Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

From Hebrews 13:

11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

Is the claim
''For here we do not have an enduring city''
evidence of the fact that Jerusalem was already destroyed when the author wrote the epistle?

Giuseppe wrote:
From Hebrews 13:

11 The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. 12 And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood. 13 Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore. 14 For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.

Is the claim ''For here we do not have an enduring city'' evidence of the fact that Jerusalem was already destroyed when the author wrote the epistle?

This raises several issues for me: -

1. How much was Jerusalem really destroyed ~70 ad ??

2. Could this refer to The 2nd Roman-Jewish War (the Bar Kochba Revolt)

• eg. 12 "And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood." 13 "Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore"

and

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

3. If the main or only record of what happened ~70 ad is Josephus eg. "De bello Jud.", could aspects of his literature have been later redacted or embellished, perhaps by transplanting aspect of the 2nd Roman-Jewish War into accounts of the 1st Roman-Jewish War.

.

I think it is just the opposite.
The high priest is still conducting sin offerings at the tabernacle therefore, the temple is still standing.

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

Hebrews is saying the method for forgiving sin is different for Jewish Christians who are no longer bound to animal sacrifices that still take place at the city temple.

Clearly, Hebrews was written before 70 B.C.E. because no mention is made of the temple's destruction but confirmation that sacrifices are still taking place in that enduring city.

John T wrote:
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.

John T wrote:
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."

@MacSon,

I'm not sure what the confusion is.

Hebrews was written for Hebrew Christians who were considering returning to Judaism and temple sacrifices.

The compare and contrast is to show that Christ is superior to the sacrifices made by the high priest at the temple.

If the temple was not still standing at the time of the writing, the mega-theme of Hebrews would not make sense. Hence evidence that Hebrews was composed before 70 C.E.

Perhaps a better argument for the anti-Christs (Gnostic/mythicist) would be to ask, what is the order of Melchizedek, i.e. the city that is to come? Hebrews 5:5-10.

But that would put us back into Essene territory and we know how this forum loathes to go there.

John T

Before 70 CE makes sense, but before 70 'BCE' looks like a typo.

MrMacSon wrote: 1. How much was Jerusalem really destroyed ~70 ad ??

FUBAR 70 ce is attributed as fact.

The use of tabernacle terminology in Hebrews has been used to date the epistle before the destruction of the temple, the idea being that knowing about the destruction of both Jerusalem and the temple would have influenced the development of the author's overall argument. Therefore, the most probable date for its composition is the second half of the year 63 or the beginning of 64, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia

John T wrote:I think it is just the opposite.
The high priest is still conducting sin offerings at the tabernacle therefore, the temple is still standing.

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.

Peter Kirby wrote:Before 70 CE makes sense, but before 70 'BCE' looks like a typo.

Thanks Peter,
Correction made.