We’ll start today with the issues of 70 AD, which is a watershed date. As a brief review, the Romans captured Jerusalem in 63 BC under General Pompey. The First Jewish Revolt occurred in 66 AD and was initially successful, with the Romans being expelled from Jerusalem and a new government hastily set up. The Romans didn’t take things like this sitting down however, and the Emperor Nero sent General Vespasian to take care of the situation. By 69 AD Nero was dead, and Vespasian was called away to become the next emperor, but by then he had pushed most of the rebels into Jerusalem, and was about to lay siege.

General Titus took over for Vespasian and besieged Jerusalem. This happened close to Passover, so the Romans were letting the pilgrims into Jerusalem, but they weren’t letting them out. This meant that the finite food and water in the city were being consumed by more and more people, driving the city to starvation. By August of 70 AD “the Romans had breached the final defenses and massacred much of the remaining population. They also destroyed the Second Temple,” as well as the city itself [britannica.com/event/Siege-of-Jerusalem-70].

Matthew 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 all report Jesus talking about the destruction of the Temple. The argument is: was Jesus really prophesying the destruction of the Temple, or were the Gospels written after the destruction of the Temple, and then the “prophecy” placed in the mouth of Jesus. As a Christian, I can’t understand why another Christian would take the latter view. Here’s a quote that just sets my hair on fire:

“…to insist that the mention of the siege and Temple destruction within the Gospels be taken only as evidence of prophecy and not as evidence that the gospel writers had historical knowledge of these events amounts to a methodological double standard – especially when we are not equally charitable with secular/pagan writings attesting to would-be prophecies. If we’re going to appeal to customary academic considerations in our historiographic analysis of texts, then we have to be consistent in our methodology when we do so. We cannot make arbitrary exceptions… Given that the gospels must have been composed after 33 CE and there is no evidence proving that these texts were composed before 67 – 70 CE, then the potential window for the composition of the Gospels includes mid to late first century CE – which overlaps with the timeline of the Roman-Jewish War and Temple destruction.”     [from bibleoutsidethebox.blog/2017/07/24/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-how-can-we-know/]

“Arbitrary exceptions”? How about the fact that our faith is based on Jesus, and that He was God incarnate? That isn’t “arbitrary” at all. As for “no evidence proving that these texts were composed before 67 – 70 CE”, we’ll be looking at that. Here’s a hint: it doesn’t hold true.

Perhaps realizing what a terrible stance this is, the author of the bibleoutsidethebox.blog goes on to back off of this stance and declare that he won’t really take this argument into account when deciding  when the Gospels were written. So, how can that be if there is “no evidence”?

One more thought, presented by catholic.com/magazine/online-deition/when-were-the-gospels-written, before we leave this argument. This source points out the somewhat circular reasoning behind the argument: that they deny the supernatural in order to disprove the supernatural. Nothing can be disproved by merely denying it.

The next source has a clearer understanding:

“The synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, all record Jesus teaching about the destruction of Jerusalem…Jesus’ response to this question is one of his longer recorded discourses. And there are some challenges involved in understanding all that he is talking about. But most agree that at least some portion of his message to them was fulfilled a few years later, after Jerusalem rebelled against Rome, and the Roman armies captured and destroyed the city and its temple…in 70 AD…There is, at least to me, a certain amount of ambiguity in what Jesus said concerning Jerusalem’s destruction. Is this one event or two that he describes? Much of it appears to be describing events at the end of the age when he returns. And that is clearly distinct from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD…That is understandable if this was written before the events, by people who did not know where the line between them was. But it is much less understandable to me if the gospels were written after the destruction of Jerusalem. At this time the line between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the age would have been much more clearly known.”     [from https://aclayjar.net/2021/06/about-gospels/] 

So the first point of view presented is that “prophecy” is not possible, so what Jesus said in the Synoptics was written after 70 AD, and of course it was kind of confusing because they were trying to make it sound like a “prophecy.” And now a second point of view, actually parsing out the words spoken by Jesus, not afraid of it being prophecy, and realizing that Jesus was talking about two different future events. 

In the book RETHINKING THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (2002), Jonathan Bernier discusses the scholars who are sure that Matthew and Luke “betray knowledge of the events of the Jewish War (66-73), and more specifically the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70.” He goes on to say that “whether the Synoptic Gospels do betray such knowledge is not as self-evident as often supposed.” His conclusion is that “it is probable that both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels predate 70, it is merely possible that Luke’s does.” Not what you’d call a firm stand, nor what you’d call a deep dive into the evidence, but, at least he left the door open.

The next sourcedigs into this topic a bit deeper. First, the evidence of the Gospels is summarized, and it’s a good summary so I quote it here:

“Regarding the Jewish Temple, Jesus said that it would become ‘desolate’ (Mt. 23:38), and he said, ‘Do you see all these buildings? I tell you the truth, they will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!’ (Mt. 24:2 NLT)

Regarding the city of Jerusalem, Jesus predicted that the city would be ‘set…on fire’ (Mt. 22:7). Jesus forewarned his disciples, ‘When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near…Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles’ (Lk. 21:20,24 NLT)”     [from evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-nt/evidence-for-an-early-dating-of-the-four-gospels/ ]

The author then declares that the argument that Jesus couldn’t possibly have made these predictions “doesn’t carry much weight.”

