(Solutions >>)

 

                                                 J.M.M. Thurlings is the author of a.o. the webpublication

 
                                                THE CONTROVERSY ROME-REFORMATION
                                                AS A HISTORICAL MISUNDERSTANDING                                                                                    

 

                       ------------------- 

                                                                                                      german french dutch

                                                                     >>Solutions

J.M.M. Thurlings

Appearance and Essence. A New Insight about dating the Gospel of Luke in relation to other datings                                                                                                                                                                                           

It seems not to be a matter of discussion any longer, that the Gospel of Luke must be dated after 70. An important reason for this is the sketch of the destruction of Jerusalem in Jesus's speech about this subject. Where Marc and Matthew are rather vague about this, the drawing of Luke is very sharp. Nonetheless by and by also the date of origin of both other synoptic gospels has been placed beyond this date. By reasons of cautiousness a late date is assumed in order in any case to exclude a mistake. But gradually this went to lead an own life so that today often is thought that, if not having ascertained a late date, scholars have achieved this as a result of their inquiries. This is strengthened by some amateurs.
Now it always has surprised me, that Luke sketches the devastation of Jerusalem accurately, this being the reason of dating this gospel after 70, but that Acts of the Apostles (of the same author) does not mention at all, how Paul's case to be heard at the emperor's court was concluded - not to mention his death -, but ends wiith Paul in Rome expecting it.
If you say: Acts ends with Paul's stay at Rome simply in order to have a useful ending, it nevertheless remains a strange thing that a time of two years of his living there is mentioned yet.
Not-mentioning the sentence can have two causes:
Either at the moment of finishing Acts the sentence still was undecided. But then there must have been a wait of more than two years and this is not to be excluded (or is it?).
Or about that time (during the two years or immediately after it) the sentence really is spoken, but it was known so generally, that because of this being a matter of course the author has omitted it. But this only works - again -, if Acts has been written not a long time after the sentence was spoken. If it has been written many years later, there is no more that self-evidence and you would expect, that at least it is mentioned how the appeal to the emperor was concluded. Or has a dramatic topicality had a long after-effect, until after 70?, for instance being that the sentence was not longer interesting, now that Paul had died a martyr's death?
Our conjectures are moved into this direction by that sharp sketch of the devastation of Jerusalem. The more this is the case as the author, although he bases his text on (an earlier version of) Marc, deviates very strongly from this in this rendering. For the apparent reason of this is, that the dramatic event described has taken place in the meantime and has been inserted.
Thus far the actual consense seems to make these considerations past discussion. But they regain the utmost topicality, when we see, that there is another explanation of (let me call it so) Luke's deviation.
Sometimes the attention is drawn by the fact, that the Greek-writing author did not understand his informants well and renders them wrong, making probable that he was Greek-speaking too.. To see this we consider another passage, to wit the most bizarre story of Acts (chapter 8), about the treasurer of Ethiopia. We read there, that, admonished by an angel, the evangelist Philippus goes from Samaria to a road leading to the South; there near to Gaza the evangelist climbs a carriage in which the treasurer of Ethiopia, who is returning from Jerusalem, is sitting while reading Isaiah; Philippus convinces him, that Jesus is the suffering Servant Isaiah writes about and thereupon the man lets baptize himself in the first pond they see; at this moment the Ethiopian is not aware of Philippus anymore, because he is full of big joy; the Holy Spirit snatches the evangelist away, who thereupon is found at Ashdod.
A weird story. But one must see through it. 'To the South' in Greek is 'eis ten mesembrian', this also means 'to the south-land' and for this is filled in 'Ethiopia, the land of queen Candace'ⁿ¹, as a general indication.
'Man near to Gaza' is 'man epi ts Gazes', but this also it is 'man over the treasury'; through his joy in the Spirit he did not see him anymore' is the same as: 'because the Spirit (rejoiced him) he was withdrawn from his sight', becoming: 'the Spirit snatched him away.'  Together with the fact that the first person who was informed about this story met Philippus in Ashdod, this soon becomes: 'The Spirit snatched him away and he was found in Ashdod.' A clear example of how by wrong hearing a story can be corrupted.
What must have been the case is, that at a given moment two versions, the old and correct one and a younger corrupted one, have become current, one of which was understood as added information, like a double lens.
After I had discovered this, I looked for other stories which might have been corrupted, but I did not find any (the angels Lk 22:43 and Jo 5:4, which could be taken for such, are not corruptions, but later insertions), until I encountered the deviation which constitutes the subject of this article.

