Clivedurdle

Herod - King of the Jews - was not accepted by all Jews - not quite kosher enough bloodline.

Then how important would his works - like the Temple have been? Were there not Jewish factions who did not mind it being destroyed?

We are assuming this quite new building was accepted as the way to worship god. Was it? What had the Jews done before Herod's temple was built?

It is a xian assertion that the temple is important - veil rent in two, Hebrews. Was this a universally held view? How did Jews worship before Herod?

DCHindley

Don't think Jews did not think highly of their temple in Jerusalem before Herod started to rebuild it around 14 BCE. It was long the center of worship for most Jews, although there was another, lesser, one in Egypt operated by dissident Zadokite priests (it was founded by Onias IV, the son of Onias III, the last High priest before Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes meddled with the cultus in 170 CE).

Ever since the return under the Persians, and continued by the Greeks, there had been a royal governor in charge of the province, and also a high priest in charge of the cultus. The high priests appointd by the Syrian king tried to "modernize" Jewish worship and accept hellenization like everyone else was doing in the world, and the traditional cultus fell into disuse. This resulted in a considerable popular backlash against hellenizers, and the Maccabees took back control of the government around 164 BCE. They rededicated the temple, got the Syrians to formally recognize their de-facto rule of the province and appoint high priests willing to uphold the traditional cultus. Members of the Hasmonean family who exercised rule/governorship later introduced the novelty of makig themselves the high priests as well, but this did not seem to affect popular support fo the temple cult.

The temple they rededicated was probably not much more than a large shrine with an administration building. Nothing to sneeze at but not likely to make visitors point at it and drop their jaws in astonishment. Herod, who was impressed by big temples and oriental royal opulance, made the formal effort to bring the Jewish temple up to par with the best of pagan ones.

Herod, whatever one wants to think of him, was an administrative genius and found ways to finance his building projects (mainly by promoting the trade in luxury goods through his domain and then taxing it, and not by viciously suppressing his subjects as many want us to believe). Despite his ethnic roots he was sincerely Jewish at heart. He trained and employed lower-level priests to do the masonry work so there would be no complaints about it adhering to "code." While the sanctuary upgrade had been completed relatively quickly, the enclosure remained under construction until long after his death (I think it was finally finished just before the war erupted in 66 CE). However, long before it was done, and in herod's lifetime, it was so well known among gentiles that it was one of the wonders of the world. Jews who lived in the diaspora could point to it as proof that even "barbarians" like them were capable of producing something great.

Of course, you can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. There seems to have been some sort of anti-temple feelings among some. The sectarians represented by some of the DSS certainly didn't seem to like the Herodian temple, and Stephen's speech in Acts seems to represent an anti-temple POV, although it is debated whether this represents a source the author utilized or was made up by the author for effect. But Acts also indicates the early followers of Jesus prayed in the temple all the time, whch probably indicates that they were not anti-temple at least at first.

I think that after the temple was destroyed in the revolt, Jews had to figure out how to live without it, and this was the emphasis of rabbinic Judaism. The followers of Jesus (at least the gentile ones), ultimately decided that Jesus was a high priest as well as the royal messiah, and passed this mantle on to his broher James. Early Christian traditions about James like to emphasize that they thought he officiated as the high priest, apparently in the Herodian temple, although it is patently rediculous to think the official temple authorities would have ever allowed that to have happened while the temple stood. The later anti-temple talk of the gospls etc (destroy this temple - the roman destruction fo it is clearly in mind in my opinion - and I will rebuild it in three days - a reference to the belief that he was resurrected as a sacrifice for sins - thus replacing the temple) was their version of rabbinic rationalization.

DCH

Minimalist

Absolutely. Let us also remember that the only writings we have about Herod are by his enemies.

We see what liberties are taken when the only "testimony" to an individual is by his friends or adherents ( i.e., Jesus). We have even more evidence of what happens when only the opponents' writings of a man survive ( i.e. Nero, Caligula, ).

Clivedurdle

Are we looking, in the Gospels, at politicking? Jesus was also allegedly king of the Jews - Herod's title....

Minimalist

Seems to have been a self-granted title. The Jews apparently had little use for him!

Clivedurdle

But Herod is definitely portrayed in the Gospels as the baddy - massacre of the innocents, John's head, plotting to kill Jesus, aka King of Jews!

What is that all about? Its as heavy as James Bond's enemies!

DCHindley

Different Herods at differet times.

Herod the Geat, the bona-fide client king of a far ranging predominantly Jewish territory, was formally appointed by the Romans. He is the one accused of killing innocent babies by Matt (2:16). No other historical source mentions such a masacre, although he was known for killing anyone he distrusted even a little, including wives and sons.

His son Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, is said to have killed John the Baptist in Mar (6:14-28) & Matt (14:8-11), for which there is independent historical evidence in Josephus.

The only evidence that Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee, sought to kill Jesus is Luk 13:31, where this is a warning given to him by Pharisees in Galilee (a place where the Mishna/Talmud rarely mentions Phaisees). Yet just a little later (23:8) he is all glad to get a chance to interview Jesus because "he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him."

A tetrarch is not a king, but a kind of prince. Antipas could not call himself a king, much less "king of the Jews" even if he wanted to. Now Antipas' dad, Herod, was a full blown king but even he was not actually "king of the Jews." He ruled over administrative regions that were primarly Jewish (Judea, Galilee) or Yahwist (Samaria), but also ruled over predominantly non-Jewish areas (like the Transjordan, Trachonitis and Batanea). There were a number of non-Jewish cities sprinkled about even the most Jewish of areas, and there were loads of royal estates leased to tenant farmers of all nationalities. There was a formal Jewish ethnarchy, a quasi-political entity, centered in the temple of Jerusalem and probably had jurisdiction over a certain amount of land, but it was a temple state, not a kingdom. Herod the king of the territory which contained the temple state appointed the high priest of the ethnarchy, but generally refrained from meddling in the temple cult.

DCH

Clivedurdle

Is the confusion of the Herods implicit in the gospels? Do the crucifixion stories confuse jurisdictions? What of the comment about Herodians in Mark 3?

DCHindley

Don't think there's any confusion about Herods in the NT. Unless you also refer to Josephus, it isn't always clear who is being referred to. Since Herod the king would have died shortly after any HJ was born, the Herod mentioned in conncetion with him as an adult is Herod's son Antipas, who was also apparently known as Herod.

These Herodian princes would have retainers on their payroll, and these are what the gospels called Herodians.

Yes, in Mk 3 the verb used is a form of APOLLUMI, meaning: (1) active ruin, destroy; (a) of persons destroy, kill, bring to ruin (MT 2.13); (b) with an impersonal object destroy, bring to nothing (1C 1.19); (c) of a reward lose, be deprived of (MT 10.42). In Luke 13:31, the verb is APOKTEINO, meaning: 1) as depriving a person of physical life kill, slay, put to death (MT 14.5); (2) of anything personified, as depriving a person of spiritual life, i.e. causing separation from God, such as sin (RO 7.11) or law (2C 3.6); (3) figuratively, of forcefully causing a condition or state of affairs to cease do away with, eliminate (EP 2.16) (definitions from Friberg lexicon). So, yes, you could add this to the list.

DCH (taking a work break)