In another thread Peter has listed good reasons to believe that the prophecy of the destruction of the temple is not post-70.
In particular:
viewtopic.php?p=178170#p178170
I would add a reason in more (debt to Heinrich Hammer): the Samaritan false prophet would be the only pre-70 figure who would have been hostile to the Temple of Gerusalem and would have spoken a such prophecy.
Once you exclude Jesus ben Ananias (who made yes the prophecy but evidently not with approval of the its content: as he witnessed on the his head).
All know that for the Samaritans the Mount Gerizim had to have the true temple.
In particular:
DeConick's idea, on the other hand, simply is sound: Jesus threatening that he would destroy the Temple at the end of days was offensive in a Jewish context.
viewtopic.php?p=178170#p178170
I would add a reason in more (debt to Heinrich Hammer): the Samaritan false prophet would be the only pre-70 figure who would have been hostile to the Temple of Gerusalem and would have spoken a such prophecy.
Once you exclude Jesus ben Ananias (who made yes the prophecy but evidently not with approval of the its content: as he witnessed on the his head).
All know that for the Samaritans the Mount Gerizim had to have the true temple.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Mon Dec 02, 2024 6:04 am