Jesus and the Temple's Destruction
Were the Synoptic Gospels Written Before or After AD 70?
This article makes the case that the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written BEFORE the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.
The most cataclysmic event of the first century for Judeo-Palestine was the First Roman-Jewish War (aka “the Great Revolt”), which lasted from 66 to 73 AD. One of the tragic episodes of this war was the destruction of Herod’s Temple in 70 AD.
In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus appears to predict the Temple's destruction. In Mark’s Gospel, for example, Jesus is recorded as saying of the Temple structure: “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Mark 13:2 NKJV). Scholars almost universally agree this is a reference to the Roman destruction of the Temple. The question is: Did Jesus prophecy this or was the account of this “prophecy” written after the event itself?
Liberal and non-Christian scholars almost unanimously fall in the non-prophecy camp. They assume that the Gospels had to be written after the destruction of the Temple. They don’t even consider the possibility that Jesus may, in fact, have made the prediction before the Temple’s demise – and that the Gospels were written and in circulation before the event. Conservative, evangelical scholars of course have no problem accepting Jesus’ ability to make such a prophecy.
Accepting the premise that accurate prophecy is possible puts us, of course, in the area of miracles. Are miracles possible? Can a rational, enlightened person seriously entertain the possibility of Jesus turning water into wine or feeding five thousand people with a few loaves and fishes? If not, then such a person is also unlikely to consider the possibility that Jesus accurately predicted Jerusalem’s demise. More probably, the “prophecy” was added later to enhance the Gospels’ case that Jesus was divine.
Philosopher Winfried Corduan explains that this anti-supernatural bias is seriously flawed, especially when it comes to examining the life of Jesus. “What we read in the Gospels are apparent physical impossibilities, but…we can allow for these as long as we have evidence that they might be the work of God who is free to supersede His created laws,” writes Corduan. In other words, if God is real, He can certainly work miracles. If Jesus was the Son of God, then surely, He could have performed miracles and made accurate prophecies.
This author would like to suggest that the destruction of the Temple should not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for dating the Gospels. After all, a Christian claiming that the Temple prophecy proves Jesus’ divinity would likely be accused of “begging the question” by non-Christian scholars. If that’s true, then the non-Christian should not assume the prophecy to be written in after the fact, for such an assumption is based on a premature judgment at best and impudent prejudice at worst.
Using Acts to Date the Synoptic Gospels
If one sets aside anti-supernaturalism as a bias, the remaining evidence is pretty strong that the Synoptics were written much closer to the life of Jesus than most liberal scholars give them credit.
Take the Gospel of Luke. If the author of Luke and the author of Acts were one and the same, then Acts was most likely written during the early 60s AD. Why? First, Acts makes absolutely no reference to the First Jewish-Roman War (which began in the late 60s AD). This is puzzling when you consider that Acts is a record of early church history. It would be rather odd to omit such a significant event. It would be like a modern US history textbook not mentioning September 11, 2001. One would conclude that the book was probably written and published prior to that date.
Additionally, Acts does not mention the martyrdom of Paul or Peter. This is significant for two reasons. One, it does mention the death of James (Acts 12). Surely, the writer of Acts regarded Paul and Peter as much as James. The answer to that is “Of course, he did.” This is clear by the fact that Peter dominates the first several chapters of Acts, and Paul the rest of the book. Paul’s troubles with the law are well-documented in Acts, and it is absolutely unthinkable that his martyrdom would be skipped. The ONLY logical explanation is that Acts was written before Paul was put to death. Scholars universally agree that Paul was martyred in Rome during the 60s AD – some say as early as 62 or 63, others put it at 67 or 68.
The strongest answer provided by liberal scholars to the incompleteness of Luke-Acts (incomplete in terms of its failure to reference the destruction of Jerusalem and the deaths of Peter and Paul) is that the author died before he could complete it. This theory of Luke’s premature death is intriguing, except there’s no evidence for it in early church tradition. If, in fact, Luke died during the composition of his work, it would seem highly likely that at least one of the early church fathers would have mentioned this fact. Remember that early Christian correspondence, from such luminaries as Papias, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Clement, etc., is FULL of references to the apostles, the Gospels, and the other New Testament works. The absence of any reference to Luke’s premature death – particularly one that supposedly took place during the composition of a canonized book! – stands as a serious refutation to this theory.
Since Luke follows the composition of Mark (and probably Matthew) and precedes that of Acts, this article concludes that all three of the Synoptic Gospels can be dated between the mid-30s and the late 60s AD – well within a generation of Jesus of Nazareth. Therefore, Jesus did, in fact, prophecy the destruction of the Jewish Temple.
*********
SOURCES include:
Is the New Testament Reliable? By Paul Barnett
No Doubt About it: The Case for Christianity by Winfried Corduan
"The Gospel of Luke" according to Wikipedia
"When Was the Gospel of Luke Written?" according to HarvardHouse
