Take the 2-minute tour ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The temple was destroyed sometime around AD 70.

Which New Testament books were written after that catastrophe?

Do these books comment at all on the destruction of the temple?

share|improve this question
    
Good question but hard to answer. There may be some books written by Church Fathers having references to this event but there is no such book in the Bible as we have now. –  Mawia May 27 '13 at 9:05
1  
@Mawia Well, the Revelation to S John the Divine is generally believed to have been written between AD70 and AD95. But you're right that beyond superficial relative dates, there is very little evidence at all as to the actual date of any book. –  Andrew Leach May 27 '13 at 10:03
    
@AndrewLeach Even the Book of Revelation does not have any reference to the AD 70 catastrophe. –  Mawia May 27 '13 at 10:32

3 Answers 3

The dating of the New Testament is a matter of some controversy, so there is no consensus answer to the question of which ones were written after the destruction of the temple. (The Old Testament books were of course written well before).

No New testament documents make clear reference to the destruction of the temple. Some appear to prophecy the destruction, but it is clearly written as prophecy and not fulfilment, and even then it is not an absolute certainty. Many scholars use this information to date the NT canon as fixed before the destruction of the temple, on the reasonable grounds that had it been known about some NT writers would certainly have mentioned it as evidence of the correctness of prophecy. Bishop John A Robinson makes a well-argued case for this in his book "Redating the New Testament", or its popular version "Can we Trust the New Testament?".

Extensive quotes of the New Testament in letters known to be written at the end of the 1st century AD show that the NT documents were well known and accepted by that time, although it is technically possible that they may have undergone further editing between then and the dates of the first positively dated manuscripts from a hundred years later.

See the excellent summary on Wikipedia.

So to answer the questions:

  1. Probably none of them
  2. No, they don't.
share|improve this answer

As others have noted, dates of the writing of New Testament books are disputed.

Let me use F. F. Bruce's "The New Testament Documents" as my major source here. This page -- http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/ -- also gives dates, though some of these are rather earlier than the dates I've usually heard.

Without getting into all the arguments surrounding the dispute, I think most scholars put Mark as the first Gospel, circa AD 60-65, which would of course be before the destruction of the temple. The other Gospels are generally dated Luke 80-85, Matthew 85-90, and John 90-100. I think few would push Matthew and John far enough forward to be before the destruction of the temple. Bruce and others would date Luke before that, so that's the only one that I think is really questionable if it's before or after.

Acts is a "sequel" to Luke, and so must have been written after. (A few scholars say that the book that Acts follows is not the Gospel of Luke that we have but some other lost book, and then date it earlier.)

Bruce puts the writing of Paul's epistles between AD 48 and AD 64. I think most scholars date Paul's epistles before the Gospels.

The epistle of James is generally placed in the 50s.

Revelation and John's epistles are usually put about the same time as John's Gospel, AD 90-100.

So, books almost certainly written after the fall of Jerusalem: Gospel of John, the three epistles of John, and Revelation. Probably after: Luke and Acts. Very hard to say: Matthew and Jude. All the rest are probably before.

As to whether any books discuss the destruction of the temple: Well, Jesus clearly prophesied it, Matthew 24. Some preterists interpret Revelation 11 as referring to the destruction of the temple -- some date Revelation very early and see this as a prophecy, others see it as describing a past event. To the best of my knowledge, that's it.

share|improve this answer
1  
Nice answer Jay. I've mentioned this in the new answers to old questions chat room. You are welcome to make such posts there as well, so that high-quality new answers to old questions get a bit more visibility (see meta for more details). –  Nathaniel 2 days ago

Raymond E. Brown says in An Introduction to the New Testament, page 164, there is wide scholarly agreement that Mark's Gospel was written in the late 60s or just after 70, and therefore the destruction of the temple was imminent or had already occurred. Burton L. Mack goes as far as to say, in Who Wrote the New Testament, page 152, it would not have made sense before the war had run its course and the tragic fate of the city was known. The prophecies in Mark chapter 13 are clearly of the First Roman-Jewish War and of the civil war that raged concurrently within the Jerusalem walls, but these prophecies were written with after the event. Had Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple, he would have been correct, but this prophecy was followed by another prophecy that he would return on clouds of glory within the lifetimes of those to whom he spoke, an event that did not occur as prophesied. Since it is not possible for Jesus to make a prophecy that does not come true, these were not his prophecies and were actually written at the end of the War.

Most scholars now believe that Matthew and Luke were substantially derived from Mark's Gospel. In fact, John Dominic Crossan, in The Birth of Christianity, page 110-111, speaks of a massive consensus among scholars in favour of Markan priority. On this information we can say that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, being written some time later than Mark, were certainly written after 70 CE. Acts of the Apostles was written some time after Luke, although it does not mention the destruction of the temple nor the Roman-Jewish War of 66-70.

John's Gospel is generally dated 80-110 CE, although critical scholars, who see it as influenced by Luke's Gospel, would place in towards the later end of this range. The three Johannine epistles were written shortly after the Gospel.

Thirteen epistles have been attributed to the apostle Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Galatians, Philippians and 1 Thessalonians, but five of these are regarded as disputed. Paul's genuine epistles were, of course, written before 70 CE. Known to critical scholars as pseudo-Pauline epistles, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus are thought to have been written between 70 Ce and the first half of the second century.

Critical scholars place the First Epistle of Peter no earlier than 80 CE, and the Epistle of Jude and the Second Epistle of Peter in the first half of the second century. Jude, perhaps carelessly, self-identifies as written long after the apostolic era, while scholars have noted that 2 Peter uses material from the earlier Epistle of Jude.

The Book of Revelation is almost universally accepted as having been written after 70 CE.

share|improve this answer
1  
Hmm, part of your argument is based on the curious position that Jesus would not have made a mistake in a prophecy, but that the Gospels may put words in his mouth that he never said. So you apparently believe that Jesus was indeed the Son of God and therefore infallible, but that the Gospels are not inspired. Liberals would generally deny both and evangelicals affirm both, so your carving out a relatively unusual position. Yes, the prophecies of Matthew 24 present some problems of interpretation, but numerous solutions have been proposed. (Getting into them would be another question.) –  Jay Jul 29 at 5:16
    
@Jay: The position Dick takes is not unusual at all among mainstream scholars. –  Bruce Alderman yesterday
    
@BruceAlderman Well, I guess debating that would be a whole different question -- both how many people take such a position and how reasonable it is. So I'll make no further comment. –  Jay yesterday

Your Answer

 
discard

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

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