The case for Post First War Paul?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 3:03 pm . . . I have a hard time believing that could be true given that they make essentially no mention of the conflict or the loss of the temple. . . .
An interesting passage in a paper Etienne Nodet recently added to academia.edu can be seen as relevant to the argument relating to Paul not making explicit reference to the Jewish War of 66-70.....
Another feature of the Gospels has puzzled many commentators: the war of 70 is not a major issue. In this respect, the evolution of Josephus himself is interesting. His first work was The War of the Jews, the original title being probably The Capture of Jerusalem; he gloomily states that “God now dwells in Italy” (J.W. 5:367). But some twenty years later, he hardly speaks of the war in his major work, The Antiquities of the Jews. He briefly states in Life § 422, summing up the war, that Titus has resolved the disturbances in Judah. In Ag. Ap. 1:33–36 he casually indicates that the priestly archives have been restored in Jerusalem, so that the priests may be fit to take part in divine worship.

In the Gospels, Jesus announces a ruin. In Lk 21:20–22, he sees an oncoming war, with Jerusalem surrounded by armies, but he explains that “all that Scripture says must be fulfilled” by allusion to Jer 25:15, who speaks of the destruction of Judah and the enslavement of the people “according to everything that is written in this book.” This may refer to the war of 70, but the main point is Biblical typology. In Mt 24:15–16 and Mk 13:14 he says, “When you see the appalling abomination set up in the holy place, then those in Judea must escape to the mountains.” This refers to Daniel’s prophecy, and behind it to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BCE, after which Mattathias and his sons “fled into the mountains” (1 Macc 2:28). Indeed, the expression “set up” suggests a cultic device. The event alluded to can be either Caligula’s tentative plan in 40 to set up his statue in the Temple, or Hadrian’s politics aiming to transform Jerusalem into a Greco-Roman city with a forum and a capitol, in 132, which triggered the rebellion of Bar Kokhba. The second circumstance is by far the most fitting one.30 On the contrary, the war in 70 corresponds poorly, because even if the Romans actually worshipped their standards in the holy enclosure (J.W. 6:316), this was after the Temple burnt, but not to impose anything to the Jews. Titus’ triumph shows that the Romans wanted to bring the Jewish cult to Rome. The Sibylline Oracles present a better picture of this war in a prophetic style (4:125–127):
A Roman governor will come from Syria. He will burn down the temple of Jerusalem, and while doing so he will kill many people and destroy the great land of the Jews with its wide roads.
It wasn't even the big deal for the evangelists, given the above reasoning. (So much for the notion that the gospels were consciously set 40 years before "the end", too.)

I also note Nodet's suggestion or implication that the events of 70 were not such a significant trauma to the Jewish people as a whole as we tend to assume. Compare https://www.academia.edu/3818999/Epilog ... _Watershed
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

I still don't buy this. The "evangelists" were almost certainly all non-Jews. Do you think that "Hebrews" was written after the war? The whole thing is about the temple and the priests, and gives no indication that the temple was destroyed. Hebrews, to me, seem post-Paul. If Hebrews is pre-war and post-Paul then... Or do you also think that Hebrews is post-war or that Hebrews is pre-Paul?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by ABuddhist »

rgprice wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:12 am Hebrews is pre-Paul?
If I may make a comment, I think that a strong case could be made that Hebrews is pre-Paul in the Doherty model of Christian origins because of its great obsession with Jesus as heavenly high-priest and its possible denial (per Doherty) that Jesus had been upon the Earth. These factors, in addition to its anonymity and failure to mention Paul, leave to my uneducated mind the possibility that Hebrews represented the type of pre-existing doctrine that Paul began preaching and may be pre-Pauline. Paul's tensions with the Pillars and their followers about various doctrinal issues (including the role of the Jews' laws) may have in part arisen because Paul, unlike the "official" doctrine represented in Hebrews, did not teach that Jesus was a heavenly high-priest. Paul admitted that other people were preaching other Christs - might one of them have been the Christ in Hebrews?
Last edited by ABuddhist on Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Irish1975 »

I recently re-read Hebrews and my impressions were--
  • The separation of Christians from 2nd Temple Judaism seems quite advanced, and taken for granted. I cannot understand the idea of it being pre-Paul or pre-70.
  • Not written by or for someone knowledgeable in Palestinian Judaism. References to Jewish practices seem simplistic on many levels.
  • The author takes the tone of one who, compared to Paul or most other NT authors, is unsure of his authority. Little phrases like, "one might almost say..."
  • He seems to be looking back on a much earlier time when the Gospel was first preached. Hence the exhortations to rekindle the old enthusiasm, and to fear damnation after apostasy.
  • He seems to be reading and thinking about various other NT texts, including Gospel narratives.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by ABuddhist »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:10 am
  • The author takes the tone of one who, compared to Paul or most other NT authors, is unsure of his authority. Little phrases like, "one might almost say..."
  • He seems to be looking back on a much earlier time when the Gospel was first preached. Hence the exhortations to rekindle the old enthusiasm, and to fear damnation after apostasy.
  • He seems to be reading and thinking about various other NT texts, including Gospel narratives.
1. He could have just been less self-assured compared to Paul and other Early Christian leaders - rather like Anton Drexler who founded the Nazi Party but was replaced as leader by the more charismatic and famous Adolf Hitler.

