Decypher

Luke has rewritten a section of the Olivet Discourse:

Also relevant to this:


If the Olivet Discourse has been rewritten in this way, I would suspect that it was done after the event.

Is there anything in Josephus or any other source that Luke could have borrowed from in writing it?

Is there anything closely similar to the words of Luke?

DCHindley

Well, Josephus' long and often graphic description of the rebellion and the resulting Roman attack, including the siege of Jerusalem, with the accompanying slaughter and enslavement of all resisters caught by them, was widely available by the late 70s or early 80s. There were also other accounts of that war, written by both Romans and by one of Josephus' rivals, Justas of Tiberias (80's or 90's?).

Even so, Josephus' account tells of
1) the reluctance of many to desert the city in hopes that God would protect them, only to end up being prevented from leaving by the factions when it was clear that resistance was futile.
2) one party was defeated in an inter-faction fight, and the remainder fled to the mountain fortress of Masada. Others fled to the "mountainous" desert near the Dead Sea and the fortress of Machaerus.
3) refusal by one faction to let in the Idumean Jews to prevent them from aiding a rival faction (they got let in anyways and avenged this dissing)
4) Roman encirclement of the city with a trenched wall and guards/pickets to prevent anyone, including any supplies, from entering or leaving town as a siege tactic to induce famine (it worked) or sneak out troops to create diversions
5) a tale about a woman so hungry from the resulting famine that she ate her own (dead?) child
6) on entering the city, the soldiers slaughtered anyone they found, regardless of circumstances (i.e., no excuses)
7) all survivors were sold into slavery
8) the temple was "accidentally" torched by Titus' soldiers and the burned out structure was then toppled to the ground, leaving only its massive foundation intact. All the city walls and defensive towers (with exception of a couple at Herod's former palace to serve as memorials to him as king) were also deliberately torn down. The town and its suburbs were set on fire and burned to the ground.

etc

DCH

judge

This makes no sense to me though. It seems that Luke 21:25-27 did not happen in 70AD.
So if these events did not happen why would luke include this failed prophecy?

.

DCHindley

The transition occurs here:

24b and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled

The reason that vs 25 (essentially a paraphrase of the prophet Joel) does not seem to have been fulfilled is because the author of Luke believed "the times of the Gentiles" (whatever that means) had begun, but had not yet concluded.

In other words, he made Jesus predict the Roman defeat of the Jewish rebellion, and subsequent destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and this was proof to him that the words of the prophet Joel would also be fulfilled.

If anything, this is Luke's expansion of Lk 21:9 (= Mk 13:7 & Mt 24:6).

DCH

Decypher

Luke seems to (perhaps) put in a delay to when it was supposed to happen. Compare it to Matthew who says: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened..."

Luke is thought to have been written after Mark and Matthew. So if he was writing at a later time than them, and it still hadn't happened, he may have built in a bit of a delay.

And then if you look at the Apocalypse of Peter, which was written in the second century it seems, there is a version of the Olivet Discourse but it has discarded the connection with the attack on Jerusalem.

So I would suggest that the material was revised as time went on.

And in fact, this is exactly what we observe today when sects give false predictions about the end of the world: the prediction just gets revised and pushed forward.

Also relevant to this would be 2 Peter.

renassault

If this were so, he would have made it much clearer for his audience, especially writing after 70 AD. Furthermore, the language employed is, as has been shown decades ago, in the traditional style of apocalyptic imagery such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BC, and so on.

renassault

The removal of immediately (if it was a removal and not simply because it was not in his source) obviously was not intended with this purpose seeing Luke 21:32.

Decypher

The prediction given is fairly clear, especially in Luke.

Luke 19

[41] And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,
[42] Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes.
[43] For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
[44] And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.


Luke 21

[20] And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.


The obvious answer is that Luke was writing after the event. Christians like to throw around the accusation of "anti-supernatural bias". My view on this: if you're a real prophet then it's for you to back it up. Provide good quality, clear, long term predictions over hundreds of years. And about things where the fulfillment can be well verified.

If someone does that, I will take them seriously as being able to predict the future. Without that kind of evidence, supposed "prophets" are wasting our time.

The language in the Olivet Discourse is inspired by things in the Hebrew Bible for sure.

But the evidence from the NT and from the early Christian sources that I know about (Church Fathers etc.), is that when it talks of the "Son of man coming" it is concerned with a worldwide event involving a resurrection and a judgement of individuals.

Unless you're wacky enough to believe in full preterism, it didn't happen.

Decypher

Theoretically, that verse could take you to the end of the first century or even into the second century. The verse could also have been reinterpreted. (Which has been common enough.)

So I think that there is room for Luke to have built in a bit of a delay as compared to Matthew and Mark.