Redating the New Testament

by John A.T. Robinson

On the basis that the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the New Testament writings as a past fact, Dr. Robinson defends that the books of the New Testament were written before A.D. 70....contradicting, of course, the consensus of generations of Bible scholars.

Genres: Religion, History, Biblical, Scripture, Church History, Biblical Studies, Christianity

369 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1976

Reviews

[Argin Gerigorian · Rating 5 out of 5]

This week’s book comes from the sedate author, Dr. John A.T Robinson entitled “Redating the New Testament”. This has got to be the most fastidious, lucid and un-tendentious book I’ve read. Being exposed to some of the preteristic authors dating the book of Revelation in 68 AD, I was curious to find out what are the actual dates of the books of the New Testament. While the author is finite and fallible (as he admits) he does an amazing job dealing with the arguments and counter-arguments and confidently arriving at a date. The author is clear in making his points and very well equipped with biblical verses to back them up. (Actually I’m surprised at some of the connections he makes with verses from other books, tying it in beautifully with the historical account) If you’re looking for a scholarly work on the dating of the New Testament, this is a must read! Robinson goes through each book of the New Testament with the historical hinge laying on the importance of 70 AD, the destruction of the Jewish temple. For example he says, “I began to ask myself just why any of the book of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70”. He also is well aware of what other scholars before him have done, most notably: Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, Reicke, Guthrie, and others. To be brief I would highly recommend this book to any laymen New Testament scholars who want a long list of reading after Robinson, as he provides a myriad of sources. Personally I didn’t follow up on the material provided but I’m sure it can be useful to others as he cites many authors unheard of by majority of scholars. Also Robinson is very in-depth with his research and doesn’t leave one stone unturned. Below I will attach some of the charts he provides related to the dating of the books and some of the historical events in the book of Acts (Paul’s timeline for example) My favorite sections that Robinson wrote on were that of Acts, Hebrews and Revelation. His main and final conclusion thus is “There is, first of all, the observation that all the various types of the early church’s literature (including the Didache, a version of its ‘manual of discipline’) were coming into being more or less concurrently in the period between 40 and 70.”


This book will definitely effect you if not completely change your mind on the assumed dates that you have been taught without any internal exegetical or external historical evidence.

This is the complete dating of the New Testament to which Robinson arrives after detailed and scrupulous research.

Dating-of-the-NT-Chronologi

Next is the timeline of the apostle Paul derived from the book of Acts and some of Paul’s own statements particularly in Galatians.

Timeline-of-Saint-Paul



Enjoy this masterpiece! I gave it a 5/5

consult my blog for the images... blogerigorian.wordpress.com

[Kristofer Carlson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bishop Dr. John A. T. Robinson (1919-1983) was a thoroughgoing theological modernist. He began writing this book as a theological exercise, as "little more than a theological joke". At some point he asked himself "why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70." He notes that none of the books make any reference (actual or metaphorical) to the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. He contrasts this with the apocryphal books, with their use of the earlier destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians standing in for the recent Roman actions. (Robinson contrasts the restrained style of the canonical books with the more flamboyant and detailed post-event writings of II Baruch, II Esdras, and the Sibylline Oracles.) Ultimately he supports the (then shocking) conclusion that none of the New Testament books were written after 70 A.D. (C.E., for those with scholarly pretensions).

One of Robinson's contributions is to draw attention to the chains of inferences and preconceptions that are used by those arguing for the late dating of the canonical New Testament scriptures. That there is no reason to accept the late dates becomes increasingly clear as these preconceptions are dealt with and swept aside.

What is also clear is that Robinson (as a theological modernist), has no conception of the church or tradition as an authority. He, like most western theologians since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, view the authors of scripture primarily as competing individuals rather than as part of the Church. He has difficulty accepting the authors of scripture as people who cooperated in the proclamation and promulgation of the Gospel.

