Robert
Tacitus says that the fire was either accidental or caused by Nero (15,38) ERROR
Steefen
Tacitus says authors have transmitted each alternative but certainty cannot be concluded on either one. He does not say with certainty the cause was or must be A or B.
Loeb Classical Library
(38) There followed a disaster, whether due to chance or to the malice of Nero is uncertain.
Hackett Classics
(38) There followed a disaster–whether by chance or by the princep’s cunning being uncertain (authors have transmitted each alternative).
Robert
Most importantly, if your interpretation of Tacitus’ text is correct, why is it that Tacitus tells us plainly that the fire was either started by accident or at the behest of Nero?
Steefen
Tacitus does not tell us plainly that the cause was certainly A) by chance or B) by Nero.
Robert
Thus your example of Tommy lying about eating cookies is not an appropriate analogy for the context of Tacitus’ text.
Steefen
Thus nothing, your reading comprehension is erroneous, your premiss is an incorrect reading of Tacitus.
“Tommy, I am going to punish you not so much of the crime of eating the whole pack of cookies, I am going to punish you because you lied to me,” said his Mother.
Did Tommy eat the whole pack of cookies or did he just lie to his Mother? According to your faulty reading comprehension, the answer would be Tommy did not eat the whole pack of cookies.
“…vast numbers were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race.” – Tacitus (Loeb)
They were punished for arson and because they exhibited a depraved hatred of the human race which made them more dangerous than arsonists. They were capable of not just arson but of worse crimes to society, for example, looking forward to, if not praying for, the apocalypse of not only Judea but the apocalypse of Rome, too (which is worse than the set back of a fire: the irrevocable destruction of Rome).
Loeb Classical Library
(38) There followed a disaster, whether due to chance or to the malice of Nero is uncertain.
Hackett Classics
(38) There followed a disaster–whether by chance or by the princep’s cunning being uncertain (authors have transmitted each alternative).
The above are Tacitus. LOL, you lost; and what’s at stake for you is the loss of claiming persecution/martyrdom. I refuse to talk until I’m blue in the face with reason while you exhibit bias and willful ignorance of sentence structure because you want to play “the Christians were victims” card.
You are an adversary now, until you exhibit objectivity in reading comprehension, instead of comprehending what you want to comprehend instead of what’s in the text..
I’m not ready to completely dismiss the idea that Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple. I can see it either way. He may very well have seen himself as a modern-day Jeremiah, who threatened in God’s name that the Temple would be destroyed like the tabernacle at Shiloh if the people did not respond to his message. Jeremiah does this in Jer. 7, the same chapter Jesus quoted from when he said the Temple had become a “den or thieves.”
I’m more skeptical about the prediction of the kingdom being taken away from the Jews. After all, the Temple had been destroyed once before but God did not abandon his people acc. to the prophets. In any case, I think that any predictions of destruction that Jesus made would have been couched originally in conditional terms: “if you do such and such, then such and such.” From this viewpoint, the oral tradition evolved from a conditional prophecy to an absolute one.
Just noticed that the thread is all about Nero’s guilt for the fire that destroyed Rome. Sorry if I misunderstood… I read the thread topic as referring to the oral tradition among Christians regarding the Temple, Jerusalem and the Jews. [the parable of the wicked tenants]. OOPS… I take it back. The first page is about what I thought… the second page not. [apparently the scribe who read this text forgot what was on the first page, then apologized for being off topic. It’s amazing what we can learn through textual criticism!]
fefferdan
Just noticed that the thread is all about Nero’s guilt for the fire that destroyed Rome.
Steefen
You are in error. The thread is not all about Nero’s guilt for the fire that destroyed Rome.
The subject of the thread is in the title and the original post.
From the late 20s / early 30s, did Christians believe the unfinished Temple would be torn down?
Probably not.
Did Christians believe, were they just waiting for, God to abandon them for the Gentiles?
The acts of the Apostles do not show that.
