Corpus-Paul

[Bob MacDonald <bobmacdonald AT shaw.ca>]

Tony

 

I wonder that perhaps the destruction discernable: Hebrews uses only the tabernacle as an image. In line with Stephen’s speech, (see ABC 2001 cited in a previous post), one might think that there was a certain anti-temple issue among the early believers. So the present tense (those who offer at the altar) might be simply used as comparison rather than implying that the temple was still standing. Also the destruction would have been a shock to all parties. Hebrews is written to encourage tenacity in the face of difficulty. Perhaps the shock is too near to name or far enough away to allude to without naming. In any case ‘we have an altar’ implies that the temple of the believers is not destroyed but is ‘outside the gate’ – i.e. no longer in the confines of the established or formerly established order.

 

(I see George has replied with a more definitive answer - )

 

Bob.

 

Bob MacDonald

Victoria BC

http://gx.ca

http://bmd.gx.ca

 

---

From: corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org [mailto:corpus-paul-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of Tony Costa
Sent: Saturday, April 01, 2006 10:21 AM
To: Corpus-Paul
Subject: Re: [Corpus-Paul] Hebrews

 

George F.Somsel wrote: "Any conclusions regarding Hebrews which is based upon an early dating of the Apocalypse is bound to meet with difficulty.  I would rather date it quite late -- even later than the traditional 96 a.d.  I think it shows evidence of the 2nd Jewish Revolt under bar Kochba."

 

George, if Heb. can be dated to the 2nd Jewish Revolt under Bar Kochba (132 - 135 CE), why does the writer or at least the writing  presuppose  that the Temple and its service is still functioning which would place it in a pre-70 CE period? Would not such a monumental and tragic event as the destruction of the 2nd Temple be evident or at least discernable within Heb.?

 

 

Tony Costa, B.A., M.A., Th.D (cand)

Toronto, Canada