To the western scholar and theologian, the questions of who wrote what and when are quite important. However, for the Eastern Church, the question of who wrote what is subordinate to the question of inspiration and canonicity. Where the modern scholar might look askance at seeming interpolations such as the ending chapter of the Gospel of Mark, within the Eastern Church this interpolation is not a problem, because the Church determined that the supposed (and probable) interpolation is part of inspired scripture. Thus the question of whether the apostle Peter wrote the epistle of II Peter is unimportant, despite its being the subject of never-ending speculation on the part of the theological liberals.

Yet Robinson does the Church a great service by laying bare the ephemeral nature of the claims that many of the New Testament writings were not written by their ascribed authors. He notes that the claims based on statistical word counts, diction, and style are all over the map, pointing to the probability that their differences can be ascribed as much to differences in the preconceptions used to construct the statistical algorithms. He notes as well that "there is an appetite for pseudonymity that grows by what it feeds on." Once you assume pseudonymity, you see it everywhere. He argues against a tradition of pseudonymity on the basis of historical church writings which reject books on that basis, and mention the deposing of a bishop who wrote such a pseudonymous book. He notes as well the Pauline attitude towards those circulating books claiming to be written by him. (II Thess 2:2; 3:17).

Whether you are a scholar or merely a theological dilettante (like me), you need to have this book in your library.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was a great deal of work but very rewarding. At first, I approached the content in a light-hearted fashion; we all have been taught the modern dates assigned to the writing of the new testament books. Modern scholars have been correcting the Church Fathers for well over 150 years. This book takes a contrary view by dating All of the new testament books prior to 70 A.D...
I thought this would be a fun read and that I would easily detect the errors in his approach. My assumption was so wrong. By chapter 3, I had to buckle my seat belt because I was immersed in a very scholarly work.

As a Dean at Cambridge, Dr. Robinson did exactly what I expect at the university level in terms of thought provoking discussion and analysis. He steps away from the echo chamber, posts a differing view and backs it up with scholarship. Anyone can say I feel that “Mark or Luke was written by such and such date” but backing that up with source material and logical argument, is a different matter. Dr. Robinson supplies sources, quotes and material arguments for every position he takes. Actually, he supplies back-up material to a fault. I almost reduced my rating from 5 to 4 because at times I felt so overwhelmed by the material he supplied.

It was very refreshing to read something that takes a position contrary to mainstream academic thought without using a series of attacks. To state a differing opinion without polemic or condensation was very informative. He respectfully and enthusiastically quotes other biblical scholars, using much of the same methodologies they employ, he simply arrives at different dates of authorship. I wish that more arguments in today’s world were carried on with such courtesy. Dr. Robinson was so complimentary of two authors with opposing opinions that I have added them to my reading list.

There no question that his thesis will drive away many modern biblical scholars because his conclusions are contrary to opinions stated in their thesis papers. He does not diminish the use of redaction, historical criticism or literary criticism in fact he uses these same processes to arrive at a dating of pre-70 A.D. for the books of the Bible. The basic question he raises is “If the new testament books were written after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, why is such a significant event not mentioned?” The destruction of the Temple is foretold in two places but not mentioned after the event; some say the two foretelling verses were added after the fact but that is difficult accept.

I have taken graduate bible courses, taught by very intelligent professors who hold to much later dating of the books but none of these professors have put forth arguments that would, in my humble opinion, overcome those put forth by Dr. Robinson. I must admit that when the books were written does not bother me one way or the other, I do enjoy reading the various books with some of the information I gleaned from Dr. Robinson’s book. I would recommend his book to all; but come prepared for some work.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

WERE ALL OF THE CANONICAL BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITTEN BEFORE 70 AD?

John A.T. Robinson (1919-1983) was an author and former Anglican Bishop, as well as Dean of Trinity College until his death from cancer. He first achieved fame as the author of the book 'Honest to God,' which was written in 1963 while he was still serving as a bishop in the Anglican church in Woolrich, England.

