Rending of the veil

[TedM]

For those wondering whether there is something to Christian claims, though, the Christian and Jewish cycles of legend appear to be quite different. The Jewish cycle doesn't speak about the tearing of a veil, about a great earthquake (where saints raise from the dead), or about a darkness over the earth for several hours. The Christian cycle doesn't speak about doors opening of themselves, about the western light in the Temple no longer function of itself, of an old man that is the theophanic appearance of God no longer appearing in the temple, or about armies of angels visible in the sky doing battle.

I would add that the accounts that are closest in time to the origin of the Jewish cycle (Josephus, Tacitus) do not place anything 40 years prior.

Thanks. I mistakenly assumed they had...didn't read it all.

[TedM]

Jerome also writes to Hedibia in epistle 120:

In evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum est legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi mirae magnitudinis corruisse.

But in the gospel which is written with Hebraic letters we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple, of marvelous magnitude, fell.

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/m ... [quote]For the huge doors of the Temple behind the Veil to open, of their own accord, or in association with the great earthquake, would cause them to pull powerfully against the Veil, and with the lintel falling, at the same time, could have torn it in two from top to bottom.[/quote]

Logical or ridiculous speculation?

A. F. J. Klijn, on page 94 of Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, lists parallels to this text. First, Christian of Stavelot (century IX) writes: Refert Iosephus superliminare quod infinitum magnitudinis erat fractum esse atque divisum, etiam angelicas virtutes tunc in ipso tempore clamasse: Transeamus ex his sedibus (Josephus says that a lintel of infinite magnitude was broken and divided, and also that angelic forces then at that time exclaimed: Let us leave these regions)

Is this a mistake by Klign? I am not seeing a reference by Josephus to the lintel.

Another claim From the above link:

“Forty years before the destruction of the Temple, the Sanhedrin was BANISHED (from the Chamber of Hewn Stone) and sat in the trading station (on the Temple Mount)” - (Shabbat 15a)

He speculates damage from the earthquake is the reason why.

Another claim -- 40 years prior the Sanhedrin lost the authority to punish by capital punishment:

“...the claim that the Romans retained the sole right of capital punishment (John 18:31) has often been termed a Johanine error,.... But this right is strikingly confirmed by a passage in the Talmud, which says that capital punishment had been taken from the Jews FORTY YEARS before the destruction of the temple in A.D.70 (pSanh. 1:1,7:2)....” - (The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, by Craig Blomberg, Inter-Varsity Press, 1987, p. 179).

True?

The number of claims for strange events 40 years prior -- both Christian and supposedly Jewish sources -- is getting quite high.

[Peter Kirby]

A. F. J. Klijn, on page 94 of Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, lists parallels to this text. First, Christian of Stavelot (century IX) writes: Refert Iosephus superliminare quod infinitum magnitudinis erat fractum esse atque divisum, etiam angelicas virtutes tunc in ipso tempore clamasse: Transeamus ex his sedibus (Josephus says that a lintel of infinite magnitude was broken and divided, and also that angelic forces then at that time exclaimed: Let us leave these regions)

Is this a mistake by Klign? I am not seeing a reference by Josephus to the lintel.

It seems easier to assign a mistake to "Christian of Stavelot" (9th century) than to A. F. J. Klijn.

He speculates damage from the earthquake is the reason why.

Sounds like speculation.

The Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 1.1 states that the Romans took away the right to administer capital punishment from the Sanhedrin. This is, undoubtedly, a historical memory, whether it happened in AD 6 or in AD 70, because Origen informs us of the same. It seems unlikely that the precipitating reason for the Romans making such a choice would be an earthquake that had the Temple damaged; the logic of connecting the removal of the power to render capital sentences and a change of venue (outside of the Temple itself, where capital punishment sentences could be made) is rabbinical hair-splitting, of which the Romans would have been ignorant. Neither does Josephus inform us about an earthquake that damaged the Temple and forced out the Sanhedrin from there. If the Sanhedrin started to meet in a different place and if the Sanhedrin connected this with their inability to administer sentences for capital punishment, hypothetically, the most likely cause would be that the Romans had limited their legal power.

Another claim -- 40 years prior the Sanhedrin lost the authority to punish by capital punishment

Some references.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_41.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=eSsW_DMqt1gC&pg=PA36
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1975-2_094.pdf (p. 102)
https://books.google.com/books?id=GFc-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA188
https://books.google.com/books?id=StasAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA544
https://books.google.com/books?id=JO02AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA186
https://books.google.com/books?id=8B9LAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA8
https://books.google.com/books?id=8B9LAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA15
https://books.google.com/books?id=8B9LAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35

The most immediately-relevant historical evidence are the statements of Josephus:

"AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar." (Jewish War 2.8.1)

"Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews." (Jewish Antiquities 18.1.1)

This took place in AD 6. One scholar attributes the "40 year" figure in the Talmud to a sort of rounding error. If it has any historical basis, it would be.

