Temples and Sacrifice...

[Scott Mayers]

I've written on this before as my "theories" of religious origin elsewhere. I thought it might be nice to rewrite something on this as a help to understand much of the political issues. These may be better to call, "conjectures', but the validity of them can be rationally deduced if we take what we all know without biasing history with particular religious interpretations.

Basically, my "Temple Theory" says that the origin of this was NOT as a religious place of worship for one or more gods. They were literal meeting places of tribes that act as the officiating place to contracts (treaties) and the accounting of 'ownership' to tribes who initially were still hunter-gatherers. "Sacrifice Theory" is an extension of this that holds that the act of sacrifices that evolve within temples are NOT to 'gods'. They were the ONLY means to assure that contracts were met and had to be literal and extreme initially.

Temples Theory (conjecture)

"Temple" (from 'temp-') is a term that hints at its original meaning as a 'temporary' place to meet. The origins began in agriculture but prior to universal settlement. When people began to notice they could capture and domesticate some of the animals they trapped AND the link of the food sources of grass by the herds of cattle to cycles of growth related to seeds, purposeful planting of seeds by some tribes during certain seasons made them realize they could set up plots of land by sowing seeds that they can return to upon their regular ROUTES of transient hunting and gathering. 

At first, many tribes simply gambled that their harvest would be their in time when they get there again in the fall. However, respect for which tribes put effort onto which plots would eventually break down to distrust when they would be unable to 'prove' which properties they worked on. As such, harvests might get stolen by others before the sowing tribes working hard on them returned. This would have lead to a need to meet and negotiate between distinct tribes to determine some ways to assure each tribe's plots were theirs. Because every tribe was unique with different backgrounds of history, they had to find a way to communicate 'proof' in a common way exclusive of any specific culture. 

An early idea was to have something uniquely identifying each tribe by what they are best known for. Writing would not be yet sufficient to agree to collectively. They also had no certain way with marks on wood that could easily rot. The first ways then were to BURY some unique identifier to each tribe, like a stone figurine, that the in-group recognizes as theirs and in a way that other tribes relates to the stereotypes about them uniquely. Artistic solids, like the "idols", would be easiest at first. You don't need to know symbols and everyone can relatively make them with identifying characteristics of their own group. 

But this would also be insufficient given one could possibly discover the idols hidden in the claimed lands and there was no certain way to be sure no other could counterfeit them.

This is where the temple comes about. Each tribe agrees to initially create a structure that monumentalizes each tribes' signature images that coincide with idols that get buried on the claimed plots. Some used "pockets", which were clay molds of counting objects (sub-idols) that represented property concepts and eventually 'measures' where possible. So a count of ones sheep might be made using a conventional shape agreed to by the 'priests' at the temple who were each of a representative of the trust of each tribe. These counted idols of things would be placed in a clay 'envelope' and kilned (treated to harden by heat) with a 'signature' by the priest official to the group. (a ring or stamp could be used, for instance) When the tribes meet for harvest or sowing, if there is any conflict, each tribe in contention can find their hidden idols and map them to the signatures of the priest assigned to that signature at the temple. 

THIS was the main original function....a place that can PROVE original 'ownership' concepts of tribes. As such, these appear as "religious" only by the nature of each priest and the symbols that were needed to uniquely identify each group. This is only accidental, not essential as to take any particular group's opinion about reality as absolute. They likely took it lightly in a similar way to our North American counterparts. "Animism" is not even essentially believed. The language evolution also needs stories to help remember and spread the memes that coincidentally become the source for future religions, by accident.

Sacrifice

A second factor that the Temple evolved to do (possibly in distinct separate places and times), is to make TREATIES between tribes as well as the evolving independent individuals of growing settlements. This is best done by 'sacrifice'. But we treat the topic about the past as oddly supernatural crap. I believe this too is wrong. It works on the same principle as gangs in some of today's streets. To assure one is sufficiently trustworthy among initiating gangs, a crime is sometimes expected of the initiate because it assures a means to equally incriminate them in a way they can use against them should they prove to be insincere. The crime HAS to be random, a sincere 'sacrifice', and one such that NO ONE gains from the literal thing/person being sacrificed. I can't kill my mother, for instance, given this may simply benefit the other party (the gang one is signing in to); one might conceive the LOSS of a family member by another as a relative benefit by the nature of 'weakening' the power of the initiate unbalanced. 

The original 'sacrifices' had to be public and had to be (a) of VALUE to the party sacrificing, (b) of irrelevant or no VALUE to the party being sacrificed to, and (c) reciprocated in kind. The only best way to do this is to utterly destroy both parties objects publicly in a way that doesn't benefit anyone. The most obvious KIND of sacrifice would be to one's food sources. But this could possibly be a person too. If both tribes sacrifice a loved one, this can work. However, animal sacrifices would be most universal. The 'ceremony' is the MARRIAGE of the contract between the parties. This is what the Temples served. 

 

But these factors in time would have lost a posterity of citizens in a place that no longer remembers the initial causes.

I believe that the "Pharoah" or "kings/moses" were initially ELECT tribes and their select leader who had to trade times to POLICE the Temple and its arising civilization. The tribes could have recognized this by trading off years where one tribe HAD to give up the hunting/gathering to serve the collective. But eventually, one tribe may have specialized more in the arts of 'policing' to such a degree they were trusted. The initial leaders, as those who built the pyramids, would thus likely NOT be a 'ruler' but a "sheriff" (shire reef- land-lord/caretaker). They didn't have to have the same beliefs about origins and nor did the people. But as this history would get forgotten and rulers evolved to be more abusive and controlling, some would declare a 'rightful' true group's origin to power along with their specific ancestral tribe's favored beliefs and language. This is what I think happened with Akhenaten. At first, many would have liked him without thinking he posed any threat. But his popularity also caused intolerance of and increasing segregation of different and a rebirth (with reinterpretation) of other's tribal ancestors. 

Akhenaten was likely the "moses" of the bible. But this may have happened a few times and so may not be specific to him. Note that Akhenaten was banned IN HIS RULE to stop destroying other Egyptian histories as he was doing. So they kicked him out to the desert, if he and his 'believers' should still choose to hold fast. This is the ruin "Amarna", I believe. This was likely the meaning of the Biblical story that has Moses in the desert for 40 years (a generation-length of people).

The remnant obelisks, that represented the "laws" later likely became the 'covenant' in broken stones in 'Sinai'. The 'ark' was likely their 'sled/boat' that could carry these on both land and waters. 

I only intended to speak of the temple and sacrifice itself. But these help link it to present Israel. Israel was likely the last post of the reign of Assyrian (Asher- ian) leaders of the last Kingdoms, such as Akhenaten, Tut, and Rameses. When Egypt 'fell' by Alexandrian times, the home of the original links were divided (maybe as the origin of "David" etymologically) So, the temple in Jerusalem was likely an outpost of the Assyrian's Egyptian reign of which a future disgruntled peoples lost to their lands reclaimed the Temple as uniquely about Palestine [Judah and Israel] 

Note "Is-ra-el" as "I see Thee (god/gods)".

Well, thankyou if you read and hope that you can contribute to this and possibly use this for other political issues we speak of here. 

 

Scott.