Why did no New Testament books mention AD70?

[arnoldo]

I forgot to reply to this question.

Are there any Roman records of the Jewish wars apart from Josephus?

Yes, Tacitus has a less extensive but important account.

There is at least incidental mention in other Roman literature, as well (and beyond that, archaeology, etc.).

However, some of his contemporaries do not really discuss it much, if at all, and if you span the literature of the Romans (Juvenal, etc.), then you may find a similar situation where a small fraction (less than a quarter certainly, or less than a tenth) choose to discuss it. (In the extent literature, of course.)

The Emperor Julian mentions the destruction of the Jewish Temple obliquely.

Jews do sacrifice in their own houses, and even to this day everything that they eat is consecrated; and they pray before sacrificing, and give the right shoulder to the priests as the firstfruits; but since they have been deprived of their temple, or, as they are accustomed to call it, their holy place, they are prevented from offering the firstfruits of the sacrifice to God.^119
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julia ... 1_text.htm

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

(There are also various bits in the Gospels, etc. that some have detected as some kind of allusion or other -- I am not ignorant of them, and I assume that the reader either is not or can avail the resources of the internet to find the relevant arguments, so I will not open myself up to an interminable debate over their interpretation by going over them again, as the brief yet provocative OP clearly disagrees with that view. These are not "provable.")

Agreed. On the other hand Luke 19:43-44 (Jesus weeps over Jerusalem) might deserve a special mention

43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.

[Blood]

Well, it's interesting that the destruction is never *explicitly* mentioned. It tells you a lot about the method & mentality of the writers ... this is "prophetic", i.e, fake writing, all vaticinia ex eventu, even the Pauline epistles (?). Some jokers are writing in 90, 100, 110, presenting their awed, illiterate audiences that what they've written are actually "lost" sacred texts by apostles of the savior from 75-100 years earlier. They never dreamed their scam would still be paying dividends two millennia later.

[Secret Alias]

My full question is; which of the New Testament books were written after AD70? Assuming there are several, why did none of them mention the 'earth-shattering' events of AD70? The destruction of the temple by Rome fulfilled one of Jesus' own prophecies (Matt. 24:1-3) and its theological significance was central to Christianity. (John 2:19-22) It would have at least been alluded to, surely

Ummm. That's the nature of augury. The prophesies of the gospel were undoubtedly retrojected into the past. But how different are the prophesies of Mark from Daniel? Do you find Daniel's allusion to Antiochus Epiphanies 'more explicit'? Let's be honest. If Mark had said, 'a man named Vespasian is going to be declared Emperor and send his son Titus to defeat Jewish rebels led by ...' the gig is up. You can't be ABSOLUTELY explicit when you are writing pseudepigraphal texts. You don't want to get caught. I am not sure I am understanding the thread. But there it is.

[Secret Alias]

presenting their awed, illiterate audiences that what they've written are actually "lost" sacred texts by apostles of the savior from 75-100 years earlier.

I am not sure that we need to bring all that into the discussion. Even if the texts were written at 70 + 1 years the fake augury is there. It would actually be harder in a way to write a realistic 'fake prophesy' so close to the events. I never got why people living during the time of bar Kochba cared so much about a prophesy about 70 CE. This was never really explained properly by Detering and the rest of this crowd. If the audiences are 'illiterate' morons how did they cultivate such a sophisticated historical sensibility about events three generations ago? The texts were likely written immediately after the destruction just as Daniel was written immediately after Antiochus Epiphanius. These strange arguments about Mark writing for historically sophisticated illiterate morons make no sense to me.

I always get the feeling that religious minded people - even when they become atheists - find it hard to get the idea that the 'gospel was speaking to them' out of their head. YOU and Detering and whomever else buys into this argument are sophisticated historically minded people who developed a taste for Jewish and Roman Imperial history but that doesn't mean that the gospel was written for people like you. If you assume the people were stupid, stupid people have a short attention span. If you think they were Gentiles and the gospel was written by Gentiles for Gentiles (as most of this crowd do) you add another layer of complexity which defies credibility. The gospel was written for stupid historically minded Gentiles who somehow care about remote details of Jewish history. How many people do you think there were that fit this description in 150 CE? None at most. Not the basis to massive religious movement certainly.

[Blood]

presenting their awed, illiterate audiences that what they've written are actually "lost" sacred texts by apostles of the savior from 75-100 years earlier.