Next, the author lists five objections to the argument that Jesus couldn’t possibly have made these predictions.

The first objection is that those who argue that point of view are using a philosophical objection in an historical argument. Nowhere do they argue, much less establish, that God doesn’t exist, or, that God can’t predict the future. Without establishing that, their assumptions are not very impressive.

The author goes on to declare that the philosophy of religion isn’t the expertise of those make these arguments. The author concludes with: “Critical commentaries, however, abound with the assumption of anti-supernaturalism without offering any reasons to support it. If we are going to listen to their assertions and assumptions, then we need to hear their arguments.”

The second objection is that none of the New Testament authors mention that this prophecy of Jesus was fulfilled. In Acts, Luke mentions the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding a famine made by Agabus, but says nothing about Jesus’ prophecy. While this is an argument from silence, the only reason I can think of that the author of Acts would not mention this fulfillment would be to fool people into believing that Acts was older than it was. To think this about Luke, or any other author of the New Testament, would not be supportable.

I’m going to insert a quote from another source here because it also makes this point, but in a slightly different way:

“The gold in the temple melted down between the stone walls; and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the gold.  Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy most likely would have been recorded as such by the gospel writers who were fond of mentioning fulfillment of prophecy if they had been written after A.D. 70. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events, then anything to bolster the Messianic claims – such as the destruction of the temple as Jesus said – would surely have been included.  But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before A.D. 70… The Book of Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of A.D. 70, which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and would require inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written.  Remember, Acts is a book of history concerning the Christians and the Jews.  The fact that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70.   We add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of “Nero’s persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of [the apostle] James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)…”   [from carm.org/about-the-bible/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-by-whom/]

The third objection is that the observant Jews knew that God would destroy the Temple if the nation was unfaithful. The author points to Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28:

²⁷‘Yet if in spite of this you do not obey Me, but act with hostility against Me, ²⁸then I will act with wrathful hostility against you, and I for My part will punish you seven times for your sins. ²⁹Further, you will eat the flesh of your sons, and you will eat the flesh of your daughters. ³⁰I then will destroy your high places, and cut down your incense altars, and pile your remains on the remains of your idols, for My soul will loathe you. ³¹I will turn you cities into ruins as well and make your sanctuaries desolate, and I will not smell you soothing aromas.   (Leviticus 26:27-31; NASB) 

¹⁵”But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to be careful to follow all His commandments and His statutes which I am commanding you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: ¹⁶”Cursed will you be in the city, and cursed will you be in the country…⁴⁹”The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, as the eagle swoops down; a nation whose language you will not understand, ⁵⁰a nation with a defiant attitude, who will have no respect for the old, nor show favor to the young…⁵²And it will besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls in which you trusted come down throughout your land, and it will besiege you in all your towns throughout your land which the Lord God has given you. ⁵³Then you will eat the offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the Lord your God has given you, during the siege and the hardship by which your enemy will oppress you.     (Deuteronomy 28:15,16,49-53; NASB)

The author goes on to conclude that Jesus, as a rabbi, would be aware of these passages, and that His predictions “would be based on theological convictions, rather than personally inspired prophecies.” This makes sense even if you don’t believe Jesus is God.

The fourth objection states that history has shown that many Christians fled Jerusalem at the time that Jesus them to in His prediction. 

According to Epiphanius (4th c.):

“The Nazoraean sect exists in Beroea… Pella, and in Bashon… That is where the sect began, when all the disciples were living in Pella after they moved from Jerusalem, since Christ told them to leave Jerusalem and withdraw because it was about to be besieged” (Panarion 29:7:7-8).

Eusebius (4th c.) wrote:

“The people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella” (Church History, 3.5.3).

These passages strongly suggest that the Gospels existed, and were known, well before the Jewish War.

The last objection is that if the Gospels were really written as “predictions” after the fact, then they should be more precise. For example, it’s stated in the wedding feast parable from Matthew 22:7 that “the king was angry, and he sent his armies and destroyed those murderers and set their city on fire.” In actuality, the city wasn’t burned in 70 AD, just the Temple was.

Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 24:20, “Moreover, pray that when you flee, it will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.” We don’t know if they had to flee on the Sabbath, but it definitely was not the winter: it was in July/August. This statement of Jesus would be quite different if it had already happened in the past. Also, Jesus told them in Matthew 24:16 to “flee to the mountains.” When it happened, they fled to Pella, which is geographically lower than Jerusalem.

And to the argument that these prophecies don’t sound very spot on, remember, these prophecies were only partially fulfilled in 70 AD.

I’m not sure if we’ve hit every possible argument regarding 70 AD and the timing of the Gospels, but certainly we’ve gone over the big ones. For me, the counters to the arguments for the Gospels being written after 70 AD have been credible, and certainly show that there is, indeed, evidence of the Gospels being written before 70  AD. Next time we will look at the Gospel of Matthew.