There is another tradition in the Talmud about this (the right to give capital judgments taken away) happening in AD 70. In general, the whole issue has been a cause of consternation and confusion.

[Kris]

I think the 40 years was coinciental--- I did a lot of studying of Yoma 39, Jerome,Josephus, and even Edershiems famous quote mentioned in this thread. I believe that he was getting the Talmud and Josephus mixed up. Josephus makes no mention of candlesticks--- I checked!!

I think the 40 years inboth stories is simply symbolic of a generation. For the Christians, they thought Jesus would return in within a generation-- after the Jewish war, this had to seem inninent and that the war away Jesus punishing the Jews. and for the Jews, they had to try and explain away why their God didn't "take care of them". And allowed the famous temple tone destroyed. Hence a story of this evil generation. Yoma describes several groupings of 40 years, some with righteous situations, and others with evil situations.

I think that is why both groups have stories addressing the 40 years prior to the temple destruction. Coincidence,possibly, but I think my argument-- as well as some of the previous posters is just as plausible.

[Ben C. Smith]

A. F. J. Klijn, on page 94 of Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, lists parallels to this text. First, Christian of Stavelot (century IX) writes: Refert Iosephus superliminare quod infinitum magnitudinis erat fractum esse atque divisum, etiam angelicas virtutes tunc in ipso tempore clamasse: Transeamus ex his sedibus (Josephus says that a lintel of infinite magnitude was broken and divided, and also that angelic forces then at that time exclaimed: Let us leave these regions)

Is this a mistake by Klign? I am not seeing a reference by Josephus to the lintel.

Klijn is just quoting Christian of Stavelot.

Ben

[TedM]

Another claim -- 40 years prior the Sanhedrin lost the authority to punish by capital punishment

Some references.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/ ... in_41.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=eSsW_DMqt1gC&pg=PA36
http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1975-2_094.pdf (p. 102)
https://books.google.com/books?id=GFc-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA188
https://books.google.com/books?id=StasAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA544
https://books.google.com/books?id=JO02AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA186
https://books.google.com/books?id=8B9LAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA8
https://books.google.com/books?id=8B9LAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA15
https://books.google.com/books?id=8B9LAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA35

The most immediately-relevant historical evidence are the statements of Josephus:

"AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar." (Jewish War 2.8.1)

"Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews." (Jewish Antiquities 18.1.1)

This took place in AD 6. One scholar attributes the "40 year" figure in the Talmud to a sort of rounding error. If it has any historical basis, it would be.

What does your last sentence mean?

There is another tradition in the Talmud about this (the right to give capital judgments taken away) happening in AD 70.

4th century if I read the sources right.

In general, the whole issue has been a cause of consternation and confusion.

For sure. Thanks for the info.

[Peter Kirby]

The most immediately-relevant historical evidence are the statements of Josephus:

"AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar." (Jewish War 2.8.1)

"Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews." (Jewish Antiquities 18.1.1)

This took place in AD 6. One scholar attributes the "40 year" figure in the Talmud to a sort of rounding error. If it has any historical basis, it would be.

What does your last sentence mean?

Exactly 40 years before the destruction of the Temple would be 24 years too late to describe the historical installation of an equestrian governor by the Romans with the power of capital punishment reserved to him. So, if the tradition in the Talmud is based on a historical memory of the Sanhedrin losing this power prior to AD 70, then it does so while providing only an approximation of the actual date when this happened (i.e., which would be, AD 6).

The alternative argument is that the Sanhedrin didn't lose this power until AD 70, as argued by Juster and Winter, but this does not seem to be the best.

[TedM]

Exactly 40 years before the destruction of the Temple would be 24 years too late to describe the historical installation of an equestrian governor by the Romans with the power of capital punishment reserved to him. So, if the tradition in the Talmud is based on a historical memory of the Sanhedrin losing this power prior to AD 70, then it does so while providing only an approximation of the actual date when this happened (i.e., which would be, AD 6).

Ok, or the Talmud was aware of more information than what we are today, and got the date correct as some kind of stronger or more expanded restriction on the Sanhedrin happening at that time. If the place of their meetings changed around that time, then one might speculate that the reason for this might correlate with a change in their authority.

[Peter Kirby]

Exactly 40 years before the destruction of the Temple would be 24 years too late to describe the historical installation of an equestrian governor by the Romans with the power of capital punishment reserved to him. So, if the tradition in the Talmud is based on a historical memory of the Sanhedrin losing this power prior to AD 70, then it does so while providing only an approximation of the actual date when this happened (i.e., which would be, AD 6).

Ok, or the Talmud was aware of more information than what we are today, and got the date correct as some kind of stronger or more expanded restriction on the Sanhedrin happening at that time. If the place of their meetings changed around that time, then one might speculate that the reason for this might correlate with a change in their authority.