Let us compare Mark, Mattew, Luke

Mark (13:20) has:

και ει μη ΄eκoλόβωσεv κύριoς τας `ημέρας, oυκ ´αv  ´εσωθη πασα σάρξ, ´αλλα δια τoυς  ´εκλεκτoυς `oυς ´εξελέξατo ´εκoλόβωσεv τας `ημέρας

kai ei m ekolobosen kurios tas hemeras, ouk an esothe pasa sarx, alla dia de tous
eklektous hous exelexato ekolobosen tas hemeras'

and if not shortened the Lord the days, not might be saved all flesh (= no flesh might be saved).
but for the elected whom He elected He shortened the days

Matthew (24:22) has:

και ´ει μη ´εκoλόβωθησαv αι `ημέραι ´εκειvαι, oυκ ´αv ´εσώθη πασα  σάρξ, δια δε τoυς
´εκλεκτoυς κoλoβωθήσovται `αι `ημέραι ´εκειvαι

kai ei m ekolobothesan hai hemerai ekeinai, ouk an esothe pasa sarx dia de tous
eklektous kolobothesontai hai hemerai ekeinai

and if not were shortened the days those, not might be saved all flesh (= no flesh might be saved).
for, however, the elected shortened are the days those

Luke (21:24) has

και πεσoυvται στόματι μαχαίρης και αιχμαλωτισθήσovται εις τα ´έθvη πάvτα, και `Iερoυσαλημ ´έσται πατoυμέvη `υπο ´εθvωv, ´άχρι oυ πληρωθωσιv καιρoι ´εθvωv

kai pesontai stomati machaires kai aichmalotisthesontai eis ta ethna panta, kai
Hiërosalem estai patoumene hupo ethna, achri hou plerothosin kairoi ethnon'

and will fall by point of sword and will be m. war-prisoners to gentiles all they, and Jerusalem is trodden by the gentiles, until are fulfilled times of the gentiles

Like Matthew Luke is based on a text transmitted to them which nearly coincides with Mark's: Mark or proto-Mark ⁿ² , presumably conveyed to them orally.
As we will see, that the Luke-text is a corruption, at the same time it will be clear, that as its base we must depart from proto-Marc conformably to the reception of Matthew, who has passive
´εκoλoβώθησαv', 'ekolobothesan'.
Now an impression I cannot get rid of at all is the similarity of sound of αιχμαλω-', 'aichmal-', pronounced in koine-Greek as 'echmal-') with 'ekolobo'. This makes surmise, that here is a corruption caused by bad understanding, already being the first to be supposed whereas the one text rests on the other one. Such an inner coherence is much likelier then when we assume, that the author of the text should have removed the previous version and filled up the gap with another one, isn't it?
We shall see, that this corrupted sound is a distorted piece of a cable, which lies overground.
That the Luke-text goes back to the Matthew-version, is indicated by the following: 'aichmalotisthesontai' ('they will be made prisoners of war') is to be considered a transposition from active 'aichmalothesan'. This is to be explained very easily, and consequently, as a sound-variation of 'ekolobothesan' (in koine-pronunciation), 'were shortened'.
What was shortened? 'Hai hemerai ekeinai', 'those days'. But what do we see in Luke?: They will fall through the sword and are made prisoners (of war). Now 'and if those days were not shortened', 'kai ei me ekolobothesan hai hemerai ekeinai', with hebraizing (nowadays guttural-r, then very well possible too) koine-pronunciation 'kai ei mé ekolobothisan hémerei ekinei' (with a possible tendency to 'ekjinei'), very easily can be transposed to 'kai ei mé echmalothisan hé macheiré kt(j)ini, 'και ει μη αιχμαλωθησαv, `η μάχαιρη κτείvει': 'if they have not made them prisoners (of war), the sword kills them'.
When now this is transformed into a passive form, than we get what we find in Luke. This is very well possible at itself, nonetheless being speculative. But this hypothesis continues to be fed by that too big a similarity of sound, just fitting to what is to be supposed first, namely that it is a corruption of (proto-)Marc, which now still more is that visible piece of a cable which continues underground.
Its certainty can be enhanced by checking again how easy hearing 'kai me ekolobo etc.' as 'kai me echmalo etc.' is, and thereupon analyzing what you are doing:
Consider keimékolobothi-: Still furthered by the first (nasal) labial consonant m, to the hearer who hears it quickly the effect is, that the dark first o and b interfere so that to o an m-sound is added, which takes away some explicitness of b: thus: keimék^molowothi-. As touching to keméechmaloti this inversely is touched by it and so at once it becomes this same keméechmaloti.
There is more that is visible. When we consider its grammar, there appears not to have been understood: 'if they had not made (or: would make) them prisoners (of war), the sword would have killed (or: kill) them, but the sword does kill here really, except if they have made them prisoners (of war). And this justifies the actual transposition: 'they (will) fall through the point of the sword, and they will (for it being: actually) be made prisoners (of war').
Wrong understanding 'be shortened' and what follows has more consequences yet:
In (proto-)Marc further was written:

oυκ ´αv εσώθη πασα σάρξ', δια δε τoυς ´εκλεκτoυς κoλoβωθήσovται αι `ημέραι ´εκειvαι'

ouk an esothe pasa sarx, dia de tous eklektous kolobothesontai hai hemerai ekeinai'

not m. be saved all flesh, (= no flesh would be saved),  for, however, the elected shortened the days those will be.'

In the light of the change to 'made prisoners (of war)'  this second 'kolobothesontai hai hemerai ekeinai' does not share in being understood wrong, it appears not to be touched by it, but it does not fail being influenced by the wrong interpretation of 'ekolobothesan'. For now what is shortened is not those days, but: captivity, if you like: exile. And this is shortened - still - because of the elected (I have rejected reading this word 'eklektous' as, at its turn, understood as 'prisoners of war', this being evidently artificial).
Furthermore the attention is called by the fact that on the spot in (proto-)Mark of 'ouk an esothe pasa sarx' is written 'eis panta ta ethna'. In it the attention is called by 1) the same place that both of them occupy, 2) the common word (a declination) of  'pas', 'all', 3) the material equality and similarity of 'panta ta ethna' and 'all flesh'. What happened in the mind of the hearer of the original text? I have found one and only one satisfying explanation of it, which thoroughly fits and continues confirming itself because there is nothing that clashes, to wit he heard:

kai ei me echmalothisan, he machaire kteinei, ouk an esothen pasas sarkos

και ει μη αιχμαλώθησαv, `η μαχαίρη κτείvει, ΄oυκ ´αv ´έσωθεv πάσας
σαρκός

and if they took not prisoner, the sword kills, not though within (= to) all flesh (= they took prisoner, within (= to) all flesh)

For in the first place it is not strange at all to suppose that ´sarx´ has been understood as ´sarkos´, whereas the consonant-system of Hebrew (or a kin language) out of itself has no x-sound, that is to say a quick series of the consonants k and s. What always in such cases happens? The not-native speaker fills in a vowel, a  phenomenon that is well-known from daily life. Here lies the second indication that the Greek-speaking author had a hebraising semitic informer. For both remarkable possibilities reinforce each other to make this plausible in the light of what through it very well is to be supposed: what must happened to the passage is:
Through the rhythmical repetition of the negation, μη (as such determined by ει) and oυκ, the suppletory oυκ ´αv ´εσωθεv πάσας σαρκός, its meaning included, gets a consonance with the opening subordinate clause. Although ´εσωθεv´ which wavers between ´from within´  and ´within´ does not express as its resultant a movement towards something, it does not matter, whereas the exile is  not at all a movement from outside to something, but rather from a center filling up all mankind.
Αs to the addition of the ν:  'εσωθη (pronunc. esothé) > 'εσωθεν, my Greek dictionary mentions at ´'αvωθεv´(pr. anοthen) about the suffix θεv, -then, ΄in which case ν often is apocoped´, so exactly agreeing with what we propose here: v is added again.
So what is understood is the next: ´kai ei me echmalothesan, he machaire kteinei, ouk an esothen pasos sarkos´,  if they are not made prisoners, the sword kills, though not within all mankind´: As far this sounded to the hearer a bit like a puzzle, this then has sought an escape to comprehensibility and it very well is possible, that the interpreter who inadvertently is juggling mentally in a twinkling has inverted: "the sword kills, if they are not made prisoners, (not) to all flesh". Or more simple yet: through the latter negation the hearer in his mind comes back on the level of the former one.
If it were not explained in this way, on the one hand an essential piece of the information would have disappeared into nothing, on the other hand apropos of nothing something would have been added.
One may carry out all moments I passed through oneself tastingly and ascertain, that the transformation of the whole can be supported very strongly from wrong understanding at least one word and which we have to take as a firm point of departure to make a speleological descent. To realize it one must repeat the similarity of sound of 'kei mé ekolobothésan'-'kei mé échmalothisan' quickly. And neither it is strange, I repeat, for Luke did depart from (proto-)Marc. If we realize one thing and another, the rest follows more automatically than when we have to make an effort to follow the steps one by one. This may be clear, when we display the sounds we understood anew: 'kai ei m echmalothisan he machaire kteinei, ouk an esothen pasas sarkos, dia de tous eklektous kolobothesontai ai hemerai (tes echmaloseos'),  'if they did not make them prisoners (of war), the sword kills, <not into all flesh<, but because of the elected will be shortened the days (of captivity).' So until that time (= until their time is past) 'Jerusalem is trodden by the goyim'.
What we see is that the speculation is able to explain the corruption of the whole text as a unity. Beside this the next is to be considered: It matters, that a corruption is the first to be supposed; and that 'hemerai ekeinai' to 'he machaire kteinei' is the smallest conceivable change yet to lead to the whole 'phenotype' to be found in Luke.
Have the historical events favoured this corruption? That is the question. The whole figure is such to lay a strong emphasis on autonomous corruption on the level of sound only. Does this mean than, that the events about Jerusalem have not caused a folk-etymology in the hearers of this passage? Is it really true, that people should not have heard this by preference? In comparison with this in the case of the story of Philippus snatched away by the Spirit this 'by preference' applies to a reminiscence to some stories about Eliya and Elisa, although this will not have been a trigger, but at best something paving the way for the actual interpretation.
But in the case at issue it is possible, that real events heard of or experienced have favoured wrong understanding. This, however, must not have been the case necessarily. What concerning to this is of decisive importance, is the next: pitchforking a pious inhabitant of the Gaza-region into the chair of the minister of the Queen of the South shows, that such a corruption can take place without any popular etymology. And this is what matters: already we can conclude, that the similarity of the text and the events has no dating-value. To explain it, the possibility of misunderstanding is sufficient. We will continue this below.
Now wrong understanding a fragment has carried with it, that the message needed to be made over again more circumstantially in the author's own wordings. So he has made an effort to clarify what otherwise somehow would have remained ununderstandable, at least arising from the consideration: the way it is said there is not well-styled prose. But in order to overcome what otherwise is too obscure, at least to Greeks, it is necessary to clarify a bigger passage it is part of. For we see, that the author has rendered in some interpretation Mt 24:15

