The Olivet Discourse prophecy, so-named for its delivery on the Mount of Olives, is found across the three synoptic gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. Significantly, Jesus predicts the impending fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, indicating that these events were to transpire before his generation passed away. In this article, I will review the Olivet Discourse with a view towards determining its evidential value, conditional on the supposition that its substance represents the historical Jesus and was not composed ex eventu. I will then turn my attention to the question of the historical authenticity of Jesus’ predictions concerning the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish temple. I will also offer an evaluation of the dating of the synoptic gospels, contending that the synoptic gospels, which contain the Olivet Discourse, significantly pre-date the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Through this analysis, I will seek to assess the evidential value of the Olivet Discourse prophecy for appraising the truth of Christianity.
The Fall of Jerusalem Outside of the Olivet Discourse
Outside of the Olivet Discourse texts, which are the focus of the next section of this article, there are also briefer allusions to the fall of Jerusalem elsewhere in the synoptics.
The most explicit is found in Luke 19:43-44 (cf. Mt 23:37-39):
43 For the days will come upon you, when your enemies will set up a barricade around you and surround you and hem you in on every side 44 and tear you down to the ground, you and your children within you. And they will not leave one stone upon another in you, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”
In the lead up to the parallel text in Matthew (23:34-36), Jesus says,
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34 Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
The parable of the wicket tenants also anticipates the fall of Jerusalem (Lk 20:9-16; cf. Mk 12:1-9; Mt 21:33-44):
9 And he began to tell the people this parable: “A man planted a vineyard and let it out to tenants and went into another country for a long while. 10 When the time came, he sent a servant to the tenants, so that they would give him some of the fruit of the vineyard. But the tenants beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 11 And he sent another servant. But they also beat and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty-handed. 12 And he sent yet a third. This one also they wounded and cast out. 13 Then the owner of the vineyard said, ‘What shall I do? I will send my beloved son; perhaps they will respect him.’ 14 But when the tenants saw him, they said to themselves, ‘This is the heir. Let us kill him, so that the inheritance may be ours.’ 15 And they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? 16 He will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.”
There is another likely allusion to the fall of Jerusalem in a text unique to Matthew – the parable of the wedding banquet (Mt 22:1-7):
And again Jesus spoke to them in parables, saying, 2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son, 3 and sent his servants to call those who were invited to the wedding feast, but they would not come. 4 Again he sent other servants, saying, ‘Tell those who are invited, “See, I have prepared my dinner, my oxen and my fat calves have been slaughtered, and everything is ready. Come to the wedding feast.” ’ 5 But they paid no attention and went off, one to his farm, another to his business, 6 while the rest seized his servants, treated them shamefully, and killed them. 7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murderers and burned their city.
In Luke 23:27-31, there is yet another reference to the fall of Jerusalem:
27 And there followed him a great multitude of the people and of women who were mourning and lamenting for him. 28 But turning to them Jesus said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, the days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren and the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ 31 For if they do these things when the wood is green, what will happen when it is dry?”
Thus, as we can see, the impending fall of Jerusalem is emphasized in more texts in the gospels than merely the Olivet Discourse. Nonetheless, the Olivet Discourse prophecy remains the most detailed prophecy concerning the events surrounding 70 C.E., and it is to this that I now turn my attention.
The Olivet Discourse Prophecy
The Olivet Discourse prophecy is found in Mark 13, Matthew 24, and Luke 21. In this section, I will offer an exegetical analysis of the text, as it is found among the three synoptic gospels. For the most part, I will be quoting from Mark (while noting where parallel sections in Matthew and Luke exist). In those cases where Matthew and/or Luke contain distinctive elements not found in Mark, I will quote those as well.
Total Destruction of the Temple and City
The text begins, “And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!’ And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down,” (Mk 13:1-2; cf. Mt 24:1–2, Lk 21:5–6). Jesus here employs rhetorical hyperbole to describe the total devastation of the city of Jerusalem and temple. Josephus would later write in similar terms of the fall of Jerusalem that, though Titus left standing part of the western wall and three towers (Phasael, Hippicus, and Hariamne), “for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been inhabited. This was the end which Jerusalem came to by the madness of those that were for innovations; a city otherwise of great magnificence, and of mighty fame among all mankind,” (Wars 7.1.1) [1].
Wars and Rumors of Wars
In Mark 13:3-4, we read, “And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, ‘Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?’” (cf. Mt 24:3, Lk 21:7). In the parallel account in Matthew 24:3, the question is two-fold: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Jesus’ reply is given in Mark 13:5-8 (cf. Mt 24:4-8, Lk 21:8-11):
5 And Jesus began to say to them, “See that no one leads you astray. 6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. 7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. 8 For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines.
It is common in some quarters to identify wars and rumors of wars, and earthquakes and famines as the signs of the end. Given the prevalence of these phenomena throughout history, this would be a very unimpressive sign! This, however, is precisely the opposite of what Jesus is communicating in these verses. Rather, he is stating that these are not the signs of the end. They merely reflect the routine course of things. One ought not be alarmed by them. The end is not yet.
Jesus continues (Mk 13:9-13; cf. Mt 24:9–14, Lk 21:12–19),
9 “But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. 10 And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. 13 And you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.
This reflects the conditions of persecution against the Christian movement in the first century – see my previous essay on this subject for a more detailed treatment.
The Abomination of Desolation
Jesus continues, “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” (Mk 13:14; cf. Mt 24:15-16, Lk 21:20-21). What precisely Jesus means by the abomination of desolation in this context is unclear, and various interpretations have been given. The parallel account in Matthew 24:15 connects it to the book of Daniel.
