Abstract:
The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 was an unquestionably
traumatic event in the history of the Jewish people. By all accounts it was a social, political,
and theological disaster. As such, contemporary Jewish figures wrestled with the meaning of
the event. This article analyses the efforts by two figures in this internal Jewish dialogue to
provide this meaning, namely, the historian Josephus and Jesus of Nazareth. We will see that
in both cases the meaning of the destruction was rooted in the firm conviction of the God of
Israel’s existence and his self-revelation in Scripture. The temple was destroyed not apart from
God or in spite of God, but in full accordance with his will. This will, moreover, was judged
to be accessible through Scripture, both in terms of its prophetic value and its establishment
of a metanarrative – redemptive history – that provided a framework for historical events. In
addition, the reason for the destruction was judged by both to be the sins of (certain) people.
The major difference between them lay rather in the question of which sins exactly were
judged to be responsible.
Description:
Price (2007:181): ‘Jews of the Destruction generation – at least so far as we know – did not question the existence of God; the farthest
they would go was to question His presence and the nature of His presence and of His justice as the Temple burned. That the Temple
was burned in accordance with His will was never questioned.’
Dr William den Hollander is
a research associate in the
project ‘Biblical Theology and
Hermeneutics’, directed by
Prof. Dr Andries G. van Aarde,
professor emeritus and
senior fellow in the Unit for
Advancement of Scholarship
at the Faculty of Theology
of the University of Pretoria,
South Africa.
