RalphyS

I have just ended reading Anne Rice's (fantasy) book "Christ the Lord (or via: amazon.co.uk)". I don't know what I was thinking when I bought it, because imho it read as one big apologetic novel to explain biblical 'flaws'.

But at the end there was a part, in which she explained how she came to write this book.

Apparently she was born a Catholic, then lapsed, married a strong atheist (and stayed married to him till his demise, a long marriage), but through study came back to 'god'.

She was very skeptic about the skeptics, merely because she seems to think that the skeptics are not only skeptic, but in her opinion they seem to hate the subject of theirs studies, ie Jesus, and she thinks that there is enough literature out there, that proofs there is a strong case for the dating the gospels early, meaning before the fall of Jerusalem, primarily because they do not mention that fall more explicit.

Her most important source was a book from a guy named Robinson entitled 'the priority of John'. My very limited knowledge about dating and lineage of the gospels is primarily from this forum, but as I understood it, it was generally assumed (what are these assumptions based on?) that all the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem and that John was written after the synoptics.

I do not really believe 'her' truth, but is there a case to be made there? What is the stand of the church itself on dating the gospels? Is there really a movement that things that John was written before the synoptics? How can we be reasonably sure that the gospels were written not early, but after 70, the fall of Jerusalem?

I would like some answers from people who are more (self-)educated on these subjects, but please could you write them in such a manor that I, as as self-proclaimed layman, can understand them?

Peter Kirby

JAT Robinson wrote a book titled Redating the New Testament. As conceived, it is a first rate piece of liberal biblical scholarship, pushing the envelope and trying to tease the subject out to new heights of sophistication. Its method is simple: assume that everything in the New Testament derives from before AD 70, and then go bonking on the head all the arguments to the contrary. (Someone has, legally or not, placed the entire book online so that you can verify this description.)

There is no problem with Robinson qua Robinson. The problem comes when these hidebound conservatives footnote Robinson. They have understood neither where Robinson starts, how he operates, nor really where he ended up. They cite Robinson as, "scholar proves all of the NT dates before the destruction of Jerusalem!" Funny that, what began as an essay in creative thought, has ended up a footnote to decorate the dot at the end of a thousand ignorant apologetic arguments.

You see, Robinson published for the sake of stoking the fire and starting a conversation, and that he did successfully. Other scholars have posted their reviews, mentioned their own work, and continued on with the business of biblical scholarship. One scholar (whose name I am searching for now) was in the business of producing a manuscript on the dating of the New Testament, when he fell over dead. Others such as Raymond Brown are familiar with JAT Robinson's arguments, but are not persuaded.

I think we will never hear the end of JAT Robinson's supposed proof, but one could just as easily have expected JAT Robinson to have performed the reverse trick, and "proven" that all the New Testament dates after AD 70. I'm sure, if his patience were long enough, and if he knew how his work would be abused, Robinson would have enjoyed publishing that addendum to the original work.

--
Peter Kirby

Ben C Smith

I cannot recall who at the moment, but I know I have read scholars who use Robinson in exactly this way. While arguing their own point they will step back for a moment and reflect: But JAT Robinson has reminded us all how shaky these issues of dating can be.

His book, at any rate, is a very fun read.

But the book that Ralphy mentioned is his other famous book, The Priority of John (or via: amazon.co.uk), which I suspect reflects his own point of view more directly (and whose title can be misleading).

Ben.