In its original context in the book of Daniel (11:31, 12:11), the abomination of desolation refers to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes during the Maccabean period. In Daniel 9:26-27, reference is made to “the people of the prince who is to come,” following the death of the Messiah (v. 26), who “shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” Moreover, “its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.” Verse 27 says “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering.” This, I would suggest, refers to the covenant established by the Messiah with “the many” (cf. Isa 53:11-12). Jesus’ sacrificial death renders the Temple sacrifices obsolete, and hence in the middle of the seventieth week, these sacrifices will be put to an end. The chapter in Daniel concludes, “And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.” In light of this context, Daniel seems to imply a second abomination of desolation associated with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. This is plausibly the reference in Daniel that Jesus is alluding to. What specific event associated with the Jewish war Jesus had in mind is unclear. But it is plausible that Jesus is speaking of the Roman legions, who bore military standards adorned with images of the emperor and Roman deities. Josephus writes (Wars 6.6.1) [2],
And now the Romans, upon the flight of the seditious into the city, and upon the burning of the holy house itself, and of all the buildings round about it, brought their ensigns to the temple, and set them over against its eastern gate; and there did they offer sacrifices to them, and there did they make Titus imperator, with the greatest acclamations of joy.
It is not implausible that this is the abomination of desolation of which Jesus prophesied. The parallel account in Luke 21:20 appears to connect it more directly to this context: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.”
Flee to the Mountains
Jesus warns, “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak,” (Mk 13:14-16; cf. Mt 24:14-18, Lk 21:21-22). Matthew adds, “Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath,” (Mt 24:20). This underscores that Jesus is not here speaking of the end of the world, since in that case fleeing to the mountains would be of little use. Rather, the entire text up to this point concerns the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. In Luke’s account, Jesus stresses that “these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written,” (Lk 21:22).
Jesus continues, “For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be,” (Mk 13:19; cf. Mt 24:21). Here, again Jesus employs rhetorical hyperbole to underscore the severity of the event. This parallels similar instances in the Hebrew Bible (for example, compare Ezek 5:9 and 10:14, or Joel 2:2). Josephus in fact speaks of the events of 70 C.E. in similar terms: “the multitude of those that therein perished exceeded all the destructions that either men or God ever brought upon the world,” (Wars 6.9.4). [3]
In the parallel account in Luke, Jesus says, “Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people,” (Lk 21:23). One cannot help but be reminded of Josephus’ description of Mary, a woman experiencing starvation during the Roman siege, resorting to eating her own infant child (Wars 6.3.4) [4]:
(201) There was a certain woman that dwelt beyond Jordan, her name was Mary; her father was Eleazar, of the village Bethezub, which signifies the House of Hyssop. She was eminent for her family and her wealth, and had fled away to Jerusalem with the rest of the multitude, and was with them besieged therein at this time. (202) The other effects of this woman had been already seized upon; such I mean as she had brought with her out of Perea, and removed to the city. What she had treasured up besides, as also what food she had contrived to save, had been also carried off by the rapacious guards, who came every day running into her house for that purpose. (203) This put the poor woman into a very great passion, and by the frequent reproaches and imprecations she cast at these rapacious villains, she had provoked them to anger against her; (204) but none of them, either out of the indignation she had raised against herself, or out of the commiseration of her case, would take away her life; and if she found any food, she perceived her labors were for others, and not for herself; and it was now become impossible for her anyway to find anymore food, while the famine pierced through her very bowels and marrow, when also her passion was fired to a degree beyond the famine itself; nor did she consult with anything but with her passion and the necessity she was in. She then attempted a most unnatural thing; (205) and snatching up her son, who was a child sucking at her breast, she said, “O, thou miserable infant! For whom shall I preserve thee in this war, this famine, and this sedition? (206) As to the war with the Romans, if they preserve our lives, we must be slaves! This famine also will destroy us, even before that slavery comes upon us:—yet are these seditious rogues more terrible than both the other. (207) Come on; be thou my food, and be thou a fury to these seditious varlets and a byword to the world, which is all that is now wanting to complete the calamities of us Jews.” (208) As soon as she had said this she slew her son; and then roasted him, and ate the one half of him, and kept the other half by her concealed. (209) Upon this the seditous came in presently, and smelling the horrid scent of this food, they threatened her, that they would cut her throat immediately if she did not show them what food she had gotten ready. She replied, that she had saved a very fine portion of it for them; and withal uncovered what was left of her son. (210) Hereupon they were seized with a horror and amazement of mind, and stood astonished at the sight; when she said to them, “This is my own son; and what hath been done was mine own doing! Come, eat of this food; for I have eaten of it myself! (211) Do not you pretend to be either more tender than a woman, or more compassionate than a mother; but if you be so scrupulous and do abominate this my sacrifice, as I have eaten the one half, let the rest be reserved for me also.” (212) After which, those men went out trembling, being never so much affrighted at anything as they were at this, and with some difficulty they left the rest of that meat to the mother. Upon which the whole city was full of this horrid action immediately; and while every body laid his miserable case before their own eyes, they trembled, as if this unheard-of action had been by themselves. (213) So those that were thus distressed by the famine were very desirous to die; and those already dead were esteemed happy, because they had not lived long enough either to hear or to see such miseries.
