Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RussianM3_dude · 02-13-2008, 07:58 AM

Why was the destruction of Jerusalem not mentioned in the Gospels? Christians claim it is because they were ALL written before 70CE.

Roger Pearse · 02-13-2008, 08:34 AM

Christians are not committed to the idea that John was written so early; it does, after all, mention the death of Peter. But yes, the absence of this from Luke suggests strongly that it hadn't happened when he wrote. The world was a different place before that event.

yalla · 02-13-2008, 09:01 AM

On the other hand if I wrote a novel or similar set in the late 19th century and purporting to be a contemporary record I would be careful not to mention World War II as having been a past or even present event.
It would tend to be a dead giveaway that I was actually writing many decades after the setting of my novel.
Although I suppose I could have one of my characters predict the 'coming war clouds' and conflict.

-Jay- · 02-13-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

<...snip...> the absence of this from Luke suggests strongly that it hadn't happened when he wrote.

Now, Roger, it really doesn't intrinsically suggest anything other than that the author of Luke didn't write about it. There are many reasons why that might be the case.

regards,

NinJay

Amaleq13 · 02-13-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussianM3_dude

Why was the destruction of Jerusalem not mentioned in the Gospels? Christians claim it is because they were ALL written before 70CE.

It is mentioned but as a prophecy placed on the lips of Jesus.

Darklighter · 02-13-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussianM3_dude

Why was the destruction of Jerusalem not mentioned in the Gospels? Christians claim it is because they were ALL written before 70CE.

It is mentioned but as a prophecy placed on the lips of Jesus.

Yes, as in Matthew chapter 24. Which I believe is claimed to have been written around 41 c.e., I'm not sure what the evidence on dating Matthew is though. It seems relevent to the thread though, if someone could enlighten us...

And I think John is usually pegged around 100 c.e.

Toto · 02-13-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussianM3_dude

Why was the destruction of Jerusalem not mentioned in the Gospels? Christians claim it is because they were ALL written before 70CE.

Only a very few Christians claim that the gospels were all written before 70 CE. Most Christians agree that the reference to the destruction of the Temple dates the gospels to around 70 CE or later.

The destruction of the Temple is alluded to in the gospels, as a prophecy. Jerusalem was not actually destroyed until after the Bar Kochba rebellion.

Peter Kirby:

Quote:

Mark's "Little Apocalypse" in chapter 13 is usually regarded as speaking of the events of the First Jewish Revolt, which took place 66-70 CE. The events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple left a deep impression on the Jews of the time. Jerusalem and the Temple were the center of religious life for Palestinian Jews, and the war with the Romans had ravaged the countryside and left thousands dead. Thus, it is understandable that some would associate these horrible events with the end times. An exegesis of Mark 13 shows how the author's description corresponds with the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt.

The destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 CE, is mentioned in v. 1-4. Leaving the temple area, a disciple said: "Teacher, look at the huge blocks of stone and the enormous buildings!" Facing the temple, Jesus responds: "You see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another - all will be torn down." Peter and some others then question Jesus about the signs of the apocalypse privately, a tell-tale sign of Mark's redactional hand (instead of earlier well-known tradition).

. . .

Concerning v. 9-13, Robert Funk writes in The Five Gospels: "The sayings in Mark 13:9-13 all reflect detailed knowledge of events that took place - or ideas that were current - after Jesus' death: trials and persecutions of Jesus' followers, the call to preach the gospel to all nations, advice to offer spontaneous testimony, and the prediction that families would turn against one another are features of later Christian existence, not of events in Galilee or Jerusalem during Jesus' lifetime. The note about children betraying their parents may be an allusion to the terrible calamities that took place during the siege of Jerusalem (66-70 C.E.)"

Other scholars place the references in Mark to the second Jewish Revolt. See THE SYNOPTIC APOCALYPSE (MARK 13 PAR): A DOCUMENT FROM THE TIME OF BAR KOCHBA by Hermann Detering

Toto · 02-13-2008, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

...

Yes, as in Matthew chapter 24. Which I believe is claimed to have been written around 41 c.e., I'm not sure what the evidence on dating Matthew is though. It seems relevent to the thread though, if someone could enlighten us...

