If Acts, Matthew, Luke, and John were all written after 70 CE, why didn’t any of them mention the destruction of the temple as a fulfillment of Jesus’ words? Surely, they would not leave this fulfillment as an unfulfilled prediction of Jesus, if they truly knew about it happening–especially Acts? Doesn’t this strongly suggest that all these books were written before 70 CE?
First, it falls outside the time covered by any of the narratives, so it wouldn’t naturally come up as part of the subject.
Second, because the destruction of the temple was a well known event, and it so clearly fulfilled the prophecy (that Matt and Luke do give) that one wouldn’t need to say that it did.
Imagine that I wrote a story, set in the 60’s, in which someone predicts that, within a lifetime, the brand new world trade center towers would be utterly destroyed, setting off a war; Would it be necessary for me to mention that this was fulfilled by the events of 9/11 or would it seem silly and even disparaging of my readers’ intelligence to connect those dots explicitly for them?
Thanks for the reply.
Doesn’t the book of Acts cover that period of time perfectly in terms of its content? (Nope. Just found out it covers between 33AD and 62AD. But this begs the question, why did the book of Acts only cover those years if it was written in 80CE? And why didn’t the books of Acts even describe what happened when Paul testified to Caesar but instead leaves the story complete unfinished after a build up of anticipation if it was written in 80CE?).
I can understand perhaps why the gospel writers didn’t include it (kind of…not really but I’ll let that go for now) but there is no way the writer of Luke and Acts would fail to mention this fulfillment if he knew about it (in my mind at least)
Even more so if one dates Luke and Acts around 80CE the author would have definitely known about it and surely would talk about it, no? Yes this is pretty much an argument from silence but that seems very strange to me to not include a massive fulfillment of prophecy considering most the gospel writers were all about fulfilling prophecies.
If, however, the author did not know about the actual event, it makes perfect sense why he didn’t mention it (obviously) .
The theme of Acts is the unbridled triumphant spread of the faith from Jerusalem to Rome. Ending with an account of the hero Paul’s execution would have been kind of a downer, don’t you think?
Of course there are other possible solutions.
Maybe there was a projected volume three of the story that never got written. Luke, Acts, ?
Maybe the author didn’t really know what happened to Paul. In an occasional puckish mood I imagine Paul carried off by cannibals in the wilds of Spain.
Doesn’t the book of Acts cover that period of time perfectly in terms of its content?
No, it breaks off before the Paul’s death. The consensus seems to be that Paul died in the 60s; the temple wasn’t destroyed until 70.
By the way, Paul’s death is another interesting omission in the book–and arguably an even bigger one given that the latter part of the book is basically a biography of Paul. So in light of that omission, do you date Acts (and thus Luke) to prior to Paul’s death, putting it in the 50s or early 60s, presumably pushing Mark back as well; or do you date it prior to Paul’s death, but then date Paul’s death late (sometime in the 70s maybe? Perhaps you even doubt that Paul was executed), or do you leave the dates alone and suppose that Luke may have had a reason to end his book without mentioning such an important and germane event?
[Their silence on the destruction of the temple, if they knew about it,]
seems very strange to me considering the gospel writers mostly were all about fulfilling prophecies
Yes, they are very interested in the fulfillment of prophecies. But look at the other cases where they explicitly connect a prophecy to its fulfillment. Most of them are backward looking, showing how events in Jesus’ life fulfilled prior, often obscure or creatively reinterpreted, prophecies–some of those prophecies are so obscure we still don’t know what the original prophecy was, e.g., Mt 2:23; where was it prophesied that the messiah would be called a Nazarene? A few times, some obscure thing Jesus says is interpreted as a prophecy, and its fulfillment is explicitly noted, E.g., Jn 21:18-19.
The prediction of the destruction of the temple really is a class apart from these because it was such a notorious event–the whole empire knew about it–and it was so clearly described in the prophecy.
As an aside, I was always frustrated by how the destruction of the temple was used in dating:
The conservatives, who want an early NT, argue that the fact that no one explicitly mentions such an important event must mean they didn’t know about it.
The more mainstream argue that the fact the prophecy so clearly “foretells” the destruction of the temple, shows that the gospels were after 70 (since they put such a clear “prophecy” in the mouth of Jesus).
Then there is the group that puts Mark at about 68–during the war but prior to the destruction of the temple. I’ve never entirely understood the argument for that.
But it always perplexed me how people could look at the exact same data and think it clearly substantiated opposite conclusions.
For myself, I don’t really think we can make all that much out of it. Maybe Jesus did foretell the destruction of the temple. Or maybe Mark invented the prophecy (either before or after the event). It wouldn’t be that strange for an apocalypticist to say something like that; and while it is true that the prophecy does clearly say that the temple would be utterly destroyed within a generation, the broader discourse gets a lot of details wrong, or at least not clearly right. So I don’t think this gives a knock down argument one way or the other; I think it is ambiguous evidence.
the problem of Mk 14, 57-59:
Some stood up and gave false testimony against him, saying, “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’” But even on this point their testimony did not agree.
This could be an earlier tradition that Mark feels he must discredit, since in fact a miraculous eschatological temple had certainly not appeared after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Thus perhaps the historical Jesus or some of his contemporaries or followers had some kind of apocalyptic belief in a new, perfect temple to be created by God in the eschaton.