Why would you "speculate" any of that?

A. N. Sherwin-White is quite good when it comes to his domain of expertise, which is Roman law. The best argument against Juster and Winter is that, even if it might possibly accord with the historical evidence regarding the Sanhedrin (to say that they still held the legal jurisdiction to try capital crimes after the installation of Coponius), it does not accord with the historical evidence regarding Roman law. The equestrian governor of the province held the power to try capital crimes. A different arrangement could have existed in any particular province prior to direct Roman rule but not afterwards. I recommend reading Sherwin-White's exposition, part of the links above.

[DCHindley]

I think we forget that the temple operated more or less independently of the civil government. If a non-Judean entered the temple enclosure area that was restricted to Israelites, isn't there remains of a sign warning that this would result in their immediate death?

That is not the same, I admit, as a formal trial. However, I think that the temple authorities had the authority to rule on things pertaining to Judean ritual as it related to the temple. There may even have been some cases where somebody, a priest or even a HP, had transgressed a tenet sacred to the majority by introducing a "novelty" to the sacred rituals, and suffered death for it.

This would not apply to minor novelties such as allowing Levites to wear linen like the priests, rather than wool (gawd that must have been horribly uncomfortable for the Levites smelling like a gym locker), or to learn some newer, more "hip" songs to sing. Think guitar masses and female acolytes in the Roman Catholic Church.

Even if so, whatever Jacob the brother of Jesus the being-said Christ did to earn a death sentence at the hands of Ananus seems NOT to have been a religious novelty, as Ananus would then have the right to judge such a matter. He rather seems to have took it on himself to judge a civil matter in lieu of the Roman governor, clearly crossing boundaries of authority. Seems that the great Sanhedrin had other means for dealing with pesky folks that were not introducing serious religious novelties, such as 'accidental' falls and drowning.

12/22/07 http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives/sh ... stcount=86
Jona Lendering, who contributed an article on Josephus to Livius.org … does cite a couple of sources to illuminate the possibility that the account reflects actual practices:

He cites the "third or fourth century" "Tannaite tradition" preserved in the Talmud at "Keth. 30a" (by way of "Strack-Billerbeck ii 197") to the effect:
"... whosoever is guilty of being stoned either falls from the roof or a wild beast tramples him to death ..." which includes other examples of those convicted of death, when there was no power to enforce the decision, accidentally (on purpose) getting killed.

[Bab. Kethuboth 30a-b http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/ ... th_30.html

[a] Did not R. Joseph say. and R. Hiyya teach: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four forms of capital punishment have not ceased? 'They have not ceased,' [you say]? Surely they have ceased! But [say] the judgment of the four forms of capital punishment has not ceased. He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation. is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation.

See also Bab. Sotah 8b http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_8.html

MISHNAH. IN THE MEASURE with which a man measures it is meted out to him. She adorned herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, made her repulsive. She exposed herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, held her up for exposure. She began the transgression with the thigh and afterwards with the womb; therefore she is punished first in the thigh and afterwards in the womb, nor does all the body escape.

GEMARA. R. Joseph said: Although the measure has ceased, [the principle] IN THE MEASURE has not ceased. For R. Joseph said, and similarly taught R. Hiyya: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased to function, the four modes of execution did not cease. But they did cease! — [The meaning is:] The judgment of the four modes of execution did not cease. He who would have been condemned to stoning either falls from a roof [and dies] or a wild beast tramples him [to death]. He who would have been condemned to burning either falls into a fire or a serpent stings him. He who would have been condemned to decapitation is either handed over to the [Gentile] Government or robbers attack him. He who would have been condemned to strangulation either drowns in a river or dies of a quinsy [from Gk kunankhē = dog collar that controls by strangling, latter meaning c 1300 tonsillitis with abscesses].]

Then he cites "Tosephta Kelim, i. 1. 6; Bab. kam., 1 (middle)" to the effect:
"...according to an affirmation on oath of R. 'Eli'ezer, the first pupil of R Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just, 'even a high priest' who on entering the sanctuary is guilty of any breach of the purity laws of the precincts must have 'his skull split with a wooden club.' The barbarous punishment here threatened, like the 'fall from the roof' of the man condemned to be stoned, at once recalls the fate of the 'high priest' James, who was beaten to death with a wooden club by a man whom the Christians regarded as a 'fuller' accidentally on the spot."

[R. Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, Hendrickson: 2002 (KTAV 6 v., 1977-86), vol 2, pg 1576, Sixth Division, Tohorot (Order of Purities), Kelim Baba Qamma 1:6 H.

"He [R. Eliezer [the first pupil of R Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just]] said to him [R. Simon the Modest] 'By the [sacred] service! Even the high priest [who without washing his hands and feet enters the area between the porch and the alter] - they break his head with clubs.'"

DCH