Jesus goes on to say in Luke 21:24, “They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.” This is fulfilled precisely in the events of 70 C.E. As Josephus writes (Wars 6.9.2) [5],
(414) And now, since his soldiers were already quite tired with killing men, and yet there appeared to be a vast multitude still remaining alive, Caesar gave orders that they should kill none but those that were in arms, and opposed them, but should take the rest alive. (415) But, together with those whom they had orders to slay, they slew the aged and the infirm; but for those that were in their flourishing age, and who might be useful to them, they drove them together into the temple, and shut them up within the walls of the court of the women; (416) over which Caesar set one of his freed men, as also Fronto, one of his own friends; which last was to determine everyone’s fate, according to his merits. (417) So this Fronto slew all those that had been seditious and robbers, who were impeached one by another; but of the young men he chose out the tallest and most beautiful, and reserved them for the triumph; (418) and as for the rest of the multitude that were above seventeen years old, he put them into bonds, and sent them to the Egyptian mines. Titus also sent a great number into the provinces, as a present to them, that they might be destroyed upon their theaters, by the sword and by the wild beasts; but those that were under seventeen years of age were sold for slaves.
Josephus further says that “the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand,” (Wars 6.9.3) [6].
Jesus’ statement in Luke 21:24 that “Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled” is also, I would argue, indicative of a significant gap in time between the events of 70 C.E. and the Parousia.
Jesus goes on to say, “if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days,” (Mk 13:20). Josephus indicates that the siege of Jerusalem, though terrible, lasted only approximately five months, as can be deduced from its beginning and end point – i.e., from 14 Nisan to 8 Elul (Wars 5.3.1, 6.10.1). According to Jesus’ prophecy, the days were cut short out of concern for God’s ἐκλεκτοί (elect).
Jesus’ continues (Mk 13:21-23; cf. Mt 24:23-28),
21 And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Jesus stresses that “For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather,” (Mt 24:27-28). In other words, when the Son of Man comes, it will be abundantly obvious to all. R.T. France remarks that “the mention of the parousia here is precisely in order to indicate that it is not to be looked for in the chaotic events of the Jewish War, but will be something of quite a different character.” [7]
Apocalyptic Imagery
Jesus continues, “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken,” (Mk 13:24-25; cf. Mt 24:29, Lk 21:25). This employs apocalyptic imagery signifying divine judgment that is used in various other Biblical texts. For example, consider the following passages:
- Isaiah 13:10, describing God’s judgment on Babylon: “For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light; the sun will be dark at its rising, and the moon will not shed its light.”
- Isaiah 34:4, describing God’s judgment on the nations, particularly Edom: “All the host of heaven shall rot away, and the skies roll up like a scroll. All their host shall fall, as leaves fall from the vine, like leaves falling from the fig tree.”
- Ezekiel 32:7, describing the downfall of Egypt through the conquest by Babylon: “When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light.”
- Joel 2:10, describing God’s judgment on Judah: “The earth quakes before them; the heavens tremble. The sun and the moon are darkened, and the stars withdraw their shining.”
- Amos 8:9, speaking prophetically of the destruction of the northern kingdom by Shalmaneser V and, after his death, Sargon II: “‘And on that day,’ declares the Lord GOD, ‘I will make the sun go down at noon and darken the earth in broad daylight.’”
- Micah 1:3-4, again describing God’s judgment on the northern kingdom by the Assyrians: “For behold, the LORD is coming out of his place, and will come down and tread upon the high places of the earth. And the mountains will melt under him, and the valleys will split open, like wax before the fire, like waters poured down a steep place.”
It is misguided, therefore, to push this apocalyptic symbolism too literally. The reference is not to cosmic disintegration but to God’s judgment upon Jerusalem.
Jesus continues, “Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,” (Mt 24:30; cf. Mk 13:26, Lk 21:27). What is meant by the sign of the Son of Man is unclear, though it seems likely that we are still in the realm of apocalyptic symbolism here. R.T. France remarks [8],
The sign of the Son of man in heaven has been interpreted in many different ways. From a very early date it was understood as a visible appearance of a cross in the sky, but the text does not say this, and in the light of the symbolic language of v. 29 we should not expect such a literal interpretation. Some argue that the ‘sign’ is the Son of man himself, seen in his triumph. Others point out that sēmeion is the LXX translation for the ‘standard’ or ‘banner’ referred to in the Old Testament as a signal for the gathering of God’s people; see e.g. Isaiah 11:12; 49:22. The ‘standard’ and the ‘trumpet’ (also mentioned here in v. 31) together become fixed in Jewish liturgical language about the ‘gathering of the exiles’. At any rate it is clear that we are still in the area of apocalyptic symbolism, and that a literal identification of ‘the sign of the Son of man’ is not likely to be possible.
The reference to αἱ φυλαὶ τῆς γῆς (“the tribes of the earth”) is more plausibly rendered “the tribes of the land,” particularly since the text clearly alludes to Zechariah 12:10, where it is the tribes of Israel who are mourning when they look on him whom they have pierced. This, I would suggest, is a foreshadowing of the final day of the Lord.
Jesus continues, “And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory,” (Mk 13:26; cf. Mt 24:30, Lk 21:27). This, I would argue, is not referring to a literal sight of the Son of Man coming to earth, but rather to the Son of Man’s approaching in judgment. Isaiah 19:1, referring to God coming in judgment against Egypt, says, “Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt; and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.” Moreover, Jesus is referring here to Daniel 7:13-14, which speaks not of the Son of Man coming to earth, but rather is approaching the ancient of days to receive authority and vindication. This interpretation is further supported by the fact that, according to Matthew 26:64, in response to the high priest’s question concerning whether he is the Messiah, Jesus answers, “But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven,” (emphasis added). The fact that he says that the high priest will see this “from now on” indicates that he is not speaking about his second coming, but rather to his vindication that will be seen even by those who opposed Jesus. One may also understand Jesus’ words to carry the connotation that “from now on, your day of judgment has begun.” As R.T. France explains [9],
Indeed it is something which Jesus’ inquisitors themselves will see (an echo of Zech. 12:10, as in 24:30?), for it will quickly become apparent in the events of even the next few weeks (not to mention the subsequent growth of the church) that the ‘blasphemer’ they thought they had disposed of is in fact now in the position of supreme authority.
