The Temple had been destroyed before by the Babylonians, but the Jews still stuck to being a temple cult. Yet when the Romans did it, they all gave up and became Rabbinic. Why?
Was it just because Rome banished Jews from living in Jerusalem?
Also, what were the general effects of the destruction of the 2nd temple?
Because Pharisees had the most wealth and maintained their perversion of the Jewish faith was true Judaism. Other groups simply became something else.
>but the Jews still stuck to being a temple cult
What did they do between the first and second temple?
I think they just haven't had a chance to rebuild it yet. Even though they've become a nation again there's a UNESCO world heritage site sitting where the temple is supposed to be.
What would be the true Jewish faith other than the Pharisees? The Sadduccees got JUST'd with the destruction of their temple for the 2nd time, and since they were exiled from Jerusalem, it's not like they would be able to re-establish themselves.
The Pharisees then wrote down the oral tradition as the Talmud. The Essene went and cucked themselves into oblivion. Zealots got stomped by Romans.
looks like the Jews got cucked for eternity.
Can someone just tell me why did the Pharisees had beef with Jesus? Why didn't all Jews go to Jesus?
>but the Jews still stuck to being a temple cult.
If you mean in the sense that there was a temple cult, sure. But it was hardly the unique or even dominant form of religious expression; hell, most of the Jews in the "Second Temple Era" lived in what's now Iraq, and never made a sacrifice in their lives.
> Yet when the Romans did it, they all gave up and became Rabbinic. Why?
It was more that the "Rabbinic school", which had existed for some time and was probably the dominant group at least in terms of things like education, could weather the destruction far better than the Temple group, and seized the opportunity to get dominance.
>Can someone just tell me why did the Pharisees had beef with Jesus?
They didn't. The "Pharisees" Jesus has a beef with in the Gospels tend to spout Sadducee positions, such as banishing of helaing on the Sabbath and being associated with the High Priests, who were Sadducees all the way through.
Someone either couldn't tell the difference or was deliberately distorting the record, possibly to try to get on the Roman good side. (The Sadducees were the collaborationist group, the Pharisees, the open revolt against Rome group, and let's not forget that the Gospels were probably penned around the time of the Great Revolt).
> Why didn't all Jews go to Jesus?
Well, for starters, he didn't exactly fulfill a lot of the Jewish Messianic prophecies. And then you have people running around claiming he's God, which would make it flat out heresy from a Jewish point of view.
Pharisees were strong legalists while Jesus advocated for worship based off of faith instead of practice, afaik
because when some dude goes around saying hes the son of god, some people are going to be skeptical, especially those already in power.
I'm trying to write a paper about the general period. I'm not exactly sure what my thesis should be.
>Effects of the Destruction of the 2nd Temple
>How Rome Changed Judaism
>How Rome Sowed the Seeds for Christianity
I've gotten through reading Josephus Flavius' "The Jewish War". I'm not exactly sure how to write a history paper. What's the point of reading the original sources if I can quickly know what happened through wikipedia? When should I quote primary sources?
I want the thesis something to do about Jesus, the 2nd temple and Rome. What should my thesis be?
>How Rome Sowed the Seeds for Christianity
Tell me more.
> I'm not exactly sure how to write a history paper.
Start with a point you want to argue. Lay out explicitly what you're trying to demonstrate (or disprove). It probably is best to pick something specific, but lay it out very clearly in your introduction. Then, go through all your evidence, and forge it into a narrative. At the end, show how the evidence supports your position, and acknowledge whatever weaknesses you might have, and why they're not such a big deal.
>What's the point of reading the original sources if I can quickly know what happened through wikipedia? When should I quote primary sources?
Think about it this way. Pretend that your paper is going to be read and has to be justified to the most disagreeable, obnoxious, retarded jackass who ever lived. They will not believe you if you claim that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west without you backing it up to an almanac. You cite your sources to prove to this hypothetical reader that you're not just making your shit up, and that things happened the way you say they happened.
>I want the thesis something to do about Jesus, the 2nd temple and Rome. What should my thesis be?
You could do one about the Sadducee-Pharisee confusion in the gospels, and possibly what role, if any, the differing Roman attitudes had on the two sects had to do with the formation of the Gospels.
