Rending of the veil

[Tenorikuma]

Odd that the author/interpolator of the Testament of Benjamin thinks the saviour would be crucified in the temple.

[Ben C. Smith]

Odd that the author/interpolator of the Testament of Benjamin thinks the saviour would be crucified in the temple.

Yes, odd that. Testament of Benjamin 9.1-5 (R. H. Charles translation):

1 And I believe that there will be also evil-doings among you, from the words of Enoch the righteous: that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom, and shall perish, all save a few, and shall renew wanton deeds with women; and the kingdom of the Lord shall not be among, you, for straightway He shall take it away. 2 Nevertheless the temple of God shall be in your portion, and the last (temple) shall be more glorious than the first. And the twelve tribes shall be gathered together there, and all the Gentiles, until the Most High shall send forth His salvation in the visitation of an only 3 begotten prophet. [And He shall enter into the [first] temple, and there shall the Lord be treated with outrage, and He shall be lifted up upon 4 a tree. And the veil of the temple shall be rent, and the Spirit of God shall pass on to the Gentiles 5 as fire poured forth. And He shall ascend from Hades and shall pass from earth into heaven. And I know how lowly He shall be upon earth, and how glorious in heaven.]

And here is the passage in Migne (a composite image to account for the page break):



Ben(jamin).

[Ben C. Smith]

Also, to add to the list of sources that Peter gave....

Jerome writes in On Matthew 4, commentary on Matthew 27.51, citing the gospel of the Hebrews:

In evangelio cuius saepe facimus mentionem superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse atque divisum legimus.
In the gospel of which we often make mention we read that a lintel of the temple of infinite magnitude was broken and divided.

Jerome also writes to Hedibia in epistle 120:

In evangelio autem quod Hebraicis litteris scriptum est legimus, non velum templi scissum, sed superliminare templi mirae magnitudinis corruisse.

But in the gospel which is written with Hebraic letters we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that the lintel of the temple, of marvelous magnitude, fell.

A. F. J. Klijn, on page 94 of Jewish-Christian Gospel Tradition, lists parallels to this text. First, Christian of Stavelot (century IX) writes: Refert Iosephus superliminare quod infinitum magnitudinis erat fractum esse atque divisum, etiam angelicas virtutes tunc in ipso tempore clamasse: Transeamus ex his sedibus (Josephus says that a lintel of infinite magnitude was broken and divided, and also that angelic forces then at that time exclaimed: Let us leave these regions). Second, Peter Comestor (century XII) has: Nam et in evangelio Nazareorum superliminare templi infinitae magnitudinis fractum esse legitur auditasque voces in aere: Transeamu{u}s ex his sedibus (for in the gospel of the Nazarenes it is read that a lintel of the temple of infinite magnitude was broken and voices were heard in the air: Let us go out from these places).

Compare also History of the Passion of the Lord (century XIV), folio 65 recto, concerning the signs at the death of the Lord:

Item in e[v]angelio Nazareorum legitur superliminare templi infinite magnitudinis in morte Christi scissum. idem dicit Iosephus et addit quod audite sunt voces horribiles in aere dicentes: Transeamus ab hiis sedibus.

Likewise in the gospel of the Nazaraeans it is read that a lintel of the temple of infinite magnitude was broken at the death of Christ. Josephus says the same thing and adds that horrible voices were heard in the air saying: Let us leave these regions.

Ben.

[TedM]

So, if one believes Jesus really did die 40 years before the destruction, shouldn't one say 'wow, what a weird coincidence--in fact so weird there may be something to the Christian claims'? The other option of course is that the timing of the death was NO COINCIDENCE by virtue of a completely made-up crucifixion after the destruction of the temple to coincide with the 40 years prior expectation.

[DCHindley]

Odd that the author/interpolator of the Testament of Benjamin thinks the saviour would be crucified in the temple.

Yes, odd that. Testament of Benjamin 9.1-5 (R. H. Charles translation):

1 And I believe that there will be also evil-doings among you, from the words of Enoch the righteous: that ye shall commit fornication with the fornication of Sodom, and shall perish, all save a few, and shall renew wanton deeds with women; and the kingdom of the Lord shall not be among, you, for straightway He shall take it away. 2 Nevertheless the temple of God shall be in your portion, and the last (temple) shall be more glorious than the first. And the twelve tribes shall be gathered together there, and all the Gentiles, until the Most High shall send forth His salvation in the visitation of an only 3 begotten prophet. [And He shall enter into the [first] temple, and there shall the Lord be treated with outrage, and He shall be lifted up upon 4 a tree. And the veil of the temple shall be rent, and the Spirit of God shall pass on to the Gentiles 5 as fire poured forth. And He shall ascend from Hades and shall pass from earth into heaven. And I know how lowly He shall be upon earth, and how glorious in heaven.]

