Robinson best explains this once again: "That Jesus could have predicted the doom of Jerusalem and its sanctuary is no more inherently improbable than that another Jesus, the son of Ananias, should have done so in the autumn of 62 [Josephus, BJ, 6. 300-9. In citing Josephus I have followed the notation and, unless otherwise indicated, the translation in the Loeb Classical Library.]. Even if, as most would suppose [Josephus, BJ, 6. 300-9. In citing Josephus I have followed the notation and, unless otherwise indicated, the translation in the Loeb Classical Library.],0 the discourse represents the work of Christian prophecy reflecting upon the Old Testament and remembered sayings of Jesus in the light of the church's experiences, hopes and fears, the relevant question is, What experiences, hopes and fears ? The mere fact again that there is no correlation between the initial question and Jesus' answer would suggest that the discourse is not being written retrospectively out of the known events of 70. Indeed the sole subsequent reference to the temple at all, and that only by implication, is in 13.14-16"

That is the argument put forth by Preterists to show that the Second Coming was in 70 AD, a notion which has serious theological flaws. If the note "(let the reader understand)" is an expression of a simultaneous near-future historical event and apocalypse, there isn't much of a problem.

Robinson concludes, "I fail to see any motive for preserving, let alone inventing, prophecies long after the dust had settled in Judaea, unless it be to present Jesus as a prognosticator of uncanny accuracy (in which case the evangelists have defeated the exercise by including palpably unfulfilled predictions). It would seem much more likely, as the form critics have taught us to expect, that these sayings, like the rest, were adapted to the use of the church when and as they were relevant to its immediate needs."

[Regarding handwashing,] Enlighten yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism

Luke mentions that Paul was imprisoned on his way to Rome (Acts 28:20), and Paul remains so until the end of Acts. The fact that this ending is so problematic is evident since ancient times (for example, the very existence of the pseudepigraph 29 Acts attests that Christians could not understand why Acts ended where it did). Acts omits James the brother of Jesus' death as well, which occured in 62. The lack of mention of Paul's martyrdom which only fuels faith, not the other way around as Tacitus testifies happened during Nero's executions renders the Jerusalem to Rome theory highly unlikely. This combined with Luke's prefaces in Luke and Acts (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-3) that this is a work to historically verify the Christian's (Theophilus') faith in Christ.

I haven't gotten around to it, but the three areas of seeming dependence all weigh against Josephean priority, and for Lukan. (In one of them Josephus adds an omen which is missing Luke after an event that the two describe).

Hello Mr. Hertzler.

I found out about your site through a link that was sent to me and I found your article on the dates of the gospels right up my alley. I want to tell you right off the bat that I'm a Young Earth Creationist, who holds a conservative view of Scripture (although I don't believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, it being inspired nevertheless I believe). I'll go over your points as quickly and indepth as possible. "A" is short for article and "RE" is my response.

A: This is not the only reason to question the gospels. As I have shown elsewhere, [1] the accounts do not identify the writers, they contradict each other, they conflict with known history, and they are often implausible. These facts, combined with the late date of the writings, gives us reason to doubt their historicity.

RE: Actually the lack of mention of who wrote the gospel points to authenticity rather than inauthenticity. One can only be reminded about the countless pseudepigraphs that identify the author as having it written such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and just about everything else that is a forgery. After all, what use is a gospel to forward a particular sect's view of Christianity if it doesn't even mention the apostle who is advocating it if it were a forgery. The two gospels that do mention that they are their writers are John and Luke, but John is not part of the Synoptics, and Luke being a follower of Paul is not much of a question anyway. Furthermore, tradition has unanimously set that Matthew and Mark are the evangelists of the relevant gospels. This is the reason that not a single gospel anywhere, at least to my knowledge, has a different name for the same canonical gospel. As for the remainder, it has not been shown to me in this article, which is why I'm responding. ==============================================

A: Our search next takes us to early documents that refer to the gospels. We notice something odd. The gospels appear to be completely unknown to Paul and the other first-century Christians. Now if Paul or another first-century writer had referred to a gospel, we could use that information to date the gospels prior to that apostle. But the first century writings are no help here. Instead we find no clear mention of the gospels until well into the second century. This absence-of-evidence would hint that the gospels were not written before the later part of the first century, but, of course, this is not conclusive.