Jesus continues: “And then he will send out the angels (ἀγγέλους) and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven,” (Mk 13:27). The word translated “angels” here is ἀγγέλους, the accusative of ἄγγελοι (singular αγγελος). The word can refer to celestial beings (what we call angels) but can also refer to human messengers. It is thus possible to interpret these messengers as God’s evangelists that are sent to gather God’s elect from the gentile nations. Even if one translates the word in the traditional way, however (and this may be the more likely rendering in this context), one may still understand that these angels are working through human evangelists to gather God’s elect among the nations. Thus, this translational point is not crucial to my interpretation of the text.
This Generation Will Not Pass Away
In Mark 13:28-31 (cf. Mt 24:32-35, Lk 21-29-33), Jesus states,
From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
This makes Jesus’ prophecy a particularly risky prediction. A generation is typically considered to be forty years. If, therefore, fifty years, let alone a century went by without Jerusalem falling, then this would be a significant reason to view Jesus as a false prophet. It is also not a given that the fall of Jerusalem would be accompanied by the destruction of the temple. In fact, Josephus indicates that the Roman general, Titus, was reluctant to destroy such a magnificent building as the Jewish temple (Wars 6.4.3) [10]:
Titus said, that “although the Jews should get upon that holy house, and fight us thence, yet ought we not to revenge ourselves on things that are inanimate, instead of the men themselves;” and that he was not in any case for burning down so vast a work as that was, because this would be a mischief to the Romans themselves, as it would be an ornament to their government while it continued.
Josephus also indicates that the burning of the temple began through the unauthorized act of an individual soldier, not by the command of Titus (Wars 6.4.5) [11]:
(252) At which time one of the soldiers, without staying for any orders, and without any concern or dread upon him at so great an undertaking, and being hurried on by a certain divine fury, snatched somewhat out of the materials that were on fire, and being lifted up by another soldier, he set fire to a golden window, through which there was a passage to the rooms that were round about the holy house, on the north side of it.
Moreover, Titus apparently rushed to the temple upon hearing it was on fire and attempted to stop it (Wars 6.4.7) [12]:
(261) but as the flame had not as yet reached to its inward parts, but was still consuming the rooms that were about the holy house, and Titus supposing what the fact was, that the house itself might yet be saved, (262) he came in haste and endeavored to persuade the soldiers to quench the fire, and gave order to Liberalius the centurion, and one of those spearmen that were about him, to beat the soldiers that were refractory with their staves, and to restrain them, (263) yet were their passions too hard for the regards they had for Caesar, and the dread they had of him who forbade them, as was their hatred of the Jews, and a certain vehement inclination to fight them, too hard for them also. (264) Moreover, the hope of plunder induced many to go on, as having this opinion, that all the places within were full of money, and as seeing that all round about it was made of gold; (265) and besides, one of those that went into the place prevented Caesar, when he ran so hastily out to restrain the soldiers, and threw the fire upon the hinges of the gate, in the dark; (266) whereby the flame burst out from within the holy house itself immediately, when the commanders retired, and Caesar with them, and when nobody any longer forbade those that were without to set fire to it; and thus the holy house burnt down, without Caesar’s approbation.
Thus, it is not at all obvious that the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans would be necessarily accompanied by the destruction of the Jewish temple. This, therefore, constitutes a risky element of Jesus’ prophecy.
The Parousia
Mark 13:32 and Matthew 24:36 mark the beginning of the discussion of the Parousia, which in Mark continues for only a few verses, while in Matthew it is the subject matter of the remainder of chapter 24 through chapter 25. This section begins, “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father,” (Mk 13:32; cf. Mt 24:36). As an aside, this verse evinces Jesus’ divine self-understanding, since it is quite unlikely that the evangelists would have fictionalized a saying where Jesus indicates his own ignorance of the date of his return. Indeed, this saying was evidently embarrassing to early Christians, since the words “neither the Son” are missing from most witnesses of Matthew, including the later Byzantine text (though the phrase is found in the best representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western text types. [13] It is easier to envision a scribe omitting this expression rather than add it in at a later date. Yet, if this saying is authentic, it presents Jesus’ self-understanding as being the unique divine Son of God, superior to every human and angelic being.
In Matthew 24, the disciples’ question is divided into two parts – “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Mt 24:3). It is natural, therefore, to take Matthew 24:4-35 as dealing with the first of those subjects, and 26:36ff to be dealing with the second. The parallel in Mark 13:4, however, does not divide the question this way: “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?” Nonetheless, even in Mark, it is quite likely that a new subject begins in verse 32. First, the phrase Περὶ δέ (“Now concerning…”) is used throughout 1 Corinthians to indicate a new subject, as Paul transitions from addressing one question to the next (1 Cor. 7:1, 25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1; cf. 1 Thes. 4:9; 5:1; Acts 21:25). It is also used in this manner in Mark 12:26. Moreover, the phrase “But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows…” suggests a contrast with the events just described, which will assuredly take place before Jesus’ own generation expired. As R.T. France argues [14],
Here it naturally suggests a similar shift to a new topic, and the more so because the dependent genitive consists of a pair of phrases (τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης ἢ τῆς ὥρας) which are here introduced into the discourse for the first time. While the plural αἱ ἡμέραι (ἐκεῖναι) has been used several times to describe the period of the siege of Jerusalem (vv. 17, 19, 20, 24), no singular day has been mentioned which provides a suitable antecedent to ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη in v. 32. Moreover, the statement of ignorance concerning this ‘day or hour’ contrasts strongly with the resounding certainty (ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν) of Jesus’ pronouncement of the time within which the ταῦτα described in the previous verses will occur (v. 30). We have moved emphatically from the known to the unknown.
