stephan huller

I am serious. If you listen to the modern Jewry, Judaism lost something irreplaceable in 70 CE. The sacrifices stopped. They were forced into exile. But this is all so illogical and so out of touch with reality, it makes you wonder.

Yes the ancient residents of Palestine lost the war against Rome and as a result the temple that Herod built was destroyed. That's true. But if you look at the history leading up to Herod's building of the temple c. 12 BCE this place was always getting profaned or razed and rebuilt. It is said that the 'final destruction' of the temple happened a mere 80 years after Herod's act that made it impossible to (a) rebuild the temple or (b) carry out sacrifices? Really? This is silly. Indeed 'silly' isn't even the word. It's diabolically stupid.

Perhaps it can be argued that sacrifices were prohibited on the traditional altar. I don't know whether there is any evidence to support this claim. But let's take it for granted. The 'loss of the temple' is something of a misnomer. It's the loss of the altar that the issue then no less than today (now with the presence of the Dome on the rock).

But before the Islamic conquest we hear over and over again the reverse argument. In other words, that sacrifices were abandoned because the temple was destroyed. This twist of logic (= transforming cause into consequence) is found throughout the rabbinic literature. But it still can't be a complete invention. The bar Kochba revolt seems to be inspired or connected with an attempt to rebuild the temple (apparently by Aquila under orders from Hadrian).

I wonder whether history has been misrepresented and the reality was that the revolt was an attempt to destroy the temple by the rebels. I just can't figure out why people became so attached to a building established only 82 years before 70 CE. Yes Josephus says that the Roman armies destroyed the building. However he also makes it quite clear that the Imperial government was very much behind Herod's efforts to establish this 'Acropolis' (as the Samaritans termed it) over the traditional altar on Zion. The Sadducees were in control of the function of the temple. Even the Qumran literature can be read as if the communities were opposed to Herod's structure.

I just don't understand how the Jews could have become so attached to a building established by a bad man that was so 'Greek looking.' The idea of a temple was so foreign to the religion. I bet there has been a profound misunderstanding of the evidence owing to the fact that (a) Christian scholars typically misunderstand what Judaism is and (b) Jewish scholars can't escape from their inherited religious paradigm now overtly fixated on this stupid building.

In short, how did you get supposedly rabid nationalistic Jews to become fixedly loyal to what was quite overtly a symbol of the very Hellenistic culture they reviled? It doesn't make sense at all and so - when I start to think about it - I think there has been a profound misjudgment on the part of scholars, owing in no small part to intellectual laziness, a lack of scrutinization of their own inherited beliefs and above all else - an uncritical use of sources

Zwaarddijk

Why do you think there's a connection between the Jewish view regarding the Temple and the modern view of the WTC? I doubt there's any causal relation whatsoever, and the claim that there is requires more supporting evidence.

Duly note, btw, that most sources only ascribe the completion of the building to Herod, and that most of it had been around for quite some time.

I think the questions you're asking here look like you *want not to understand* the reasonable usual answers, which seem to be well-studied and to make sense.

One ends up wondering what you're on about.

stephan huller

Well let's start with the OP - why do the Jews care about the temple? The Pentateuch does not mandate a permanent physical structure to maintain the religion. Why did the destruction of this building end the sacrifices? Anyone reading the Pentateuch or devoted to its principles would have shrugged off the loss of the temple in 70 CE. Why didn't the Jews?

The last I checked their cousins - the Samaritans - said WTF and went on with life:









The Pentateuch would argue - the building was bad anyway, I never told you to do that. It is difficult to understand how a symbol of Hellenism trumped the founding principles of the religion and were eventually - allegedly - the banner associated with radical 'conservatives' within the religion. I just don't get it. I can't make the connection now that I am thinking about it.

Bronzeage

Okay, once upon a time, things were really cool and there was this really cool temple. It was the coolest place ever.

Then some bad shit happened. I mean really bad shit. There was Romans killing everybody and they burned everything and what wouldn't burn, they knocked down, including the really cool temple.

Now, I've never seen the really cool temple. Nobody has, in about 2000 years or so. Hard to say exactly, but that's not the point.

The point is, people like cool shit, and old cool shit is even better. There are guys who will go spend the winter carving a hole in a glacier because somebody remembered a P-38 Lockheed fighter plane once landed on the ice and was left there. Today, it's frozen under 80 feet of solid ice, but it's so cool, they want to get it out and bring it home. Of course, they can't fly it. 75 years under ice doesn't do a plane any good, but it's still pretty fucking to have any kind of P-38 Lockheed.

Now, imagine these guys out on the ice, standing beside an 80 foot deep hole in the ice. There might be a few pieces of P-38 scattered around. Someone runs up and says, "Hey guys, "I know a guy in Australia. He has a P-38 for sale. It's in great condition and it still flies. We don't have to thaw out this one and bring in home in baskets. What do you think they'll say.

I know what they'll say. "Who cares about your Australian P-38. This is our P-38 and we want it back. If you got to ask why, you'll never understand."

I hope this sheds some light on the matter.

stephan huller

I know but they could have built another cool place. Why didn't they? If they really hated the Herodians and hated Hellenism, why did they allegedly become so attached to a building that embodied both these hated principles? I can see why the Sadducees loved the temple. I just can't make the connection for the rest of the people who weren't benefiting or whose social status wasn't dependent on the continuation of the temple? I wonder whether the Qumran texts can be interpreted as reflecting a desire to demolish THIS temple (= the so-called Temple scroll).

Let's put it another way. If St Peter's Basilica was hit by a bomb, would Catholics decide that's the end of their headquarters. They can't rebuild there. I don't think so. There were other St Peter's Basilicas.

It doesn't make sense.

And then you have the added layer of difficulty with the Jewish religion in that permanent buildings seem to contradict the divine commandment. I wonder if the Jews were deliberately being obstinent. If you look at the Birkat haMinim tradition we go from:

"For the apostates let there be no hope. And let the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days. Let the notzerim and the minim be destroyed in a moment. And let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not be inscribed together with the righteous. Blessed art thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant"

In the Shemoneh 'Esreh this expression of condemning the Christians becomes attached to the hope for the rebuilding of the temple. I am certain the two were somehow connected. The Jews opposed those who wanted the temple destroyed so that - by a childish reasoning - the Jews themselves became attached to the temple (= the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

Bronzeage

Deliberant obstinance?

You can list a thousand reasons why it is illogical and it doesn't explain anything. It is an emotional attachment and does not need reason.

stephan huller

But 82 years earlier they had the same thing happen and Herod built the temple.

Bronzeage

A thousand and one logical reasons is no better.

stephan huller

Yes if it were any other religion you could argue that 'there is no logic there.' But the Pentateuch defines 'logic.'

Bronzeage

One thousand and two.

What, exactly, is the point of this discussion? Are you trying to discover why Jews mourn the loss of the temple, or do you want to convince the Jews this is a silly waste of time?

It there some other point?