And here is the passage in Migne (a composite image to account for the page break):

Charles seems to follow a Greek text similar to that edited by Craig Evans1, who himself utilized public domain texts:

(T Benjamin 9:2) καὶ δώδεκα φυλαὶ ἐκεῖ συναχθήσονται καὶ πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, ἕως οὗ ὁ ὕψιστος ἀποστείλῃ τὸ σωτήριον2 αὐτοῦ ἐν ἐπισκοπῇ μονογενοῦς προφήτου.

And the twelve tribes shall be gathered together there, and all the Gentiles, until the Most High shall send forth His salvation2 in the visitation of an only-begotten prophet.

Some observations:
1) Shouldn't ἐπισκοπῇ be translated as "office" or "oversight"?
2) μογενοῦς "only-begotten" follows mss β-b. Charles, following the example of T. Levi 8:15, "beloved as a prophet of the Most High", suggests "only-begotten" should be read as "beloved". However, Evans' text at T.Lev. 8:15 actually reads ἄφραστος meaning "inexpressible".3. Charles seems to be following mss α a f S2, which uses some form of "beloved", while Evans follows Charles' mss β-a f A.
3) The Greek text in Migne's edition does not have προφήτου (prophet) as does Evans' text does, or as translated by Charles. Ms c has "only begotten Son" where "son" "rather than "prophet" is clearly a Christian gloss. Is προφήτου, then, actually a modern emendation based on T. Levi?

In other words, it could say "... until the Most High shall send forth His Savior who holds an especially unique office", which may have originally referred to some sort of sectarian teacher, but which I think was understood by the author of T. Benj. 9:3 as referring to Jesus Christ in a manner similar to the third portion mentioned in T. Levi 8:11-15.

This passage in T. Levi seems to me at least to be a Christian interpolation, although Charles is of the opinion that "Verses 14-15 date this work in the time of the Maccabean dynasty. Verse 15 dates it under John Hyrcanus, who alone of the Maccabees is credited with the gift of prophecy, Josephus, Bell. Iud. i. 2. 8." However, the text of Migne at T. Benj. 9:2 does not have the word "prophet".

I would think of T. Lev. 8 as a Christian gloss, where the first portion of the Levites are Moses and Aaron, the second portion are the priests descended from the sons of Aaron (which would include the Maccabees and the Hasmoneans generally), and the third portion refers to Jesus Christ as a high priest not of Aaronid descent.

As everybody knows, though, it is notoriously difficult to tell what is distinctly Judean and distinctly Christian in the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs. All this effort I have just expended, in the end, may well prove worthless ...

DCH

Notes:

1) The Greek Pseudepigrapha. Electronic text prepared by Craig A. Evans. Morphologically tagged by Rex A. Koivisto. Copyright © 2008 Craig A. Evans. Copyright © OakTree Software, Inc. ... The actual Greek texts used in this module have been taken from standard public domain texts. [per Bibleworks 8]

2) σωτήριον adj sg neut nom, from σωτήρ-ιος , ον, Per Liddell Scott Jones "2. of persons, much like σωτήρ".

3) (T of Levi 8:11-15) 11 And they said to me: Levi, thy seed shall be divided into three offices, for a sign of the glory of the Lord who is to come.
12 And the first portion shall be great; yea, greater than it shall none be.
13 The second shall be in the priesthood.
14 And the third shall be called by a new name, because a king shall arise in Judah, and shall establish a new priesthood, after the fashion of the Gentiles [[to all the Gentiles]].
15 And His presence is beloved, as a prophet of the Most High, of the seed of Abraham our father.

11 εἶπαν δὲ πρός με· Λευί, εἰς τρεῖς ἀρχὰς διαιρεθήσεται τὸ σπέρμα σου, εἰς σημεῖον δόξης κυρίου ἐπερχομένου·
12 καὶ ὁ πιστεύσας πρῶτος ἔσται· κλῆρος μέγας ὑπὲρ αὐτὸν οὐ γενήσεται.
13 ὁ δεύτερος ἔσται ἐν ἱερωσύνῃ.
14 ὁ τρίτος, ἐπικληθήσεται αὐτῷ ὄνομα καινόν, ὅτι βασιλεὺς ἐκ τοῦ Ἰούδα ἀναστήσεται, καὶ ποιήσει ἱερατείαν νέαν, κατὰ τὸν τύπον τῶν ἐθνῶν, εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη.
15 ἡ δὲ παρουσία αὐτοῦ ἄφραστος, ὡς προφήτου ὑψηλοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος Ἀβραὰμ πατρὸς ἡμῶν.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

If you accept that gMark comes first, the rending of the veil near the end of the gospel mirrors the rending of heaven at the beginning (the same word for "rending" is used), when the spirit of God transitions from heaven to earth (Jesus).