Moreover, the phrase, ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη (“that day”) is used in various places in the New Testament where there is a lack of an explicit antecedent. It is used of the day of judgment in Matthew 7:22 and Luke 10:12 without any clear statement on the identity of “that day,” just as is the case in the Olivet Discourse (see also 2 Tim 1:12, 18; 4:8). Paul also uses the expression ἡ ἡμέρα (“the day”) in the same sense in 1 Corinthians 3:13. The phrase “that day” or “the day”, therefore, seems to have been a recognized technical term for the day of judgment. Clearly, there is intended to be a parallel between the events of the fall of Jerusalem and the final eschaton, the former foreshadowing the latter. This explains the link between these two events in the Olivet Discourse.
Risky Elements of the Olivet Discourse Prophecy
As we have seen in the foregoing discussion, Jesus’ Olivet Discourse prophecy carries multiple risky elements. First, the fall of Jerusalem must occur within his generation (typically understood to be forty years). Second, the fall of Jerusalem must be accompanied by the destruction of the temple. Third, Jerusalem would be surrounded by armies prior to its destruction. Fourth, the crisis would involve severe famine. Fifth, Jerusalem would be trampled by gentiles for an extended period and the survivors would be led captive among the nations. This all fits the events of 70 C.E. – events which took place right on cue, just thirty-seven years from Jesus’ prediction in 33 C.E. It is also significant that Jesus instructed his hearers to flee rather than resist, which ran contrary to the prevailing Jewish aspirations of victory against Rome.
Didn’t Other First Century Jews Predict the Temple Destruction?
It is frequently asserted by critics that Jesus was not the only first century Jew to predict the temple destruction, and that there were other individuals who made such prophesies as well. This claim, however, is an overstatement, since we have record of precisely one other first century Jew who predicted the temple destruction. His name was Jesus ben Ananias, and Josephus indicates that he began to rail against Jerusalem and the temple four years before the war began, i.e., in 62 C.E. Josephus writes (Wars 6.5.3) [15],
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 everyone to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (301) began on a sudden 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, 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. (302) However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes; yet did not he either say anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still he went on with the same words which he cried before. (303) Hereupon our rulers supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator; (304) where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet did he not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” (305) And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him who he was, and whence he came, and why he uttered such words; he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him. (306) Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow, “Woe, woe, to Jerusalem!” (307) Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. (308) This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; (309) for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe, to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last,—“Woe, woe, to myself also!” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages, he gave up the ghost.
This madman is hardly a compelling parallel to Jesus of Nazareth. His predictions are also far more vague and general. Moreover, by 62 C.E., in the midst of heightening tensions with Rome, it would have been far easier to read the tealeaves than in 33 C.E. when Jesus made his prediction. Jesus ben Ananias’ pronouncements against the city and temple, therefore, do not significantly undermine the evidential force of the Olivet Discourse prophecy.
Did the Historical Jesus Predict the Fall of Jerusalem?
I have argued at length elsewhere for the historical reportage view of the gospels – that is to say, the gospels are in fact memoirs composed by individuals who are extremely well-informed, close up to the facts, and historically conscientious. This in its own right provides a prima facie basis for thinking that the Olivet Discourse is a substantially accurate representation of what Jesus himself taught.
Furthermore, the Thessalonian epistles show awareness of multiple elements of the Olivet Discourse (particularly the section concerning the Parousia), which suggests that this text existed at least in some form prior to being recorded in the gospel accounts (see 1 Thess 1:10, 4:15–17, 5:1–11; 2 Thess 1:6–10, 2:1–12, 2:13–3:5).
David Wenham has also argued at length that the three synoptic accounts of the Olivet Discourse draw from a larger source. [16] For example, Matthew 24:15 alludes to the “abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place,” echoing Daniel 9:27, 11:31 and 12:11, which speak of a powerful ruler desecrating the temple. In Daniel 11:31, we read, “Forces from him shall appear and profane the temple and fortress, and shall take away the regular burnt offering. And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate.” Luke 21:20 (“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near”) echoes the first half of this text while the second half is echoed by Matthew 24:15. This may be taken to suggest that Jesus said both what is recorded in Matthew as well as what is recorded in Luke, each author excerpting part of what Jesus said.
There is also reason to think that the parable of the wicket tenants, which anticipates the fall of Jerusalem, represents the historical Jesus (Mk 12:1-12; Mt 21:33-46; Lk 20:9-19). In response to Jesus’ statement that the vineyard owner “will come and destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others,” the audience exclaims, “Surely not!” This is peculiar, since it appears that the crowd expresses sympathy with the villains of the story — the wicked tenants. Though Luke does go on to say that the scribes and chief priests perceived that Jesus had told this parable against them, one might have expected the crowd to wait with their exclamation until Jesus had made this point explicit. This outburst is missing from Matthew’s version of the story (Mt 21:33-45). However, Matthew tells us a detail not found in Luke, that in fact Jesus did make the point of the parable explicit: “Therefore, I tell you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people producing its fruit,” (Mt 21:43). This makes sense of the otherwise surprising outburst in Luke, which is not recorded in Matthew. Neither Matthew’s nor Luke’s distinctive elements, just discussed, are found in Mark’s version of the parable (Mk 12:1-12), which suggests that, though Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark, they both in fact had additional information that is factually independent of Mark.
