the focus on law, after the non-restoration of the Temple

-->

One of the strangest features of the Jesus narratives is how Jesus teaches the law, while simultaneously castigating those who follow it (rabbis, chief priests).

Christian exegesis of this is that Jesus was teaching “real” jewish law over/against those who were simply slavishly following it.  This is somehow supposed to make Jesus a better example. 

Logically, that doesn’t make sense.  Jesus teaches the law.  Rabbis/Pharisees/chief priests/etc teach and/or follow the law.  Why Is Jesus right and the rabbis/Pharisees/chief priests wrong?

Was he speaking to people who did not resist Hadrian?  To people who thought it would be possible to restore the sovereignty of Israel without having to get into a fight with Rome?  To people who were content to remain oppressed?  Or to people who did not want to recognize that Judean praxis would have to change in the face of the non-restoration of the Temple.

If we accept that the narratives were written after the Bar Cochba revolt, then we start from the point in time after Hadrian refused to rebuild the Temple.  In such a case, the chief priests are now obsolete.   That would explain why they are represented among those who disagree with/disbelieve Jesus:  Hadrian refused to rebuild the temple;  bar Cochba reconstituted Israel as a sovereign state;  the cohanim did not believe bar Cochba would be able to accomplish what Hadrian refused to permit:  the restoration of the Temple.  Bar Cochba was telling them that to be true Judeans, true adherents of the Law as it is presented in Torah, Temple praxis was unnecessary.

If we were to locate the construction of the narratives after the Jewish War, when the Temple had just been destroyed, we could not say the same thing:  at that time, there was still the possibility that the Temple could be rebuilt.  That hope persisted, due to Hadrian’s promise to rebuild it, until Hadrian made it apparent that the rebuilding he intended was a restoration of the structure, not a restoration of Judean Temple cultic practice.

If we accept Josephus’ explanation of the Pharisees, they formed a sect that was scrupulous about Judean praxis.  Judean praxis as they understood it centered on the Temple cult.  According to that model, without the Temple and its cult, Judean praxis did not exist.   As long as there was the possibility that the Temple and its cult would be restored, the Pharisees could live with alternate arrangements.  When it was obvious that the Temple and its praxis would not be restored, the Pharisees could argue that Judean praxis no longer existed.  In the reinstitution of the sovereign state of Israel under Bar Cochba, the teaching of Jesus/bar Cochba, served as a means of informing the Pharisees that  while the Temple cult was not longer in existence, Judean praxis continued, through observance of Law (Torah), rather than through dependence on Temple praxis.

This would explain why there was a divergence between “Jesus” and the “Lawyers/Pharisees/teachers of the law.”  Previously, “law” had focused on the laws as they pertained specifically to Temple praxis.  “Jesus”/bar Cochba had to remind his followers and those living in the newly reinstituted state of Israel that Judeans had observed God’s law before the Temple was built, before the Temple cult and its prasix was initiated.

Effectively, “Jesus”/bar Cochba is telling his followers that the Temple was constructed by human hands, not by G-d.  Therefore, it is not a problem that the Temple no longer exists.   The law that was constructed by God (those laws in Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy which do NOT pertain to the Temple) is still in effect.  Following those laws is a greater indication of Judean praxis than Temple cult worship.”

This is NOT a “new law.”  It is law we find in Exodus/Leviticus/Deuteronomy .  It is not the construction of an entirely new contract (covenant).  It is reminding the people that the original contract (covenant) was based on an agreement between God and people, and was predicated on the behavior of the people regarding each other, rather than on cultic praxis directed only at God.  “Jesus”/bar Cochba tells his followers that this, not the Temple itself, is what distinguishes Judean praxis from Greco-Roman praxis. 

This explains why Luke/Matthew attach their texts to early Judean narrative in Torah:  the constructors of the texts want to remind their audience that the canon contains more than just instruction on Temple praxis, and that the earlier narratives demonstrated how  Judeans interacted with God and with each other before the Temple was built.

Thus, when “Jesus”/bar Cochba tells his followers to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and render unto God what is God’s,” he is saying, “The land, the law and the people have a contract with God, not with Caesar, therefore they do not belong to Caesar.”