FWIW, I have a theory that the temple prophesy is historical and, indeed, that it’s the main reason the guy was remembered. But I don’t think it’s a supernatural prophesy. The Jews tended to be rebellious. The Romans tended to be hard on rebels. Supposing that the temple might get taken down (again) wasn’t such a stretch. By way of comparison, I anticipated 9/11 (well, a version of it) eight years before the event, right after the 1993 attempt on the WTC. That doesn’t make me psychic.
Bart Ehrman thinks the destruction prophecy was historical too (though, interestingly, he also thinks that Jesus was trying to bring the Messiah rather than trying to be the Messiah), but as you said, it really wasn’t such an uncanny thing to predict. Josephus tells a story in Jewish Wars about a peasant named Jesus who went around Jerusalem during the Passover loudly predicting the destruction of the Temple. This angered some “eminent” Jews who whipped him (Jospehus phrases it as giving him “stripes”) and let him go but he continued to go around wailing his prophecy. He was then brought before the Roman procurator, whipped “until his bones were laid bare” and interrogated. This Jesus refused to make any defense of himself and did not cry when he was being whipped. The procurator asked him who was but Jesus remained silent. The procurator then decided that he was crazy and let him go. He was killed seven years later when the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem (fulfilling his prophecy).
Predicting the destruction of the Temple wasn’t an especially extraordinary or unusual thing to do. It was kind of an obvious target for gloom and doom street preachers.
To be honest, I’ve never had the fortitude to tackle Josephus in primary text. And if I’ve heard that anecdote before, it’s slipped its hook that that’s the provenance. (As distinguished from the Testimonium and James reference, on which I’ve read a fair amount.) Very interesting, as I subscribe to the rather conventional skeptical view that the Gospels are a synthesis of various stories and traditions, no one of which is wholly true, but many of which contain true elements, just not about the same guy. If you happen to have a cite handy, I’d be much obliged. I like to track this down and read it. Thanks.
Sure. Here you go. [url=]Jewish Wars, 6:5:3 (scroll a little more than halfway down the page)
It’s pretty striking, isn’t it? But it’s an incident from 30 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus (and the procurator in this case is Albinus rather than Pilate). Still, it’s worth reading. There are some people who argue for a much later dating of Mark (some think that Mark’s “Little Apocalypse” better fits events of the Second Jewish War (132-135 CE) than the first (64-70 CE) which is the mainstream view for what Mark was referring to. Those who advocate the later dating sometimes cite the above passage for what they see as evidence of the author borrowing from Josephus. I’m not advocating that view (I think it would push Matthew and Luke further into the 2nd Century than what I feel is realistic), but I’ll throw it out to the room just because I think it’s an interesting take.
Oops. Forgot the link.
http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war6.html
Thanks. Striking, indeed. All the more so since the name “Ananus” also shows up in the famous James reference. Makes me wonder whether the Testimonium was some similarly time-displaced reference (from an orthodox perspective) and simply swapped out with a more “accurate” reference early on in the transmittal process (the swapped text suffering further emendation over the years).
Anyhoo, if this is the source of that strand of the Gospels - on which I want to reflect for a while and compare with other data - it mostly shoots my theory out of the water. My theory is/was that the prophesy is old and core. If this is the source, the prophesy becomes new and opportunistic (in terms of the synthesis). I can live with that. For me, this is a history problem, not a theological one. Learn sumptin’ new every day.