THE IMPACT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE / ‫החורבן במחשבת הנצרות הנכרית‬

ON GENTILE CHRISTIANITY
Author(s): HYAM MACCOBY and ‫חיים מכובי‬
Source: Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies / ‫דברי הקונגרס העולמי‬
1997 / ‫ תשנ"ז‬,‫למדעי היהדות‬, Vol. ‫&יב‬lrm;, Division B: History of the Jewish People /
‫ תולדות עם ישראל‬:‫&חטיבה ב‬lrm; (1997 / ‫)תשנ"ז‬, pp. 1*-6*
Published by: World Union of Jewish Studies / ‫האיגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות‬

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23535839

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the
World Congress of Jewish Studies / ‫דברי הקונגרס העולמי למדעי היהדות‬

This content downloaded from

37.203.152.53 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 22:57:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE IMPACT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE ON
GENTILE CHRISTIANITY

BY

HYAM MACCOBY

In Christian literature later than the New Testament there is a strong te

to see the destruction of the Temple as proof that God had abandon
Jewish Covenant and now supported the New Covenant of Christiani
issue is separate (though often not clearly distinguished) from the belief t
Jewish condition of exile was a punishment for the Jewish rejection of
The view in question is found in the Church Fathers, in medieval Chri
literature and in modern times.1 For example, the 1910 edition of the Ca
Encyclopaedia ('Jews') says, 'The Romans came and in AD 70 put
forever to the Jewish Temple, priesthood, sacrifices and nation, wh
should have become clear to the Jews that their national worship was re
God.' This is omitted from the 1967 New Catholic Encyclopaedia. The que
is, however, whether this attitude towards the destruction of the Temple
found in the New Testament itself. The Gospels were all written af
destruction of the Temple. They contain a prophecy of its destruction put
mouth of Jesus, which, as most modern scholars think, is a post ev
reaction by the composers of the Gospels.2 It is found in the so-calle
Apocalypse (Mark 13, Matthew 24, Luke 21) and its mood is one of d

E.g. Chrysostom, Or. C. Jud. IV, 7 (881). See S.G.F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem
Christian Church, London 1951, p. 205.
Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple should not be confused with his de
(Matthew 26:61, John 2:19) that he could destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three day
may indeed have been a genuine saying of Jesus as part of his messianic role of restora
new Temple was included in messianic expectations: see for example I Enoch 90
addition to the evidence of Ezekiel and the Temple Scroll. See also Revelation 21:1-4,
of Jewish-Christian origin.

‫*נ‬1]

This content downloaded from

37.203.152.53 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 22:57:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HYAM MACCOBY

rather than of satisfaction at the end of an obsolete form of worship.3 It

that the reaction even of Gentile Christians in the immediate wake of th
was one of shock. It was understood as a tragic apocalyptic event, part
disasters foretold in the Hebrew Prophets and Daniel as preceding th
Days. It was expected that the parousia of Jesus would occur shortly,
period of suffering in which the destruction of the Temple formed one ele
There is another passage in the Synoptic Gospels, however, that does sh
reaction more akin to that of the later Church. This is the legend of the r
of Temple curtain at the time of the Crucifixion (Mark 15:38, Matthew 2
Luke 23:45).
The legend of the curtain or 'veil' is found in its earliest form in Mark
Jesus gave a loud cry and died. And the curtain of the Temple was torn i
from top to bottom.' The curtain or veil referred to is that which stood
the Holy of Holies, i.e. the ‫( תכרפ‬Exod. 26:33-34). It represented the u
means of atonement or salvation afforded by Judaism, since it was throu
curtain that the High Priest proceeded into the Holy of Holies once a year
Day of Atonement. The rending of the curtain, therefore, not only presa
destruction of the Temple, but marked the cessation of Judaism as a mea
salvation. This of course was written into the Gospel story by hindsight,
light of the historical destruction of the Temple. The linking of the mom
Jesus' death with the ending of the atoning potency of the Temple is
expression of the Gentile Christian belief in the advent of a new era and
Covenant. This is the first adumbration of a new attitude towards the awe
event of the destruction of the Temple. Instead of being regarded
catastrophe heralding the parousia, it was regarded as a necessary event p
the way for a new dispensation in which its place was taken by the sacra
the Eucharist, administered by a new priesthood, stemming by spi
succession from the Apostles, not by physical descent from Aaron.
The Pauline Church, as evidenced by the New Testament Epistles
Gospels, had broken away from Judaism and severed all ties with J
patriotism as well as with the Jewish claim to be the people of God.

The Little Apocalypse presents many problems, and is probably of composite for
partly stemming from a pre-Destruction Jewish-Christian source. We have to c
however, the motivations of the final editors who included this passage in the Gospe
Paul's apocalypse (I Thessalonians, 2:3-4), concerning the Antichrist, does not refe
assume, the destruction of the Temple. The Antichrist here should not be equated w
'abomination of desolation' of the Little Apocalypse. The Gospel of John, on the othe
does clearly know of the destruction of the Temple when the High Priest is represe
saying, with dramatic irony, 'Then the Romans will come and sweep away our temple
nation'(John 11:48).

