Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by dewitness »

bskeptic wrote:
Can anyone quote/reference scholars that comment on the historicity of these predictions? Do they really go back to Jesus? Why would Jesus give a prediction of the temple's destruction?

Also, I'm interested in any possible non-supernatural explanations for the reported predictions. (e.g. they were created after the event actually happened.)

Quote: Bart D. Ehrman wrote: “We know with relative certainty that Jesus predicted that the Temple was soon to be destroyed by God. Predictions of this sort are contextually credible given what we have learned about other prophets in the days of Jesus. Jesus’ own predictions are independently attested in a wide range of sources (cf. Mark 13:1, 14:58; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Moreover, it is virtually certain that some days before his death Jesus entered the Temple, overturned some of the tables that were set up inside, and generally caused a disturbance. The account is multiply attested (Mark 11 and John 2) and it is consistent with the predictions scattered throughout the tradition about the coming destruction of the Temple”

(Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.)
Again, we see erroneous claims made by Ehrman. The Mark 11 Temple incident is not really corroborated in John 2.

How in the world can Ehrman state that "it is virtually certain that some days before his death Jesus entered the Temple, overturned some of the tables that were set up inside, and generally caused a disturbance. The account is multiply attested (Mark 11 and John 2)....."?

The Temple incident in gJohn did not happen days before Jesus' death.

In gJohn 2 the supposed Temple incident happened at least 3 years before the story of the resurrection.

Essentially, gJohn 2 contradicts Mark 11.

It is extremely disturbing to me that Ehrman will pass off a contradiction as multiple attestation when it is the very same Ehrman who admitted that the NT is riddled with historical problems.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by Blood »

bskeptic wrote:

Quote:

Bart D. Ehrman wrote: “We know with relative certainty that Jesus predicted that the Temple was soon to be destroyed by God. Predictions of this sort are contextually credible given what we have learned about other prophets in the days of Jesus. Jesus’ own predictions are independently attested in a wide range of sources (cf. Mark 13:1, 14:58; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Moreover, it is virtually certain that some days before his death Jesus entered the Temple, overturned some of the tables that were set up inside, and generally caused a disturbance. The account is multiply attested (Mark 11 and John 2) and it is consistent with the predictions scattered throughout the tradition about the coming destruction of the Temple”

(Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.)
Well, a more naked demonstration of the bankruptcy and circularity of historical Jesus studies could not be found. How do we know with "relative certainty" and "virtual certainty" that Jesus did this or that? Because the Bible says so. And why should we trust what the Bible says about something? Because it is multiply attested within the Bible. :lol:
“The only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by 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.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by outhouse »

dewitness wrote:
bskeptic wrote:
Can anyone quote/reference scholars that comment on the historicity of these predictions? Do they really go back to Jesus? Why would Jesus give a prediction of the temple's destruction?

Also, I'm interested in any possible non-supernatural explanations for the reported predictions. (e.g. they were created after the event actually happened.)

Quote: Bart D. Ehrman wrote: “We know with relative certainty that Jesus predicted that the Temple was soon to be destroyed by God. Predictions of this sort are contextually credible given what we have learned about other prophets in the days of Jesus. Jesus’ own predictions are independently attested in a wide range of sources (cf. Mark 13:1, 14:58; John 2:19; Acts 6:14). Moreover, it is virtually certain that some days before his death Jesus entered the Temple, overturned some of the tables that were set up inside, and generally caused a disturbance. The account is multiply attested (Mark 11 and John 2) and it is consistent with the predictions scattered throughout the tradition about the coming destruction of the Temple”

(Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. Third Edition. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.)
Again, we see erroneous claims made by Ehrman. The Mark 11 Temple incident is not really corroborated in John 2.

How in the world can Ehrman state that "it is virtually certain that some days before his death Jesus entered the Temple, overturned some of the tables that were set up inside, and generally caused a disturbance. The account is multiply attested (Mark 11 and John 2)....."?

The Temple incident in gJohn did not happen days before Jesus' death.

In gJohn 2 the supposed Temple incident happened at least 3 years before the story of the resurrection.

Essentially, gJohn 2 contradicts Mark 11.

It is extremely disturbing to me that Ehrman will pass off a contradiction as multiple attestation when it is the very same Ehrman who admitted that the NT is riddled with historical problems.
Agreed.

I think he attributes more then is known.

A disturbance in the temple is all I run with.

As far as the money tables though, even though there is a OT reference of tipping furniture or belongings out of a residence that may or may not apply. The fact the temple coins had a pagan deity Melqart on them in gods own house, would be enough to send a pious Jew into action. It had happened in the past with Herods eagle at one of the entrance ways to the temple
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by dewitness »

Diogenes the Cynic wrote: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.
How in the world can a forgery or falsely attributed writing be considered "independent attestation".

gThomas actually attest to the manipulation and fabrication of characters and stories about the Son of God called Jesus.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote: 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.
Jesus ben Ananias said nothing like what is written in the Canonised Gospels about Jesus of Nazareth [Jesus ben the Holy Ghost].

