I think that God gave me this idea. I do not take credit for this idea. I am not a historian, however, God knows history better than anyone, and I believe that this insight was from God.
Please allow me to offer a suggestion about the dating of the Gospels. The record indicates that Jesus predicted the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. He said to His disciples that not one stone would be left upon another. Clearly, this referred to the leveling of the Temple, and the Romans did that when they finally conquered the city in 70 A.D.
The Gospels are obviously totally dedicated to documenting the works and the words of Jesus Christ. The Gospel writers went to great lengths, including writing in Greek ~ the standard of culture of that time, the Lingua Franca of the day, just as English is the Lingua Franca of today, ~ in order to detail the life of Christ, His birth, childhood, and especially His ministry, in words that were accessible to everyone. (Of course, the Bible says little regarding the 17 years from about age 13 to age 30.) The Gospel writers described many miracles, and other events, to show the people that Jesus is the Christ! However, the Gospel writers did leave out one historic, and brutally catastrophic event, an omission that would be unthinkable, if the Gospels were composed, (or, had been written down), for the first time, after 70 A.D. In none of the Gospels, is it recorded that the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 A.D., as Jesus predicted. For example, we find in Chapter 24, Verses 1-2, of St. Matthews Gospel:
"AND JESUS went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to show him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
And yet, any historian who wanted to spread the Gospel, would jump on this prophecy, and its fulfillment, as yet one more proof of the Divinity of Christ. It would be foolish not to use that information to persuade others of your case. Moreover, it is unthinkable that the Roman acts of: leveling the Temple, destroying Jerusalem, and slaughtering most of the citys citizens could occur, without being mentioned in any relevant historical document written in 70 A.D., or thereafter. [In fact, Josephus documented it.] However, all of the generations of Gospel editors and scribes, ~ spanning nearly 2000 years ~ never did add this history of apocalyptic devastation, to any of the Gospels. Even though, by doing so, they would have provided a powerful proof, to all subsequent evangelical efforts. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that, at the time that the Gospels were first written down, it had to be before 70 A.D. ~ which was like the end of the world for the Jewish people, the scope of the disaster cannot be overstated ~ nor can its relevance to the prophecy made by Jesus about the coming destruction of Jerusalem, be overstated.
Even on the very basic human level, that of winning an argument or a debate, most people would say something like, Jesus said it would happen, and see it did! The only way that the Gospel writers could miss the fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Temple, would be if it had yet to occur! So if that is the case, why then, was it not added at a later time to the Gospels? It could easily have been added, parenthetically so to speak by any of many generations of evangelists, as an, I told you so. ~ Or, in this case: Jesus said so, and, see it happened! ~ however, it was obviously never added to the Gospels. Why?
Why not add it? Any good editor would at least consider adding some reference unless the Gospels were being very carefully preserved, verbatim for some very good reason. For that matter, any competent editor, would recognize the need to have all of the details, in all of the Gospels, match. [The Roman postal system was excellent, and rapid, so that communication between cities was easy, as was shown in; The Jesus Papyrus, p. 108 112.] Therefore, it would be easy for any competent editor to fix any discrepancies unless the Gospels were being preserved verbatim for some reason. [ Many critics take cheap shots at the Gospels, because not all of the details are in agreement. Actually, I find this variance reassuring. Any police officer will tell you that the eyewitness reports of some event, like an accident for example, will have points of agreement and also points of disagreement, not to mention errors. I would be suspicious, if all of the details had been fixed at some point in the past. The fact that there are divergent points of view, lends credibility to the account being by eyewitnesses. It is a sign that we have genuine testimony from the disciples of Christ, in the Gospels. ] What overriding reason could prevent the Gospels from being "updated," and, "corrected?" The only reason that could be important enough for ~ GOD, only knows how many dozens, (or hundreds), of scribes all around the Mediterranean ~ to take the care necessary to transmit the Gospels unchanged, would be, if the Gospels were known by the early Christians, to have been authored by some of the Apostles of Christ. Because, only first hand accounts of important historical events, by actual witnesses, merit verbatim preservation.
It is possible that some sharp editors may have added a footnote in a Bible Concordance, pointing out that the prophecy made by Jesus, about the destruction of the Temple, became historical fact in 70 A.D. [Verbatim transmission of important documents is the case even today, for instance, no one is correcting the variations found in the different copies of Lincolns Gettysburg Address that came from his own hand.] Moreover, only first hand accounts ~ written before 70 A.D. ~ would all inevitably omit any mention of the destruction of the Temple, and, its significance as the proof of Christs prophecy coming true.
Having witnessed miracles of Christ, myself ~ and having felt duty bound to share that information to help others ~ as I have tried to do, it is inconceivable to me that any disciple, who had witnessed Christs life, and who was specifically selected by Christ, and who was told by Christ to spread the Gospel, would not make every effort to do so, to the very best of his or her, ability. And in any civilization that had the written word, that work of spreading the Gospel, would normally include a written account in the Lingua Franca (i.e., Greek), and that text would be lovingly preserved, word for word, as the actual testimony of a saint, and an Apostle of the Lord. Is it conceivable, that, any Apostle [barring some premature death] would intentionally neglect to transmit the Gospel either, personally by hand, or, at least via dictation to a scribe? After being specifically commanded by Christ to do so?
These quotes are from the, Authorized King James Version, of the Holy Bible:
5 ¶ "And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said,
6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."
41 ¶ "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it,...
43 For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side,
44 And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation."
"AND AS he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2 And Jesus answering said unto him,
Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."