The split goes also the same direction.

ἀπ’ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω
from top to bottom

Can anybody give me some good insight regarding of the rending of the veil? Did this really happen--- or is it only reflected in the gospel stories? Is it unprovable because the gospel writers wrote about this incident after the destruction of the temple? Is the whole thing allegorical? I have heard some Christian try to tie it to the supposed earthquake mentioned in Matthew. I don't think the Jews or any other contemporary during Jesus' time mentioning this occurrence. Can anybody give me some insight?

Personally, I find it hard to imagine that Mark tried to describe a natural event. To me it seems to be a divine action. (btw - It makes me chuckle that "some Christians" argue for a natural event and "some Agnostics" for a divine action.)

[Ben C. Smith]

The split goes also the same direction.

ἀπ’ ἄνωθεν ἕως κάτω
from top to bottom

David Ulansey pointed out several parallels between the baptism and the death: http://www.mysterium.com/veil.html. Consider the following connections:

1. At both events something descends; the holy spirit descends as a dove at the baptism of Jesus, and the veil rips in two from top to bottom at his death.
2. At both events the spirit is moving; at the baptism the spirit enters Jesus, and at his death the spirit exits him (the word for expire or exhale in Mark 15.37, εξεπνευσεν, literally means spirit out).
3. At both events somebody claims that Jesus is a son of God (υιος θεου); at his baptism it is a voice from heaven, at his death a nearby centurion.
4. At both events the eschatological figure of Elijah is symbolically present; at the baptism of Jesus it is in the person of John the baptist (whom Jesus himself affirms as Elijah in Mark 9.9-13), while at his death the bystanders mistake his forlorn cry for a call to Elijah.
5. At both events something tears; at the baptism of Jesus it is heaven, and at his death it is the veil.

Ben.

[Clive]

What is the middle of this chiasm?

[Peter Kirby]

So, if one believes Jesus really did die 40 years before the destruction, shouldn't one say either say 'wow, what a weird coincidence--in fact so weird there may be something to the Christian cliams'? The other option of course is that the timing of the death was NO COINCIDENCE by virtue of a completely made-up crucifixion after the destruction of the temple to coincide with the 40 years prior expectation.

The 'may be' may be true regardless ('there may be something to the Christian cliams').

But the symbolic value of the number 40 (and the figure '40 years') would also be true regardless (of whether Jesus was crucified by Pilate or not).

So on the hypothesis of the historicity or non-historicity of Jesus, in either case, the Talmud placing the opening of the doors of the Temple some 40 years before its destruction would be a coincidence (a coincidence in either case--motivated by the symbolic value of the figure of 40 years).

For those wondering whether there is something to Christian claims, though, the Christian and Jewish cycles of legend appear to be quite different. The Jewish cycle doesn't speak about the tearing of a veil, about a great earthquake (where saints raise from the dead), or about a darkness over the earth for several hours. The Christian cycle doesn't speak about doors opening of themselves, about the western light in the Temple no longer function of itself, of an old man that is the theophanic appearance of God no longer appearing in the temple, or about armies of angels visible in the sky doing battle.

So for those wondering about what may have been, what seems most likely is that these legends developed independently (and with only a very dubious connection to historical facts, being motivated by the destruction of the Temple).

(Of course, the date of the death of Jesus is less of a 'coincidence' if it had been made up. That's true.)

[Peter Kirby]

For those wondering whether there is something to Christian claims, though, the Christian and Jewish cycles of legend appear to be quite different. The Jewish cycle doesn't speak about the tearing of a veil, about a great earthquake (where saints raise from the dead), or about a darkness over the earth for several hours. The Christian cycle doesn't speak about doors opening of themselves, about the western light in the Temple no longer function of itself, of an old man that is the theophanic appearance of God no longer appearing in the temple, or about armies of angels visible in the sky doing battle.

I would add that the accounts that are closest in time to the origin of the Jewish cycle (Josephus, Tacitus) do not place anything 40 years prior.