Mr Johnson's point about Jerusalem may seem to be crucial. It must have been a shattering event for any Jew, regardless of whether they lived in Jerusalem or not. So why isn't it mentioned by any of the New Testament authors?
Or from another point of view, the fall of Jerusalem may seem to be crucial. It must have been a shattering event for any Jew, regardless of whether they lived in Jerusalem or not. But why would we expect it to be mentioned by any of the New Testament authors?
If the authors had wanted to mention the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 - about 40 years after the Crucifixion - where would they put it in their narratives? Should the gospels perhaps have a little codicil at the end? Something along the lines of:
"So Jesus ascended into heaven - and by the way, 40 years later the Romans sacked Jerusalem"
And why would they want to add such a codicil anyway? If the purpose of the New Testament is to bring news of Jesus Christ's life, death, purpose and teaching, what is the relevance of an event, however momentous, which occurred 40 years after his mission ended, and has no direct link to Jesus' life and work?
As to the work of Carston Thiede, with all due respect Thiede's claims regarding the re-dating certain documents has not received a level of support from the relevant sources that would make it useful to discuss it in this book. If scholars had to mention every single person who has made a contribution to the dating debate, reegardless of whether those contributions had gained any significant level of support amongst other scholars, their books would be impossibly long - with little or no additional value.