And I think John is usually pegged around 100 c.e.

There is no "evidence" on the dating of the gospels, only inferences from internal evidence, plus one scrap of John that has been dated paleographically to the mid-second century, plus or minus 50 years.

I don't know of anyone who dates Matthew that early. Matthew uses Mark as a source, so it was written after Mark. There are no references to Matthew until the mid 2nd century.

www.earlychristianwritings.com is a good place to start.

Darklighter · 02-13-2008, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darklighter

...

Yes, as in Matthew chapter 24. Which I believe is claimed to have been written around 41 c.e., I'm not sure what the evidence on dating Matthew is though. It seems relevent to the thread though, if someone could enlighten us...

And I think John is usually pegged around 100 c.e.

There is no "evidence" on the dating of the gospels, only inferences from internal evidence, plus one scrap of John that has been dated paleographically to the mid-second century, plus or minus 50 years.

I don't know of anyone who dates Matthew that early. Matthew uses Mark as a source, so it was written after Mark. There are no references to Matthew until the mid 2nd century.

www.earlychristianwritings.com is a good place to start.

I got the 41 c.e. from a fundie Christian source, so I figured it was likely biased. I didn't know it was probably a complete fabrication though. I do know most fundies place Matthew before Mark though... at least my brand did.

I think combing through that site will be my homework tonight!

It does make the interesting point of how ridiculous it is to be "amazed" by any of the Gospel temple prophecies though. How hard would it be for someone to create the story of Jesus, complete with prophecies of recent events, after the fact? It doesn't seem difficult at all!!! Especially if it were attributed to a real person who walked around philosiphy-ing. It would leave people who did meet him thinking, "Well, he sure was an interesting guy, but I didn't know he predicted the Temple destruction! He must've been the Messiah!" And that would also explain the need to move his birth to Bethleham, and the spotty dating of the census and the non-existant records of Herod killing babies. All things that people far removed from the time period the events occured in would likely have forgotten.

neilgodfrey · 02-13-2008, 12:42 PM

In addition to the direct prophecy of the temple's end there is another far more subtle hint: Jesus is depicted as the temple replacement in most of the gospels. In Mark's narrative he is accused of speaking against the literal temple but the reader knows he is speaking about himself. If the temple were still standing then the charge would actually be true, and not false as the narrator says -- claiming to be a temple substitute is still speaking against the temple if the temple is still standing. (Further, his tomb is compared with the destroyed temple -- c.f. Isa.22:16 and Mark 15:46). Unless being a substitute for the temple was actually intended to be blasphemy and really speaking against the temple, then the logical inference is that the gospel was written after the destruction of the temple.

Okay, I did warn it was subtle.

02-13-2008, 07:58 AM	#1
RussianM3_dude Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Switzerland. Posts: 1,683	Quick question. Why was the destruction of Jerusalem not mentioned in the Gospels? Christians claim it is because they were ALL written before 70CE.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2008, 08:34 AM	#2
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Christians are not committed to the idea that John was written so early; it does, after all, mention the death of Peter. But yes, the absence of this from Luke suggests strongly that it hadn't happened when he wrote. The world was a different place before that event.

02-13-2008, 09:01 AM	#3
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	On the other hand if I wrote a novel or similar set in the late 19th century and purporting to be a contemporary record I would be careful not to mention World War II as having been a past or even present event. It would tend to be a dead giveaway that I was actually writing many decades after the setting of my novel. Although I suppose I could have one of my characters predict the 'coming war clouds' and conflict.

02-13-2008, 12:42 PM	#10
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	In addition to the direct prophecy of the temple's end there is another far more subtle hint: Jesus is depicted as the temple replacement in most of the gospels. In Mark's narrative he is accused of speaking against the literal temple but the reader knows he is speaking about himself. If the temple were still standing then the charge would actually be true, and not false as the narrator says -- claiming to be a temple substitute is still speaking against the temple if the temple is still standing. (Further, his tomb is compared with the destroyed temple -- c.f. Isa.22:16 and Mark 15:46). Unless being a substitute for the temple was actually intended to be blasphemy and really speaking against the temple, then the logical inference is that the gospel was written after the destruction of the temple. Okay, I did warn it was subtle.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.