Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

The only evidence I know is their assumption that no body could not possibly have predicted the fall of Jerusalem. Hence, Jesus could not have foreseen the destruction of that temple.

The problem with that assumption is, that it's "the one million dollar question". Christianity believes that Jesus is God and hence could have easily predicted the event. Now, I am not saying that Jesus is really God, that's something I want to know my self.

However, those who argue for a latter date is trying to discredit christianity. Trying to disprove christianity by assuming the christians were false is kind of circular. Hence I need more evidences.

Moreover, Jesus may not be only one that predicted the fall of Jerusalem.

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, he began on a sudden to cry aloud,

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house [i.e., the temple], a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!"

This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city [Jewish War 6:5:3].

Read more:

Note: That being said the story of Jesus ben Ananus is also written after the fall of Jerusalem

However, Luke didn't mention the death of Paul, etc. Suggesting earlier date. So which one is right?

So, assuming Luke is honest, another big assumption, people think that Luke is written before the fall. If Luke is written after the fall, surely he would write about Paul's and Peter's execution. This suggests much earlier dates.

What are the other evidences that support the latter date theories? If you want to add supports for the earlier date theories it'll be great too for comparison.

share|improve this question
Is this a sincere question? – Bruce Alderman Oct 22 '13 at 21:01
The issue is not that nobody could have foreseen the destruction of the temple; it's that putting Jesus' prediction in writing makes more sense if the readers already know it was fulfilled. In fact, both Matthew (24:15) and Mark (14:13) have parenthetical notes to the reader emphasizing this very point. – Bruce Alderman Oct 22 '13 at 21:05
I address the pre-fall evidence for Luke-Acts here. – Frank Luke Oct 22 '13 at 22:00
Yes it's a sincere questions. If the idea that Jesus couldn't possibly have predicted the future is the sole evidence in favor of latter date, it'll be pretty weak right? – Jim Thio Oct 24 '13 at 3:56
@BruceAlderman so you think that's the issue? In that case who can coroborate Luke that Jesus did correctly predict the fall of Jerusalem? – Jim Thio Oct 24 '13 at 6:20
up vote 2 down vote accepted

The best way to prove the earliest possible date of authorship of a document is to identify the sources used, and then identify when the source document(s) were written. Begin with the known fact that Luke's Gospel was originally anonymous and was only attributed to Luke later in the second century. By comparing Luke with Mark in the original Greek language, it has been established that Luke was substantially based on Mark's Gospel.

We can establish that Mark's Gospel was written around 70 CE, at the time of the fall of Jerusalem. It talks of Jesus prophesying the destruction of the great buildings in Jerusalem, but also in the same prophecy that Jesus would return on clouds of glory within the lifetimes of some of his listeners. Since Jesus could not have prophesied something that clearly did not happen - his return on clouds of glory within the lifetimes of some of his listeners - he also did not prophesy the destruction, which was based on the author's own experience. We know, for example, that Paul certainly expected the return of Jesus within his own lifetime, so it is not surprising that the author of Mark shared the same optimism. Scholars have also noted that Mark appears to use some material from Paul's epistles , so Mark both post-dates the epistles and was influenced by them. John Carroll says in The Existential Jesus, page 255, that a large majority of biblical scholars assume that Mark’s Gospel was written around 70 CE, or a few years earlier or later. He says on page 11 that the consensus is that Mark's Gospel was the first New Testament gospel to be written.

At the very least, it took some years for Mark's Gospel to become widely circulated and for the authors of Matthew and Luke to decide to rewrite this account with different emphases. So, Luke's Gospel must certainly have been written after theend of the First Roman-Jewish War.

share|improve this answer
So you think Jesus didn't predict the temple's doom? That means the bible can't be trusted then? – Jim Thio Oct 24 '13 at 3:58
Is that what you think? – Jim Thio Oct 24 '13 at 4:11
I'm not prepared to say on the basis of one passage in the gospels that the Bible can not be trusted - this is a conclusion that ought to be based on more evidence than this. However if Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple, he must also have predicted his own return within the lifetimes of those to whom he was speaking, as well as that the stars would fall down out of heaven - which is absurd. – Dick Harfield Oct 24 '13 at 20:50
Where in the bible did Jesus predict his return within a life time? – Jim Thio Oct 25 '13 at 6:56
"You are considerably more definite about the date of Mark's Gospel than other." Yes - this reference is to Wikipedia, which must allow both theological and scholarly/hermeneutic datings - even if that means showing 2 Peter's date as approx 60-130, which is really "sitting on the fence." Since I believe BH is more about hermeneutics than pure theology, I go with the "approx 70 CE" used by the majority of critical scholars. – Dick Harfield Oct 26 '13 at 7:54

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.