Dating of Hebrews after the 70 CE?

[davidbrainerd]

If he's making sacrifices in a tabernacle (tent) then its because the temple is not standing. Did the priests after the first war put a tent on the ruins of the temple? The banning of Jews from Jerusalem didn't happen till after the 2nd war....so may be.

In addition to that possibility: The author says nothing about the temple. He speaks of Moses' tabernacle, made according to a pattern shown to him by God, and of a true tabernacle in heaven that was the prototype. His priests who "stand daily" do so in Moses' tabernacle "made according to the pattern shown him on the mount" NOT in the temple. He could be writing in 150 AD imagining that the tabernacle was still in use in 50/60 AD due to ignorance. Or his priests who "stand daily ministering" can be in the ideal past, as his tabernacle obviously is. I've seen this since childhood. Its obvious he is not speaking of the temple as still standing. He could also be writing to Samaritans rather than Jews, and his tabernacle could be the one on Gerizim. There is nothing to suggest the temple is still standing at the time this was written other than apologetic imagination.

[Giuseppe]

Who wrote the following passage:

For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

...was posing deliberately as someone who lived before the 70 and knew in advance that the earthly Jerusalem couldn't endure longer (because it would be destroyed shortly after by Titus).

If the author of Hebrews was able of a so great simulation, then why couldn't a pseudo-Paul do the same?

Vice versa, if the passage is really pre-70, how could be that two independent writers (Paul and the author of Hebrews) could prophetize both that the earthly Jerusalem was doomed fatally in the next future?

Only a fool as Jesus son of Ananias could prophetize the destruction of Jerusalem before the 70.

[Giuseppe]

A similar problem is faced in Gal 4:25 :

Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children

Could Jerusalem be in slavery under Herod? Or only under Rome?

[Giuseppe]

Note that Hagar is slave of Abraham only during his presence in company of Abraham. When she is abandoned in the wilderness, she is officially "freed" by Abraham and not more slave. Therefore the present Jerusalem is Hagar only insofar she is considered as still slave of Abraham. This remembers Barabbas, who is free but only when he is released in the wilderness (assuming the midrash from Leviticus 16). The earthly Jerusalem will be "freed" when it will be destroyed and the Diaspora will happen.

[davidbrainerd]

A similar problem is faced in Gal 4:25 :

Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children

Could Jerusalem be in slavery under Herod? Or only under Rome?

I always thought it meant in slavery to the Torah.

[Ulan]

Regarding German NT scholarship, the majority dates Hebrews between 80 and 90 CE (or somewhat broader). Reasons are that the epistle already looks back on the beginnings of Jesus tradition, has a developed idea of these traditions (Hebr. 2,3; 13,7), is situated after a period of persecution (Hebr 10, 32-34) and is close to 1Clem. The temple question is usually dismissed as the text doesn't deal with the Herodian temple but OT traditions about the tabernacle.

Of course, there are also scholars that date it before the temple destruction. As usual, you can take your pick.

[outhouse]

if the passage is really pre-70, how could be that two independent writers (Paul and the author of Hebrews) could prophetize both that the earthly Jerusalem was doomed fatally in the next future?

Only a fool as Jesus son of Ananias could prophetize the destruction of Jerusalem before the 70.

Anyone with half a brain back then knew factually the temple had the Romans sword hanging over it, and the people ready to rebel against perversion of their god in the temple.

Its like admitting you are completely ignorant to the political divisions between oppressed people and the Romans oppressing them.

Hell they had to have a Roman fort built into the temple to keep peace and the money flowing to Rome.

[John T]

I think it is just the opposite.

The high priest is still conducting sin offerings at the tabernacle therefore, the temple is still standing.

Perhaps Hebrews 13:11 refers to a tabernacle, yet, as you say,

• The author of Hebrews is trying to compare and contrast the current different locations that sacrifices for sin took place.

confirmation that sacrifices are still taking place in that enduring city.

Yet Hebrews 13:14 says "For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come."

The Temple in Jerusalem is a continuing of tabernacle blood sacrifices of animals.
The city that is to come is the heavenly New Jerusalem based on the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

You don't have to believe in Jesus to understand that Hebrews was written before 70 C.E.

Hence lies the error of your misunderstanding.

[MrMacSon]

• The city that is to come is the heavenly New Jerusalem based on the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

• Perhaps. Perhaps there is another or more than one perception.

[John T]

• The city that is to come is the heavenly New Jerusalem based on the blood sacrifice of Jesus.

• Perhaps. Perhaps there is another or more than one perception.

Yes. You can perceive what you what to perceive and try to convince others of your false perception but that does not make it the same as the plain language of the author of Hebrews.