Steven Carr

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.

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.

Toto

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?

Steven Avery

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2) the lack of historical reference to A.D. 70.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/

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.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

andrewcriddle

Honest to God has many admirable qualities.

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

Andrew Criddle

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.

Steven Avery

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/

NOGO

praxeus,

To what moment in time is the "now" above referring to?

Amaleq13

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

-Amaleq13, BC&H moderator