However, did Paul think the unfinished Temple would be torn down and there would be no reason to believe in the God of the Temple: an atheistic stand on the God of the Temple. If God is going to abandon you, kill his son, have you drinking blood and eating his body to remember him, you might as well stop believing in him.
The second part of the thread, fefferdan, deals with the claim in the gospel that the Son of Man would appear after the tribulation of the destruction of Jerusalem. The Son of Man could not be a Jewish tradition, Book of Daniel one like a Son of Man, Son of Man because Jesus did not qualify what he said about taking the Promised Land from the Jews to give it to the Gentiles BUT give it back to a Jewish Son of Man after the tribulation of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Robert
Tacitus mentions the crucifixion as historical fact, not necessarily as part of the superstitious beliefs of the Christians.
Steefen
You are in error again. Tacitus calls it all a mischevious myth: Jesus not speaking against Roman taxes but being crucified by Pilate
= = =
Steefen
Furthermore, the Samaritan Redeemer Pilate did execute had a gathering of armed people about to go up Mt. Gerizzim.
1) Jesus paid his taxes
2) Jesus did not have a crowd of armed men about to go up a mountain to redeem the ways of Moses who led an Exodus.
Are you saying it was not only one disciple, Peter, who was armed and cut off the ear of Malchus John 18: 10.
Matthew 26:51
At this, one of Jesus’ companions drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
Mark 14:47
And one of the bystanders drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.
John 18:26
One of the high priest’s servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, asked, “Didn’t I see you with Him in the garden?”
For Tacitus, Pilate executed the Samaritan Redeemer, there is no history of Pilate executing a redeemer brought to him by Jews unless the Jews who did not like Samaritans told Pilate about the Samaritan’s planned activities at Mt. Gerizzim.
There were two superstitions: the superstition of the Samaritan that got executed and the superstition of the story that switched the executed Samaritan Redeemer to the executed Jesus Christ, the Galilean. Pilate checked one superstition but another one grew from the execution that checked the first superstition.
The precedent was set: Pilate did not want the Samaritan leading a crowd of armed people, so he executed the leaders. For Pilate to take action against Jesus and his followers by executing Jesus, Jesus and his followers needed to be threatening violence also.
Jesus overturned the Temple tables but he was not armed. Jesus did not speak against paying taxes to Rome. In Josephus, there is an historical account of the executing of the Samaritan but only a testimony of the Christian faith about Christ which amounts to Josephus identifying the second superstition based on the execution of the Samaritan who aspired to the Messiah of Joseph. I would say that since the Samaritan Redeemer had an armed crowd and he got himself executed, that reality dovetails with the description below that the Messiah ben Joseph would wage war and die in combat, although getting captured and executed is not exactly dying in combat, it is getting captured before combat and dying by execution by the enemy, nevertheless.
The roles of the Four Craftsmen are as follows. Elijah will be the herald of the eschaton.[6] If necessary, Messiah ben Joseph will wage war against the evil forces and die in combat with the enemies of God and Israel.[7] According to Saadia Gaon the need for his appearance will depend on the spiritual condition of the Jewish people.[8] In the Sefer Zerubbabel and later writings, after his death a period of great calamities will befall Israel.[7] God will then resurrect the dead and usher in the Messianic Era of universal peace. Messiah ben David will reign as a Jewish king during the period when God will resurrect the dead. With the ascendancy of Rabbinic Judaism the Righteous Priest has largely not been the subject of Jewish messianic speculation.
Robert said
Steefen said
There were two superstitions: the superstition of the Samaritan that got executed and the superstition of the story that switched the executed Samaritan Redeemer to the executed Jesus Christ, the Galilean. Pilate checked one superstition but another one grew from the execution that checked the first superstition. …You really think Tacitus is explicitly speaking of two different superstitions???
