70 A.D. Again

Doug Wilson points out something that should be glaringly obvious, but which I have overlooked:

Virtually all the books of the New Testament have an expectant air about them. They are all waiting for something drastic that will happen soon, and not one of them evenĀ mentionsĀ the most cataclyismic event in Jewish history — the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 — as being past. That event was the destruction of the old Judaic order and its replacement by the Christian church, the new Israel (Heaven Misplaced, p. 111).

Indeed. How could the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. go completely unmentioned in the NT unless it hadn’t happened yet? All the books would therefore predate it.

3 thoughts on “70 A.D. Again”

  1. The only possible exception is the Gospel of John which may be construed in some places to be referring to the Temple in the past tense, but even that would be a tenuous proposition. Best to presume a pre-A.D. 70 date for the whole canon. It avoids unnecessary confusion and keeps the liberals from sneaking in with their aberrant theories.

  2. I am one, just like John A.T. Robinson, and C.F.D. Moule, and that profound James Moffatt, scholars who all saw that the whole NT was written before 70 A.D. Based upon the fact, that such a cataclysmic effect and history had not yet happended in any of the NT writings! Had such, it simply could not have been left out!

  3. While I agree that the canon was closed at that time, and there have been very early manuscripts found that push Mark’s dating tp the earliest possible setting, liberals would argue that ye gospels give an example of prophecy ex eventu oin the olivet.discourse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.