'οταv ΄oυv ´ίδητε το βδέλυγμα της ´ερημώσεως το
`ρηθεv δια Δαvιηλ τo πρoφήτoυ ´εστός ´εv τόπω  ´αγίω `ο ´αvαγιvώσκωv voείτω'

'hotan oun idete to bdelugma tes eremoseos to rethen dia Daniel tou profetou hestos en topi hagioi, ho anaginoskon voeito'

'(you) when now see the horror of (the) devastation called by Daniël the prophet standing on de spot holy', who reads it mind it

variant(ly)(of?) Mc 13:14

`οταv ΄ουν ´ίδητε το βδέλυγμα της ´ερημώσεως ´εστηκότα `οπoυ oυ δει, `ο ´αvαγιvώσκωv voείτω'

'Hotan de idete to bdelugma tes eremoseos hestekota hopou ou dei, ho anaginoskon voeito'

But when you see the horror of (the) devastation standing where not ought it, who reads mind it

For the passage, in view of the way the author treats it, is rather obscure to him, the more it is to the readers to whom he wants to clarify it, and he has omitted the find-spot Daniel. The 'horror of devastation' means a future 'devastator', who will erect a 'terrific' idol in the Temple (I Macc 1:54, Dan 11:31; 12:11). But the author makes out of it what at first sight already seems to be obvious: a devastating army building its camp near the holy city, Jerusalem. This can have been influenced by the next misunderstanding as well as this false explanation can have done to help along the latter or both simultaneously can have, while also there can be the influence of real events, but as well this can fail. Probably the author is a Greek himself.
Now the question arises: Did not Marc already apply the prophecy of Daniel to the experienced events at Jerusalem?
Well, in a Jewish author, as he must be, on the one hand you may suppose a higher level of exactitude than in a Greek, on the other hand we have to count with polyinterpretability. Coming together in the question: what is the margin here?
As a starting-point to answer this question, indeed, anyhow we must take into account a symbolical explanation of 'horror of devastation' in the sense of 'devastation'. Is 'see standing on the spot' appliable to an army? Or is it also to a devastation taking place? And what is that 'spot where it should not stand'. At best it is Jerusalem itself. True, Daniel speaks of a devastator who approaches (through the air), and this can be applied to an army, but also of a 'horror' which is erected' and this applies to the Temple as place is concerned. But here it can have a more extended application.
Has it been written in (proto-)Marc as a pseudo-prophecy, to which, just used as a symbol, as such being vaguer than Luke's rendering, it lends itself well?
In (proto-)Mark, however, also is written: 'he who reads it must attend to it' and in Mark, who does not mention Daniel, this could be interpreted as applying to what the author writes down here. But Matthew, who mentions Daniel, makes clear what also in Marc is the most probable, namely as a part of Jesus's speech, that is meant here: he who reads Daniel must mind it.ⁿ³
If now this is part of a pseudo-prophecy constructed afterwards, it carries much too far, as explicitly as it is written down, to keep up the appearance, that earlier bible-readers had to be warned, whereas the events referred to already have taken place. This would be too perspicuous.
This now works to the advantage of the view-point that the speech had been transmitted in the way of logia, already before the events at Jerusalem took place. In this light the relative vagueness of the symbolics now only strengthens this impression, the more as in comparison with what then took place the description of it in this speech is very exaggerated: the gospel preached to all peoples instead of only churches established everywhere; mutual treason prevailing everywhere; if the time would not be shortened, no flesh would be saved instead of only Jews in Jerusalem, indicating a vision - which as such is hyperbolic - of a terrible and total civil war all over the empire; together with peoples and kingdoms rising to one another, instead of the insurrection of one people against Roman domination. And all this in one breath with the vision of the end, leaves all agreement with experienced reality behind. This as built upon the latter does not fit to a refined intention needed to make what happened resemble the sketched. Also a sentence as 'who is on the roof must not go downstairs and go in to take something from the house' only is figuring without the value of a description.
With these apocalyptical characteristics Jesus' prediction of a total destruction of the Temple seems to contrast. Has maybe this sharp description been added to Marc afterwards so that, true, the speech does not reflect the destruction immediately, but the ultimate redaction of the text does, in agreement with the fact that the description does not belong to the speech, but precedes it?
This is highly questionable, because:
a) It is unimaginable, that in the apocalyptical speech the destruction of the Temple is not comprehended. For this is the more proper application of Daniel in a prophecy of woe against Jerusalem, as we saw. As well Jesus´s description of the devastation of the Temple is to be considered synonymous with this.
So it needs to be nothing else but one prophecy of woe.
A similar prophecy of woe also is the logion Mt 23:37/Lc 13:34/35. For a prophet the cursing of a stubborn city is all but strange and such a speech in apocalyptical images even must be called typical (cf. Apocalypse 18, Jesaja e.g. 17).
