Oration 30 (Or. 30) has been commonly used in scholarship as positive affirmation of religious violence and temple destruction in late Antique Syria. This view of widespread violence in late 4th century Syria was previously supported by scholarship on temple destruction and conversion, which tended to argue that temple destruction and conversion was a widespread phenomenon in the 4th and 5th centuries. Recent archaeological scholarship, however, argues against this perspective, in favour of temple destruction and conversion being a rather exceptional and late phenomenon. The question must therefore be asked, to what extent can Libanius’ Or. 30 be used as a source of temple destruction in the Antiochene countryside in Late Antiquity? This question is explored through three chapters which examine: the text and context of Or. 30, the use and application of Roman law in Or. 30, and the archeological evidence for temple destruction and conversion in the Antiochene countryside. This research has revealed that Libanius tends to use similar arguments in his ‘reform speeches,’ that there was no legal basis for temple destruction in the late 4th century, and that there is no archaeological evidence for widespread temple destruction occurring around the composition of Or. 30. Thus, the evidence shows that Libanius’ claim of widespread violence must be seen as an exaggeration. Meaning that Or. 30 cannot be used to support the idea of widespread destruction and religious violence in the Antiochene countryside at the end of the 4th century or, for that matter, Late Antiquity in general.

Oration 30 (Or. 30) has been commonly used in scholarship as positive affirmation of religious violence and temple destruction in late Antique Syria. This view of widespread violence in late 4th century Syria was previously supported by scholarship on temple destruction and conversion, which tended to argue that temple destruction and conversion was a widespread phenomenon in the 4th and 5th centuries. Recent archaeological scholarship, however, argues against this perspective, in favour of temple destruction and conversion being a rather exceptional and late phenomenon. The question must therefore be asked, to what extent can Libanius’ Or. 30 be used as a source of temple destruction in the Antiochene countryside in Late Antiquity? This question is explored through three chapters which examine: the text and context of Or. 30, the use and application of Roman law in Or. 30, and the archeological evidence for temple destruction and conversion in the Antiochene countryside. This research has revealed that Libanius tends to use similar arguments in his ‘reform speeches,’ that there was no legal basis for temple destruction in the late 4th century, and that there is no archaeological evidence for widespread temple destruction occurring around the composition of Or. 30. Thus, the evidence shows that Libanius’ claim of widespread violence must be seen as an exaggeration. Meaning that Or. 30 cannot be used to support the idea of widespread destruction and religious violence in the Antiochene countryside at the end of the 4th century or, for that matter, Late Antiquity in general.

Oration 30 (Or. 30) has been commonly used in scholarship as positive affirmation of religious violence and temple destruction in late Antique Syria. This view of widespread violence in late 4th century Syria was previously supported by scholarship on temple destruction and conversion, which tended to argue that temple destruction and conversion was a widespread phenomenon in the 4th and 5th centuries. Recent archaeological scholarship, however, argues against this perspective, in favour of temple destruction and conversion being a rather exceptional and late phenomenon. The question must therefore be asked, to what extent can Libanius’ Or. 30 be used as a source of temple destruction in the Antiochene countryside in Late Antiquity? This question is explored through three chapters which examine: the text and context of Or. 30, the use and application of Roman law in Or. 30, and the archeological evidence for temple destruction and conversion in the Antiochene countryside. This research has revealed that Libanius tends to use similar arguments in his ‘reform speeches,’ that there was no legal basis for temple destruction in the late 4th century, and that there is no archaeological evidence for widespread temple destruction occurring around the composition of Or. 30. Thus, the evidence shows that Libanius’ claim of widespread violence must be seen as an exaggeration. Meaning that Or. 30 cannot be used to support the idea of widespread destruction and religious violence in the Antiochene countryside at the end of the 4th century or, for that matter, Late Antiquity in general.

Jeruzalémský chrám a jeho zkáza (Zpracování tématu v Tanachu) The Jerusalem Temple and its Destruction (The Treatement of the Subject in the Tanach) Věra Razáková The thesis "The Jerusalem Temple and its Destruction (The Treatment of the Subject in the Tanakh)" deals with the events that led to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. It is the analysis aimed to map causes of the destruction of the First Temple in the biblical texts of the Tanakh. The paper follows the creation and formation of the G-d's people in the selected texts of the Tanakh. It shows many repeated warnings against breaking of the Law (The Torah), the Law accepted by the people of Israel at the Sinai. These warnings come from the G-d through prophets. There is a forgiveness coming from the G-d the Merciful and there are punishments coming from the Adonai the Righteous. The attempts to return to the G-d (tšuva) and to process the religious reforms are replaced by apostasy, forgetting or rejecting of the Law, the maintanance of idolatry. The destruction of the Solomon Temple came as the punishement from the G-d. According to the rabbinical tradition there were three basic sins marked as the gravest ones: idolatry (in many different forms), bloodshed and forbidden sexual behaviour. Those were announced to be punished by expulsion...