RE: Gospel means "good news." Therefore the problem with this is that the nature of the earliest gospels and the misunderstanding that a gospel does not have to mean "a biography of Jesus' ministry and Resurrection." As Paul clearly outlines in 2 Corinthians 15, the gospel that he learned from people (the apostles) was an oral gospel, which he gives in 2 Cor. 15:3-4. The only case that might be made is why Paul didn't mention Luke's gospel, but that depends on 2 factors: why does he need to, and when was his last letter (Romans) written. A date around 64 is latest for it, but we know from Luke that he had already been in Rome for at least 2 years by the time he wrote his gospel. When did Paul arrive in Rome? The question cannot be answered conclusively. But more importantly, how is it known that Luke wrote his gospel in Rome? The intimate details of geography, the only farewell in the Asian provinces of Rome, and the time spent on Paul's trial in Ephesus suggest a location for authorship of Luke-Acts in Ephesus, and if shown so would render Paul's lack of use of Luke-Acts (and Luke's lack of Paul's epistles save for maybe Ephesians) a moot point. As for "the first century writings are no help here," what other 1st century writings exist that we know of, except 1 Clement (possibly, which DOES mention the gospels)? ============================================

A: What a graphic description of the turmoil of 70 AD! There were indeed many at that time which presented themselves as the Messiah. For instance, Josephus records that Menachem, son of Judas, and Simon, son of Gioras were Messianic pretenders.[8] Many Jews were flogged at that time. Many stood before governors. Brother betrayed brother. Children rose against their parents. The writer of Mark describes this era in detail. Now we have two views of how this accurate history came to be recorded here. Critical scholars think that Mark, writing after these events, conveniently tells us that Jesus "predicted" these things, thus adding credibility to his claim of Jesus as the Messiah. But fundamentalists would disagree. They would tell us that Jesus really did predict these things. Who is correct?

RE: Far from a detailed description, as Robinson enlightens the reader all description of the destruction of Jerusalem have their source in Old Testament destruction accounts of cities. To quote him: "These operations [Mark 13:14-20] are no more than the regular commonplaces of ancient warfare. In Josephus's account of the Roman capture of Jerusalem there are some features which are more distinctive; such as the fantastic faction-fighting which continued all through the siege, the horrors of pestilence and famine (including cannibalism), and finally the conflagration in which the Temple and a large part of the city perished.  It is these that caught the imagination of Josephus, and, we may suppose, of any other witness of these events. Nothing is said of them here.  On the other hand, among all the barbarities which Josephus reports, he does not say that the conquerors dashed children to the ground. The expression ἐäáöéïῦóéí óå êáὶ ôὰ ôἐêíá óïῦ ἐí óïßis in any case not based on anything that happened in 66-70: it is a commonplace of Hebrew prophecy. Dodd then proceeds to show in detail how all the language used by Luke or his source is drawn not from recent events but from a mind soaked in the Septuagint. So far as any historical event has coloured the picture, it is not Titus's capture of Jerusalem in ad 70, but Nebuchadrezzar's capture in 586 bc. There is no single trait of the forecast which cannot be documented directly out of the Old Testament." =============================================

A: 14 "But when you see the ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Here Mark gets interesting. He himself says that this is a point the reader needs to understand. He mentions that the disciples will see the abomination of desolation spoken of in the book of Daniel. Notice that he says "you" will see this. The "you" clearly refers to those Jesus was addressing in the story recorded in Mark 13, that is, to the disciples (v.1-4). So Mark refers to the teaching in the book of Daniel concerning the desecration of the temple and applies it to his own day. The verse Mark refers to is Daniel 9:27--"He will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." Daniel went on to speak of the horrible desolation caused by this abomination, and than predicts a dramatic victory for the Jews 3 1/2 years after that desecration. Mark says this applies to his own day. What happens after this abomination? Look at (Daniel 12:6-12).

