Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Well, it's also in Thomas 71 in a much more primitive form ("I will destroy this house and nobody will be able to rebuild it"), so that's a triple independent attestation.

You could also make an argument for dissimilarity with regards to a prediction that the Temple would be destroyed in that the Gospels are increasingly apologetic about it, and Mark denies that he said it at all, saying those who accused him of saying it were lying.

There's also the Jesus ben Ananias story in Josephus which is proof of concept that doomsayer predictions about the Temple not only occurred before it actually happened, but that the doomsayers could upset people at the Temple and be punished for it.

Does any of this warrant Ehrman's certainty? Probably not, but it needs to be explained why a prophecy that the Temple would be destroyed (or a threat to personally bring it about somehow) was an early and multiply attested association with the Jesus legend. I think the Gospels' clear discomfort with the prophecy (especially in Mark which denies it outright) shows it predates them.

Gospels copying other gospels is not "independent attestation." Independent attestation would be Tacitus's Annals stating that Chrestos prophesied the destruction of the Temple.

The forms of the saying in the synoptics, John and Thomas are all independent of each other.

[spin]

Well, it's also in Thomas 71 in a much more primitive form ("I will destroy this house and nobody will be able to rebuild it"), so that's a triple independent attestation.

A guy was hiking in the hills with a hiking companion, when the companion, who'd gone off to have a piss, got bitten on his genitalia by a snake. So far from medical help the guy got a doctor on his sat-phone and the doctor told him, "if you don't suck the venom out of the wound, your friend is going to die." When the companion asked what the doctor said, the guy responded, "you're going to die." Moral of this tale: primitive doesn't imply early.

The claim of a triple attestation doesn't seem to have any substance behind it.

You could also make an argument for dissimilarity with regards to a prediction that the Temple would be destroyed in that the Gospels are increasingly apologetic about it, and Mark denies that he said it at all, saying those who accused him of saying it were lying.

There's also the Jesus ben Ananias story in Josephus which is proof of concept that doomsayer predictions about the Temple not only occurred before it actually happened, but that the doomsayers could upset people at the Temple and be punished for it.

According to Josephus, Jesus ben Ananias (BJ 6.300-309) died in the siege. It was only during the siege that he was reported to speak about the temple. His "punishment" was that he was struck by a stone hurled by a Roman siege weapon. This is all packaging and no product.

Does any of this warrant Ehrman's certainty? Probably not, but it needs to be explained why a prophecy that the Temple would be destroyed (or a threat to personally bring it about somehow) was an early and multiply attested association with the Jesus legend. I think the Gospels' clear discomfort with the prophecy (especially in Mark which denies it outright) shows it predates them.

[dewitness]

The forms of the saying in the synoptics, John and Thomas are all independent of each other.

Sources of fiction and forgery are useless to determine historical accounts so their supposed independence is not even relevant.

Examine gJohn and it will be seen that the supposed prediction by Jesus of the destruction of the Temple is MISSING.

gJohn's Jesus story contradicts the Synoptic story.

[outhouse]

Sources of fiction and forgery are useless to determine historical accounts so their supposed independence is not even relevant.

.

Unless you can support your pet hypothesis, you should not be posting it.

[dewitness]

Diogenes the Cynic claims gThomas, a known forgery, is an independent attestation of the supposed Jesus' prediction of the Fall of the Jewish Temple but upon examining the passage he quotes there is no actual mention of the Jewish Temple, no mention that the Jewish Temple will fall and No prediction that the Jewish Temple would fall..

The passage ambiguously refers to some "house".

gThomas

69. Jesus said, "Congratulations to those who have been persecuted in their hearts: they are the ones who have truly come to know the Father.

Congratulations to those who go hungry, so the stomach of the one in want may be filled."

70. Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you."

71. Jesus said, "I will destroy [this] house, and no one will be able to build it [...]."

72. A [person said] to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me."

He said to the person, "Mister, who made me a divider?"

He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I'm not a divider, am I?"

So not only is gThomas forgery and fiction but it also does not attest at all that Jesus predicted the Fall of the Jewish Temple.