Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T00:01:12.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Responses to the Destruction of 70

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

Robert Kirschner
Robert Kirschner
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Until Titus's destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the national and religious life of Palestinian Jewry was organized around the cultic system of the Temple. Despite many changes in the political status of the nation and of Jerusalem itself, the Temple continued to serve as the seat of the priesthood, the destination of sacred pilgrimage, and the instrument of cultic expiation. Other places and forms of worship are attested during the second commonwealth, and by the advent of the common era groups such as the Qumran community had turned away from Jerusalem altogether. Yet there can be little doubt that the Temple was perceived as the preeminent symbol of Israel's God. Excavations of first-century Palestinian synagogues have revealed a basic architectural design of orientation toward the sanctuary. Although geographically and religiously remote from the Temple, the Jews of the diaspora continued, writes Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BCE–50 CE), to “hold the Holy City where stands the sacred Temple of the most high God to be their mother city.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 78 , Issue 1-2 , April 1985 , pp. 27 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E.g., the excavated basilicas at Masada, Herodium, and Meiron; see Meyers, Eric M. and Strange, James F., Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Nashville: Abingdon, 1981) 142–47.Google Scholar

2 Philo Flacc. 7.46 (LCL 9. 327–29).

3 Josephus Bell 6.4.5 (LCL 3. 449).

4 On the dating of 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra, see Charlesworth, James H., The Pseudepigrapha and Modern Research with a Supplement (SBLSCS 7; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981) 112Google Scholar; the introductions to each apocalypse in idem, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (= OTP; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 1. 520 (4 Ezra), 617 (2 Baruch)Google Scholar; APOT 2. 470, 475, 572; Nickelsburg, George W. E., Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 287, 305 nn. 12–13.Google Scholar

5 E.g., the fifth order of the Mishnah, Qodašim, is devoted entirely to the sacrifical cult and the sanctuary. Jacob Neusner concludes that “the world referred to by Mishnah as a whole rests upon foundations formed by the priesthood, the sacrificial system correlated to the lunar calendar, the Temple, and the holy city” (Method and Meaning in Ancient Judaism [BJS 10; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979] 136).Google Scholar

6 An important exception is the aggadic unit at b. Giṭ. 55b–58a, a compendium of legends about the Roman wars and the destruction of the Temple. In this case the amoraic point of departure is a passing tannaitic reference to those killed in Judea (m. Giṭ. 5:6).

7 So Herr, Moshe D., “Lamentations Rabbah,” EncJud 10. 1378 (Jerusalem: Keter, 1971).Google Scholar Zunz, Leopold, Albeck, H. (Ha-Derashoth be-Yisrael [3d ed.; Jerusalem: Musad Bialik, 1974] 78–79)Google Scholar assign a date as late as the seventh century. Solomon Buber, in the introduction to his edition of Lam. Rab. (Midrash Echa Rabbati [Vilna, 1899; reprinted Hildesheim, 1967] 5a) suggests the fourth century.Google Scholar

8 Harnisch, Wolfgang, Verhängnis und Verheissung der Geschichte (FRLANT 97; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969) 20–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 Bogaert, Pierre, Apocalypse de Baruch: Introduction, traduction du Syriaque et commentaire (2 vols.; SC 144–45; Paris: Cerf, 1969) 1. 127–33, 145.Google Scholar

10 Jerome Ep. 123.16: Quid salvum est, si Roma perit (CSEL 56. 94).

11 Cited in Kaegi, Walter E., Byzantium and the Decline of Rome (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968) 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 The chronological discrepancy between 2 Bar. 1:1 and 8:5 is explained by A. F. J. Klijn as the author's error (OTP, 1. 621 n. la).

13 Rowland, Christopher, The Open Heaven (London: SPCK, 1982) 63–64.Google Scholar

14 E.g., m. Taʿan. 4:6; t. Soṭah 6:10; Sifre Deut., va-etḥanan pisqa 31 (ed. Finkelstein) 51; b. Taʿan 29a; y. Taʿan. 4:8, 68b. The notion of identical dates is already attested in Josephus Bell 6.4.5.

15 Cf. y. Yebam. 9:8, 10b, where the rabbis claim that Edom (their euphemism for Rome) was the daughter of Babylon not by descent but by emulation.

16 Ginzberg, Louis, “Some Observations on the Attitude of the Synagogue Towards the Apocalyptic-Eschatological Writings,” JBL 41 (1922) 115–36, esp. 131, 134.Google Scholar

17 E.g., Alon, Gedaliah, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age (trans, and ed. Gershon Levi; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1980) 1. 52–53Google Scholar; Davies, W. D., The Gospel and the Land (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974) 151Google Scholar (4 Ezra); Klijn, OTP, 1. 620 (2 Baruch).

18 Gry, Leon, “La ruine du Temple par Titus: Quelques traditions juives plus anciennes et primitives à la base de Pesiàta Rabbati XXVI,” RB 55 (1948) 215–26.Google Scholar

19 Ginzberg, “Observations,” 133; Rowland, Open Heaven, 29–37, esp. 30, who goes so far as to insist that “it cannot be argued that apocalyptic necessarily departs to any extent from the view of God's covenant which was adhered to by the rabbis.”

20 Moore, George Foot, Judaism (3 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962) 1. 128.Google Scholar

21 Nowhere else in apocalyptic literature (with the possible exception of the Apocalypse of Abraham) are there found such elaborate ruminations on the nature of humanity and sin. Furthermore 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra lack the usual apocalyptic dualism of cosmic struggle between God and his adversary. The heavenly ascent motif common to other apocalypses is also missing from these two (as well as from Daniel). 4 Ezra 4:8 explicitly denies that Ezra ascended to heaven.