Steefen said
For Pilate to take action against Jesus and his followers by executing Jesus, Jesus and his followers needed to be threatening violence also. …You don’t think Jesus or his followers proclaiming him to be the Messiah king of the Jews would be serious enough to get him executed?
If I can butt it, I think this is a very interesting question. I don’t know the answer but I think the mere claim may not have been enough. The story of the Massacre of the Innocents argues otherwise, but its historicity is dubious IMO. On the other had a Triumphal Entry coupled with an attack on Temple commerce WOULD have been enough. This is one reason why I accept the historicity of those events. If Jesus were just an apocalyptic preacher, I doubt either the high priest or the Romans would have bothered much about it.
Robert
You keep quoting Saaida Gaon, but he’s just quoting from the Talmud so you too should just quote from the earlier source:
See b Sanhedrin 98a with reference to Dan 7 (on the clouds of heaven) and Zech 9 (riding on a donkey) in the context of conflicting views of when the Messiah would come:
Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: “There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom … his dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Daniel 7:13–14). And it is written: “Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come lowly and riding upon a donkey.”
Scholars have developed a variety of opinions as to the original context of these ideas of the lowly or suffering Messiah son of Joseph/Ephraim, most of which postdate the gospels. Dalman’s attempt to derive the Messiah son of Joseph from the earlier context of Dt 33,17 is quite a stretch. There can be no confidence that these ideas are early enough to function in the way you want to use them.
Steefen
The four craftsmen are discussed in Babylonian Talmud Suk. 52b. Rav Hana bar Bizna attributed to Rav Simeon Hasida the identification of these four craftsmen as Messiah ben David, Messiah ben Joseph, Elijah, and the Righteous Priest. However David Kimchi interpreted the four craftsmen as four kingdoms.
Wikipedia says to see Babylonian Talmud Suk. 52b. After you look at that, maybe we can continue.
Second, the Wikipedia article on Four Horns and Four Craftsmen does not cite Saaida Gaon. When one searches for Gaon. The result is Phrase not found. If Gaon was cited in the Wikipedia article, I would investigate further, but Gaon is not cited.
Third, the scripture that I brought up is Zecharia, first chapter, not Dan 7 or Zech 9.
Fourth, the Wikipedia article clearly says which rabbi identified the four craftsmen.
The four craftsmen are discussed in Babylonian Talmud Suk. 52b. Rav Hana bar Bizna attributed to Rav Simeon Hasida the identification of these four craftsmen.
Fifth, the following is cited in the Wikipedia article and is topical
David Baron – Zechariah: A Commentary on His Visions and Prophecies 2001 0825499313 p.53 “The following curious passage about the four carpenters or ” smiths ” is from Kimchi’s Commentary : ” And the Lord showed me four workmen, . . . in order to cut off the horns — that is to say, each kingdom shall be a carpenter, …” “
= = =
I should not be responding to you anyway and your reply is further proof that I should not even read anything you write.
fefferdan
had a Triumphal Entry coupled with an attack on Temple commerce WOULD have been enough.
Steefen
The Biblical Jesus did not have a triumphal entry. Do you know what Romans consider a triumph? It is a military parade after a victory. Second, Jesus did not have an armed attack on Temple commerce; so, no, it was not enough either to get him thrown into jail on the spot for later or immediate capital punishment by Roman authorities.
Talmud – Mas. Sukkah 52b
33 And the Lord showed me four craftsmen.
34 Who are these ‘four craftsmen’? — R. Hana b. Bizna citing R. Simeon Hasida replied: The Messiah the son of David, the Messiah the son of Joseph, Elijah and the Righteous Priest.
35 R. Shesheth objected,
36 If so, was it correct to write, These
37 are the horns which scattered Judah,
38 seeing that they came to turn [them] back?
39 — The other answered him, Go to the end of the verse: These then are come to frighten them, to cast down the horns of the nations, which lifted up their horns against the Land of Judah, to scatter it
40 etc. Why, said R. Shesheth to him, should I argue with Hana in Aggada?