‫* נ‬2]

This content downloaded from

37.203.152.53 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 22:57:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE IMPACT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE ON GENTILE CHRISTIANITY

expressed most fully in the Epistle to the Hebrews, written (before t

destruction of the Temple, in my opinion) by a disciple of Paul. The w
explains in great detail that the death of Jesus functions as the final sacrif
rendering obsolete all the sacrifices of the Jewish Temple. Yet this work
betrays the anxiety attendant on such a posture adopted while the Temple w
still standing. The author is aware that he is putting forward a radical thesi
is arguing his case with an argumentative care that became unnecessary after
fall of the Temple, which (once the initial shock had worn off) was see
provide unanswerable proof that God had abolished the Jewish cult.5
In the Gospels generally we see a great change from the atmosphere of th
Epistle to the Hebrews. The break with Jewish authority (both in the form
Judaism itself and of the Jerusalem Church) no longer causes misgivings. T
Jews had been smitten by the wrath of God. Their bold attempt to break f
from the power of Rome had proved a delusion. The destruction of the Tem
and also the defeat of the Jewish nation was a liberating event for the Gen
Christian Church, which, in the Gospels, dissociates itself from Jewi
patriotism and disclaims any intention on Jesus' part to oppose Roman powe
The whole story of Jesus is remodelled to blame the Jews, not the Romans,
his death. Jesus is interpreted as the founder of a new religion, not as a Je
messiah-figure or liberator. The stage is set for the relegation of the Jews to
status of a pariah people.6 The fall of the Jewish religion, as alleg
represented by the disappearance of its Temple, thus constitutes part of the
im leben of the composition of the Gospels.
The myth of the rending of the Temple curtain points to both obsolescen
and destruction. Without the ‫תכרפ‬, the Temple could not function. The cur
of course, could be mended, but its miraculous rending showed what wa
store for the Jewish cult. The authors of the Gospels knew that the Temple

The fact that the author does not mention the destruction of the Temple, which would
constituted a powerful support to his argument that God had rejected the Temple, indic
that this composition was written before the Destruction, as argued cogently by G
Buchanan, Epistle to the Hebrews, Anchor Bible, New York 1972, pp. 257-263, by Do
Guthrie, The Letter to the Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale N
Testament Commentaries, Leicester 1983, pp. 28-31, and by other scholars, includin
Manson, C. Spicq, H. Montefiore, F.F. Bruce, J. Héring and A. Strobel. Buchanan poi
out that Heb. 9:6-9 refers explicitly to ongoing practice of the sacrifices by its use of prese
tenses. However, the view that Hebrews was written after the Destruction has also been
by many scholars, including A. Wikenhauser, W.G. Kiimmel, W. Marxsen, D.P. Ful
A.F.J. Klijn and N. Perrin in their Introductions, who see the present tenses of Heb. 9:6-9 (a
7:8; 13:10), as a literary device, as in 1 Clem. 61.
See Hyam Maccoby, A Pariah People: the Anthropology of Antisemitism, London, 19

‫* נ‬3]

This content downloaded from

37.203.152.53 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 22:57:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HYAM MACCOBY

survived about 40 years after the death of Jesus. Symbolically, howev

destruction took place simultaneously with Jesus' death.
Medieval Christian scholars such as Raymund Martini, searchin
rabbinic writings for confirmation of Christian ideas, found with
excitement certain passages which seemed to corroborate, to some extent,
curtain-myth of the Gospels. Certain Talmudic passages assert (b. Yoma 39
Yoma 43c) that 40 years before the destruction of the Temple, some
functions ceased: "Forty years before the Destruction of the Temple, the lo
the Lord') did not come up on the right hand; and the scarlet strap ceased t
white; the western light did not shine (after the others); and the doors o
Hekhal opened of their own accord, until Rabban Yochanan ben Zak
rebuked them, saying to them, 'Hekhal, Hekhal, why do you alarm yours
know that you will be destroyed in the end, and Zechariah ben Ido has alr
prophesied this, saying, Open thy doors, Lebanon, that fire may consume
cedars.'" (Zech. 11:1)
This passage has delighted Christian missionaries even to the presen
because the time indication of 40 years before the Destruction seems to p
the cessation of the Temple's efficacy for atonement from the time of J
death.

Actually there is little connection between the Talmudic legend and that of
the Gospel. The Talmudic legend concerns omens presaging the Destruction of
the Temple, and may be compared with similar legends of omens presaging
disaster in other ancient cultures. The period of 40 years for the maturation of a
climactic event, whether good or bad, can be paralleled in many other contexts
in Jewish tradition. The cessation of minor miracles is not intended to mean that

the Temple service became inefficacious for atonement during the forty years it
continued to function.7
What the Talmudic legend does show is that even in Jewish circles the
destruction of the Temple was regarded as a fated event, being preceded by
prophecies and omens. It may seem surprising that Jewish tradition does not do
more than this in the way of mythicizing such an important event. Instead,
Jewish tradition prefers, on the whole, to explain the destruction as the

Matthew's version of the curtain-legend shows some interesting variations. He adds that an
earthquake occurred, after which 'the graves opened and many of God's saints were raised
from sleep; and coming out of their graves after his resurrection they entered the Holy city,
where many saw them'. The resurrection of saints before the resurrection of Jesus proved a
problem to later Christian commentators. The awkward 'his' instead of'their' seems intended
to cope with this difficulty.