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1976 book, “the chronology of the New Testament documents has scarcely been subjected to fresh examination… No one since Harnack has really gone back … to examine the presuppositions on which the current consensus rests. It is only when one pauses to do this that one realizes how thin is the foundation for some of the textbook answers and how circular the arguments for many of the relative datings. Disturb the position of one major piece and the pattern starts disconcertingly to dissolve. That major piece for me was the gospel of John. I have long been convinced that John contains primitive and reliable historical tradition… But one cannot redate John without raising the whole question of its place in the development of New Testament Christianity. If this is early, what about the other gospels? Is it necessarily last in time?” (Pg. 9)

He begins the second chapter by pointing out, “One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period---the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple---is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are… assumed to be written… after the event.” (Pg. 13) He ultimately concludes that “the canonical books of the New Testament are all to be dated before 70[AD].” (Pg. 312)

He comments about Jesus’ prediction in Mark 13:1-4: “The first thing to notice is that the question [’when will this happen?’] is never answered. In fact no further reference is made in the chapter to the DESTRUCTION of the temple... That Jesus could have predicted the doom of Jerusalem and its sanctuary is no more inherently improbable than that another Jesus, the son of Ananias, should have done so in the autumn of 62.” (Pg. 15)

He adds, “Unless the flight enjoined upon ‘those who are in Judaea’ is purely symbolic… then the directions for it must surely belong to a time when there still WERE Christians in Judaea, free and able to flee. Finally, we are in a period when it could still be said without reserve or qualification on the solemn authority of Jesus: ‘I tell you this: the present generation will live to see it all.’” (Mk 13:30) (Pg. 19)

He concedes about the parable of the wedding feast in Matt 22:6, f: “It has to be admitted that this is the single verse in the New Testament [‘he sent troops to kill those murderers and set their town on fire’] that most looks like a retrospective prophecy of the events of 70.... It is the only passage which mentions the destruction of Jerusalem by fire… [But] if Matt 22:7 did reflect the happenings of 70 one might expect that it would make a distinction that features OTHER post eventum ‘visions’….” (Pg. 20)

Of Matt 10:23 [‘Before you have gone through all the towns of Israel the Son of Man will have come’] he says, “If… the evangelist is writing some 50-60 years after the death of Jesus, it is surely incredible that there are no ... attempts to explain away or cover up such obviously by then unfillable predictions... I fail to see any motive for preserving, let alone inventing, prophecies long after the dust had settled in Judaea, unless it be to present Jesus as a prognosticator of uncanny accuracy (in which case the evangelists have defeated the exercise by including palpably unfulfilled predictions).” (Pg. 24-25)

About Luke 21:20 [‘when you see Jerusalem encircled by armies, then you may be sure that her destruction is near’] he admits that “At first sight it clearly seems to be composed ... in the light of the siege of 68-70. For here indeed is the greater specification we expect but fail to find in Matthew… Yet... all the language used by Luke or his source is drawn not from recent events but from a mind soaked in the Septuagint.” (Pg. 26-27)

He notes of the seeming abrupt ending of the book of Acts, “Various reasons have been advanced to explain this ending. It is said that it suits Luke’s apologetic purpose to close with Paul preaching ‘openly and without hindrance’ to the Roman public. But this must surely have been rendered less than cogent for Theophilus by glossing over in silence the common knowledge that he and Peter and ‘a vast multitude’ of other Christians in the city had within a few years been mercilessly butchered. There is no hint of the Neronian persecution… Nor for that matter is there any hint of the death of James the Lord’s brother in 62…” (Pg. 89)

He suggests that the Book of Revelation is “intelligible only if… its author had himself been … IN ROME during and after the Neronian persecution… to reflect upon the terrible events of the latter 60s, both in Rome and in Jerusalem, and thus dispatching his warning of what could lie ahead of them to those Asian churches.... As it turned out, it was Jerusalem that fell in the autumn of 70 and Babylon that survived. The universal martyrdom of the Christian church did not materialize, neither did the shortly promised parousia [Second Coming].” (Pg. 252-253)

He observes at the end of the book, “If the canonical books of the New Testament are all to be dated before 70 the question naturally arises: ... Is there not an unexplained gap between the end of the New Testament writings and the first productions of the sub-apostolic age?... The possibility, if not the probability, must indeed be faced that there was not a steady stream of early Christian writings, but that an intense period of missionary, pastoral and literary activity … was followed by one of retrenchment and relative quiescence.” (Pg. 312)