But is the description of the destruction of the Temple not too concrete, as though Jesus sees it approaching? Does this not indicate an artificial construction of a pseudoprophecy made afterwards?
But mark you:
b) If the prophet was convinced, that the Temple would be destroyed and indeed within a short time (Mc 13:30: 'this generation will not pass away, before all this has happened' and passim), he could say this in this way too (cf. Jer 7:14). ⁿ⁴
The fact that, when answering the question: does the description root in the speech itself or in real events?, we are inclined to attribute the description to the experience of real events, is to be explained by our knowledge of 'how it ended'. But assume we did not know it, we would not have any difficulty to see the description as one with the speech. There, however, is not any reason to consider the theme and also the logion Mt 37-39/Lk 13:35 containing it not as old as 'Q' as such. The identity of this 'corpus' of pronouncements lies in the stamp it carries of whom it apparently stems from and in this it will have one age. This logion must have the same age, as it does not withdraw itself anyhow from this, in view of its character of warning and its theme being faith required by Jesus himself versus unbelief in those whom he addresses, certainly also Jerusalem.
So the conclusion we must draw from the above is, that also the dating of its Mark-element does not make Luke originating after 70 plausible.
Yet positively there is something which makes the balance of consideration go into the opposite direction and seems to plead against the earlier dating of Luke and that is Jesus saying Luke 19:41-44;
'For there will come days on you, that your foes will throw up a bulwark against you and encircle you and narrow you from all sides, and they will tread you and your children and leave not a stone on another one, because you have not noticed the time, that God regarded you.' A mouthful and Luke is the only one who has this. In him it is a 'Leitmotiv' and already being at issue before Jesus's big speech. And this description is so accurate, that our conclusion must be, that - what I talk about text-corruption? - even intention must be the case.
But now observe:
19:41-44 as said is not in the other synoptics. And Jesus says this to the town while approaching it and sees it extending itself before his eyes. Did some listeners write it down? No, real only can be a thought, but nobody can read this. But because of the coming speech it can supposed to be already in Jesus's mind, when he is approaching Jerusalem. So it only can be a written anticipation to the big speech and being a theme Jesus touched upon more than once. Than this is 'Jerusalem, your house will be abandoned to you, because you are stubborn'.The synoptical ´no stone will be left on the other one, also being a core of 19:41-44, in its essence is the same as the devastation which is connected with ´the horror of devastation´ in the speech to come even as is the case with Lk´s siege and trampling, but then in the speech as being read through his spectacles.
Are all these interpretations 'se non è vero è ben trovato', but must they yield to the explanation which generally is given, that simply Luke(?) wrote while being impressed by the siege of Jerusalem, because otherwise it has too much a prophetical and too extended a coincidence of agreement with this? Because, though real events may not be intrinsically necessary to an explanation, none of the arguments called is able to annihilate this impression?
Let us, however, pay attention to the fact, that a corruption, not so extended, and a clarification are two different things, but it is possible, that real events can have given occasion as well to corruption as to clarification of what was heard. Whether they have, it even would be strange, if it were not so. But must we go so far to assume it? As the necessity of clarifying it otherwise is obvious too.
And a far greater coincidence, say, a prophecy, contained by the error too, is the prediction of the exile to all gentiles and the return of the Jews to Jerusalem, when the time of the gentiles is over. For the author just was not present to this neither, but, as a substitution for this, not even the ground of this pronouncement can be sought in - what else than? - it being a central prediction of the Torah, which by the fall of Jerusalem explicitly becomes here a theme again. For what just to raising this matter thus explicitly - mark you: filled in at this place - is the inducement? In uncorrupted (proto-)Mark nothing is descriable that can serve to it. But in the way shown above it can be explained very well.
But for this latter same reason the agreement of the text with the events of 10 will have its inducement in these neither. This goes further than concluding, that to explain it real events are not explicitly necessary. For here in a satellite we have a case we can argue very well not to have any inducement outside of the text itself so that the more we can ask rhetorically: why it should be the case then with the text as such?
