FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-06-2005, 02:07 PM   #1
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default Is Biblical Criticism a serious subject?

Take the book 'Redating the New Testament' by J. Robinson.

As one reviewer on amazon.com rightly notes 'Robinson's core argument, by which his book stands or falls, is that the New Testament must have been written before 70, because there is no clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.'

Take another English Christian Bishop, the Bishop of Durham , NT Wright.

In http://www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_J..._Testament.pdf, Wright writes as if the impending destruction of Jerusalem was a very major theme in the Gospels, Paul's letters, Hebrews and Revelation.

Now people might differ on intepretations of what the mentions of a destruction of Jerusalem might mean, but when people disagree about whether or not the destruction of Jerusalem is mentioned much at all , you get the feeling that Biblical Criticism has no solid ground to work on.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 03:04 PM   #2
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: US
Posts: 301
Default

I've only heard Robinson's argument from fundamentalist Christians. Robinson also has a book called Can We Trust the New Testament and Honest to God, both which appear to defend Orthodox Christianity.
Marxist is offline  
Old 06-06-2005, 03:13 PM   #3
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Redating the New Testament.

Nonsense is nonsense, but the study of nonsense is scholarship, as someone used to say. That must mean it is serious scholarship.

The key word here is "clear." How clear do you have to be before what you say is "clear?" Is Mark's clear reference to the destruction of the Temple concrete enough so that it indicates it had recently happened, or had not happened yet, or had happened so long in the past that it was only a vague memory?
Toto is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 04:40 AM   #4
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default NT before A.D. 70 - Temple destruction prophetic

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr
Take the book 'Redating the New Testament' by J. Robinson.... 'Robinson's core argument, by which his book stands or falls, is that the New Testament must have been written before 70, because there is no clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.' .. NT Wright....writes as if the impending destruction of Jerusalem was a very major theme in the Gospels, Paul's letters, Hebrews and Revelation.
Two different aspects are being discussed here.
1) the imminence of the impending destruction of Jerusalem
2) the lack of historical reference to A.D. 70.

I don't have Robinson's book, it would be nice to have, but it seems he is referring to (2), and N.T. Wright would agree, the NT does not refer to A.D. 70 ever in a fait accompli sense, in any book.

It is likely that Robinson also agrees strongly with (1) as a major NT theme and you have interpreted the reviewer as saying that the prophetic destruction is claimed to be non-functional by Robinson. Doubtful that any such quote or argument can be found in his book.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 05:21 AM   #5
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor
Posts: 4,035
Default

I've skimmed Robinson's book. I don't think "agree strongly" would be apt. Robinson interprets Mark 13 to refer to the attempt to set up a statue to the emperor in 42 CE.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby
Peter Kirby is online now   Edit/Delete Message
Old 06-07-2005, 10:06 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marxist
I've only heard Robinson's argument from fundamentalist Christians. Robinson also has a book called Can We Trust the New Testament and Honest to God, both which appear to defend Orthodox Christianity.
Honest to God has many admirable qualities.

However it is not a defence of Orthodox Christianity by any usual definition.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 10:37 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kirby
I've skimmed Robinson's book. I don't think "agree strongly" would be apt. Robinson interprets Mark 13 to refer to the attempt to set up a statue to the emperor in 42 CE.
He did agree that Matthew and Luke prophesied about Jerusalem.

However, as Wright , in the article I gave, says that so much of Paul is about the way Jerusalem will soon be no more, one wonders if Robinson and Wright were reading the same book.
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 11:14 AM   #8
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 2,293
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr
He did agree that Matthew and Luke prophesied about Jerusalem. However, as Wright , in the article I gave, says that so much of Paul is about the way Jerusalem will soon be no more, one wonders if Robinson and Wright were reading the same book.
At that point, once there is a good level of agreement on the Mark and Luke 'temple shall be destroyed' passages, the discussion is much more eschcatological (preterism, historicism, futurism) than biblical criticism.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/
Steven Avery is offline  
Old 06-07-2005, 07:38 PM   #9
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,562
Default The destruction of the Temple

Quote:
Mark 13:19
"For those days will be a time of tribulation such as has not occurred (N)since the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will.
praxeus,

To what moment in time is the "now" above referring to?
NOGO is offline  
Old 06-11-2005, 10:35 AM   #10
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Eagle River, Alaska
Posts: 7,816
Default

This is the *bump* I believe the question repetition was intended to obtain.

-Amaleq13, BC&H moderator
Amaleq13 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:33 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.