These considerations, particularly taken together, support that Jesus did in fact anticipate the fall of Jerusalem, as the gospels claim.
Evaluating the Date of the Synoptic Gospels
Key to appraising the evidential value of Jesus’ predictions concerning the fall of Jerusalem is evaluating the date of the source material in which the prophecies are contained – was the prophecy written down after the events had already transpired (or were at least predictable), or significantly before? If the synoptic gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., one might suggest that, even supposing that Jesus himself delivered the Olivet discourse, the representation of the prophecy has been shaped and influenced by hindsight, making it appear to be more specific than it was originally given.
In this section, I will defend the thesis that the synoptic gospels significantly pre-date the fall of Jerusalem.
Evidences Bearing on the Date of Acts
I will begin by contending that the book of Acts was composed during Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome – that is, between 60 and 62 C.E. Since Luke presents itself as a sequel to Luke’s gospel (Acts 1:1), the composition of Luke’s gospel must precede that of Acts. Moreover, since Luke’s gospel exhibits a literary dependence on Mark, this by extension pushes Mark even earlier still.
Paul’s Unresolved Legal Troubles
Luke devotes eight full chapters to Paul’s trials, building up a great deal of suspense, particularly when Paul makes his appeal to Caesar (Acts 25:11), as was his right as a Roman citizen. Suspense continues to grow through chapter 28 when Paul arrives in Rome. However, Luke does nothing to resolve this suspense. Rather, he ends on a cliffhanger with Paul being placed under house arrest, and leaves the reader in the dark regarding the outcome of Paul’s appeal to Caesar. This suggests that Acts was composed sometime during – before the conclusion of – Paul’s imprisonment in Rome. As Adolf von Harnack explains [17],
Throughout eight whole chapters St Luke keeps his readers intensely interested in the progress of the trial of St Paul, simply that he may in the end completely disappoint them—they learn nothing of the final result of the trial! Such a procedure is scarcely less indefensible than that of one who might relate the history of our Lord and close the narrative with His delivery to Pilate, because Jesus had now been brought up to Jerusalem and had made His appearance before the chief magistrate in the capital city! One may object that the end of the Apostle was universally known, or one may also say that when the author had brought St Paul to Rome he had attained the goal that he sets before himself in his book. For many years I was content to soothe my intellectual conscience with such expedients; but in truth they altogether transgress against inward probability and all the psychological laws of historical composition. The more clearly we see that the trial of St Paul, and above all his appeal to Cæsar, is the chief subject of the last quarter of the Acts, the more hopeless does it appear that we can explain why the narrative breaks off as it does, otherwise than by assuming that the trial had actually not yet reached its close. It is no use to struggle against this conclusion. If St Luke, in the year 80, 90, or 100, wrote thus he was not simply a blundering but an absolutely incomprehensible historian! Moreover, we note that nowhere in the Acts is either St Peter or St Paul so treated as if his death was presupposed; we indeed rather receive the contrary impression. Neither is the slightest reference made to the martyrdom of St Paul! St Luke allows Agabus to foretell a famine, to foretell St Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem; he suffers St Paul himself (on the voyage) to foretell, like a fortune-teller, the fate of the ship and all its passengers; he in many chapters of the book deals in all kinds of “spiritual” utterances and prophecies—but not one word is said concerning the final destiny of St Paul (and of St Peter)! Is this natural? There are prophecies concerning events of minor importance, while there is nothing about the great event of all!
Paul’s Farewell Discourse
In Paul’s farewell address before the Ephesian elders, Paul declares, “And now, behold, I know that none of you among whom I have gone about proclaiming the kingdom will see my face again,” (Acts 20:25). Yet, there is evidence that Paul, following his release from his first imprisonment in Rome, returned to Asia Minor. In 2 Timothy 4:13, Paul says to Timothy, “When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.” Troas lies on the northwest coast of Asia Minor. Moreover, Paul goes on to write, “Erastus remained at Corinth, and I left Trophimus, who was ill, at Miletus,” (2 Tim 4:20). Miletus lies just south of Ephesus. I have argued at length for the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles elsewhere.
If Acts were written after the conclusion of Paul’s first imprisonment in Rome, it is surprising that he reports Paul’s prediction that his Asiatic friends would not see his face again without any further qualification. Harnack concludes [18],
Under such circumstances, seeing that the further course of St Paul’s life contradicted the prophecy, it cannot be imagined that St Luke would have reported the prophecy or would have placed it in the mouth of St Paul. Hence, on the assumption that the Apostle was released from his first captivity, the passage Acts 20:25 affords strong testimony that St Luke wrote previously to that release.
Luke had not read Paul’s letters
I have argued at length elsewhere that the author of Acts, whom I take to be Luke, had not read any of Paul’s letters (see here and here). If Luke wrote much later when Paul’s epistles were collected and in wide circulation, this seems virtually inconceivable. This, again, points to an early date of composition for Acts. As Adolf von Harnack observes, “A further negative indication makes its appearance in the fact that no use is made of the Pauline epistles, a fact that suggests that the date of the Acts should be set as early as possible.” [19]
References to Nero as “Caesar”
The book of Acts consistently refers to the emperor Nero as “Caesar” (Acts 25:8,10,11,12,21,25, 26:32, 27:24, 28:19). This suggests that the book was written when Nero was still living, since after Nero’s death he is identified by various authors consistently as “Nero”. As Martin Mosse explains [20],
References to Nero appear to indicate that he is still alive. Though he was universally damned after his death and spoken of as ‘Nero’ by Pliny the Elder, Josephus, Martial, Juvenal, Tacitus, Suetonius and others, rather than as ‘Caesar’, ‘Acts had a habit of referring to Nero vividly, politely, hopefully, deferentially as “Caesar.”’ (Moberly, 1993, 8–9) (Acts 25:8, 10–2, 21 [25:25–6]; 26:32; 27:24; 28:19) This would have been proper and natural if Nero were still alive, and unlikely if he were dead and universally vilified. It would incidentally indicate, ‘in the present reign’: after his death we would expect him to be called by name at least once.