You could do something about why the Romans have such a "quiet" presence in the Gospel narrative, with little indication of their presence outside the Pilate execution narrative.
Perhaps something about why you suddenly had a rash of apocalyptic preachers right about then, when Judea had been under some sort of foreign occupation or at least heavy influence for centuries, and the Romans weren't that different from the Selucids and Ptoelmiacs who preceded them.
Really, what do you want to write about? Why are you interested in this period?
Well they destroyed the temple didn't they? That and Roman occupation lead to the demand of a Messiah, which Jesus provided to some no?
Pompey in his initial conquest of Judea made sure to respect the rights of the Jews. However, Jewish culture would clash with Hellenistic culture often. Things would get worse under procurator Gessius Florus who would vandalize the temple which would lead to the 1st Jewish revolt which lead to the destruction of the temple. Judaism fractionalized between various denominations vying for the future of Judaism. Enter Jesus and his confederates John the Baptist, etc.
>Well they destroyed the temple didn't they? That and Roman occupation lead to the demand of a Messiah, which Jesus provided to some no?
Not him, but you run into a few problems with that line of reasoning. For starters, the messianic movements started before the temple destruction and went well beyond it; hell, Bar Kokhba had far greater acceptance of messianism among the Jewish population than Jesus ever did, and he's a far less famous figure nowadays.
Secondly, let's not forget that Christianity started making its real pace when it got away from the Jewish communities, and it's Pauline Gentile Christianity that formed the foundation for modern Christainity, not Jamesian Jewish-Christianity.
I wanted to write about how Rome allowed for the birth of Christianity, but to do that I needed context which made me go into this endless story of Jews with Josephus Flavius, and the Saduccees and Pharisees. All pretty cool honestly, but there is just so much I don't know. I've literally gone through most of "The Jewish War", delineating notes of what would be important to write about, but I don't see the point when wikipedia would be so much more efficient. Pic related is Chapter 1 of my notes.
>but I don't see the point when wikipedia would be so much more efficient.
Remember what I said about your hypothetical reader. Pretend that you have to justify your argument to a stubborn, obnoxious jackass, who every time you bring up wikipedia, will just derisively snort that any idiot can edit anything they want onto it, and most of the people who do aren't acadmeics and have no idea what they're talking about.
Is it a good source for information? Certainly. But it's not a good source for justification, which is ultimately why you cite things.
Right. So let's say my thesis is that the destruction of the Jewish temple lead to Christianity. All I do is write a narrative and cite sources to back me up and that's a paper?
I don't think Jesus or the early Christians were concerned with the temporal world. Jesus explicitly said not to resist the Romans "Render unto Caeser", and the Christians refused to join the revolts against Rome. If he even did claim to be Messiah he didn't mean it in the traditional sense. His main message seems to have been that the apocalypse was imminent.
Can you give me more info about the apocalypse stuff? Why was it a talking point, how popular was the view, why Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet?
Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium is a pretty good introduction.
Because Persia let the Jews back in to rebuild their temple 70 years after they lost it.
The Jews tried again after Rome too - but had no foreign sponsor, and Bar Kokhba got crushed. By the time Judea was finally lost to (Eastern) Rome there weren't enough Jews left there to rebuild, and Rabbinic Judaism was well developed; Sassanid Persia briefly offered the Jews control, then reversed course once they realized it was making them far more enemies then friends (and then lost it to the Romans again anyway).
The Bible actually helps you if are going with this thesis. I am not sure where you will find it, but Robert Hamerton-Kelly wrote an analysis on the Cleansing of the Temple, and the Cursing of the Fig Tree and how the cursing of the fig tree is an allegory for the destruction of the Temple cult. Basically this was Jesus saying, "the temple cult will be destroyed, leading to a diaspora among the Jewish people." Judaism finds itself being co-opted by Rabbinic leaders and from that you get prevalence of Messianic figures (who were already gurus vis-a-vis the Rabbinic order) and bam, Jesus.
The Messiah is by definition an apocalyptic figure.
It's why the hardcore Zionists and Evangelicals want to rebuild the temple, birth that fucking calf, push out everyone except the Jews from Israel, and then wait for the apocalypse to kick off. It's a shit show.