Synoptic Prophecies on the Destruction of Jerusalem

SYNOPTIC PROPHECIES ON THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM BO RElCKE University of Basel An amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies is the belief that the Synoptic Gospels should be dated after the Jewish War of A.D. 66-70 because they contain prophecies e:I; eventu of the destruction of J erusalem by the Romans in the year 70. Usually this chronology is accepted without any discussion, although the prophecies found in Mark 13.1-37 and other places have been dated in very different ways.l Scarcely any efforts are made to defend such a post-war date. When such attempts are made, the following passages are referred to, here quoted in the order of the common Synoptic narrative: (1) Luke 19.43-44, (2) Matthew 22.7, and (3) the Synoptic apocalypse in Matthew 24.1-25.46 and parallels (Mark 13.1-37; Luke 21.5-36). An analysis of these prophecies will have to make it evident that none of them corresponds to what is known about the Jewish war and the destruction of J erusalem. Concerning the predictions in their present form, including all eventual contributions by tradents and evangelists, apre-war date is more plausible. This will have important consequences for Synoptic chronology in general. I Luke 19.43-44 is a prophecy said to have been spoken by Jesus when he saw the Holy City from the Mount of Olives and wept over its children (this episode gave the Dominus Flevit church its name) : For days will come upon you when your enemies will build palisades around you, encircle you, and press you hard from aJl sides. (44) And they will level you with the ground, including your children within you, and not leave one atona upon another within you-since you did not realize the chance of your visitation. 1 G.R. Beasley.Murray, Je8'UB antl the F'ldure (London : Macmillan, 1954), p.244, conceming Mark 13 : "lts genesis hat! been set in every decade of the first century except the opening one." 122 BO REICKE This lamentation is based on Old Testament descriptions of the punishment and destruction of J erusalem, a very ancient topic cor responding to well-known traditions of the Orient and often found in Hebrew and Jewish prophecy (e.g., Amos 9.1, "crush the capitals," Isa. 5.5f., "its wall shall be trodden down," 64.10f., "Zion has become a desert"). The details of the prediction simply coincide with things which always happened when a town was besieged, and of course such events were also referred to by the old prophets : camps were built (Isa. 29.3; Ezek. 4,2), palisades were raised (Isa. 37.33; Ezek. 26.8), the city was encircled, restrained, attacked (Ezek. 4.2-3). Jesus' description of the enemies levelling the city and its children with the ground was meant to remind the hearers of the Book of Isaiah (Isa. 3.26; 26.6; 63.18). The same is true of the lamentation on the des truction (which goes back to Isa. 22.4-5) and of the violent reduction of the city to a stone heap (which has counterparts in Isa. 25.2; Micah 3.12; Jer. 26.18); the latter scenery was also inspired by a Psalm of Lamentation (Psa. 71.1). Fulfilment of such prophecies may have been proclaimed at any time. There is no reason to doubt that Jesus was familiar with and followed up this line of thought, although the prediction quoted above was possibly translated and colored by different tradents and eventually fixed by the evangelist in the period between the death of Christ and the formation of the Gospel. The length of this period is the crucial question. What is said in Luke 19.43-44 proves that the evangelist had not yet had any ex perience of the Jewish-Roman war of A.D. 66-70 and the subsequent destruction of Jerusalem when he used this prediction to illustrate his narrative. For in Lk. 19.43 the destruction is expressly said to be caused by the "enemies" of the Jews. In the works of I,uke there is no description of the Romans as enemies. On the contrary, the Emperor's officials were always depicted as decent and honest people who treated the Jews and the disciples of Jesus in a correct way (Lk. 23.4, 14; Acts 10.2; 13.7; 19.14; 27.3; 28.18). The portrait of the Romans would have been different, or rather, hostile, if the author had looked back upon the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and regarded the Romans as the enemies who had punished the Holy City. When the prediction quoted in Luke 19.43-44 was taken up by the evangelist, he must instead have understood the "enemies" in the same general sense of hostile people as in Old Testament sayings (Deut. 32.27; .

Load more