Scholarly Reading
6/2/26
Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 2: The Significance of 70." (pp. 13-30). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
The failure of the New Testament to speak of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a past event is not missed by Robinson (Robinson 1976, p. 13). Silence regarding such a noteworthy event requires an explanation. The most obvious explanation, of course, for the New Testament to treat the events as those of a yet-unknown future time, is that the events had not yet happened (Robinson 1976, p. 14).
While Robinson is not entirely certain that the now conventional assumption of Mark's Gospel being composed first is correct, for the purpose of his initial exploration, he starts from that position (Robinson 1976, p. 15). Yet, the order of composition of the synoptic Gospels is not strictly tied to a question of the date relative to AD 70. In Mark 13:1-4, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. He then goes on to describe signs of the end to four disciples more privately. The discourse continues without further mention of the destruction of the temple. This suggests to Robinson that not only was the actual discussion before AD 70, but that the creation of the written account was also prior to that time (Robinson 1976, p. 16). In fact, the later reference to the temple, in verses 14-16, indicates a desecration rather than destruction. It further suggests a flight from Jerusalem which was largely impossible by late in 67, when the Roman forces controlled the surrounding hills. The flight, in fact, was not to the hills, but to the city of Pella, and was before the war was in full swing (Robinson 1976, p. 16). The account in Mark would not have been written as it was if after AD 70. Rather, Robinson takes the passage to be informed by events from Daniel 9, 11, and 12 and events from 1 Macc. 1 and 2 which can be dated in the second century BC. The disciples are warned of a similar time yet to come.
Robinson further notes that the proposal of Caligula in AD 40 to unify the nation by setting up his statue in the temple could easily be seen as a proposed desecration, one anticipated by many but which never happened (Robinson 1976, pp. 17-18). This proposal could well be seen to fit circumstances described in 2 Thessalonians and in Revelation.
The parable of the wedding feast, from Matthew 22:1-10 (parallel Luke 14:16-24) is Robinson's next step in his survey. The brutal attack on the king's servants, then the king's act of killing his opponents and burning their town is a sign of an allegorical interpretation of the parable (Robinson 1976, p. 19). Luke's addition of a two-fold search for wedding guests, possibly representing a call to Jews and Gentiles, suggests the parable has to do with all sorts of Christians (Robinson 1976, p. 20). The relevant question in Robinson's mind is whether the burning of the town is a representation of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Because the destruction of a city by fire was a common theme in literature of the time, it may well not serve as a description of one particular event (Robinson 1976, p. 20). The fact that the whole of Jerusalem was not destroyed by fire, but only the temple, urges a pre-AD 70 date for the account of destruction.
Matthew 24 provides us with a number of statements which are apocalyptic in nature. However, Robinson contends that Matthew is not explicit about the destruction of Jerusalem or a time of flight from the city (Robinson 1976, p. 22). If the narrative were written after AD 70, Robinson expects there would be an answer in Matthew 24:3 as to the date of destruction of the temple, or at least that the question would be omitted due to the clarity of the answer. Questions of persecution in Matthew 24 are related to conflicts among Christians, rather than involving Romans. The mention of an abomination is specifically that found in Daniel.
Robinson concludes that Matthew does not predict the events of AD 70 in any more clear terms than Mark does (Robinson 1976, p. 23). Similarly, the text is hard to understand as being written after the events of AD 70. There is further reason to take the synoptic Gospels as being close to the time of the events. Robinson notes the statements of the end coming soon, that those living in Jesus' time will see the end, and that the coming will be before the apostles have been through all the towns (Robinson 1976, p. 24). One would not expect such language so long after the resurrection.
The discussion of Jerusalem found in Luke 19:41-44 and 1:20-24 is also enlightening. Robinson notes that "here indeed is the greater specification we expect but fail to find in Matthew" (Robinson 1976, p. 26). However, there is reason to doubt whether the passage is an actual description of the events of AD 68-70. Robinson discusses C.H. Dodd (Journal of Roman Studies 37, 1947, 47-54), who argued the descriptions, especially in Luke 21, were standard ways of expressing period warfare (Robinson 1976, p. 27). The ideas would not have been dependent on the events of AD 70. Like Mark, Luke also includes the suggestion of flight, which was impossible between AD 66 and 70 (Robinson 1976, p. 28).
