Freethought & Rationalism Archive

jaymack2 · 05-06-2008, 08:04 AM

I was doing a little reading recently about the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. According to Josephus, who was there, the devastation was widespread. He claimed that more than 1 million Jews were killed, I believe. I don't read much about this event in discussions of early Christianity, or at least I don't think it's given as much emphasis as it deserves. I mean, here you are only 35 years removed from the death of Jesus, and in all probability many of the remaining eyewitnesses on the Jewish side were killed or driven off. My point is that the skeptics, the people who saw Jesus and didn't believe his story, weren't around anymore so there was only the Christian side of the story after that. Perhaps this accounts for the lack of mention of Jesus in Jewish writings -- the contemporary records were probably destroyed by the Romans. And then the Romans came back and finished the job in 135 AD, so there was nothing left but ashes.

I'm intrigued by the fact that the Jerusalem branch of early Christianity struggled to survive, and did not have as many converts as the other branches of the early Church. I wonder if it was because there was more skepticism in Jerusalem about Christianity, simply because there were more people there who had seen Jesus when he was alive, and didn't believe all the Resurrection/Divinity hoopla. And then, when they died off or were dispersed by the Romans, there were no dissenting voices left. Any thoughts on this?

XKV8R · 05-06-2008, 08:17 AM

as a rule of thumb, josephus tends to exaggerate numbers. highly doubtful that one million jews were killed. many fled.

once the temple was destroyed, and temple-based judaism with it, the remnants included rural judaism (namely pharisees, who already had a system of synagogues in place) and other minority sects like xns. jews did remain in jerusalem after 70, as evidenced by the fact of their banishment in 135 ce.

Minimalist · 05-06-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

I mean, here you are only 35 years removed from the death of Jesus, and in all probability many of the remaining eyewitnesses on the Jewish side were killed or driven off.

Simply lessens the probability that when someone wrote out the so-called gospels after 70 AD that there were any eyewitnesses around. Of course, if it never happened at all there couldn't be any eyewitnesses, could there?

Besides, ever seen a defense attorney cross-examine an "eyewitness?" You'd be surprised at how awful people's memories are of even recent events!

I fully agree about Josephus' tendency to exaggerate but he was far from alone in that failing among ancient writers.

Leelee · 05-28-2008, 06:20 PM

Is there any truth to the claim that all or most of the Christians in Jerusalem survived the sack of Jerusalem because they heeded the advice of Jesus and fled the city when they saw signs that it was about to be destroyed?

Malachi151 · 05-28-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leelee

Is there any truth to the claim that all or most of the Christians in Jerusalem survived the sack of Jerusalem because they heeded the advice of Jesus and fled the city when they saw signs that it was about to be destroyed?

Umm... no.

Malachi151 · 05-28-2008, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaymack2

I was doing a little reading recently about the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. According to Josephus, who was there, the devastation was widespread. He claimed that more than 1 million Jews were killed, I believe. I don't read much about this event in discussions of early Christianity, or at least I don't think it's given as much emphasis as it deserves. I mean, here you are only 35 years removed from the death of Jesus, and in all probability many of the remaining eyewitnesses on the Jewish side were killed or driven off. My point is that the skeptics, the people who saw Jesus and didn't believe his story, weren't around anymore so there was only the Christian side of the story after that. Perhaps this accounts for the lack of mention of Jesus in Jewish writings -- the contemporary records were probably destroyed by the Romans. And then the Romans came back and finished the job in 135 AD, so there was nothing left but ashes.

I'm intrigued by the fact that the Jerusalem branch of early Christianity struggled to survive, and did not have as many converts as the other branches of the early Church. I wonder if it was because there was more skepticism in Jerusalem about Christianity, simply because there were more people there who had seen Jesus when he was alive, and didn't believe all the Resurrection/Divinity hoopla. And then, when they died off or were dispersed by the Romans, there were no dissenting voices left. Any thoughts on this?

My view is that the first Gospel is a fictional story that was inspired by the destruction of Jerusalem, and that all of the other Gospels are just based on this first Gospel.

Detailed article here: http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

sschlichter · 05-28-2008, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leelee

Is there any truth to the claim that all or most of the Christians in Jerusalem survived the sack of Jerusalem because they heeded the advice of Jesus and fled the city when they saw signs that it was about to be destroyed?

According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews), the Romans first attacked in 66 and then withdrew for some reason before attacking again. After the withdrawal, Josephus also stated the many of the Jews fled (as if swimming from a sinking ship).

Eusebius confirmed this and wrote that the christians did heed Jesus' warning and left Jerusalem for Pella.

Info on Pella: http://www.bibarch.com/ArchaeologicalSites/Pella.htm

Minimalist · 05-28-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews), the Romans first attacked in 66 and then withdrew for some reason before attacking again.

Correct. Cestius Gallus, with the 12th legion, advanced into Galilee subdued the region and then moved on Jerusalem. For reasons unknown, Gallus broke off the siege and retreated. He died shortly after. He may have been wounded in the initial siege operations or he may have lost his nerve and killed himself rather than tell Nero how badly he screwed up.

Jobber · 05-29-2008, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leelee

Is there any truth to the claim that all or most of the Christians in Jerusalem survived the sack of Jerusalem because they heeded the advice of Jesus and fled the city when they saw signs that it was about to be destroyed?

Those words attributed to Jesus were most certainly not genuinely from him and therefore written after 70 A.D. by Christians as "prophecy." Quite easy to do after the fact.

funinspace · 05-30-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leelee

Is there any truth to the claim that all or most of the Christians in Jerusalem survived the sack of Jerusalem because they heeded the advice of Jesus and fled the city when they saw signs that it was about to be destroyed?

According to Josephus (Wars of the Jews), the Romans first attacked in 66 and then withdrew for some reason before attacking again. After the withdrawal, Josephus also stated the many of the Jews fled (as if swimming from a sinking ship).

Eusebius confirmed this and wrote that the christians did heed Jesus' warning and left Jerusalem for Pella.

Info on Pella: http://www.bibarch.com/ArchaeologicalSites/Pella.htm

First, thanks for the link to in interesting web site on Pella.

However, there are a couple problems with what you state. Eusebius came 250 years after said events, and can hardly confirm anything. At best, if he quotes accurately, he can relay what previous writers have said, and has otherwise been lost.

The site itself puts Josephus's writing as a questionable reference:

Quote:

Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost as the priests were going by night into the inner court of the temple...they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking and heard a sound as of a multitude saying, ‘Let us remove hence.’ (Josephus, Wars, bk. VI, ch. v, sec. 3; Whiston 1957:825.)

In all fairness, this earthquake may have led many in the city to say "Let’s get out of here!" without their being members of the Jerusalem mother church. The evidence is certainly not conclusive.

This paragraph pretty much sumerizes the web sites view of the historical information regarding Christians fleeing Jerusalem:

Quote:

Firm archaeological evidence of the refuge in Pella and return to Jerusalem remain inconclusive. The literary accounts are of limited value because of the speculative and highly redacted nature of Josephus, and the remote and hearsay nature of Eusebius and Epiphanius. Moreover, there is no hard evidence suggesting that they reported any more than the unsubstantiated traditions they encountered in the highly superstitious context of Byzantine Christianity.

05-06-2008, 08:04 AM	#1
jaymack2 Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Eastern US. Posts: 15	Sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD I was doing a little reading recently about the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. According to Josephus, who was there, the devastation was widespread. He claimed that more than 1 million Jews were killed, I believe. I don't read much about this event in discussions of early Christianity, or at least I don't think it's given as much emphasis as it deserves. I mean, here you are only 35 years removed from the death of Jesus, and in all probability many of the remaining eyewitnesses on the Jewish side were killed or driven off. My point is that the skeptics, the people who saw Jesus and didn't believe his story, weren't around anymore so there was only the Christian side of the story after that. Perhaps this accounts for the lack of mention of Jesus in Jewish writings -- the contemporary records were probably destroyed by the Romans. And then the Romans came back and finished the job in 135 AD, so there was nothing left but ashes. I'm intrigued by the fact that the Jerusalem branch of early Christianity struggled to survive, and did not have as many converts as the other branches of the early Church. I wonder if it was because there was more skepticism in Jerusalem about Christianity, simply because there were more people there who had seen Jesus when he was alive, and didn't believe all the Resurrection/Divinity hoopla. And then, when they died off or were dispersed by the Romans, there were no dissenting voices left. Any thoughts on this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-06-2008, 08:17 AM	#2
XKV8R Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: ucla, southern california Posts: 140	as a rule of thumb, josephus tends to exaggerate numbers. highly doubtful that one million jews were killed. many fled. once the temple was destroyed, and temple-based judaism with it, the remnants included rural judaism (namely pharisees, who already had a system of synagogues in place) and other minority sects like xns. jews did remain in jerusalem after 70, as evidenced by the fact of their banishment in 135 ce.

05-28-2008, 06:20 PM	#4
Leelee Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 49	Is there any truth to the claim that all or most of the Christians in Jerusalem survived the sack of Jerusalem because they heeded the advice of Jesus and fled the city when they saw signs that it was about to be destroyed?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.