22 Schmithals, Walter, The Apocalyptic Movement (trans. J. E. Steely; Nashville: Abingdon, 1975) 198.Google Scholar

23 Ibid., 199; Klijn, OTP, 1. 617.

24 Bogaert, Apocalypse de Baruch, 1. 402–5.

25 Klijn, OTP, 1. 617.

26 Harnisch, Verhängnis und Verheissung, 72–73.

27 Thompson, Alden L., Responsibility for Evil in the Theodicy of IV Ezra (SBLDS 29; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1977) 121–48.Google Scholar Cf. Breech, Earl, “These Fragments I Have Shored Against My Ruins: The Form and Function of 4 Ezra,“ JBL 92 (1973) 267–74.Google Scholar

28 However, Bogaert (Apocalypse de Baruch, 1. 380) suspects that the author of 2 Baruch knew Hebrew and consulted Hebrew sources but actually composed the work in Greek.

29 Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha, 112.

30 Harry Fox suggests (“The Circular Proem: Composition, Terminology, and Antecedents,” PAAJR 49 [1982] 1–31, esp. 25–27) that Lam. Rab. proems 31:1 and 33 were originally “circular,” beginning and ending with the same proem verse, but were subsequently disguised by a stereotypic conclusion added by the redactor (s).Google Scholar

31 See Zunz-Albeck, Ha-Derashot, 78–79; Strack, Hermann, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (reprinted New York: Atheneum, 1974) 218–19, 338 nn. 2, 4.Google Scholar

32 Midrash Echa Rabbati (see n. 7 above). Buber's edition is cited here by Hebrew page number. The translations are the author's. Occasional reference is also made to the standard printed edition (Pesaro, 1519; Constantinople, 1520) translated into English by A. Cohen (London: Soncino, 1939).

33 Parallels to this passage are found in rabbinic literature, e.g., b. Taʿan. 29a:

Our rabbis have taught: When the first Temple was about to be destroyed, bands upon bands of young priests with the keys of the Temple in their hands assembled and mounted the roof of the Temple and exclaimed: “Master of the universe, as we did not have the merit to be faithful treasurers, these keys are handed back into thy keeping.” Then they threw the keys up toward heaven. And there emerged the figure of a hand and it received the keys from them. Whereupon they jumped and fell into the fire.

Cf. Lev. Rab. 19:6; ʾAbot R. Nat. 4 version A (ed. Schechter 12b).

34 Myers, Jacob M., I and II Esdras (AB; Garden City: NY, 1974) 121.Google Scholar

35 I.e., the elements of fire and wind; cf. 4 Ezra 4:5 and the commentary of G. H. Box (APOT, 2. 565) who renders the phrase “the things that have intermingled with thy growth.”

36 Preferring the reading of the Latin; the Syriac and Ethiopic versions (.OTP, 1. 544 n. 8t) followed by Box, APOT, give “ranged thyself.”

37 In his English translation of Lam. Rab. (n. 32 above), Cohen mistakenly states that this passage is omitted in the Buber edition. Rather it is found elsewhere, as noted (39b–40a).

38 So the standard ed.; Buber ed. = bḥdʾ bqʿtʾ “in a certain valley.”

39 Mothers ate their children, and a son inadvertently ate the corpse of his father. Shaye Cohen, H. D. (“The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” Prooftexts 2 (1982) 22) notes that the grisly motif of mother eating child was already a literary commonplace in the sixth century BCE; cf. Lam 2:20. The son eating the father appears to be a variation on that theme.Google Scholar

40 Cf. 2 Mace 7:1–41 and b. Giṭ. 57b, neither of which names the mother. In Josippon 4:19 she is named Hannah.

41 The suggestion that the torn robe refers to the ark curtain is offered by Cohen in a note to his translation, 68 n. 1.

42 He shares their joy also: “R. Aḥa said: When good (befalls them), he rejoices with them” (ed. Buber 60b).

43 Following the standard ed. (versus Buber ed. = knst yśrʾl). Buber suggests a conflation of the two versions: “The Holy Spirit cried out (Lam 3:58): ‘O Lord, thou hast pleaded the causes of my soul! ‘“Thís emendation would appear to make less sense than either of the attested readings.

44 Following the standard ed. and the proposed emendation of Buber, 35b n. 301.

45 For this usage of bdyn hwʾ, see Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalmi and Midrashic Literature (New York: Putnam's, 1903) 301 s.v. dyn.Google Scholar

46 In his translation Cohen justifiably inserts this parenthetical interpretation in place of the literal meaning of Lam 2:3 (169 n. 2). Cf. 3 Enoch 44:7–10 (ca. sixth century CE?) for a similar tradition from the Merkabah literature.

47 Urbach, Ephraim E., The Sages (trans. I. Abrahams; Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975) 40–57. Cf. Moore, Judaism, 1. 419, 434–35, who discusses the term in the context of the Targum's various circumlocutions for God, e.g., škyntʾ, yqrʾ, mymrʾ.Google Scholar

48 So Buber ed.; standard ed. = qtygwryh, prosecution.

49 Otto, Rudolf, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man (trans. F. Filson and B. Woolf; London: Lutterworth, 1938) 41–42.Google Scholar

50 Cf. ʾAbot R. Nat, 4 version A (ed. Schechter 11a).

51 Y. M. Grintz, “God in Talmudic Literature,” EncJud, 7. 656–57.

52 An exception was the Montanist movement of the second century, which revived the prophetic charisma and rekindled the expectation of an imminent new age; see Rowland, Open Heaven, 392–93.

53 Schmithals, Apocalyptic Movement, 159.