Yup: It is really interesting that both Mark and John deal with the idea that Jesus said this, but in mutually exclusive ways: Mark says it was false testimony and Jesus never said it; John says he said it but was actually talking about his body not the temple. That really seems to indicate that there was some memory of Jesus saying something to that effect and they had to deal with it.
I feel like an idiot though in that it hadn’t occurred to me that they would only have to explain it away if they were writing more than 3 days after the temple had been destroyed–thus showing the prophecy was false. I guess they might have needed to explain it away if they agreed that saying something like that would constitute a capital offense (thus vindicating the Sanhedrin’s actions in having him executed), but that seems unlikely.
Related to this, prof. Geurt Henk van Kooten, professor at Cambridge, thinks that a certain verse in John about a building that was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem means that John must have been written before 70 CE.
“Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.” (John 5:2, NIV)
This building/pool was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE.
His theory is that this verse talks in the present time about the bathouse. According to him the formula “there is… in a certain place” in all Greek texts from this time refers to something that actually exists at that time.
Therefore he concludes that John must have been written before 70CE. That would have serious implications and he himself thinks this is a gamechanger: (sorry, I am from the Netherlands and do not have an English version of the article): ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
I would say people have thought about this before? Does one of you know whether there are alternative explanations? Maybe that this part of John comes from an older source or something?
Other theologians responded by saying that one verse is a small basis for changing the dating and if time indications are so important, what do you do with the statement later that Bethany was (in past) close to Jerusalem? Didn’t it exist anymore?
“Geurt Henk van Kooten, professor at Cambridge, thinks that a certain verse in John about a building that was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem means that John must have been written before 70 CE.
‘Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.’ (John 5:2, NIV)
This building/pool was destroyed during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE…
** you do not have permission to see this link ** “
Cf.
Revelation 11 (NIV)
** you do not have permission to see this link **
1 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told,
“Go and measure the temple of God and the altar,
with its worshipers.
2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it,
because it has been given to the Gentiles.
They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.
“There is some ambiguity about how to read the Greek text. The translation “sheep [gate]” supplies the word “gate,” which is actually missing in the Greek. A better way of reading the Greek may be to supply the word “place” in the sense of a town or second pool:”Now in Jerusalem, by the Sheep Pool, there is a [place/pool] with the Hebrew name …” (so Joachim Jeremias & Raymond Brown). This implies there were two pools”
How would you render the Greek John 5:2?
Do you think ‘Beyt-Khesda’ should be transliterated and then translated?
Do you think John 5:2 originally had:
“a place to baptize”? merely “a pond/bath”?
a mention of “sheep”?
Both the Peshitta and the by-A.D. 175 Diatessaron have “a place to baptize,” and neither mentions “sheep.”
John 5:2 (Aramaic to Dutch to– via google translate– to English)
a Dutch translation with footnotes at ** you do not have permission to see this link **:
There was a place to baptize in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate that was called ‘Beyt-Khesda’ in Hebrew. There were (there) five porticoes.
a place to baptize – this is the reading of the Aramean Peshitta. In the reading of the Greek NA28, MHT and TR it says: ‘κολυμβήθρα’ which is usually translated as ‘pond’ or: ‘bath’.
Beyt-Khesda – this name appears only in this verse in the NT and means either ‘house of grace’ or: ‘house of running water’ (). Only in the Greek NA28 do we find the lecture: ‘Bethzata’.
Diatessaron 22:10
And there was in Jerusalem a place prepared for bathing, which was called in Hebrew the House of Mercy, having five porches.
John 5:2
(Etheridge) Now there was there in Urishlem a certain place of ablution, [Or, of baptism.] which was called in Hebrew Bethchesda, and having in it five porticoes.
(Murdock) And there was there in Jerusalem a certain place of baptizing, which was called in Hebrew Bethesda; and there were in it five porches.
(Aramaic Bible in Plain English) But there was a certain baptismal place in Jerusalem called in Aramaic, Bayth Khesda, and there were in it five porches.
(Disciples’ Literal NT) Now in Jerusalem near the Sheep _gate_, there is _a_ pool- the _one_ being called Bethzatha _in_ Hebrew, having five porticos.
(NKJV) Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep _Gate_ a pool, which is called in Hebrew, Bethesda, having five porches.
(King James) Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep _market_ a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
(NIV) Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.
boomkangoeroe
**”Other theologians responded by saying that one verse is a small basis for changing the dating and if time indications are so important, what do you do with the statement later that Bethany was (in past) close to Jerusalem? Didn’t it exist anymore?”**
Both Bethany and Jerusalem existed after 70AD. Josephus says the romans did such a thorough job on Jerusalem one could scarcely believe anyone had lived there – but the point is it still existed. Just the buildings had been described. Which is why John 5:2 indicates John is written before 70AD but John 11:18 does not indicate it is written after 70AD.
When it comes to dating the gospel there is almost nothing to go on except that it is written sometime after 30 and sometime before the second half of the second century. Apart from that there is no solid evidence. John 5:2, weak though it is, would indicate a pre-70 dating.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)