** you do not have permission to see this link **
ḤANA (HUNA) B. BIZNA:
By: Executive Committee of the Editorial Board., S. Mendelsohn
Babylonian scholar of the third and fourth centuries; judge at Pumbedita, (B. Ḳ. 12a). He especially cultivated the field of Haggadah, in which he became distinguished. R. Sheshet, who once attempted to criticize Ḥana’s homiletic expositions, but was soon defeated, remarked, “I can not contend with Ḥana in the field of the Haggadah” (Suk. 52b). As a halakist Ḥana seems to have been an independent thinker. In spite of criticism he allowed himself to frequent pagan barber-shops in the suburbs of Nehardea (‘Ab. Zarah 29a). To him belongs the credit of preserving from oblivion the name and teachings of Simon Ḥasida, a late tanna rarely mentioned by any other rabbi (Ber. 3b, 43b; Ket. 67b; Yeb. 60b; et al.).
= = =
Messiah ben Joseph / Wikipedia
Messianic tradition
Jewish tradition alludes to four messianic figures. Called the Four Craftsmen, each will be involved in ushering in the Messianic age. They are mentioned in the Talmud and the Book of Zechariah. Rashi in his commentary on the Talmud gives more details. Rashi explains that Messiah ben Joseph is called a craftsman because he will help rebuild the temple.[3] Nahmanides also commented on Messiah ben Joseph’s rebuilding of the temple.[4][5] The roles of the Four Craftsmen are as follows. Elijah will be the herald of the eschaton.[6] If necessary, Messiah ben Joseph will wage war against the evil forces and die in combat with the enemies of God and Israel.[7] According to Saadia Gaon the need for his appearance will depend on the spiritual condition of the Jewish people.[8] In the Sefer Zerubbabel and later writings, after his death a period of great calamities will befall Israel.[7] God will then resurrect the dead and usher in the Messianic Era of universal peace. Messiah ben David will reign as a Jewish king during the period when God will resurrect the dead. With the ascendancy of Rabbinic Judaism the Righteous Priest has largely not been the subject of Jewish messianic speculation.[9]: 87–89
References
1) Schochet, Rabbi Prof. Dr. Jacob Immanuel. “Moshiach ben Yossef”. Retrieved 6 February 2014.
2) D.C. Mitchell, Messiah ben Joseph (Newton Mearns: Campbell, 2016); ‘Firstborn shor and rem: A Sacrificial Josephite Messiah in 1 Enoch 90.37-38 & Deuteronomy 33.17’, Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha 15.3 (2006) pp. 211-28.
3) Joel Lurie Grishaver (2007). Talmud with Training Wheels: Meet the Evil Urge: Sukkah 51b-53b. Torah Aura Productions. p. 43. ISBN 9781891662584. Retrieved 10 February 2014.
4) Rabbi Ari Kahn (2000). “M’oray Ha’Aish: Mikeitz(Genesis 41:1-44:17): The Beauty of Joseph”. Retrieved 1 March 2014.
5) “MOSES BEN NAḤMAN GERONDI (RaMBaN; known also as Naḥmanides and Bonastruc da Porta)”. Retrieved 1 March 2014.
6) ”Elijah, Cup of.” Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1971.
7) Blidstein, Prof. Dr. Gerald J. “Messiah in Rabbinic Thought”. MESSIAH. Jewish Virtual Library and Encyclopaedia Judaica 2008 The Gale Group. Retrieved 2 December 2012.
8) Rabbi Immanuel Schochet. “Mashiach in Jewish Law: Appendix II”. Retrieved 15 February 2014.
9) Alan J. Avery-Peck, ed. (2005). The Review of Rabbinic Judaism: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. ISBN 978-9004144842. Retrieved 20 January 2014.
= = =
Saadia Gaon’s interpretation does NOT make 4 Craftsmen 3 Craftsmen. The Messiah ben Joseph is still one of the four.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)