2. The earlier time could be years rather than generations ago.

3. Hebrews 12:15-17, which cites Esau rather than the Gospels' Judas as an example of a greedy, treacherous, impious person, is strong evidence that Hebrews's author either knew no gospel's story or did not want to reveal such knowledge to eir audience.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:12 am I still don't buy this. The "evangelists" were almost certainly all non-Jews. Do you think that "Hebrews" was written after the war? The whole thing is about the temple and the priests, and gives no indication that the temple was destroyed. Hebrews, to me, seem post-Paul. If Hebrews is pre-war and post-Paul then... Or do you also think that Hebrews is post-war or that Hebrews is pre-Paul?
I would be very surprised if we one day confirmed that the evangelists were non-Jews. The gospels are surely very much in the genre of Jewish Scriptures; and their familiarity and close weaving of Jewish Scriptures into their narratives is what we would expect from Jewish authors. John's attacks on Jews is not decisive since Jewish sectarians were known to attack their sectarian rivals that way; geographic "ignorance" may best be explained by reference to OT Scripture order of places instead of geographic refs.

If you are thinking of using a pre-70 date for Hebrews in your book I highly recommend engaging with the arguments for a post 70 date that are widely accepted in the scholarship. Example:
The references to cultic activity in the present tense are, at least on the surface, more promising. Two consideration, however, militate against taking these remarks as reliable indicators of date. First, there are clear cases of authors writing after 70 referring to the temple and its cult, either as an ideal or literary reality, in present terms. The Jewish historian Josephus, whose Antiquities of the Jews was published some two decades after the destruction of the temple, regularly uses the present tense58 of the now defunct cult. Second, and more important, Hebrews is not explicitly interested in the Herodian temple and contemporary high priests, but in the Torah and the cultic system of the desert tabernacle that it portrays. The cultic language could, in some secondary fashion, allude to contemporary practice, but it need not.

Footnote:

58 On the tabernacle and its furnishings (Ant. 4.6.1-8 § 102-50) and on the vestments of the priests (Ant. 4.7.1-7 § 151-87) Josephus regularly alternates between present and past tenses. In discussing sacrifices (Ant. 4.9.1-7 § 224-57) he regularly uses the present tense. Among post-70 Christian authors, cf. 1 Clem. 40 and Diogn. 3

Attridge, Harold W. Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews. Fortress Press, 1989. p. 8
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by Irish1975 »

ABuddhist wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:47 am Hebrews 12:15-17, which cites Esau rather than the Gospels' Judas as an example of a greedy, treacherous, impious person, is strong evidence that Hebrews's author either knew no gospel's story or did not want to reveal such knowledge to eir audience.
That's quite an argument from silence. "Strong evidence..." ?
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by ABuddhist »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 11:52 am
ABuddhist wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:47 am Hebrews 12:15-17, which cites Esau rather than the Gospels' Judas as an example of a greedy, treacherous, impious person, is strong evidence that Hebrews's author either knew no gospel's story or did not want to reveal such knowledge to eir audience.
That's quite an argument from silence. "Strong evidence..." ?
Ah, I apologize for maybe being too influenced by Earl Doherty there - he lists that passage as one of the 20 passages where we would most expect to read allusions to gospels' narratives but do not. But why would an author of Hebrews, if familiar with/reacting to gospels, not cite Judas as an example of a greedy, treacherous, impious person - unless such an author either knew no gospel's story with Judas or did not want to reveal such knowledge to eir audience?
rgprice
Posts: 2058
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by rgprice »

Agreed with ABuddhist. The author didn't know Gospels. Why cite the words of the Lord by quoting from scripture as opposed to quoting from Gospels? Why does the author need to cite Psalms and other Jewish scriptures to claim that Jesus was made fully human?
The references to cultic activity in the present tense are, at least on the surface, more promising. Two consideration, however, militate against taking these remarks as reliable indicators of date. First, there are clear cases of authors writing after 70 referring to the temple and its cult, either as an ideal or literary reality, in present terms. The Jewish historian Josephus, whose Antiquities of the Jews was published some two decades after the destruction of the temple, regularly uses the present tense58 of the now defunct cult. Second, and more important, Hebrews is not explicitly interested in the Herodian temple and contemporary high priests, but in the Torah and the cultic system of the desert tabernacle that it portrays. The cultic language could, in some secondary fashion, allude to contemporary practice, but it need not.
This may excuse absence, but surely, with as much as this writer talks about the Temple and its practices, the writer would have made some comment about its destruction.

Hebrews 9
1 Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2 A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand and the table with its consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3 Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4 which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron’s staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5 Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover. But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.

6 When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7 But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8 The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still functioning. 9 This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that are now already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not made with human hands, that is to say, is not a part of this creation.

Really? All of this and no mention of the fact that the second earthly tabernacle had been destroyed? It's not just that the writer didn't mention the destruction of the Temple, the writer is explicitly talking about why the earthy Temple is insufficient. How could the destruction of the Temple not be relevant to this discussion?

I still think that the writer of Hebrews considers the Suffering Servant to be Christ.
ABuddhist
Posts: 1016
Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2021 4:36 am

Re: The case for Post First War Paul?

Post by ABuddhist »

rgprice wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:46 pm Agreed with ABuddhist. The author didn't know Gospels. Why cite the words of the Lord by quoting from scripture as opposed to quoting from Gospels? Why does the author need to cite Psalms and other Jewish scriptures to claim that Jesus was made fully human?

This may excuse absence, but surely, with as much as this writer talks about the Temple and its practices, the writer would have made some comment about its destruction.
Hypothetically, the author of Hebrews may have wanted to seem to be writing from an earlier time, and, recognizing that quoting from the gospels or acknowledginging that the Temple had been destroyed would reveal the work as recenter than the Gospels and events, chose to refrain from such things.

But supporting your point, Mr. Price, I dare say that a non-deceitful author of Hebrews, if aware of even a minor interruption of the temple's rites (as Titus's campaigns undoubtedly caused even if the temple's destruction truly was less significant to Jews compared to what later commentators have assumed) would have seized upon such interruption as evidence that the Earthly Temple and its rites were fallible and corruptible compared to their alleged perfect heavenly counterpart.
Post Reply