He concludes, “I confess that I did not appreciate … how LITTLE evidence there is for the dating of ANY of the New Testament writings… at the end we have to confess that we cannot settle with any precision of finality the date of [Paul’s] birth, his conversion, his visits to Jerusalem, his various missionary journeys, his arrival in Rome, his death---or any of his letters. And if we know so little about Paul, how much less can we say about Peter or John? There is not a single book of the New Testament that dates itself from the internal evidence… The conclusion to be drawn … is that the consensus of the textbooks... rests upon much slighter foundations than [a student] probably supposes.” (Pg. 336-337)

Evangelicals and other biblical conservatives eagerly cite Robinson’s pre-70 opinions… though they fail to also cite his less-orthodox opinions. While his arguments may not persuade every reader (I find his dismissal of Lk 21:20 very unconvincing, for example), this is definitely a book which deserves serious study for its thought-provoking analysis of an often-skimmed over subject.

[Frans Vermeiren · Rating 2 out of 5]

Redating the New Testament is a cunning book, in which Robinson hides his chronological theory, substantiated with the heavyweights of biblical scholarship, behind a facade of light-footed intellectual frivolity. On the one hand he brilliantly exposes the meagre arguments behind the traditional dating of the New Testament writings, but on the other he replaces this traditional dating with a new theory that in my opinion is even weaker than the chronology he questions.

The core of Robinson’s theory is a very early and concentrated dating of the New Testament writings, roughly between 50 and 70 CE, before or at the latest during the war of the Jews against the Romans (66-70 CE) . Robinson states that all the New Testament writings must have been written before the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE because these crucial war events are not unambiguously described as past events anywhere in the New Testament. This thesis is diametrically opposed to the opinion of many biblical scholars, who consider the veiled mentions of the war in the synoptic Apocalypse and elsewhere in the gospels as prophecies-after-the-facts and therefore as references to the war. This interpretation of the doom prophecies are the basis for dating most New Testament writings after the end of the war in 70 CE, the four gospels being the most important of them.

In fact Robinson’s theory stands or falls with this ‘unambiguous description’ of the destruction of the Temple and/or the fall of Jerusalem in the New Testament. In my opinion this unambiguous description is present, reducing Robinson’s theory to futility. This description, however, is worded in the apocalyptic writing style, and this combination of an unambiguous message and a subversive writing style is not the easiest one. The apocalyptic writing style was used by suppressed people to hide important information from their ruthless oppressors, in this case by the early Christians to conceal their subversive message for the Romans.

The crucial word in the synoptic Apocalypse is the Greek θλιψις, which is usually translated as (a period of) tribulation, but which is more exactly translated as a catastrophic event. Θλιψις more specifically is the apocalyptic code word for the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, for example in Mark 13:24. The effect of the catastrophe, the production of an enormous cloud of smoke, is described in the same verse, in this way supporting the ‘catastrophic event’ translation instead of the ‘period of tribulation’ translation. Also in Revelation (chapter 11 in the first place) and the Didache (particularly the apocalyptic final chapter) the final events of the war are described as past events (and in all these writings the parousia of the Christ is connected with these cataclysmic war events.)

After chapter 2 ‘The Significance of 70’ Robinson’s main thesis had already faded away. Nevertheless I enjoyed the chapter on the epistle of James later on, the early dating of which in my opinion is correct, with the two ‘Jesus’ mentions as interpolations.


Redating the New Testament is a cunning book, in which Robinson hides his chronological theory, substantiated with the heavyweights of biblical scholarship, behind a facade of light-footed intellectual frivolity. On the one hand he brilliantly exposes the meagre arguments behind the traditional dating of the New Testament writings, but on the other he replaces this traditional dating with a new theory that in my opinion is even weaker than the chronology he questions.

The core of Robinson’s theory is a very early and concentrated dating of the New Testament writings, roughly between 50 and 70 CE, before or at the latest during the war of the Jews against the Romans (66-70 CE) . Robinson states that all the New Testament writings must have been written before the destruction of the Temple and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE because these crucial war events are not unambiguously described as past events anywhere in the New Testament. This thesis is diametrically opposed to the opinion of many biblical scholars, who consider the veiled mentions of the war in the synoptic Apocalypse and elsewhere in the gospels as prophecies-after-the-facts and therefore as references to the war. This interpretation of the doom prophecies are the basis for dating most New Testament writings after the end of the war in 70 CE, the four gospels being the most important of them.

In fact Robinson’s theory stands or falls with this ‘unambiguous description’ of the destruction of the Temple and/or the fall of Jerusalem in the New Testament. In my opinion this unambiguous description is present, reducing Robinson’s theory to futility. This description, however, is worded in the apocalyptic writing style, and this combination of an unambiguous message in a subversive writing style is not the easiest one. The apocalyptic writing style was used by suppressed people to hide their information from their ruthless oppressors, in this case by the early Christians to conceal their subversive message for the Romans.

The crucial word in the synoptic Apocalypse is the Greek θλιψις, which is usually translated as (a period of) tribulation, but which is more exactly translated as a catastrophic event. Θλιψις more specifically is the apocalyptic code word for the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, for example in Mark 13:24. The effect of the catastrophe, the production of an enormous cloud of smoke, is described in the same verse, in this way supporting the ‘catastrophic event’ translation instead of the ‘period of tribulation’ translation. Also in Revelation (chapter 11 in the first place) and the Didache (particularly the apocalyptic final chapter) the ultimate war events are described as past events (and in all these writings the parousia of the Christ is connected with these cataclysmic war events.)

After his chapter 2 ‘The Significance of 70’ Robinson’s main thesis had already faded away. Nevertheless I enjoyed the chapter on the epistle of James later on, the early dating of which in my opinion is correct, with the two ‘Jesus’ mentions as interpolations.

[John Engelman · Rating 5 out of 5]

In “Redating the New Testament” John A.T. Robinson argues that virtually all of the New Testament was written before 70 A.D. and that most was written before 66 A.D.

Robinson was fellow and Dean of Chapel, Trinity College, Cambridge, and Assistant [Church of England] Bishop of Southwark.

Bishop Robinson bases his argument on the fact that there are no explicit descriptions of the destruction of the Second Temple of Jerusalem by the Romans. There are vivid descriptions of the destruction of the first Temple in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha.

The first Jewish uprising happened between 66 AD and 73 AD. It resulted in the death or dispersion of probably over a million Jews, and more than a few Christians. It resulted in the destruction of written records of the ministry of Jesus. Anything written before 66 AD is likely to be more accurate than anything written after 73 AD. Also, someone writing before 66 AD had access to eye witnesses to the ministry of Jesus.

According to Eusebius, who wrote a fourth century history of Christianity, St. Paul was martyred several years before the beginning of the Jewish Uprising. Consequently, his epistles, which make up much of the New Testament, can be dated before the Uprising. Unfortunately, St. Paul’s epistles say little about the life and ministry of Jesus.

According to the Two Source Hypothesis, which was developed by 1900, Mark was the first gospel. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. They also used a more primitive gospel that is called “Q.” Q consists of passages Matthew and Luke share, but which are not in Mark.

I have read two restorations of Q. I think it was written by one of the twelve apostles, either during the ministry of Jesus, or shortly after the crucifixion.

Most Bible scholars agree that St. Luke, a traveling companion of St. Paul, wrote the Gospel According to Luke, and Acts. Acts appears to have been written when St. Paul was still alive. St. Paul is experiencing a comfortable house arrest in Rome. The reader of Acts has been assured that St. Paul has violated neither the laws of Rome, nor the laws of the Jews.

If Acts was written when St. Paul was still alive, that pushes the composition of the Gospel of Luke earlier, and the composition of the Gospel of Mark and Q even earlier. In other words, the authors of Mark, Luke, and Q – even if Q was not written by one of the Twelve – had access to eye witnesses and written accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus.

Most Bible scholars agree that the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark, who was a traveling companion of St. Peter. Nevertheless, they think that Mark was written in 70 AD.