Beside the story of Philippus and the treasurer of Ethiopia making clear, that it is entirely unnecessary to suppose any popular etymology, this is the second good argument, that what we read in Luke here is nothing else but an autonomous corruption of the text. And this impression still is strengthened, when we consider, that the corruption of sound is small enough to be caused by bad understanding. Why one should reach out for an explanation which needs to be nothing more than apparent?
The accidentalness of the agreement nevertheless can be explained from the fact that surely its fundament is constituted by a prediction to Jerusalem, in wordings like a dark mirror. It has nothing to do but to undergo this corruption which is not too accidental not to be closer filling in a text provoking it soon. Because all hearing and reading makes fill in more than the wordings strictly induce to, the more this is the case, when something that is obscure (here: through a misunderstanding) asks for it. The way in which the 'horror of devastation' is filled in may illustrate this.
Nevertheless still a heavy counter-argument is to be considered, this being: Does in the mind of the writer a theme play a role, which we have to see expressed best in Jesus's last wordsⁿ⁵(at the beginning of Acts), the promise of restoring the 'kingdom' to Israel, mentioned by him only, yes which is played by him repeatedly and together with speaking twice about the ruin of Jerusalem (here and in the logion discussed) easily can betray, that the author has experienced the latter really?
But against this it can be emphasized again, that Matthew has this logion too, so that to make the ruin of Jerusalem, which might be connoted with it, a specific lucan theme only Jesus's last words rest. But these just refer to the big question not answered to yet, which without doubt the disciples must have had. Namely: When Jesus, being the acknowledged Messiah, will liberate Israel from its political suppression? This is a motive which in view of Luke having worded it through the men of Emmaüs really may be considered a lucan motive. But this motive is not the same as the other one, which is supposed to be inspired by the fall of Jerusalem. The reason of the author's interest in it needs not to be sought beyond the fact that in taking over what was transmitted to him he was an active enquirer who only through acting so must have encountered this important motive which really must have been a hot item.
And it also could be the reverse of supposing such an influencing datum: the logion common with Matthew (Lk 13:35; Mt 23:37) just together with the speech understood wrong can have contributed to direct the author's attention to this theme further and to make him, not only: registrate, but also: mention explicitly Jesus's last words.ⁿ⁵ of things
Our conclusion is: Actually we need not to do more than to assume, that Luke is nothing else but a well-meant rendering of Marc and in his fault being prophetical 'by accident'.
With this we can return to our point of departure. There is no sufficient reason anymore to date this gospel after 70, but only in the time about or after Paul's trial in Rome. The more this is obvious because the exordium of his gospel speakswhich have become fulfilled among 'us', 'as they who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and servants of the Word have rendered to us'. This does not appear to indicate so late a date. Anyhow there is not any reason to doubt about this exordium. And we have no need to make refer this to a date which is unnecessarily late.
Epilogue: when we try to date the gospel of Luke, at once, limitatively, we do Mark's, whereas this has been inserted in Luke. In the way this has happened we find at least one indication, that Matthew roots in a core which has existed before Mark. Together with this, in view of the big similarity of Mark with its Matthew-variant, apparently the distance in time with it is not very large, so that also Matthew can date from before 70 very well.
This impression is strengthened by Matthew mentioning HaKeldama, the Blood-field, a cimitery for foreigners being called so 'until today'. This would be strange as the whole city has been devastated thoroughly, like Flavius Josephus says, even though the cimitery was outside of the wall.ⁿ⁶
A similar argument applies to the fourth gospel mentioning a bathing-establishment which is in Jerusalem (5:2). And this is said by a man who could afford to maintain he had known Jesus himself (I Jo, Jo 1, the author is evidently the same person), without needing to fear contradiction from the side of his addressees (I, II, III Jo). One could suppose yet, that the first letter, that mentions this acquaintance with Jesus has been antedated by the late author, but for doing this the material agreement with the second letter is too big, that at its turn agrees too strongly with the third letter, that, in view of its intention and content certainly is not antedated, but so that neither any antedating is possible with respect  to this one.  Therefore there was not anything offering a glimpse of a handhold to this supposition.
Even if one might think he has written past 70, why you should suppose this with that indication.ⁿ⁷
are within the margin of time indicated by Luke, without having any need of being placed after 70. It won't do in fact to declare this author to be a liar. The gospels have been written, while eye-witnesses of the described were alive yet.

J.M.M. Thurlings
Author of  Ecumenical Theology (webpublication)

Notes

1. Although in the time of Hadrian the wife of the archon of Thebae bore the name Candace, a puzzling discovery I made  in the British Museum, soon I found the solution when walking on  on to ´Nubia´. Here was confirmed that Candace also is a title occurring to queens of the realm of Meroe, between the 3./4. century B:C and the 3./4. century a. D. This also prevents any supposition which draws a line along christian Ethiopian Falasha´s in order to hold strong the validity of a literal explamation of the story of the treasurer.

2. With this I mean: (possibly a fan of) earlier variants of Mark.

3. Has Mattew explicited - indeed in the right way - (proto-)Marc or is it Marc who has shortended (proto-)Marc-according-to-Matthew? My impression is: the first, as sharpening is more plausible then flattening, to wit both the more explicit 'holy place' and Matthew mentioning Daniel versus Mark, who omits Daniel and says 'where it ought not'. Than in this piece there needs not to be a difference between proto-Marc on which Matthew is based and Mark.

4. Jer 7:14. There is no reason to consider such pronouncements necessarily vaticinationes ex eventu. For instance compare Savonarola's prediction, that the king of France would conquer Florence. And see the last stanza of the poem of the Belgian author Willem Elsschot called 'Van de Lubbe', written 1934, which bears testimony of forethought:

 
'May your spirit haunt in Leipzig
Until that atrocity will be revengend
Until your torturors, big and small
Will be destroyed by the Russian.'

5. Through christian-jewish polemics on the nature of the realm of the Messiah this always has been neglected. This still is an unacceptable obstacle to jewish-christian rapprochement, in my opinion the main one, whereas the definition of the Messiah of J. Klausner ('Der jüdische und der christliche Messias') in fact is the same like formulated in Colossians. At this moment I am preparing a webpublication on the seeming difference between both
images of the Messiah.

