Before Jerusalem Fell

166 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
diced mind, can still be misunderstood only with great difficulty.”2
Weiss concurs: “The time of the Apocalypse is also definitely fixed
by the fact that according to the prophecy in chap. xi. it was manifestly
written before the destruction of Jerusalem, which in xi. 1 is
only anticipated.”3 Writing at about the same time, Macdonald
expresses a similarly strong conviction: “It is difficult to see how
language could more clearly point to Jerusalem, and to Jerusalem as
it was before its overthrow.”4
More recently we can note that Torrey depends upon the usefulness
of this passage for the dating of the book: “A most important
passage, truly decisive in view of all the other evidence, is the beginning
(the first two verses) of chapter 11. . . . This was written before
the year 70, as all students of the book agree.”5 Even more recently
still, Robinson has written of this critical passage: “It is indeed
generally agreed that this passage must bespeak a pre-70 situation.
. . . There seems therefore no reason why the oracle should
not have been uttered by a Christian prophet as the doom of the city
drew nigh.”G Robinson, indeed, regards the whole matter of the
destruction of the Temple as a critical issue for the dating of the entire
New Testament. Two excerpts from his important work will illustrate
his (correct, we believe) view regarding the significance of the destruction
of the Temple for New Testament studies:
It was at this point that I began to ask myself just why any of the books
of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in
70. As one began to look at them, and in particular the epistle to the
Hebrews, Acts and the Apocalypse, was it not strange that this
cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at
[i.e., as a past fact – KLG]? 7
2. I+ieclrich Diisterdieck, Critical and E.egetzcal Handbook to the Revelation of John, 3rd
cd., trans. Henry E. Jacobs (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1886), pp. 46-47.
3. Bernhard Weiss, A Manual of Introduction to the New i%tanwnt, trans. A. J. K.
Davidson, 2 vols. (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1889) 2:82.
4. James M. Macdonald, i% L@ and Writings of St John (London: Hodder &
Stoughton, 1877), p. 159.
5. Charles C. Torrey, T/u Apoca~pse of John (New Haven: Yale, 1958), p. 87. It is
lamentable that Torrey, speaking as a liberal, overstates his case when he avers that “all
students of the book agree” that this passage “was written before the year 70. ”
6. John A. T. Robinson, Redatixg the Ntw Testanwrzt (Philadelphia Westminster,
1976), pp. 240-242.
7. Robinson, Redating, p. 10.