RE: Some of this is false. The Synoptics do not quote that the sacrifice has ended, which would be expected if they wanted to get across that the Temple will be destroyed: "The mere fact again that there is no correlation between the initial question and Jesus' answer would suggest that the discourse is not being written retrospectively out of the known events of 70. Indeed the sole subsequent reference to the temple at all, and that only by implication, is in 13.14-16:... "It is clear at least that 'the abomination of desolation' cannot itself refer to the destruction of the sanctuary in August 70 or to its desecra­tion by Titus' soldiers in sacrificing to their standards [Josephus, BJ 6. 316.]. By that time it was far too late for anyone in Judaea to take to the hills, which had been in enemy hands since the end of 67." ==========================================

A: So, according to Daniel, there will be a "time times and half a time" from this abomination of desolation until the end. This is commonly believed to represent 3 1/2 years, which is equivalent to the 1290 days mentioned in v. 11. And there is a blessed time coming, according to Daniel, 1335 days after the abomination of desolation. Now Mark has just associated the abomination with his own time period, with the destruction of Jerusalem. This desecration occurred in July, 70 when the Romans set up a Roman Eagle for worship inside the Jewish temple. Then, in September of that year, they destroyed the temple. Mark apparently sees the Roman desecration of the temple in 70 AD as the beginning of that 3 1/2 year period leading to the Second Coming. Thus Mark predicts the Second Coming will occur in 74 AD.

RE: Some of this was responded to in above. As for the Second Coming, this would have to mean (as Robinson also explains), that Mark while trying to establish Jesus as a prophet, made a very elemental blunder. That is not the only problem. Although the war ended technically in 73 (not 74) with the taking of Masada, this has no relevance on Jerusalem's capture in 70 AD, to which Mark is referring. ========================================

A: So what is the message that Mark has this Jesus tell to the people living shortly after 70 AD? He predicts some amazing things! The sun will be darkened! The stars will fall from heaven! They will see the return of the Son of Man (Jesus)! When will these things happen? Mark says that "you" --that is, the disciples who were hearing him speak-- will see these things. And he has a promise to these people: The Son of Man will come back and rescue them, as promised in Daniel!

RE: As explained above, the 'abomination of desolations' does not refer to events in 70 AD. My personal opinion is that the note "(let the reader understand)" means that it is simultaneously a historical warning, and an apocalyptic vision, as is so common throughout both the Old and New Testaments (i.e. Genesis 2 establishes morality in a historical sense, the Ascension to Jesus in the sky). ================================================

A: Exactly when did Mark think these things would happen? Read on: 28 "Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 "Even so, you too, when you see these things happening, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. When will this Second Coming come to pass? "He is near, right at the door," says Mark's Jesus. He says it will occur to "this generation." And he says that "you"--that is, the disciples--will see it. He declares that this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Can it be any clearer? When the abomination occurs--which Mark sees as 70 AD--Jesus will shortly return. Obviously, whoever wrote this was mistaken. This prophecy was not fulfilled. How is it that Mark 13 is so accurate in describing events that took place before 70 AD, but suddenly loses all touch with history shortly after 70 AD? The answer seems obvious to me. These words were not spoken by Jesus in 30 AD. Rather, they were invented by Mark shortly after 70 AD, and they were inserted into the text as though they had been spoken earlier. By showing that the "prophecies" of Jesus up to this point had been fulfilled in recent history, Mark could show that the triumphant return prophesied in his book was also a sure bet. Mark's community could have reason to hope: Jesus would surely come and rescue them from this terrible situation. But Mark goofed. The promised return did not happen.

RE: Once again such a "goof" would make sense only before 70 AD, a date that is commonly accepted for the gospel of Mark, attested to by ancient tradition. And the textual critics point out that this puts the gospel before 70 AD. I know that you're suggesting a date of 71-73 for Mark, but that's simply impossible as 73 is of no special importance to anyone. ===============================================

A: The liberal scholar can accept this. The human writer of the book of Mark, writing after 70 AD, predicted an event that would happen in 74 AD, and was mistaken. But the fundamentalist cannot accept that answer. Fundamentalists would have us believe that the verses predicting the destruction of the temple were indeed spoken years before the destruction, and were predictive prophecy. But how can that be? How can the writer so accurately know about the destruction of the temple, when he is so completely wrong about the Second Coming?