[4*]

This content downloaded from

37.203.152.53 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 22:57:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 THE IMPACT OF THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TEMPLE ON GENTILE CHRISTIANITY

consequence of Jewish sins, such as that of 'groundless hate'. This low-key

approach may be explained as the result of later disappointments, which caused
earlier apocalyptic interpretations to be suppressed. For example, it has often
been pointed out that the timing of the Bar Kokhba revolt points to a belief
(never explicit in the extant sources) that the pattern of the destruction of the
First Temple would be repeated — seventy years of desolation followed by a
Restoration.

I suggest that apocalyptic belief lies behind the well-known aggadah in

Eikhah Rabbati 2:57 that on the day of the Destruction the Messiah was born.
This again was seized on by Christian missionary scholars to show that the
Messiah had already appeared in the ancient world. Nachmanides, in the
Barcelona Disputation, argued that the date of the Destruction did not coincide
with the birth of Jesus, and that in any case the date of the Messiah's birth was
not the same as the date of his coming. He also suggested that the midrash could
be taken allegorically or symbolically rather than literally, a suggestion
followed up by one of the Jewish disputants in the Tortosa Disputation. But
from a historian's point of view, the midrash may be regarded as a survival in
rabbinic literature from a period in which the Destruction was expected to be
followed a few decades later by the Messianic age.
What was the attitude of the Jewish-Christians of the Jerusalem Church to
the destruction of the Temple? The leader of the Jerusalem Church was James,
the brother of Jesus. James's devotion to the Temple service is attested several
times in the book of Acts. His followers too were devoted to the Temple, and
this shows that they regarded themselves as Jews, not as adherents of a new
religion. Loyalty to the Temple also meant acceptance of the Jewish priesthood.
James, Peter and John did not regard themselves as priests, nor did they
administer the Pauline sacrament of the Eucharist.8 The Jewish Christians were
a monarchist movement regarding Jesus as the true king of Israel, whose return
they awaited (while meanwhile his closest relative James acted as Prince
Regent).9 They did not worship Jesus as God, but thought he had been brought
back to life after his crucifixion by a miracle. The Christian legend that the
Jewish-Christians withdrew from the coming conflict with Rome by migrating
to Pella has been shown to be historically false. They shared with their fellow

Hyam Maccoby,'Paul and the Eucharist', New Testament Studies, vol. 37, (1991) pp. 247-267.
See also Hyam Maccoby, Paul and Hellenism, London 1991, ch. 4, 'Paul and the Eucharist'.
For the opposite view that the Eucharist was practised in the Jerusalem Church, see J.
Jeremias, The Eucharistie Words of Jesus, London 1966, pp. 133-34.
Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker, London/New York, 1986.

‫* נ‬5]

This content downloaded from

37.203.152.53 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 22:57:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 HYAM MACCOBY

Jews in the tribulations of the Jewish War, and mourned like them
catastrophic defeat.10
Though there is no direct evidence, it is probable that like other J
period, they would have regarded the destruction of the Te
apocalyptic event preceding the advent of the Messiah within a f
decades; the difference was that they thought this Messiah would be
time went on and Jesus did not appear, they were forced to m
adjustment to their interpretation of the destruction of the Temple
from a surviving document of Jewish-Christian (Ebionite)
Kerygmata Petri, contained in the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies
branch of the Jewish-Christian movement became vegetarians, a
that the Temple sacrifices had come to an end because God no lo
animals to be killed either for sacrifice or for food. Another branch of the

Ebionites, however, as we learn from the document discovered by Shlomo

Pines,11 retained their belief in the validity of the Temple service, and, not being
able to explain its disappearance as a prelude to the early return of Jesus,
blamed it on Israel's sins, in the same way as mainstream Jews.
Thus all three movements, Gentile Christians, Jewish Christians and
mainstream Jews evolved and changed as the shock of the destruction of the
Temple receded into the past. Only Gentile Christians were able to develop
positive feelings about the disaster, as the growing triumph of the Church
confirmed for them that the fall of the Temple had cleared the way for
Christianity. Both Jews and Jewish Christians had to give up their initial hopes
or consolations, and accept that the destruction of the Temple was not a prelude
to an early restoration.

S.G. F. Brandon, The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church, London 1951, pp. 168-73.
Gerd L demann, 'The Successors of Pre-70 Jerusalem Christianity: A Critical evaluation of
the Pella-Tradition', in E.P. Sanders, ed., Jewish and Christian Self-Definition, vol. 1,
London 1980.

S. Pines, 'The Jewish Christians according to a New Source' Proceedings of the Israel
Academy of Sciences and Humanities, vol. 2, Jerusalem 1968.

‫* נ‬6]

This content downloaded from

37.203.152.53 on Tue, 07 Nov 2023 22:57:44 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms