I can understand how it would seem reasonable to expect that if someone were writing an account that included a prophesy that had been fulfilled by the time of the account's composition, there would be some mention of the fulfillment.
What I mean is if this shows up . . .:
Luke:21:5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.
. . . in a book written after the temple had fallen, some mention of it wouldn't be surprising, but would it have been necessary?
But we are talking about books that are quick to point out whenever a prophecy was fulfilled. Apparently the authors thought that those prophecies were necessary to be mentioned, why not this one?
I'm guessing that almost everyone reading that gospel around the time of it's composition would be well aware that the temple had fallen (as you pointed out, the fall of Jerusalem was a major event) so adding something like "btw, this has been fulfilled" to the passage would have been redundant. The destruction of the temple would have been common knowledge. Anyone who believed what was written in Luke would be able to see a fulfilled prophecy in that passage without having to be told that's what it was.
You can conclude it, and so would your readers, all on their own. You wouldn't have to say, "btw, this was fulfilled". The significance of the prediction would be self-explanatory.
Sooo if "anyone who believed what was written in Luke would be able to see a fulfilled prophecy in that passage without having to be told that's what it was", if that was the case, then why does the book of Matthew lists at least 12 times something in the effect of
"this fullfilled the word of the Lord through the Prophet"?
So why doesn't your explanation harmonize with Matthew listing the fulfilments of OTHER predictions? When a prophecy was fulfilled, the author mentions it...plain and simple, and if the author was sitting down writing the narrative as Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple, and the author is writing this AFTER the prophecy was fullfilled, as significant as that would have been, he would have mentioned it in some capacity.
When Luke narrates Jesus' prediction, he would have included something like "which was fullfiled during the reign of Vespasian at the fall of Jerusalem". Something like that. What is wrong with that?
You could, of course, add something like, "btw, this has been fulfilled" if for whatever reason you felt it necessary, but I don't think anyone would see it as a major omission if you didn't. The point of the prediction would stand on it's own.
I would agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that other fulfillments are mentioned. You could use your line of reasoning for every single case at which either book mentions a fulfillment of a prophecy. If it states in a old testament prophecy that "the Messiah will be born of a virgin", and in the new testament has "the Messiah was born of a virgin"...if the authors of the Gospels shared your view, they would not include the whole "so that prophecy X was fullfilled". But the fact of the matter is, they DO mention it, so apparently they didn't share your view, as good as it is.
So then the question becomes, why wasn't this particular fulfillment mentioned but countless others were?
The one that says Paul was executed in 65 C.E.
But then again, you admit that the latter part of the book of Acts was about Paul...if Paul had already died by that time, how could you not include his death?? Especially when the deaths of Stephen, James, and King Herod is mentioned. You mention King Herod's death but not Paul's?
So we can logically conclude that it was written prior to his death.
Of course. If the destruction of Jerusalem had occurred during Paul's ministry, no doubt an account would have shown up in Acts. But as I pointed out earlier, Paul's ministry (by all accounts, tradition included) concluded prior to the event.
Remember, the point of the thread is to date the Gospels. After doing some critical thinking about your point, I agree with you regarding Acts. However, we can date the Gospel of Luke and book of Acts based on the logical conclusion we can draw from what I mentioned above...and it is based on that..that we can conclude the book of Luke was written not only prior to 70AD, but prior to 65-67AD.
You're talking about more than a sprinkle. Especially if you're expecting any mention of events that happen outside of the stories time-frame.
But that would fail to take in to the consideration of relevance...the mention of the fulfillment of the prophecy would be RELEVANT considering Matthew painted the picture of Jesus as the sent Messiah and fulfiller of prophecies, so mentioning his accurate fulfillment would have been relevant to the purpose of the narrative?
