Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

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

Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Does anyone know if Martin Goodman's surmise that the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple came as a sudden surprise to Jews, both in Judea and in the diaspora, has been discussed anywhere?

If it did, then that would surely have implications for those who suggest that the prophecy of Jesus about the temple's fall was foreseeable. I suspect other implications follow, too.
The cause of such inactivity [sc. failure of diaspora Jews to aid rebels in the Judean war] was not, I suspect, indifference so much as overconfidence. Until the very last months of the war, from the spring of A. D. 70, the risk of the fall of Jerusalem, let alone the destruction of the Temple, must have seemed minimal. After all, no Roman forces came near to the walls of the city for more than three years after the resounding defeat of Cestius Gallus in October A.D. 66. The rapid siege and capture of Jerusalem may have been brought about almost entirely by the need of the new emperor Vespasian to justify to the Roman people his seizure of the purple by military force despite his humble origins; victory over foreign enemies was the surest route to prestige in Roman society. Only the pressing need for such a propaganda coup can explain the extraordinary waste of life among his own soldiers considered acceptable by Titus in subjecting the city to a direct assault on its formidable walls rather than allowing the starvation induced by his circumvallation to bring the enemy to surrender more slowly but at far less cost2.

2 For these arguments in greater detail, see further M. Goodman, The Ruling Class of Judaea: the origins of the Jewish revolt against Rome, A.D. 66—70 (Cambridge, 1987), pp. 176-97.
Goodman, Martin. “Diaspora Reactions to the Destruction of the Temple.” In Jews and Christians: The Parting of the Ways A.D. 70 to 135, edited by James D. G. Dunn, 27–38. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. p. 27

(Secret Alias and Stephen Goranson are not invited to respond.)
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by rgprice »

That sort of makes sense to me from what I've read. From what I've read, Vespasian wasn't very aggressive in terms of going after Jerusalem, but Titus quickly put Jerusalem under siege when he was put in charge. As for the motives, I don't know. I assumed it was just that Titus was younger and wanting to make a name for himself. But regardless, I think it is conceivable that the fall of Jerusalem was not anticipated until it was too late.

As for the "prophecy of Jesus", this doesn't even warrant such a response. It's obviously ex post facto. Anyone suggesting otherwise isn't worth talking to,
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by Giuseppe »

A distinction has to be made, between the prophecy of only destruction (it is clearly ex post facto) and the prophecy of destruction and reconstruction (hardly ex post facto, unless it was done very soon, during the war itself).
lsayre
Posts: 769
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2015 3:39 pm

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by lsayre »

Certainly the prevailing view of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who were confident that their God would prevail, would have made the fall of Jerusalem not at all foreseeable from their erred perspective.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by rgprice »

lsayre wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:22 am Certainly the prevailing view of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, who were confident that their God would prevail, would have made the fall of Jerusalem not at all foreseeable from their erred perspective.
But beyond that, I think that there simply was no idea until late in the conflict, that events would escalate to the point of Jerusalem even being threatened.

Certainly in the 30s CE there was no sense that Jerusalem of the temple were in jeopardy in any way. The idea that the fall of Jerusalem in the near future is something that would have been on the minds of anyone in the third decade of the first century is absurd. And what Goodman seems to be saying is that this outcome wasn't even on the minds of Jews in the 60s, even after the start of the conflict. It wasn't until a much later point of escalation, after Titus took command that such an outcome would have been evident.

Now, having said all of that, I think this is fairly weak point anyway. In addition, it can always be argued against. Take the American housing-mortgage crisis for example. As late as 2007 there were experts on TV claiming that there was no housing price bubble. But by the same token, there were people in 2004 warning of such a bubble and coming crash.

But what we are talking about the supposed "premonition" of Jesus, is like someone in 1990 talking about a coming housing price bubble. That would indeed be very strange. HOWEVER! Can we say that there was no one talking about such a thing? People have been talking about such things for centuries, so it not impossible. There have been people raving about gold prices and peak oil, etc. for decades, so its always possible.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by John T »

If you can't bring yourself to read/consider the Bible, or Josephus, can you at least read the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The predicted fall/rebirth of Jerusalem is well documented.
The prophecy of Jesus (Essene?) did not pan out.

That is how the sect of Christians came about and the Rabbinic Jews for that matter. How to explain why things went terribly wrong and how God still has a plan to rectify it. You don't have to believe in their God but you should at least try to get their basic theology right.

Is that too much to ask on this forum?

Believe it or not, at least try to understand the history behind it.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by neilgodfrey »

rgprice wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 5:56 am Now, having said all of that, I think this is fairly weak point anyway.
The reason for my interest isn't so much the possibility that Jesus predicted it in the 30s --- though that is part of it, but only as a reference point some scholars use for dating the gospels. Some say that the fall was predictable even as far back as the time of Claudius, IIRC. So whether or not Jesus said it, the notion as it appears in the gospels is used as a point to enable them to be dated pre 70 CE.

But actually there are other factors, too. But will post about them in due course.
rgprice
Posts: 2060
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by rgprice »

John T wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2022 1:35 pm If you can't bring yourself to read/consider the Bible, or Josephus, can you at least read the Dead Sea Scrolls?

The predicted fall/rebirth of Jerusalem is well documented.
The prophecy of Jesus (Essene?) did not pan out.

That is how the sect of Christians came about and the Rabbinic Jews for that matter. How to explain why things went terribly wrong and how God still has a plan to rectify it. You don't have to believe in their God but you should at least try to get their basic theology right.

Is that too much to ask on this forum?

Believe it or not, at least try to understand the history behind it.
Yeah, see my point about peak oilers and gold bugs. As I said, there were always people predicting just about everything, so its kind of a weak point. However, from a mainstream perspective, no. I don't think that the average Jew on the street would have seen any possibility that Jerusalem would fall until after the breakout of the war. So it certainly wouldn't have been an "obvious view".
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by neilgodfrey »

trolls.jpeg
trolls.jpeg (147.36 KiB) Viewed 558 times
(with thanks to Ken)
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Fall of Jerusalem not so foreseeable?

Post by John T »

We see once again the basic tactic of the Neo-athiest. Ignore the facts. Do not engage in critical thinking. Instead, gaslight those who dare point out your errors.

Wet, lather, rinse, and repeat. :facepalm:
Post Reply