The Gospel of St. John has long been recognized as recording a different tradition from that found in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Like Matthew and Luke, John makes no mention of the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem. John does mention as though still standing, several buildings that were destroyed in the Jewish Uprising. Consequently, Robinson argues that St. John wrote the Gospel of St. John.

In an earlier book “Honest to God” Robinson inclined towards agnosticism. In “Redating the New Testament” he inclines toward an explanation of the New Testament that makes Jesus’ miracles, including his Resurrection, plausible.

That, rather than flaws in Robinson’s reasoning, is probably why most non Fundamentalist scholars reject his arguments. They are what I call “virtual agnostics.” They are attracted to the person of Jesus, who they see as an early forerunner of a socialist labor leader, and an advocate of world peace. They do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, because they do not know if God exists.

Late dates for the Gospels would mean that they were written from largely from oral traditions that were carried by word of mouth by illiterate and credulous Christians.

[Leon McNair · Rating 5 out of 5]

Redating The New Testament
A good book to pair with this reading might be - Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem, John Wenham


I thoroughly enjoyed this book and J.A.T. Robinson's exegetical examination of the internal evidence in the New Testament that led him away from the liberal-dating to a radical change in favour of a conservative-dating of all New Testament books being written prior to the Jewish revolt of 70AD.

Although originally published in 1976, the dates he provides have thus far not been adequately challenged. This is significant, as Robinson's argument is that past scholarship has been wilfully blind in favour of untested assumptions and a conscious dismissal to critique the text itself for its reliability. C.H. Dodd said of Robinson's dates, "I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton; the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic's prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud."

Robinson's book shines a revitalised light on the prophetic nature of Jesus' words. As mentioned in the book, Matthew 24:1-2 is a key component of the prophetic nature - some believe it was ex-eventu, but the textual evidence, as Robinson argues, renders the passage dating before the Temple destruction: "I tell you the truth, not one will be left on another. All will be torn down!" [NET]. Another example, more subtle I believe, is from John 4:21-24, when Jesus speaks with the Samaritan woman, "A time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem..." [NET]. Not only the Temple, but also the pool at Bethsaida, Robinson argues, supports an early date for John's Gospel, the latest Gospel, for the text mentions it in the present grammatical tense, whereas the pool was no longer after the fall of Jerusalem at 70AD.
"One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period - the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, and with the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the Temple - is never once mentioned as a past fact." p.13-15

[Jon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This compelling book illustrates for me something that I've thought about in some way or another since I was a teen-ager, namely how does one ever really know something? That isn't Robinson's point, of course, but what he does demonstrates this basic idea. What he does is this: Rather than accepting the later dates for the New Testament books presented by biblical scholars (of the nonconservative variety), Robinson starts with the premise that all the books were written before 70 A.D. because of their lack of addressing of what would have been a major event to religiously minded Jewish folks in the first century--namely, the destruction of the Jewish temple.

Now, many scholars present the later dates for certain books based on the idea that they actually do address this--most specifically in the Gospels. There is the whole Matthew 24 prophecy that Jesus renders. For a secularist, such a prophecy coming to fruition demands that the material had to have been written after the event, the prophecy a way of seeming to be profound and mystic when one is not. Robinson sees this as a poor argument, because the predictions in the Gospels about the Temple's demise are not of the specific variety that one would expect were one writing after the fact. Some items in the prophecy didn't come true in the exact manner Jesus predicted; no dates are presented, and in general the prophecy is rather vague. (Hebrews is an interesting case in point too, since if it were written after the fact, why not just point out the Temple's destruction in denoting Jesus as the replacement for the high priest?)

Having banished the few arguments for later writing of some of the books, Robinson follows through on his premise, presenting arguments for just when each book could have been written--all of them before 70 A.D. And all this goes to show what I often think/thought about as a young man--how assumptions, prejudices, and premises all shape our point of view before we even start into a topic. Start with an assumption that certain New Testament books must be written later, and suddenly all of them take on a different cast; start with another premise, and suddenly all of them fall much earlier. What is the truth of the date of writing? Who can possibly know?

