Clivedurdle

Not one stone....(except I have been to the Wailing Wall...)

What actually was destroyed when, what did Hadrian do, and what does that mean about dating this prophecy?

Porky Houton

I've always wondered how Christians justify the wailing wall too if Jesus said not one stone would be left standing?

Ben C Smith

I believe the Romans reduced the temple complex to rubble in 70, and Hadrian erected a temple to Jupiter on the ruins sometime during the fourth decade of the second century.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I am not interested in justifying anything here, but strictly speaking the wailing wall was just a retaining wall around the temple mount; it was not part of the temple itself, nor was it part of any actual building (refer to Mark 13.2 for the buildings).

I hasten to add that the expression not one stone was, in my judgment, just that, an expression, not necessarily intended to be taken woodenly, as if one tottering megalith still barely perched upon another would nullify either the prediction or the ex vaticinium observation.

Ben.

Clivedurdle

That is what I want to get clear - what was everyone aereated about if there wasn't a JEWISH temple for Hadrian to put Zeus in - or was there? About the Wailing Wall, I think the apologist answer is that it is part of the Temple Mount, not the Temple.

Did enough of the temple survive to continue in use to Hadrian's time?

gstafleu

So the wailing wall's most recent two functions are as a retainer for a temple to Jupiter and then for the Al Aqsa mosque? I suppose that merits some wailing.

Gerard Stafleu

Clivedurdle

There is a real problem here.

http://www.garstang.us/judaean/barkochba.htm

Everyone assumed everything was raised in 70, but Hadrian's plans for a new city are probably the correct date for when site clearing happened.

Ben C Smith

Well, that one is easy. The temple mount itself was considered holy ground, even without the temple building(s). Indeed, it still is for the Jews. There is even, IIUC, a tunnel that goes under the wailing wall and comes close to where the original holy place would have been; there is no holy place anymore, of course, but does that stop the devout from wanting to get as close as possible to where it once stood? Of course not.

No, not of the temple itself. Wars 7.1.1:

Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), Caesar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, and Hippicus, and Mariamne; and so much of the wall as enclosed the city on the west side [the modern wailing wall]. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to demonstrate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind.

And from Wars 7.2.1:

And now Simon, thinking he might be able to astonish and elude the Romans, put on a white frock and buttoned upon him a purple cloak, and appeared out of the ground in the place where the temple had formerly been.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

So what exactly is the problem? (Other than the apparent typo, raised for razed.)

Ben.

Clivedurdle

I would rather check Wars against the archaeology and other records to make sure what was done when.


apparent source