Nero died in 68 C.E. Thus, this is again consistent with my contention that the book of Acts was composed during Paul’s first Roman imprisonment between 60 and 62 C.E.
The Reference to Gallio
In Acts 18:12, Luke refers to Gallio, the proconsul of Achaia, as though familiar to his audience. This also carries significance in relation to the date of composition of Acts. As Martin Mosse explains [21],
[Gallio] was in fact a relatively obscure elder brother to Seneca, the eminent Stoic and statesman who fell from favour in 62 and committed suicide three years later, apparently followed by Gallio himself. In Rome of the early 60s while Seneca was prominent, ‘Gallio’, referred to familiarly, would have been easily understood. But it is most unlikely that Lucius Annaeus Gallio, dim proconsul of a quiet province in Greece for a year under Claudius, would have been known to Christians, in places like Antioch or Ephesus, during the Flavian decades; let alone familiarly, as ‘Gallio’ (Moberly 1993, 17).
This suggests a date for Acts prior to 65 CE, when Seneca and Gallio committed suicide.
The Reference to Felix
In a similar vein, another argument supporting an early date for Acts is the allusion to Felix, as though familiar to Luke’s readers (Acts 23:24,26, 24:2,22-27, 25:14). Martin Mosse comments [22],
Similarly Felix, ‘Happy’ brother of the wealthy Pallas who was murdered for his money by Nero in 62, would have been readily recognised as Marcus Antonius Felix at Rome in the early 60s. ‘He was not likely to be remembered by, let alone to be a household name among, eastern Christians during the Flavian decades.’ (Moberly 1993, 18)
The Emphasis on the Gentile Mission
The book of Acts devotes significant space to defending the inclusion of the gentiles. This fits well into the context of the church in the first few decades where inclusion of uncircumcised gentiles on equal terms with Jewish believers in Jesus was controversial. If Acts were composed, say, in the 80s, this is surprising since by this time Christianity had become largely gentile. The emphasis Luke places on this controversy makes sense if he wrote at a time when this controversy was still a live concern for his readers.
Linguistic Evidences of Early Date
There are also various arguments for an early date of composition of Acts that derive from terminology. These include the sparing use of the noun Χριστιανόι; the use of μάρτυς in the literal sense of “witness” rather than in the modern sense of “martyr”; the use of “Simon” (Σίμων) for Peter; and the comparatively primitive use of the term ἐκκλησία. For a more detailed discussion, see Adolf von Harnack’s volume, The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels (chapter 3, section 4).
Arguments Bearing on the Date of the Synoptic Gospels
Aside from the case for an early date of composition of Acts, which indirectly bears on the dating of the synoptic gospels, there is also more specific evidence that pertains to the date of composition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It is to this subject that I now turn.
Paul’s Citation of Luke’s Gospel
One line of evidence that bears on the dating of Luke is the citation of this gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18 (I have argued at length elsewhere for the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral epistles). Paul writes, “For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,’ and, ‘The laborer deserves his wages.’ The first quotation is from Deuteronomy 25:4, and the second from Luke 10:7. The fact that he identifies both as ἡ γραφή (the Scripture) indicates that he is quoting directly from Luke’s gospel, rather than from a shared tradition. Though γραφή has a broader meaning of “writing”, the formula λέγει ἡ γραφή (“the Scripture says”) is a quotation formula used to introduce Scripture, and one which Paul uses it elsewhere (e.g., Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30).
1 Timothy was likely composed in the mid-60’s C.E. By this time, Luke’s gospel must have been already written and circulated by sufficient time to be regarded as authoritative Scripture by the time of Paul’s writing to Timothy.
Features of the Olivet Discourse Prophecy
A number of features of the Olivet Discourse prophecy itself suggest a pre-70 date of composition. For example, the text suggests that the temple would be razed to the ground, or “thrown down” (Mk 13:2; Mt 24:2; Lk 21:6). Historically, the temple was burned down. Someone writing this text after the fall of Jerusalem would be much more likely to use language describing the temple being consumed by fire. As Markus Bockmuehl observes, “while Jesus’ prediction seems to envision a razing of the Temple (‘no stone shall remain upon another’), the historical accounts (and all ‘real’ ex eventu prophecies) of the event clearly indicate that the Temple superstructure was in fact burned down. (Such a feat was in any case rather easier to accomplish than a literal razing, since the water enclosures of Jerusalem limestone cause it to crack when burned.)” [23]
Furthermore, Jesus instructs that “those who are in Judea flee to the mountains,” (Mk 13:14; Mt 24:16; Lk 21:21). However, according to the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, the people of the Jerusalem church fled to Pella – a descent in elevation (Eus., Hist. eccl. 3.5.3). Jesus also instructs to “pray that it may not happen in winter,” (Mk 13:18; Mt 24:20). Josephus, however, indicates that the temple was destroyed on the tenth day of the month Lous, which is Josephus’ Macedonian name for the Jewish month Ab, which falls roughly in late July to early August (Wars 6.4.5) – thus, in the summer months rather than in winter.