6. Here I disagree with Sjef van Tilborg: Matthew, 3-10: an intertextual reading (in: S. Draisma [ed.], Intertextuality in Biblical Readings. Essays in Honour of Bas van Iersel, Kampen 1989). He asks himself: "Does not the situation of Jerusalem after 70 AD bring (also [: like Van Tilborgs interpretation of Mt 27:3-10 in the light of LXX Jer 19-6 πoλυαvδριov της σφαγης]) in a significant trace of meaning: the field of blood as 'field of slaughter' (see της σφαγης from Jer. 19.16 LXX), where no Jews but only foreigners are buried?"
Such an attempt is not so much an explanation as well it is an attribution. The issue at stake is: to begin with what is the most probable. While writing, true, the author can have had many a reminescence and association, that is to say, if he would have seen Jerusalem destroyed, such a thing can have been in his mind. But in the first place it is important to notice, that there has been a burial place for foreigners, which also is testified in Acts.
A procedure like his too much operates with agreements that are too vague, and too little with the inner logic of the things and events pictured so that, instead of the course of the depicted having its own evidence, accents and interpretations appear to be imposed from outside too much, instead of at least constituting one whole with it or otherwise even of proceeding from it. Apriori this is to the detriment of the possibility, that there can be a rendering of real events. Regarding this the text as such is emphasized too much so that intertextual differences remain unexplained, although just the unmanageable reality, which does not obey to texts, may explain them, for instance the difference between the house (of the potter) in Jeremiah and the land (of the potter) in Matthew 27:10.
From a methodogical point of view renouncing to envisage a possible degree of reality in favour of the narration or also gender with too much emphasis on hidden intentions, etc. is bad, because referring or not referring to reality very soon changes the character of a text and can explain differences.
The difficulty that allegedly reality cannot be verified at all a) would not alter anything, and because of this always must be counted with the category 'possible rendering (mirroring, influence of) reality' and b) through exploring and paying attention like a detective to indications conclusions can be drawn to a varying extent of plausibility of things and events.

7. This Gospel is dated late (beyond because traditionally the writer of this gospel is confused with John of the Apocalypse, as though the age of the latter could be established even approximately!), because it is far theological and reflected: but this is the case with the letters of Paul too; because too much it is a construction: but this nevertheless serves an intention of rendering, and says nothing about the age; and because many details are taken for 'make-beliefs' (so in the bad sense, like R. Bultmann supposes): but among others 3:23;4:2;6:60-66;11-54 indicate explicitly a good sense and intention.

Bibliography

C.K. Barrett: The Gospel According to Saint John (1978).
J. Black. The Semitic Element in the New Testament. Exp. Times 77, 1965 p. 20-23.
G. Bornkamm. Jezus van Nazareth (Dutch translation). 1963.
F. Büchsel. Die griechische Sprache der Juden in der Zeit der Septuaginta und des Neuen Testaments. (In: Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 19, 1944, pg. 132-149).
R. Bultmann. Die Geschichte der Synoptischen Tradition. 6. Auflage, 1964.
H. Conzelmann. Der geschichtliche Ort der lk Schriften im Urchristentum. (In: G. Braumann (ed.): Das Lukas-Evangelium (WdF 280), Darmstadt 1974, 236-60).
M. Dibelius. Formgeschichte des Evangeliums, 1933.
S. Draisma (ed.). Intertextuality in Biblical Writings (Essays in honour of Bas van Iersel). Kampen 1989.
J.A. Fitzmyer. The Gospel according to Luke. Garden City, 1981.
Helmut Flender. St Luke Theologian of Redemptive History. London 1965.
C.J. den Heyer. Het Ontstaan en de Ontwikkeling van het Nieuwe Testament. (In: A.F.J. Klijn [ed.]. Inleiding tot de Studie van het Nieuwe Testament).
M. Hengel: The Johannine Question (1989, English translation).
D. Hill. Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings. Studies in the Semantics of soteriological terms. Cambridge 1976.J.M. Creed. The Gospel according to Saint Luke. London 1960.
J. Jeremias. Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums (KEK.S), Göttingen 1980.
Flavius Josephus. De Val van Jeruzalem (Uit: de Joodse oorlog), 1958.
W.H. Kelber. Markus und die mündliche Tradition. (In: Linguistica Biblica 45, 1979, p. 5-58).
R. Lane Fox. De Bijbel; waarheid en verdichting (Dutch translation, 1991).
I.H. Marshall. The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC), Exeter, 1978.
N. Perrin. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia 1969.
J.A.T. Robinson. Redating the New Testament. London 1876.
J. Rohde. Die redaktionsgeschichtliche Methode. Einführung und Sichtung des Forschungsstandes, Berlin 1966.
S. Schulz. Gottes Vorsehung bei Lukas, ZNW 54 (1963) p. 104-116.
G. Strecker. Redaktionsgeschichte als Aufgabe der Synoptiker-exegese (Eschaton und Historie. Göttingen 1979, pg. 9-32).
John Wenham. Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke. London 1991.
E.P. Sanders and M. Davies: Studying the Synoptic Gospels, 1989.
W.S. Vorster. De taal van het Nieuwe Testament (In: A.F.J. Klijn. Inleiding tot de Studie van het Nieuwe Testament).
H. Wansborough. Jesus and the oral Gospel Tradition. Sheffield 1991.