In fact, doomsday predictions are found in Hebrew Scripture so did not even require Jesus ben Ananias.

Any "Tom, Dick or Harry" could have looked in the books of the Prophets of the Jews and make doomsday day predictions.

Daniel 9:26 KJV
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off , but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined .
Isaiah 6
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying , Whom shall I send , and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. 9 And he said , Go , and tell this people, Hear ye indeed , but understand not; and see ye indeed , but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat , and make their ears heavy , and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert , and be healed . 11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered , Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant , and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate , 12 And the LORD have removed men far away , and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote: 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.
May I remind you that Ehrman himself admitted the Gospels are riddled with historical problems and that they relate events that almost certainly did not happen. See Did Jesus Exist?" page 184.

Also on page 182 of "Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman declared that, " it is absolutely true, in my judgment, that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions both large and small."

It is just highly absurd, completely unacceptable, that the very same discredited source, the NT, is being used by Ehrman as an independent historical source.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by outhouse »

dewitness wrote:
It is just highly absurd, completely unacceptable, that the very same discredited source, the NT, is being used by Ehrman as an independent historical source.
Do you think the whole NT is 100% fiction with zero historical value?
Diogenes the Cynic
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:59 pm
Location: Twin Cities, MN

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by Diogenes the Cynic »

dewitness wrote:
Diogenes the Cynic wrote: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.
How in the world can a forgery or falsely attributed writing be considered "independent attestation".

gThomas actually attest to the manipulation and fabrication of characters and stories about the Son of God called Jesus.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote: 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.
Jesus ben Ananias said nothing like what is written in the Canonised Gospels about Jesus of Nazareth [Jesus ben the Holy Ghost].

In fact, doomsday predictions are found in Hebrew Scripture so did not even require Jesus ben Ananias.

Any "Tom, Dick or Harry" could have looked in the books of the Prophets of the Jews and make doomsday day predictions.

Daniel 9:26 KJV
And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off , but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined .
Isaiah 6
Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying , Whom shall I send , and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me. 9 And he said , Go , and tell this people, Hear ye indeed , but understand not; and see ye indeed , but perceive not. 10 Make the heart of this people fat , and make their ears heavy , and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert , and be healed . 11 Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered , Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant , and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate , 12 And the LORD have removed men far away , and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote: 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.
May I remind you that Ehrman himself admitted the Gospels are riddled with historical problems and that they relate events that almost certainly did not happen. See Did Jesus Exist?" page 184.

Also on page 182 of "Did Jesus Exist? Ehrman declared that, " it is absolutely true, in my judgment, that the New Testament accounts of Jesus are filled with discrepancies and contradictions both large and small."

It is just highly absurd, completely unacceptable, that the very same discredited source, the NT, is being used by Ehrman as an independent historical source.
Of course the Gospels are fiction. I'm not defending them as historical, I'm just saying the Temple prophecy claim (whether it historically happened or not) must have predated them because they don't like it. It's also irrelevant who wrote the Gospel of Thomas since the form of the saying in Thomas is still independent from the Gospels. The notion that Jesus predicted (or personally threatened) the destruction appears to have been part of the proto-Christian narrative before the Gospels. It may have originally been nothing more than a saying dramatized as a literal assault on the temple by Mark, but I think it can't be a Markan invention because he denies that Jesus really said it.
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by dewitness »

Diogenes the Cynic wrote:....It's also irrelevant who wrote the Gospel of Thomas since the form of the saying in Thomas is still independent from the Gospels....
Your statement is illogical. Once gThomas is a forgery it may have been composed by an author of the Gospels. You have no way of showing that gThomas is independent of the authors of the Gospels. Plus, its independence has no historical value when gThomas is a known source of fiction and mythology.
Diogenes the Cynic wrote:...The notion that Jesus predicted (or personally threatened) the destruction appears to have been part of the proto-Christian narrative before the Gospels. It may have originally been nothing more than a saying dramatized as a literal assault on the temple by Mark, but I think it can't be a Markan invention because he denies that Jesus really said it.
You have NO proto-Christian document or narrative before the Gospels that Jesus predicted [or personally threathened] the destruction of the Temple so your statement is an obvious fallacy.
User avatar
Blood
Posts: 899
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:03 am

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by Blood »

Diogenes the Cynic wrote: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 only sensible response to fragmented, slowly but randomly accruing evidence is radical open-mindedness. A single, simple explanation for a historical event is generally a failure of imagination, not a triumph of induction.” William H.C. Propp
dewitness
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 11:09 am

Re: Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the temple

Post by dewitness »

Blood wrote:Gospels copying other gospels is not "independent attestation." Independent attestation would be Tacitus's Annals stating that Chrestos prophesied the destruction of the Temple.
Not Chrestos but Jesus of Nazareth. In the very Gospels, it is claimed Jesus was NOT identified as Christ or wanted to be identified as Christ.
Post Reply