accordn2me
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2004
- Messages
- 1,920
- Reaction score
- 714
You don't? OK. Had you heard that theory before?Cypros said:The destruction of Jerusalem's Temple is an historical event. It is well documented by the Romans (including a depiction of the sacking -- stealing of the menorah -- on the Arch of Titus in Rome) and is also quite evident in the archaeological record. The destroyed temple had been built under Herod the Great. His rebuilding of the central Jewish shrine was intended to bring him favor with the Jews since he was not Jewish. Herod was of Idumaean and Nabataean descent (in other words, he was arab). However, the label "Second Temple" is misleading since there are accounts of three temples. There was the temple built by Solomon in the early years of the so-called United Monarchy. However, there is absolutely no evidence that this temple actually existed and the whole United Monarchy period under David and Solomon is disputed. According to the OT, Solomon's temple existed until the 6th century BCE when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem -- the beginning of the Babylonian exile. When the Persians conquered Babylonian a generation later under Cyrus, they allowed the Jews to return to Jerusalem and to rebuild their temple. This temple was in great disrepair by the 1st century BCE when Herod rebuilt it. His was the third version of the temple and yet it is referred to as the "Second Temple Period". Confusing I know.
As for Ann Rice's theory that the gospels were written prior to 70 CE due to the lack of reference to the destruction of the temple, I don't think it is a strong argument. The gospels deal with the years of Jesus' life which ended 40 years before the destruction of the temple. There would be no reason to discuss an event in 70 CE when your story is focused on the events of 4BCE-ca 33 CE.
Before I ask another question, let me apologize for not paying better attention in history class...or Sunday school.
You wrote: "There was the temple built by Solomon in the early years of the so-called United Monarchy. However, there is absolutely no evidence that this temple actually existed and the whole United Monarchy period under David and Solomon is disputed."
I don't understand why somethings are easily believed...like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, yet this "first temple" is disputed. Why would they make that up?
From reading what you wrote about the temples, it sounds 2me like this first temple was destroyed. The second temple was built by the Jews. Then Herod came along and renovated second temple. Unless he started from scratch, it probably wouldn't be counted as a 3rd temple, do you think?