If the phrase, “let the reader understand” (Mk 13:14; Mt 24:15), is taken to be an authorial aside (as opposed to a saying of Jesus himself directing his hearers to the book of Daniel) this implies that the warning is still relevant to the readers of Mark and Matthew. If the other interpretation is preferred, the phrase may still carry some significance for dating. As part of Jesus’ discourse, it functions as an exhortation to discern the significance of Daniel’s prophecy when the predicted events begin to unfold.
Finally, and perhaps most significantly, there is no indication in any of the synoptic accounts that Jesus’ prophecy had already been fulfilled. If these accounts were composed post-70 C.E., then one might expect the evangelists to say something like “This happened just as the Lord had foretold,” in a similar manner to what we see in Acts 11:28, where Agabus prophesies of a famine, of which Josephus would later write (Antiquities 20.5.2): “And one of them named Agabus stood up and foretold by the Spirit that there would be a great famine over all the world (this took place in the days of Claudius).” Matthew in particular loves fulfillment formulas (1:22–23, 2:15, 2:17–18, 2:23, 4:14–16, 8:17, 12:17–21, 13:35, 21:4–5, 27:9–10.). Luke similarly likes to record fulfilled predictions (Lk 2:34–35, 4:21, 18:31–33, 22:21–23, 22:34, 22:47–48, 22:54–62, 24:6–8, 24:44–46; Ac 11:27–30, 21:10–14, 27:21–26, 27:33–44). Yet, neither speaks of the fulfilment of Jesus’ greatest historical prediction.
Use of Politically Charged Jewish Restoration Language
Following the outbreak of the first Jewish revolt in 66 C.E., language relating to Davidic kingship, the restoration of Israel, the redemption of Jerusalem, and the Messianic hope would have been politically sensitive subjects. But these are major themes throughout Luke-Acts. Consider the following examples:
- Luke 1:32–33 – “The Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”
- Luke 1:46–55 – “He has shown strength with his arm; he has scattered the proud… He has brought down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of humble estate… He has helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy.”
- Luke 1:68–75 – “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David… that we should be saved from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us.”
- Luke 2:25–32 – Simeon was “waiting for the consolation of Israel.”
- Luke 2:38 – Anna “began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.”
- Luke 6:15 – “Simon who was called the Zealot.”
- Acts 1:6 – “Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”
- Acts 3:19–21 – “Repent therefore… that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord… whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets.”
- Acts 28:20 – “It is because of the hope of Israel that I am wearing this chain.”
These themes (not to mention Jesus’ association with someone identified as a Zealot) are suggestive of a date of composition prior to them becoming extremely delicate topics following the Jewish revolt.
The Temple Tax
Matthew’s account of the temple tax (Mt 17:24-27) also suggests a pre-70 date. Jesus instructs Peter to pay the temple tax for himself and Jesus, so “not to give offense to them.” Following 70 C.E., this very same tax was redirected by the emperor Vespasian to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome: “He [Vespasian] also laid a tribute upon the Jews wheresoever they were and enjoined every one of them to bring two drachmae every year into the Capitol, as they used to pay the same to the Temple at Jerusalem. And this was the state of the Jewish affairs at this time,” (Wars 7.6.6). [24] If Matthew wrote after 70 C.E., one might expect some qualification to avoid giving the impression that Jesus was endorsing payment to a pagan temple. The absence of any such clarification makes best sense if Matthew’s gospel was composed prior to 70 C.E.
The Final Verdict
Cumulatively, the foregoing considerations point in the direction of a date of composition of the synoptic gospels that significantly precedes the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. This indicates that Jesus’ predictions recorded in the Olivet Discourse were genuine predictions rather than being written ex eventu.
The Evidential Value of the Olivet Discourse Prophecy
Taken by itself, the Olivet Discourse prophecy, where Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple before his generation passed away, is not sufficient evidence to establish the truth of Christianity. However, it does confer significant evidential value that moves the needle significantly in that direction. The text contains multiple concrete features that find striking correspondence in the events surrounding the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Moreover, Jesus does not make a vague, general, prophecy about an event to happen in the undated future, but he puts a specific time limit on it – it was to happen before his generation passed away – i.e., within forty years. Jerusalem would first be surrounded by armies, and the fall of Jerusalem was also to be accompanied by the destruction of the Jewish temple. These events would also be accompanied by unprecedented suffering and famine. Jerusalem’s inhabitants would perish or be led captive among the nations. The city itself would be occupied by gentiles. As we have seen, these predictions closely correspond to what Josephus records of these events in his Wars of the Jews.
Footnotes
1. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 751.
2. Ibid., 743.
3. Ibid., 749.
4. Ibid., 737–738.
5. Ibid., 748–749.
6. Ibid., 749.
7. R. T. France, Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 1, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 345.
8. Ibid., 347–348.
9. Ibid., 386.
10. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 739.
11. Ibid., 739–740.
12. Ibid., 740.
13. Bruce Manning Metzger, United Bible Societies, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition a Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th Rev. Ed.) (London; New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 51–52.
14. R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press, 2002), 541.
15. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 742–743.
16. David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus’ Eschatological Discourse (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003), 185–92.
17. Adolf von Harnack, New Testament Studies: The Date of the Acts and of the Synoptic Gospels, trans. J. R. Wilkinson, vol. 4, Crown Theological Library (New York; London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; Williams and Norgate, 1911), 95–98.
18. Ibid., 103.
19. Ibid., 100.
20. Martin Mosse, The Three Gospels: New Testament History Introduced by the Synoptic Problem (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008), 242.
21. Ibid., 243.
22. Ibid.
23. Markus Bockmuehl, This Jesus : Martyr, Lord, Messiah (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 63.
24. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 761.