Thank's Dr Bock for your clarification and opinion.
What I believe to be Robinson's strongest point is the silence in the NT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the devastation connected to it.

However, it is rather easy to postulate that Mark and Matthew is writing before for ad 70; but how about Luke?

I do not find Robinsons argument to solid concerning the lukan account especially when Luke (possible) edited/altered the Markan contribution with

"When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near". This seems evidently to be vaticinium ex eventu - or doesn't it?

Dr Bock, what's your stand on Luke? Pre-70 composition or post-70?

Sincerely
Magnus Nordlund

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is used to make sure you are a human visitor and to prevent spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.