Re: not one stone upon another

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #1

Post by Athetotheist »

Here's another piece I posted in Random Ramblings and thought I would bring over into a debate forum to see if any issue can be taken with it:


In Matthew 24:2 Jesus prophesies that the temple will be thrown down with "not one stone left here upon another". Apologists regard the Romans' demolition of the temple in the year 70 as a remarkably accurate fulfillment of Jesus's words.

This doesn't seem to be the case since the famous Western Wall, dating to the 1st or 2nd century BCE, is still standing stone upon stone.

Apologists may argue that Jesus was referring only to the temple buildings themselves in the Matthew passage, but in Luke 19:41-44 he makes the same prophecy for the entire city, which included the temple complex where the Western Wall stands. Between prophesying every stone at the temple thrown down and prophesying every stone in the whole city thrown down, Jesus didn't have much room to let the Western Wall slip by.

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #2

Post by William »

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]

From memory, the story goes that the disciples - in hindsight - equated the temple saying as metaphor for the alleged resurrection.

It does not appear that either BJ or the God in who's name the temple was dedicated to, had much interest in preserving that temple and the Romans leaving one wall standing was simply to rub it in the faces of the Jewish resistance.

Luke's Gospel:
And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,

Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.

For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,

And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.


This is suspiciously Roman in nature re the rubbing faces remark.

Given that Christianity was a product of Roman Rule, and how the Romans gleefully paraded the spoils of their pillage of the temple back in Rome, and dispersed the Jews into the world, banning them from the land of their ancestors as punishment for the resistance, it is likely propaganda concocted by the Christian priesthood than anything actually uttered in prophesy.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1996 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #3

Post by Difflugia »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:45 pmSo for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?
Is hyperbole a sufficient answer? The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy explicitly disclaims hyperbole and in this case, I'd argue that's how the biblical author intended Jesus' statement. Most scholars now consider Mark to be at least contemporary with the Jewish War that resulted in the destruction of Jerusalem and possibly immediately afterward. Even if it was written before the destruction, Matthew and Luke were almost certainly written afterward and saw no problem leaving that part of the prophecy intact despite neither having any qualm about changing other Markan details when it suited them. If the destruction already happened and the evangelists knew of it, I see no problem reading "no stones standing" as a hyperbolic description of the profound destruction that occurred in Jerusalem even if it was literally less than total.

So, the question that raises is that if we agree that the prophecy included intentional hyperbole, does that still wreck inerrancy?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #4

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Good topic. The question of the 'predicted' destruction of the temple is one that I find intriguing. I believe that Mark's image of Jesus (to quote myself) 'Rubbernecking round the Temple like a tourist' is absurd for someone who had seen it many times before and is done only because Mark (of all the synoptics) wants to have Jesus go home after the donkey ride to the Temple and do the temple - cleansing on the next day.

However it's Luke's version that I want to bring up

Luke 21 5 And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
(kjv)

Mark also has the disciples point out the 'goodly stones and buildings', with Matthew just having the buildings.

And I wondered whether the only thing the writers knew of the temple was that after the Roman siege there were just the stones lying about though in fact apart from the Wailing wall, there's a fair amount of the structure still left, though not above the platform - level. Luke adds the 'gifts' and I wonder whether it's because he's read Josephus and the business with Pilate and his his insignia. Though that might be Philo referring to the display of Roman insignia. Of course that wouldn't be in the temple but in the Praetorium which i reckon would be the Antonia fortress which was the garrison - attached to the north of the temple area. Roman insignia would be offensive to the Jews even NOT in the Temple.

I can't be sure, but Luke got the idea from somewhere.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7955
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 931 times
Been thanked: 3484 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #5

Post by TRANSPONDER »

No. My mistake

Philo 'Embassy to Gaius'
Pilate was one of the emperor's lieutenants, having been appointed governor of Judaea. He, not more with the object of doing honour to Tiberius than with that of vexing the multitude, dedicated some gilt shields in the palace of Herod,

That's clearly Not in the Praetorium, but Herod's palace on the West wall of the city, north of the High priests' house (or palace) and is nowhere near the Temple. So I can't imagine where Luke got the idea of gifts unless he thought the Greco-Roman habit of dedicating gifts in temples applied to the one in Jerusalem as well. However the point is that it looks like none of the writers of the gospels knew much about the Temple before it had been destroyed.

There's an unrelated point that occurred to me in connection with the Praetorium. IF it's in the Antonia fortress (there's no specific mention of where it was, but that was the garrison and Pilate was only there to oversee festivals) it's not the place where Pilate's wife would be very comfortable. I rather suspect that he's prefer to leave her in his usual residence in Caeserea. Thus Matthews (added) episode of Pilate's wife having a dream about Jesus about the time of the trial is just that bit more improbable if his wife (assuming he'd taken her to Judea at all) would be there in Jerusalem at the time.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1996 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #6

Post by Difflugia »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 12:47 amLuke adds the 'gifts' and I wonder whether it's because he's read Josephus and the business with Pilate and his his insignia. Though that might be Philo referring to the display of Roman insignia.
Luke may simply have been pointing out how well the Jews were doing under Roman occupation. Luke seems to be a bit of a Roman apologist throughout his accounts. It's Herod's soldiers that beat Jesus in Luke rather than Pilate's, as in the other Synoptics, for example. This may simply have been a subtle point that Jerusalem was prosperous under the Romans and had not reason to have rebelled.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Online
User avatar
1213
Savant
Posts: 11337
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 am
Location: Finland
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #7

Post by 1213 »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:45 pm ...
So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?
Maybe it was not really part of the temple Jesus was speaking of. Maybe it is later attempt to rebuild it.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #8

Post by Athetotheist »

1213 wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 2:21 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:45 pm ...
So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?
Maybe it was not really part of the temple Jesus was speaking of. Maybe it is later attempt to rebuild it.
"King Herod built this wall in 20 BCE during an expansion of the Second Temple. When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, the support wall survived."

https://www.touristisrael.com/western-wall/15946/

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #9

Post by William »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #5]
However the point is that it looks like none of the writers of the gospels knew much about the Temple before it had been destroyed.
If this be true then it points to more evidence that the Christian Bible was concocted by Romans, rather than written by Jews following a Special Jew that the Romans nastily called "The King of The Jews."

So what can be said re the evidence is that there was some sort of Historical "Jesus" who's message gained popularity like a wildfire in the heart of summer, and in order to stifle the flames, in the way Saul had been attempting, Saul became Paul and Christianity Roman-Style was born from the ashes, and recorded as a non-living document proclaiming to be "The Word of God".

Cunning wee devils...
Makes sense...is more evidence required?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: not one stone upon another

Post #10

Post by William »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 7:47 pm
1213 wrote: Tue Nov 16, 2021 2:21 pm
Athetotheist wrote: Mon Nov 15, 2021 9:45 pm ...
So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?
Maybe it was not really part of the temple Jesus was speaking of. Maybe it is later attempt to rebuild it.
"King Herod built this wall in 20 BCE during an expansion of the Second Temple. When the Romans destroyed the temple in 70 CE, the support wall survived."

https://www.touristisrael.com/western-wall/15946/
That would explain why the Romans left it standing...out of respect for the King.

Post Reply