[Don Samdahl]

Robinson was right and exposed the flaccid arguments that date New Testament books after 70 A.D. This whole dating business is much more straightforward, however. Paul settled the matter. In Colossians 1.25, he wrote it was God’s purpose for him “to complete the word of God,” πληρῶσαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ. 2 Timothy was the last book of the New Testament, written shortly before Paul’s death, about 67-68 A.D. This destroys all arguments of NT books beyond 70 A.D. Robinson just took the long way round.

[Douglas Brock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite Robinson's redactionism, this is a well documented challenge to the prevailing view of late dating off the New Testament. He makes a cogent and persuasive argument for the completion of all the writing before AD 70. Excellent work; should be read by all pastors and teachers and other interested people.

[Rob Markley · Rating 5 out of 5]

Seemingly most liberal of theologian also a most conservative biblical scholar. All that tradition teaches us about the origin of scripture was about right and the modernist deniers are exposed for the non believers they truly are.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

While this book is not essential to reading the Bible, it is invaluable for those who would interact with biblical scholarship. It is most helpful as an example of how to examine and consider historical evidence and academic assumptions.

[RAD · Rating 5 out of 5]

The (Missing) Elephant in the Room

One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period -- the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple -- is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark. (13)

Thus John A.T. Robinson begins chapter 2, "The Significance of 70", of his Redating the New Testament.

Robinson ends with several points in chapter 11, "Conclusions and Corollaries," of which I highlight just two here. First, "We may start with the fact, which I confess I did not appreciate before beginning the investigation, of how little evidence there is for the dating of any of the New Testament writings...It is surprising to be made to realize that there is only one reasonably secure absolute date (and that within a year or so either way) in the life of St Paul, which in turn can be used to fix the chronology of his writings. And this -- that of the proconsulship of Gallio in Achaia -- relates not to any statement of Paul himself but to a minor incident recorded of him in Acts" (336). Second is a quite long quote from a non-academic source (A.H.N. Green-Armytage, John Who Saw, 1952) that Robinson notes has been used by others before him, a portion of which i quote here:

There is a world -- I do not say a world in which all scholars live but one at any rate into which all of them sometimes stray, and which some of them seem permanently to inhabit -- which is not the world in which I live. In my world, if The Times and The Telegraph both tell one story in somewhat different terms, nobody concludes that one of them must have copied the other, nor that the variations in the story have some esoteric significance. But in that world of which I am speaking this would be taken for granted. There, no story is ever derived from facts but always from somebody else's version of the same story...(356)

Robinson continues the long quote, but his point is already made. The story of the birth of the New Testament, which includes dates of composition, has often been conjecture posing as Neutestamentler dogma.

In between, Robinson addresses each book (or group of books) of the New Testament. His work is scholarly, heavily footnoted (major plus for the editors and publishers! See my footnote/endnote rant elsewhere), and draws upon a broad understanding not just of the exegetical tradition but also the historical context. Robinson has been criticized as heretical in some circles -- even as an "atheist" (Geisler and Turek, I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist : "But it's not just conservative scholars who believe these early dates. Even some radical critics, such as atheist John A. T. Robinson, admit the New Testament documents were written early. Known for his role in launching the "Death of God" movement, Robinson wrote a revolutionary book titled Redating the New Testament, in which he posited that most New Testament books, including all four Gospels, were written sometime between A.D. 40 and 65" (243). But I digress) -- and despite this accusation, there is no denying his intimate familiarity not just with the New Testament writings themselves, but also the history of its criticism.

I give five stars to Redating; it is required reading for anyone interested in the historical development of the New Testament.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Redating the New Testament" by John Robinson, a former Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, and professor of New Testament at Cambridge University, was an eye-opening read. This is certainly a scholarly book. Quotes appear in un-translated(!) Ancient Greek and Latin. But, I could follow his arguments. To Robinson's surprise, the dating of the various parts of the New Testament is not at all certain. His thesis is that It was written entirely before 70AD. His arguememt is very convincing.

[Dan Yingst]

Confirms most of my suspicions about New Testament dating, New Testament/super early Church History in general.

[Jeffrey · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting take on the early dating of the NT from a skeptical historian.