|
|
Post by rakovsky on Jan 14, 2020 23:01:10 GMT -8
One explanation could be that there was a certain amount of ambivalence in the scripture when taken by itself: Daniel 9 says that the Temple would be destroyed in war, but it didn't specify when exactly. But as Galilee and Judea were conquered, Josephus could better foresee that the prophecy was coming true in his time. This could be like the prophecy of the Messiah's death and resurrection. Yeshua had told His disciples about this ahead of time, but the Gospels say that they didn't understand what this meant. Apparently, they knew that Yeshua was predicting His death and resurrection, but they were not very sure what exactly this meant, ie what form the death and resurrection would take, like a physical vs spiritual one. But after the resurrection, the risen Yeshua explained the meaning to them. So in Josephus' case, he might not have been sure what exactly Daniel 9 was referring to, but as the defeats were occurring, he got a better sense that this was what the passage on the Temple's destruction in war in Daniel 9 was talking about. I was trying to address the good question that you asked about his knowledge of Daniel 9 before he advocated surrender when you asked, "He knew them beforehand, so why didn't they inform his opinion then?" So one explanation is that he knew about the prophecy of the Temple's destruction, and it did inform him, but the prophecy was not clear or exact enough as to exactly when it would occur, and so it did not stop him from setting out to join the revolt at the beginning. Daniel 9 predicts that the Temple would be destroyed in War after 483 years after a Word to rebuild the City, but this prophecy does not give an exact year or deadline. So Josephus, even if he were an observant Jew who considered Yeshua to be the Messiah, might not initially have had a strong sense that the revolt would fail and that the Temple would be destroyed. And it might only have been after the defeats in the Galilee that he predicted the revolt's defeat and that the Temple would be destroyed in this War. Sure, I am looking at this issue in terms of 21st century Christian eyes, because you are asking a good but tough question about why Josephus might not have avoided the doomed revolt in the first place. With 1st century Jewish eyes, one might have a closer grip on this issue and on this kind of question. For instance, one might ask similarly why the rebels themselves disregarded the prophecy if they accepted the Tanakh. And the answer might be similar, that the prophecy was not so specific and explicit that the rebels would have to realize that their revolt was doomed and that it would lead to the Temple's destruction. |
|
|
|
Post by alon on Jan 14, 2020 23:33:17 GMT -8
With 1st century Jewish eyes, one might have a closer grip on this issue and on this kind of question. For instance, one might ask similarly why the rebels themselves disregarded the prophecy if they accepted the Tanakh. And the answer might be similar, that the prophecy was not so specific and explicit that the rebels would have to realize that their revolt was doomed and that it would lead to the Temple's destruction.
|
|
- there are 70 faces to 
