Hi, Huiou Theou!
… why can’t most “scholars?”
I know it seems that way, but even the ideas I have presented have subtle traps that could be overturned – I simply have made the best determination based on the information I was able to find and have tried to indicate the weak points while being as careful as possible.
I may be simple, but from the language of the Gospel I cannot see anything more than what transpired:
Well, yes and no. On the road to emmaeus, for example, Jesus speaks to his disciples while hiding his identity – surely he was not lying when he changed the subject as one of the bright disciples expresses incredulity at Jesus’ apparently “not knowing what has transpired.” Yet no one would accuse the account of showing Jeusus to be a liar – as there are levels of meaning, and counter-meaning in these exchanges —> the disciples clearly did NOT know what had really happened as they were discussing those things themselves and
that is the purpose of Jesus opening the scriptures to them. Yet the apostle is certainly correct in noticing the ludicrisness of imitating ignorance… Just like Socrates…
Just so, the apocolyptic literary style would not have been considered falsification – but simply a meditation on the meaning of the prophecy Jesus made about the destruction of his body. The details of the temple being common knowledge would have fit as a corolary, so I am not sure there would have been great debates in the theoretical “community” if this had happened – ( not that I believe it did because a simpler answer suffices ).
If the contemporary combatants mis-understood Jesus’ prediction about his own bodily temple being destroyed and raised – it is clear that Jesus spoke in parables which led to identification of the temple with himself in some way. It isn’t impossible that the disciples would be lead to “theologize” about the meaning in terms of Jerusalem’s ultimate end – after all Jesus did LEAVE the earthly dwelling, which means it was not to be the end all of their focus, and Jerusalem was obviously inhabited by those whom the “rule” was to be taken away from.
So, there is a logical conclusion and inference that would organically follow from the facts already given – the earthly Jerusalem will be coming to an end. Even if the city did not fall physically – the prophecy would still apply in the Greek mind to the city because of its inhaitents — the stones hewn from Abraham who are now rejected in preference to the corner stone.
That Jesus’ prophecy is true in multiple ways is a facet of the fact that God made Israel and all its dwelling a teaching device to the nations about Jesus Christ – eg: the entire Old Testament is pointing forward as a figure of the one to come whom all are to be united in as one body.
The physical destruction of Jerusalem and it’s beautiful stones – would also correspond to the Pharisaical self image of beauty and the corruption that Jesus predicted was really within their cup.
But, rather than support this view – I see no need, because the historical and literal interpretation of the bible on this score is in agreement regardless of whether or not the text was enhanced – and additionally, the signs are that it was done before the physical fall of the temple, in my best estimation.
God bless you, Jchriton, I find the simple questions quite enjoyable – if challenging.
