Geoff Hudson

Without reading Robinson, and from my own investigations of the texts, I have been saying for some time on several sites that the original NT documents were all Jewish set in a world
pre CE 70 and that they reflect the language used in the DSS. I fully agree about the datings with Robinson.

G.H.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Geoff,

This is entirely possible, and even probable. This is what Loisy said.

<strong> I don't think there's any evidence for these claims.

<strong> Can you cite even one passage from the gospels that needs to be dated prior to 70 CE?

Yours,

Yuri.

Geoff Hudson

Yuri,
I would hesitate to quote individual texts to support the view that the original NT documents were pre 70 CE. Some think that the implicit references to the destruction of Jerusalem in NT documents points to their being post CE 70, but these references are those of later editors. I prefer to establish a scheme into which most of the contemporary facts and theology fit. I will give you a clue to my thinking.

For example, I see Acts 1 starting something like this:
‘In my former book (account or treatise), Epaphroditus, I wrote about all that the Spirit began to do and to teach until the day, after giving instructions to the disciples he had chosen, he took John’s spirit up. After John’s death, the Spirit appeared to these disciples over a period of forty days. He gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, you will receive power and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’

There is an echo of the above (even in the form that exists) in the TF. After John’s death the Spirit ‘did not forsake’ the disciples, but ‘appeared’ to them, as the prophets had foretold. For these people, the Spirit was just about as real as you or I. They probably saw him in the moving ‘clouds of heaven’, in the disturbed waters of a pool, in the wind, in sandstorms, or in dazzling sunshine. One of these appearances was at Pentecost. Then the Spirit was not sent by the risen Jesus for the first time as the editors would have us think, but he was ‘poured out’ into people who already believed in him.

The ‘former account’ is the companion document to Acts, the Gospel of Luke which I see not as a biography of Jesus or John, but an account of the Spirit’s work through individuals starting with the Prophet Zechariah and continuing through John the Prophet, his son. John had to be ‘about his father’s work’ and ‘in his father’s house’. I believe that Luke was probably written by someone like Paul (possibly the young Josephus). It was written to someone high in the Roman establishment, such as Epaphroditus, Nero’s secretary, an Greek ex-slave, and Josephus’s subsequent sponsor. It’s important purpose was to improve on what had been written previously (possibly by Matthias, Josephus’s father). Hence, I see its date as being close to the writing of the other epistles of Paul.

Geoff

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Geoff,

Yes, it would be quite difficult to quote individual texts such as these... probably because none exist?

But if you can find some, I'd be interested to see them...

I really don't know how to comment on the remainder of your post. You seem to have a highly complex theory all of your own in regard to the history of NT composition. So perhaps you can tell us how you came to acquire this theory, and what previous scholarship you might be basing it on. What books and authors have you found useful in your quest so far? Perhaps this will help to clarify your theory for us.

Yours,

Yuri.