6/2/26
Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 2: The Significance of 70." (pp. 13-30). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
The failure of the New Testament to speak of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a past event is not missed by Robinson (Robinson 1976, p. 13). Silence regarding such a noteworthy event requires an explanation. The most obvious explanation, of course, for the New Testament to treat the events as those of a yet-unknown future time, is that the events had not yet happened (Robinson 1976, p. 14).
While Robinson is not entirely certain that the now conventional assumption of Mark's Gospel being composed first is correct, for the purpose of his initial exploration, he starts from that position (Robinson 1976, p. 15). Yet, the order of composition of the synoptic Gospels is not strictly tied to a question of the date relative to AD 70. In Mark 13:1-4, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. He then goes on to describe signs of the end to four disciples more privately. The discourse continues without further mention of the destruction of the temple. This suggests to Robinson that not only was the actual discussion before AD 70, but that the creation of the written account was also prior to that time (Robinson 1976, p. 16). In fact, the later reference to the temple, in verses 14-16, indicates a desecration rather than destruction. It further suggests a flight from Jerusalem which was largely impossible by late in 67, when the Roman forces controlled the surrounding hills. The flight, in fact, was not to the hills, but to the city of Pella, and was before the war was in full swing (Robinson 1976, p. 16). The account in Mark would not have been written as it was if after AD 70. Rather, Robinson takes the passage to be informed by events from Daniel 9, 11, and 12 and events from 1 Macc. 1 and 2 which can be dated in the second century BC. The disciples are warned of a similar time yet to come.
Robinson further notes that the proposal of Caligula in AD 40 to unify the nation by setting up his statue in the temple could easily be seen as a proposed desecration, one anticipated by many but which never happened (Robinson 1976, pp. 17-18). This proposal could well be seen to fit circumstances described in 2 Thessalonians and in Revelation.
The parable of the wedding feast, from Matthew 22:1-10 (parallel Luke 14:16-24) is Robinson's next step in his survey. The brutal attack on the king's servants, then the king's act of killing his opponents and burning their town is a sign of an allegorical interpretation of the parable (Robinson 1976, p. 19). Luke's addition of a two-fold search for wedding guests, possibly representing a call to Jews and Gentiles, suggests the parable has to do with all sorts of Christians (Robinson 1976, p. 20). The relevant question in Robinson's mind is whether the burning of the town is a representation of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Because the destruction of a city by fire was a common theme in literature of the time, it may well not serve as a description of one particular event (Robinson 1976, p. 20). The fact that the whole of Jerusalem was not destroyed by fire, but only the temple, urges a pre-AD 70 date for the account of destruction.
Matthew 24 provides us with a number of statements which are apocalyptic in nature. However, Robinson contends that Matthew is not explicit about the destruction of Jerusalem or a time of flight from the city (Robinson 1976, p. 22). If the narrative were written after AD 70, Robinson expects there would be an answer in Matthew 24:3 as to the date of destruction of the temple, or at least that the question would be omitted due to the clarity of the answer. Questions of persecution in Matthew 24 are related to conflicts among Christians, rather than involving Romans. The mention of an abomination is specifically that found in Daniel.
Robinson concludes that Matthew does not predict the events of AD 70 in any more clear terms than Mark does (Robinson 1976, p. 23). Similarly, the text is hard to understand as being written after the events of AD 70. There is further reason to take the synoptic Gospels as being close to the time of the events. Robinson notes the statements of the end coming soon, that those living in Jesus' time will see the end, and that the coming will be before the apostles have been through all the towns (Robinson 1976, p. 24). One would not expect such language so long after the resurrection.
The discussion of Jerusalem found in Luke 19:41-44 and 1:20-24 is also enlightening. Robinson notes that "here indeed is the greater specification we expect but fail to find in Matthew" (Robinson 1976, p. 26). However, there is reason to doubt whether the passage is an actual description of the events of AD 68-70. Robinson discusses C.H. Dodd (Journal of Roman Studies 37, 1947, 47-54), who argued the descriptions, especially in Luke 21, were standard ways of expressing period warfare (Robinson 1976, p. 27). The ideas would not have been dependent on the events of AD 70. Like Mark, Luke also includes the suggestion of flight, which was impossible between AD 66 and 70 (Robinson 1976, p. 28).
RSS Feed