# Closing of the New Testament Canon



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 14, 2011)

Was having a conversation with my Dad about when the last of the 27 books of the NT was written. I am of the opinion that all of the books which are in the New Testament were completed by A.D. 70. I was curious how many on the P.B. agree on this point and how many are with the scholarly consensus that the Canon was not completed until after A.D. 70. 

Feel free to add your arguments pro/con. 

My main point of contention is the somewhat simplistic notion that the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is way too big an event to not gain a prominent place in any work written post-A.D. 70 and since no mention is made in the 27 books they must have been completed pre-A.D. 70.


----------



## JML (Feb 14, 2011)

I believe in the late date for Revelation (approx. 95 A.D.)


----------



## Romans922 (Feb 14, 2011)

The Apostle John is recorded as being in exile in the 90s AD. I forget who says this, Iraneus? This could mean that John was in exile twice but unlikely. Revelation was written in the 90s AD. So post-70AD.


----------



## JML (Feb 14, 2011)

Romans922 said:


> I forget who says this, Iraneus?



Yes. It was Iraneus (150-202).


----------



## Kevin (Feb 14, 2011)

FYI the statement from Iraneus is not a slam dunk, it is ambigious as to John being alive in the 90's or if he was exiled in the 90's.

I say pre-70 for theological reasons. In a converstion that I had with Craig Evans he posited a pre 70 date for all of the NT including Revelation. He said that the dates of all books of the NT are earlier then commonly thought.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Feb 14, 2011)

I tend toward the post-A.D. 70 view for Revelation for at least a couple of reasons. First, Laodicea was destroyed by an earthquake around A.D. 60. It seems unlikely that they would be known for believing that they were “rich” and “in need of nothing” (Rev. 3:17).
Also, I believe it was Beale who pointed out that the use of “Babylon” was contraindicative of a pre-70 writing. Only after AD 70, did Rome become known as Babylon. This was because of the destruction of the temple which was, of course, reminiscent of the destruction of the temple in the 6th century BC by Babylon. Thus, this may address what you perceive to be the failure to mention the destruction. Perhaps the destruction was being clearly (though circumspectly) referenced with the use of “Babylon.”


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 15, 2011)

bump


----------



## TimV (Feb 15, 2011)

I wonder what the destruction of a pagan city by a pagan army would do to someone who fully understood that Jews and the temple weren't any more special than Mongolians and their tents. Would it be worth a mention?


----------



## py3ak (Feb 15, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> My main point of contention is the somewhat simplistic notion that the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is way too big an event to not gain a prominent place in any work written post-A.D. 70 and since no mention is made in the 27 books they must have been completed pre-A.D. 70.



I don't know that I'm prepared to take up a firm position either way: there are certainly some attractive points to the whole canon being completed pre AD 70, and I remember Ken Gentry making a lot of sense on thinking that the John was written after Revelation. However on your main contention, there ought to be a way to test this: do writing that must be post AD 70 mention the destruction of the Temple? If not, then it would be suppositious to imagine that it must be mentioned. And I am always suspicious of arguments that say, "Well this or that _must_ have been the case." Our ideas of what must have happened upon certain supposed conditions is liable to many mistakes.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Feb 15, 2011)

I voted for Pre-70. I believe Gentry makes a good case for the early date of Revelation.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 15, 2011)

I haven't studied this closely enough to say one way or another.

If liberal scholars like Bishop John A.T. Robinson argued that the canon was closed before A.D. 70 it argues the case _a fortiori_.

Revelation has a lot of clear indications that it was written before A.D. 70. E.g. It is far more appropriate for the Lamb to unseal the scroll of history before the destruction of Jerusalem than in the mid-90s. The destruction of Jerusalem is a significant point in eschatalogical history according to the Olivet Discourse, and indicated that Christ was now at His Father's right hand and that the Jerusalem was being judged for its rejection of Him.

For the scroll of New Covenant history to miss this out - rather than commencing with it - seems to miss an important point.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 15, 2011)

I am Pre 70 something for the book of revelation also.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 15, 2011)

> but that in the days of the trumpet call to be sounded by the seventh angel, the mystery of God would be fulfilled, just as he announced to his servants the prophets (Rev 10:7, ESV)





> And I took the little scroll from the hand of the angel and ate it. It was sweet as honey in my mouth, but when I had eaten it my stomach was made bitter.(Rev 10:10)



I wonder if Revelation 10 indicates the end of the canon before AD 70?


----------



## Grimmson (Feb 15, 2011)

I hold to for historical reason to a post-A.D. 70 date. The reasons can be found throughout the following thread, where I interact against a pre-70 date:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/when-revelation-written-49760/


----------



## KMK (Feb 15, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> My main point of contention is the somewhat simplistic notion that the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is way too big an event to not gain a prominent place in any work written post-A.D. 70 and since no mention is made in the 27 books they must have been completed pre-A.D. 70.



I agree that this is a simplistic argument. It assumes that the destruction of the Temple does not have a place in the Revelation. But who can be sure one way or another? The Preterists sure seem to find a great deal about the destruction of the Temple in the revelation.


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 15, 2011)

KMK said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > My main point of contention is the somewhat simplistic notion that the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is way too big an event to not gain a prominent place in any work written post-A.D. 70 and since no mention is made in the 27 books they must have been completed pre-A.D. 70.
> ...



You've got it wrong, Ken. The preterist position believes that the destruction of the Temple is in Revelation, but that it is predicted. Therefore preterists tend to hold to Revelation being written before AD 70.

If you take the position that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is in Revelation but that Revelation was written in the '90s, you have to make sure that God's Word isn't pretending to be predictive at these points when it isn't predictive at these points.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 15, 2011)




----------



## KMK (Feb 15, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> ...


 
I don't have it wrong, Richard. I am well aware of what the Preterist believes. What I am saying is, no one can agree on whether the destruction of the Temple is present in the Revelation, therefore, its presence or absence cannot be used to determine with certainty whether it was written pre or post 70. I am agreeing with Rev Glaser that it useless to argue "that the destruction of the Temple and the city of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is way too big an event to not gain a prominent place in any work written post-A.D. 70 and since no mention is made in the 27 books they must have been completed pre-A.D. 70." 

No mention of the destruction of the Temple = Pre AD
Abundant mention of the destruction of the Temple = Pre AD

The Pre-ADers want it both ways.


----------

