Right, but why does it necessarily have to pertain to the destruction of the Temple in Paul's case given that a) there are pre-70 CE writings that lament God's wrath and talk of the salvation of "a few good ones" at a future age without having any awareness of the destruction of the Temple (like the Damascus Document); and b) Paul doesn't explicitly mention the destruction of the Temple? In other words, since a pre-70 CE setting is an option, then (all things considered) that's the one I choose for all of Romans (excepting perhaps the doxology).But such talk of a few good ones (remnant) and in the end everyone will be saved (pie in the sky) of a doomed people in the present age is rhetoric. Agrippa II and Josephus, who were with Titus, similarly no doubt wept at the divine justice of Roman wrath on the holy city and condemned people within, as they assisted the Romans in carrying it out.
Rhetorical back-and-forth between total destruction of a condemned target and “nevertheless” language of remnants and salvation for all at a future age is common.
The way I look at it is that whoever wrote the Damascus Document believed they were living an age of God's wrath, broader in scope than a single event, similar to how Josephus describes the consequences of the Fourth Philosophy (which began in 6 CE and lasted for almost seventy years).
All sorts of misfortunes also sprang from these men, and the nation was infected with this doctrine to an incredible degree; one violent war came upon us after another ... whence arose seditions, and from them murders of men ... a famine also coming upon us, reduced us to the last degree of despair, as did also the taking and demolishing of cities.
This is all set prior to the destruction of the Temple (just like all the wrath and destruction mentioned in the Damascus Document) and there is a lot to lament about it that seems at least as applicable to Romans as the destruction of the Temple. And since Josephus is writing after the 66-70 CE war he can (naturally) explicitly say (unlike Romans) that "the sedition at last increased so high, that the very temple of God was burnt down by their enemies' fire." If Paul wrote Rom. 9-11 after 70 CE then why wouldn't he explicitly say something about it too?
And where else but Rom. 15:24 and 28 would 1 Clement have gotten the idea that Paul had travelled to "the farthest bounds of the west"? As noted here:
Paul intended to stop in Rome on his way to Spain, but nothing in the NT suggests that he ever went there. However, 1 Clem. 5:6-7 (probably A.D. 97) calls Paul a herald both in the east and the west and says that he reached "the limits of the west" ...
https://books.google.com/books?id=qRtUq ... 15&f=false
And c. 95 CE is close enough for me (though Clement of Alexandria would be close enough for me too if we didn't have 1 Clement, all things considered).