Why do ancient Jewish sources increasingly downplay Rome's role in Jerusalem's destruction?

Upvote:1

Re the end of your first bullet point, true that the Romans weren't shy about trumpeting their victories, but they also didn't care to be seen as vandals of a temple that was hundreds of years old, and that (after Herod's renovations) was one of the wonders of the world. So yes: Josephus, Roman bootlicker that he was, would have had good reason to pretend that they destroyed it by accident.

For the rest, compare the (canonical, post-First Temple) Ezekiel, who describes visions of angels killing the inhabitants of Jerusalem (ch. 9) and hurling fiery coals down on it (ch. 10). Does he mean that Nebuchadnezzar's army didn't kill the people and destroy the city? Certainly not, since he also speaks of them doing so (metaphorically in 16:37ff and 23:22ff, a more down-to-earth description in 21:23(28)ff, etc.). So evidently he's describing a spiritual killing and destruction that preceded and facilitated the physical one.

Well, then, even if we suppose that 2 Esdras and 2 Baruch represent an "increasing" tendency among post-Second Temple Jewry (doubtful in and of itself), all it means is that they're taking the same tack, focusing on what they perceived as the spiritual causes of the events.

More post

Search Posts

Related post