Before Jerusalem Fell

182 BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL
cal New Testament literature would be most remarkable, especially
in a book of the nature of Revelation that deals so frequently with the
Jews.
l%~t, let us consider the first century Christian evidence. Much
of what Moffatt, the early Moule, and others of their convictions
write depends upon the supposition that most of the New Testament
was written after A.D. 70. In other words, such a position requires
that many of the New Testament books were written after the destruction
of Jerusalem, and thus are cases in point that early Christian
literature does not mention Jerusalem’s fall. C. C. Torrey argues
from the perspective that the Gospels and the Apocalypse, at least,
were not written after Jerusalem’s fall: “It is perhaps conceivable
that one evangelist writing after the year 70 might fail to allude to the
destrudion of the temple by the Roman armies (every reader of the
Hebrew Bible knew that the Prophets had definitely predicted that
foreign armies would surround the city and destroy it), but that three
(or four) should thus fail is quite incredible. On the contrary, what
is shown is that all four Gospels were wnitten before the year 70. And
indeed, there is no evidence of any sort that will bear examination
tending to show that any of the Gospels were written later than about
the middle of the century. The challenge to scholars to produce such
evidence is hereby presented .“6 7
John A. T. Robinson – no conserva-
tive zealot, to say the least68 – has even more recently and very
powerfully argued this point: “One of the oddest facts about the New
Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single
most datable and climactic event of the period – the fall ofJerusalem
in A.D. 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based
on the temple — is never once mentioned as a past fact. “6 9
His
demonstration that all books of the New Testament should be dated
prior to A.D. 70 has swayed a number of careful scholars, Moule
among them. 70 Obfiously if the entire canon was completed before
the destruction of Jerusalem, there would be no historical reference
back to the catastrophe!
67. C. C. Torrey, The Four Gmpels, 2nd ed. (New York Harper, 1947), p. xiii. Cp.
Torrey, Apoca~pse, p, 86.
68. Robinson, Redating, p. 11: “My position will probably seem surprisingly conser-mtive
– especially to those who judge me radical OP other is sues.” See especially his radical
views in his book Honsst to God.
69. Ibid., p. 13.
70. Moule, Birth of th New Tutament, 3rd cd., pp. 173ff. Contrast this with the first