Smoodock's Blog

When we come to writing down the Gospel narratives, the scholars, at least some, but perhaps the majority, want to claim that they were written late. However, what does late mean? It means that scholars want to say they were written in the 80s or 90s of the first century AD, perhaps, even putting them into the early part of the 2^nd century AD. Why is that? As far as other ancient authors are concerned Julius Caesar wrote his history, The Conquest of Gaul, and Tacitus gets to be the author of his Annals, and Plutarch did, indeed, write his biographies. None of these works are questioned as to their authenticity, or when they were written. So, why do the critics have a problem with the Gospel narratives being authored by their traditional authors, during the period between Jesus’ resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome?

The problem is that Jesus is shown to have predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in some detail, and the critics presume that wasn’t possible. Therefore, they want to place the writing of all four Gospels sometime after AD 70, when Rome had already destroyed both Jerusalem and its Temple (cp. 2Kings 25:8-10).[1] What can we say of these things?

The problem with the critics’ conclusion is that there’s not a single thing that Jesus says in the Olivet Prophecy that cannot be documented in the Old Covenant text during or prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 586 BC. Prophets predicted Jerusalem’s fall to the Babylonians, the men of God were persecuted and slain by non-believing Jews. Believers were considered unpatriotic, simply because they predicted the Jews’ defeat before their enemies. Eventually Jerusalem was surrounded by the armies of Babylon. They broke down the walls and burned the Temple. It is almost as though Jesus took his prophetic announcement directly out of the Old Covenant text.

It isn’t as though the writers of the New Covenant text weren’t apt to report an event that took place, after it was prophesied, and named the person who predicted its occurrence. Luke does so in Acts, when he says Agabaus’ prophecy of a famine in Jerusalem occurred during the reign of Claudius Caesar (cp. Acts 11:27-28). So, why wouldn’t they have done so, by saying Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, and then tell us it occurred during the reign of Vespasian, Emperor of Rome?

Consider for a moment, what the Synoptics say about the Olivet Prophecy. According to Matthew and Mark, Jesus told his disciples to flee Jerusalem, when they saw the abomination that brings desolation (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14), but also to pray their flight didn’t occur during the winter months (Matthew 24:20; Mark 13:18). If these two narratives were written after the fact, why would they have Jesus tell the disciples to pray that they didn’t have to flee during winter? History shows us that Titus attacked Jerusalem during the spring and destroyed the Temple in late summer? On the other hand, Luke tells his readers to flee, when they saw Jerusalem encompassed with armies (Luke 21:20-21), saying those who are outside the city should not come in. If Jerusalem was already destroyed, how does this make sense? Neither Matthew nor any of the other Synoptics make sense, if they were written in a post AD 70 world.

Let’s consider one final point. Perhaps the three most important Christian figures in the early church were Peter, Paul and James, who was also known as the brother of Jesus. Most scholars agree that Luke was written by the same author as Acts, and the Gospel narrative was written prior to Acts. Luke records the deaths of Stephen (Acts 7) and James the Apostle and brother of John (Acts 12), yet, although he chronicles the beginning of the Gospel movement through Peter’s work, and the missions and the trials of Paul, which take us to nearly the end of the Gospel age, he doesn’t record either of their deaths at Rome, which occurred during the reign of Nero. Moreover, he doesn’t record the death of James in Jerusalem. James’ death occurred cir. AD 61-62, prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Yet, Luke’s Acts doesn’t record any of their deaths, indicating the Book of Acts was written prior to AD 70, and Luke’s Gospel narrative was written prior to it. Moreover, Luke’s account of Jesus’ preaching draws upon the testimony of the Apostles (Luke 1:1-4), implying that Matthew’s Gospel had already been written as a testimony to the Jews, and Luke made use of it to write his own narrative for Theophilus. Therefore, if Luke was written prior to AD 70, so was Matthew, if Luke draws upon Matthew’s work to write his own narrative.

________________________________________

[1] Critics conclude that the kind of detail we find in 2Kings 25:8-10 shows the account was written after Jerusalem destruction cir. 586 BC. Therefore, Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple can’t be a prophecy. It must have been written after the fact.