RE: Robinson best explains this once again: "That Jesus could have predicted the doom of Jerusalem and its sanctuary is no more inherently improbable than that another Jesus, the son of Ananias, should have done so in the autumn of 62 [Josephus, BJ, 6. 300-9. In citing Josephus I have followed the notation and, unless otherwise indicated, the translation in the Loeb Classical Library.]. Even if, as most would suppose [Josephus, BJ, 6. 300-9. In citing Josephus I have followed the notation and, unless otherwise indicated, the translation in the Loeb Classical Library.],0 the discourse represents the work of Christian prophecy reflecting upon the Old Testament and remembered sayings of Jesus in the light of the church's experiences, hopes and fears, the relevant question is, What experiences, hopes and fears ? The mere fact again that there is no correlation between the initial question and Jesus' answer would suggest that the discourse is not being written retrospectively out of the known events of 70. Indeed the sole subsequent reference to the temple at all, and that only by implication, is in 13.14-16" =================================================

A: Fundamentalists, of course, try to argue this prophetic lapse away. Some will tell us that "this generation" in verse 30 does not mean "this generation" but means "that generation," by which they conveniently refer to some later generation such as the one that saw Israel being restored in 1948. But that is a clear violation of the meaning of the text. It does not say, "that generation." It says, "this generation." And the continual usage of the word "you" makes it clear it refers to the disciples and to their generation.

RE: That is the argument put forth by Preterists to show that the Second Coming was in 70 AD, a notion which has serious theological flaws. If the note "(let the reader understand)" is an expression of a simultaneous near-future historical event and apocalypse, there isn't much of a problem. =============================================

A: Matthew and Luke wrote after Mark, and copied from Mark. Matthew 24 and Luke 21 appear to be copies of Mark 13, for they use the same parenthetical comment found in Mark 13:14 ("let the reader understand") and they are often word-for-word duplicates of Mark. But Matthew and Luke write later and add their own view of things. So all three of these gospels must have been written after 70 AD. RE: This is not true. Matthew and Luke add nothing that describes the destruction itself. Once again: "The first observation to be made is how few these are. As K. Stendahl says, 'He does not have any more explicit references than Mark to the Jewish War or the withdrawing of the Christians from Jerusalem'. Apart from minor verbal variations he follows the tradition common to Mark, with only the following differences of any significance:" He gives 6 examples, none of which change any imagery Mark has already given. To help you, the war in Jewish and pretty much everyone's eyes ended in 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem, not the technical 73 with the conquering of Masada. A common example is the fact that almost everywhere World War I is dated from 1914 to 1918, although technically it ended in 1919 with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, but since the November 1918 armistice, 1914-1918 is World War I in human eyes. Robinson concludes, "I fail to see any motive for preserving, let alone inventing, prophecies long after the dust had settled in Judaea, unless it be to present Jesus as a prognosticator of uncanny accuracy (in which case the evangelists have defeated the exercise by including palpably unfulfilled predictions). It would seem much more likely, as the form critics have taught us to expect, that these sayings, like the rest, were adapted to the use of the church when and as they were relevant to its immediate needs." ==========================================

A: Now the custom of hand-washing that Mark refers to was prevalent after 70 AD, but it was practiced only by priests at the time of Christ.[11] Mark was not aware of the customs of Jesus' day, so he inadvertently inserted this anachronism into the story. Had Mark written earlier, he would have known not to write this.

RE: Enlighten yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_washing_in_Judaism ==========================================

A: The list of improbable features is quite long and includes such things as the trial by night, which would have been illegal; the basis for the charge of blasphemy, which is very unclear if not completely trumped up; the failure of the witnesses to agree, which would have called for a mistrial; the right of the Sanhedrin to charge with death, a sanction that they probably did not have at the time;

RE: I think Mack has jumped on the wagon that sails for fantasy land because in order for these objections to be valid, the hostility of the Sanhedrin (which was composed of Pharisees and Sadducees, but Josephus tells us that the Sadducees conformed to public opinion when put in a place of position - Ant.18.1.4) to Jesus must have been nonexistent. =======================================

A: the insinuation of the crucifixion taking place on Passover, which would have been an outrage;

RE: The Romans were no Jews, that's for sure, but the issue is hazy as to when exactly the crucifixion happened and I haven't gotten around to figuring out what's what on whether it happened before the Passover or when. ========================================

