How Do We Explain the Complete Absence of Jesus Being 'Falsely Accused' of Wanting to Destroy the Temple in Luke?

[Secret Alias]

How can this be true?

orthodoxy is and of itself is always wrong by definition

By definition it is always RIGHT. Literally.

[Secret Alias]

There are two outcomes that come up when doing any historical detective work or research:

1. what's expected
2. what's happened

(1) can guide (2). But (2) doesn't always follow (1). In the question of what Jesus actually said or what Jesus was originally understood to have said about the destruction of the temple there is no question that the prophets predicted the downfall of Israel and Judah. Those predictions can include the end of sacrifices. Prophetic utterances were incorporated into the gospel, some put in the mouth of Jesus himself. It would be EXPECTED that a Jewish movement would make use of the prophetic writings. But is it ORIGINAL? Did Christianity simply develop as a prophetic movement.

The Clementine writings (the Homilies, the Recognitions) certainly seem to have developed from the recognition of Jesus as a prophet. But is that enough to settle the issue of what Jesus was and was understood to be by the earliest Christians? I don't think so. The rabbinic literature has Roman Emperors mouth the words of various scriptural passages. Nero, Titus, Vespasian and others. It's what Jews did and do when writing pseudo-historical narratives. But it doesn't mean that it was original to Christianity.

Whether it is acknowledged or not there was a strong Samaritan background to early Christianity and Samaritans wouldn't have felt as comfortable using texts like Isaiah, the Psalms and the rest of the Jewish canon to develop the gospel. We are so dogmatic about the 'Jewishness' of early Christianity we fail to recognize that even in the Clementines the Samaritan sectarians are attested. There is a similar historical perspective in its making Dositheus the first Christian heretic. This same figure finds its way to the earliest lists of 'heresies' such as that associated with Hippolytus. Simon Magus is another example. The Samaritan presence is strong in early Christianity and Samaritan Christianity would have welcomed the destruction of the temple in a different way from Jewish groups. They would have hailed Jesus's announcement that he as the 'great power' was going to destroy this Solomonic blemish. I just don't think we apply the historical record fairly or evenly when we consider what is original. We only confound what is familiar with what is expected.

[Giuseppe]

there was a strong Samaritan background to early Christianity

The Samaritan presence is strong in early Christianity and Samaritan Christianity would have welcomed the destruction of the temple in a different way from Jewish groups.

What do you think about the relation between the Samaritan Christianity described by you and the Book of Revelation, given/assuming the fact that the Book of Revelation was very early (around 70 CE) and preceded the earliest Gospel ?

[Giuseppe]

I refer you in particular to this Gmirkin's comment about Revelation, where he makes it clear the presence of at least a passage that is anti-Temple:

I think we see an echo of this in Rev. 11.8 in which the bodies of the two prophets lie unburied in the streets of the great city [Jerusalem], “which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.” That characterization, a bit dissonant for the Apocalypse (the great city elsewhere is Babylon/Rome), sounds like it may have originated with Josephus, who described the occupation of the temple by the rebel forces as an abominable desecration that would lead to Jerusalem’s destruction (much like God rained destruction on wicked Sodom and Gomorrah and plagues on the wicked Egyptians). That is, John’s perception of conditions inside Jerusalem and its temple was flavored or colored by the Roman propaganda broadcast to the Jewish world through Josephus.

https://vridar.org/2021/10/31/the-war-o ... ent-192791

[MrMacSon]

I refer you in particular to this Gmirkin's comment about Revelation, where he makes it clear the presence of at least a passage that is anti-Temple:

I think we see an echo of this in Rev. 11.8 in which the bodies of the two prophets lie unburied in the streets of the great city [Jerusalem], “which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.” That characterization, a bit dissonant for the Apocalypse (the great city elsewhere is Babylon/Rome), sounds like it may have originated with Josephus, who described the occupation of the temple by the rebel forces as an abominable desecration that would lead to Jerusalem’s destruction (much like God rained destruction on wicked Sodom and Gomorrah and plagues on the wicked Egyptians). That is, John’s perception of conditions inside Jerusalem and its temple was flavored or colored by the Roman propaganda broadcast to the Jewish world through Josephus.

https://vridar.org/2021/10/31/the-war-o ... ent-192791

The bit you bolded isn't anti-Temple, it's anti-occupation and anti-rebel.

Moreover, the noteworthy bit is -

John’s perception of conditions inside Jerusalem and its temple was flavored or colored by the Roman propaganda broadcast to the Jewish world through Josephus.

- ie. Gmirkin is saying, " *John’s perception* ... was flavored or colored by Roman propaganda broadcast...through Josephus "


Also note,

Rev. 11.8 in which the bodies of the two prophets lie unburied in the streets of the great city [Jerusalem], “which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt.”

“ the great city [Jerusalem], "...is called Sodom and Egypt".”

[MrMacSon]

orthodoxy is and of itself is always wrong by definition

By definition it is always RIGHT. Literally.

Orthodoxy prevailing and dominating doesn't make it right, especially not in a historical sense.

In the context of questioning the traditional view of Christian history, which, as you well know has been and is done regularly on this forum, including by you, and considering there are indications that alternative views, such as (i) Marcion mispreresentation (by key Church Fathers) and (i) Marcionite primacy before the gospels, are both plausible (even at this relatively early stage of them being 'teased out'), davidmartin could well be right

the main point is that orthodoxy is and of itself is always wrong by definition. whatever orthodoxy it is, it's always spectacularly wrong and manages to prove itself wrong time and again no matter how hard it tries. all the best things about any religion come from the stuff that the orthodox think are mistaken and even when they are right they are still wrong. i don't know about anyone else but this is very encouraging for me to see how wrong they are, it is liberating. the assumption is Jesus also saw the same basic thing and had had enough of it. He could see it wasn't going to end well and said so that's all it was about. some orthodoxy later thought he was on their side and failed to grasp that, that's so typical. I think Marcion is just a cypher for seeing it differently

though I think it's a stretch to say, "Jesus also 'saw' the same basic thing" and "He could see it wasn't going to end well," as we only have narratives in which people have put words in Jesus' mouth.

[schillingklaus]

The Apocalypse of Johm is nowhere near 70 but no earlier than the middle of second century, as demonstrated by Gustaaf Adolf van den Bergh van Eysinga in De wording van de katholike kerk, against the feeble defense by Couchoud. Canonical gospels being even later is not a problem, and there is no way to make statements about dates of pre-synoptic gospels from the Apocalypse.

The Apocalypse depends especially on Montanist martyriomania and Basilidean denigration of martyrdom.