neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 12:21 am
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.
Prior to 70CE, there existed counter-culture sects that were anti "Temple Cult"!
I see a Religious syncretism of Middle Platonism, Mystery religions, and Hellenistic Judaism in Paul.
Per Paul, the poured Human blood of Lord IS XS made all the blood poured on the Temple Cult altar redundant. And the “All Father” was now affecting the covenant where Christ followers (already dead or otherwise still living) would get new bodies on Earth 2.0.
Paul was deprecating the Temple Cult and declaring a new covenant for Christ followers. Of course the temple was going to be destroyed along with Earth 1.1 (ver. 1.0 prior to the Noah deluge)
The religion itself began long before it was known that the Romans would actually destroy Jerusalem (early Christian thinking was then more in line with Daniel, which never mentions this, but only the temple’s “desecration,” after which God and his angels would destroy everything).
I find the other side of the 70CE coin to be worth mentioning also. Neil has previously observed that in the Markan text, the destruction of Jerusalem is not traumatic, it is not a raison d’etre.
Others see: “…access to heaven was possible, signified by the veil in the Temple being torn in two.”
I see this as deprecating the Temple Cult. Proclaiming that first-god has left and is not coming back. There is no longer any need to pour out blood at the temple—first-god is not there anymore—the temple cult will be withered as was a certain fig tree.
N.B. Godfrey, Neil (16 August 2016). "
How the Roman World Received the News of Jerusalem's Destruction".
Vridar.
Gurevich’s take is somewhat different in that he argues that Vespasian deliberately chose to destroy Jerusalem and its Temple to give himself and his son a display of power — images of brutal conquest — that could be exploited for its propaganda value back in Rome and throughout the empire.
Mason, on the other hand, suggests that we cannot know the inner motives of such actors and the nature of the evidence is most economically explained by Vespasian making the most of the opportunity that the destruction of Jerusalem presented to him.