A: Jesus' anticipation of his death as a covenant sacrifice, which might be all right for a bacchic god but hardly for the historical Jesus;

RE: The reference found in Daniel 9:27, of which Matthew, Mark and evidently Luke clearly refer to, is hardly from any such ideas. =========================================

A: the disciples falling asleep in the midst of it all;

RE: What has Mack been reading? That happened during Jesus' last hour before His arrest. ==========================================

A: Pilate's having Jesus executed as the "king of the Jews" without a good reason to consider him so;

RE: This was because Jesus said He was when Pilate asked him. If this isn't an example of skeptical twisting I don't know what is. ===========================================

A: the high priests (in the plural!) joining in the mocking; and so on.

RE: The high priests' mocking is in no way contradictory to both the story in the gospels and the way Josephus depicts them when they are to have their position taken away (Ant. 17.2.4: "These are those that are called the sect of the Pharisees, who were in a capacity of greatly opposing kings. A cunning sect they were, and soon elevated to a pitch of open fighting and doing mischief.", War.1.5.1-3 Josephus explains the murderous nature of the Pharisees; the same objection has been mady by Maccoby when questioning Paul's "Phariseism" about the Pharisees not being as murderous as described in the gospels, who claims that nothing in Josephus has anything about the Pharisees that paints them this way). As for the high priests being in plural, this is true, there was only one high priest, but this objection fails when the Greek/Latin is looked at where the interpretation "chief priests" is the correct translation. The same objection was raised by the fact that Matthew talks about Abimelech being a "high priest," which uses the same word for "high." Perhaps chief priests=high priests, I don't know, but so far Mack's objections have been of a 2nd grade nature. =====================================

A: All of these things would have made sense to the observer of the troubled times of the Jewish War of 70 AD. They are out of place in view of the relatively calm times of 30-50 AD. So it seems likely that the writers were aware of the Jewish War, and wrote after 70 AD, presenting Jesus in a world similar to their own world.

RE: There is one more objection that I know of, the fact that the gospels near-unanimously agree that the rock blocking Jesus' tomb was round and not square as was common in 98.5% in pre-70 AD, whereas it became common after 70 AD to put a round stone, although it is acknowledged that the entrance to the Herodian tombs is a round stone, the fact that an angel was sitting on the stone in Matthew means that it was more of a boulder if anything brought up on short notice. Furthermore, the nature of the tomb inside fits the description of tombs from the 30's as Peter Kirby washes away by the former example as holding no water. ============================================

A: Many Christian have tried to present counter-arguments. One common argument is that the Book of Acts does not record the death of Paul, and therefore, Acts was written before Paul's death. The gospels, which were probably written before Acts, would therefore have been written some time before the death of Paul. But this conclusion does not follow from the data. The book of Acts is widely regarded to be written later for the purpose of "explaining" how the gospel got from Jerusalem to Rome. As Paul preaches in Rome in the last chapter of Acts, that is as far as the author needs to go. So he ends the story there, not because he was unaware of future events, but because he had accomplished the purpose of the book.

RE: This is contradicted by the fact that Luke mentions that Paul was imprisoned on his way to Rome (Acts 28:20), and Paul remains so until the end of Acts. The fact that this ending is so problematic is evident since ancient times (for example, the very existence of the pseudepigraph 29 Acts attests that Christians could not understand why Acts ended where it did). Acts omits James the brother of Jesus' death as well, which occured in 62. The lack of mention of Paul's martyrdom which only fuels faith, not the other way around as Tacitus testifies happened during Nero's executions renders the Jerusalem to Rome theory highly unlikely. This combined with Luke's prefaces in Luke and Acts (Luke 1:1-4, Acts 1:1-3) that this is a work to historically verify the Christian's (Theophilus') faith in Christ. ===========================================

A: Also, there is strong evidence that the writer of Acts borrowed from the writings of Joesphus, pushing the date of Acts to after 90 AD. So I do not buy the argument that Acts was written early, and that this forces the gospels to be early.

RE: I haven't gotten around to it, but the three areas of seeming dependence all weigh against Josephean priority, and for Lukan. (In one of them Josephus adds an omen which is missing Luke after an event that the two describe). ===========================================

Your response is much appreciated