I am not sure that we need to bring all that into the discussion. Even if the texts were written at 70 + 1 years the fake augury is there. It would actually be harder in a way to write a realistic 'fake prophesy' so close to the events. I never got why people living during the time of bar Kochba cared so much about a prophesy about 70 CE. This was never really explained properly by Detering and the rest of this crowd. If the audiences are 'illiterate' morons how did they cultivate such a sophisticated historical sensibility about events three generations ago? The texts were likely written immediately after the destruction just as Daniel was written immediately after Antiochus Epiphanius. These strange arguments about Mark writing for historically sophisticated illiterate morons make no sense to me.

I always get the feeling that religious minded people - even when they become atheists - find it hard to get the idea that the 'gospel was speaking to them' out of their head. YOU and Detering and whomever else buys into this argument are sophisticated historically minded people who developed a taste for Jewish and Roman Imperial history but that doesn't mean that the gospel was written for people like you. If you assume the people were stupid, stupid people have a short attention span. If you think they were Gentiles and the gospel was written by Gentiles for Gentiles (as most of this crowd do) you add another layer of complexity which defies credibility. The gospel was written for stupid historically minded Gentiles who somehow care about remote details of Jewish history. How many people do you think there were that fit this description in 150 CE? None at most. Not the basis to massive religious movement certainly.

Mark was writing for two audiences: his sophisticated fellow Greek philosophy students, the inner circle; and the foolish, illiterate "women, children, and slaves" whom Lucian of Samosata identifies as the bulk of the Christian movement. The former were certainly aware of Mark's methodology.

Mark and his crowd were undoubtedly Gentiles, that much is obvious from Mark 7 alone, much less the entire emphasis of the religion being that Gentiles have superseded "the Jews" and now own the copyright to the YHWH religion and its scriptures, after they de-Judaized it. They don't give a rip about "Jewish history," only how the "oracles of YHWH" relate to them.

[FransJVermeiren]

Ummm. That's the nature of augury. The prophesies of the gospel were undoubtedly retrojected into the past. But how different are the prophesies of Mark from Daniel? Do you find Daniel's allusion to Antiochus Epiphanies 'more explicit'? Let's be honest. If Mark had said, 'a man named Vespasian is going to be declared Emperor and send his son Titus to defeat Jewish rebels led by ...' the gig is up. You can't be ABSOLUTELY explicit when you are writing pseudepigraphal texts. You don't want to get caught. I am not sure I am understanding the thread. But there it is.

Thank you, Secret Alias, for these important remarks. The message Mark wanted to spread was so dangerous in the hostile Roman world that he could absolutely not be explicit on the real course of events. So Mark used several veiling techniques: obscuring the circumstances of the events, the use of the apocalyptic writing style (chapter 13), and most importantly antedating the whole story. The New Testament, especially the gospels and Revelation, are entirely dedicated to the war against the Romans, and Jesus’ role in that war. Mark’s attempt to dehistoricize the real course of events has been very successful. Luke partly re-historicized Mark’s account, so if we want to detect what really happened then, Luke is a very important source.

Just one example from the Synoptic Apocalypse:
Mark 13:14: “But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be…”
The parallel in Luke (21:20): “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by legions, then know that its desolation has come near.”

And some verses further on (Luke 21:23): “For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people; they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led captive among the nations; and Jerusalem will be trodden down by the gentiles, until the times of the gentiles are fulfilled.”

The word ‘earth’ in verse 23 is the translation of the Greek γη which is sometimes used in a territorial sense for the land of Israel, and I believe this is the case here also. The ‘people’ then is the Jewish people. So the meaning of the first part of this quote might well be: “For great distress shall be upon the land of Israel and wrath upon the Jewish people; …” The following phrase only specifies this first part.

[iskander]

My full question is; which of the New Testament books were written after AD70? Assuming there are several, why did none of them mention the 'earth-shattering' events of AD70? The destruction of the temple by Rome fulfilled one of Jesus' own prophecies (Matt. 24:1-3) and its theological significance was central to Christianity. (John 2:19-22) It would have at least been alluded to, surely.

The fall of Jerusalem is of no importance to Christian theology.

[Secret Alias]

Really? Where is that ROTF emoticon. You're so stupid you think you're really smart.

[iskander]

You are funny! ,,,