love God will rejoice, but those who commit sin and injustice will vanish from all the earth.

I've color coded the original temple of Solomon in red, the temple rebuilt after the Babylonian Exile in blue, and the eschatological temple in green.

Carey A. Moore in his Anchor Bible Commentary on the book of Tobit, p 291, cites Ezra 3,12–13 as evidence that the "returning exiles who remembered the Solomonic Temple wept over the inferior foundations of the postexilic one. Not until around 20 BCE, in the days of Herod the Great (37–4 BCE), did the Second Temple begin to surpass the greatness of the First Temple."

But many of the priests and Levites and heads of families, old people who had seen the first house on its foundations, wept with a loud voice when they saw this house, though many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people’s weeping, for the people shouted so loudly that the sound was heard far away.

I would also note that the gospel of Mark may provide indirect evidence that Jesus himself predicted a miraculous coming of a third temple, evidence that it seeks to discredit in Mk 14,56-59:

For many gave false testimony against him, and their testimony did not agree. Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, “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.’” But even on this point their testimony did not agree.

Instead of this, Mark seems to merely portray Jesus as predicting the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, which would have occurred sometime prior to his writing of the gospel.  

*Note that the NRSVue's reconstruction of the underlying text makes eclectic text-critical choices from GI (Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Vulgate), especially Greek GII witnesses (DSS 4Q198, Codex Sinaiticus, Old Latin), but based on a review of NETS GI and GII, I think the three-fold temple scheme is present in all of the available evidence.

NETS G1:

But again God will have mercy on them, and he will bring them back into the land, and they will build the house, not like the former one, until the appointed times of the age will be completed. Then after this they will return from their captivities, and they will build Ierousalem honorably. And the house of God will be built in it as a glorious building for all the generations of the age, just as the prophets said concerning it. Then all the nations will turn back truly to fear the Lord God, and they will bury their idols. And all the nations will bless the Lord, and his people will acknowledge God, and the Lord will exalt his people. And all who love the Lord God in truth and righteousness will rejoice, showing mercy to our kindred.

NETS G2 critical reconstruction:

But again God will have mercy on them, and God will bring them back into the land of Israel, and again they will build the house, but not like the first one, until the time when the time of the appointed times [of the age] will be completed. Then after this they all will return from their captivity [ies], and they will build Ierousalem honorably. And the house of God will be built in it [as a glorious building for all the generations of the age], just as the prophets of Israel said concerning it. 6 Then all the nations in the whole world will turn back and truly fear God. And all will abandon their idols, which deceitfully have made them err in their error. 7 And they will bless the God of the ages in righteousness. All the sons of Israel who are saved in those days, mindful of God in truth, will be gathered together. And they will go into Ierousalem and live forever in the land of Abraam with security, and it will be given over to them. And those who love God in truth will rejoice, but those who commit sin and injustice will vanish from all the earth.

Wow, the last time I remember reading the book of Tobit would have been the Summer of 1978, 'though I must have read it at least once again within the next few years. So I'm no expert on the book of Tobit!

But I do think he is referring to a third temple that would serve the needs of the fully reconstituted Israel in Jerusalem along with all of the gentile converts. Not sure if he's specifically referencing Ezekiel's temple, 'though I would think that's certainly a possibility. Why do you want to discount this as some type of proof that there were writings about a third temple being rebuilt?

Even though scholars generally agree that Tobit was written in the late 3rd to early 2nd century BCE, the events described in the story take place during the 8th-century BCE, during the Assyrian exile (around 722 BCE).  So, the prophesy of the Temple being destroyed is about the First Temple, and the prophesy of the temple being rebuilt is about the Second Temple.   The biblical book of Daniel is similar in being about ancient times but actually written much later.  

I'm not completely familiar with the idea of a Third temple except that it is associated with the Parousia, the "End Times".  But then you also have traditions that indicate there is no need for another Temple since God will be present with his people in the Kingdom. 

Hope that helps. 

I know that in the Bible there is no mention of a third temple, but wasn’t sure if Tobit is speaking to that. Could Tobit also be trying to add in prophecy to support Ezekiel‘s temple not yet being built in his time and is that what he is talking about?

Any help that anyone can provide on this information would be greatly appreciated. I am just trying to discount this as some type of proof that there were writings about a third temple being rebuilt.

One of the aspects of Merkabah that most fascinates me is that it is a communal mysticism, meaning that one does not have one's own unique, personal experience.  There are pre-ordained paths that one must prepare oneself for before embarking on the journey. 

I seem to have left this thread hanging.   Too bad since this is an area of ongoing interest. 

joetherob said
Merkavah is a great example of how cosmogonical motifs diffuse into the transcendant experience. Mystics draw upon internal temporal manifestations of their subconscious to decorate the spiritual journey of henosis with familiar furnishings to lessen anxiety...the throne chariot, visions of a royal court, etc. are features that obscure and prevent authentic integration with the divine consciousness. True integration with the divine consciousness requires the embrace of nothingness. 
  

Hi Joe, if you're new to the forum, welcome.

Is it "nothingness," or nothing visible or temporal, that you are referring to?