Peter Kirby

I thought that this article in the Journal of Theological Studies (v. 30 1979 pp. 255-62) might be of interest to some people here.

best,
Peter Kirby

Redating the New Testament. By John A. T. Robinson,
Pp. xiii+369. London, 1976. Pounds 8.50.

Dr. Robinson's aim is to establish the thesis that
every book of the New Testament (with the Didache and
1 Clement for good measure) was composed before A.D.
70. He holds that there is little or no solid
evidence for the dates at present usually attached to
the New Testament books, and that there is one feature
of the New Testament, oddly ignored by scholars, which
demands an extensive redating: the failure of them to
mention the fall of Jerusalem. Individual books are
then discussed, and detailed arguments brought forward
in support of the central position. A final chapter
summarizes the argument, with highly critical remarks
on the work of contemporary New Testament scholars.

The book is characteristic of Dr. Robinson at his
best: lively, ingenious and thought-provoking. But
along with this it has serious faults, which must lead
to a final definitely adverse judgement. These will
be brought out in some fullness, since the subject is
an important one.

The centre of gravity of British scholarship shifted
sharply in the fifties to a much more general
acceptance of non-traditional positions among critical
scholars; but there are still a substantial number of
British scholars of an older school to whom Robinson's
views will nnot seem all that strange or indeed novel.
I write from the point of view of the more critical,
and look at the question whether Robinson has, as to
succeed he must, made a case which will persuade them
that there are, for example, gnenuine difficulties in
the view that John or the Pastorals are late. I will
make some more general criticisms first, then deal
with certain of Robinson's arguments about individual
books, and then return to certain more general points
before making a final over-all evaluation.

One welcome feature of the book sis a stress on the
great value and thoroughness of the work of older
(especially nineteenth century) scholars such as
Harnack, Lightfoot, Zahn, Mayor, and the little known
Edmundson, whose Bampton Lectures of 1913 Robinson
regards as of unsurpassed quality and importance.
This awareness is admirable. Far too much excellent
nineteenth-century work goes unregarded, and [p. 256]
some of it is indeed superior to later work. But it
is sad that the revival is so one-sided. Much of the
best work was that of strongly critical scholars, and
it would have made Robinson's work more balanced if we
had heard more of Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, or the
great Samuel Davidson.

In fact Robinson is sometimes weak on the history of
scholarship. It is quite misleading to say (p. 3)
that in 1850 'the scene was dominated by the school of
F. C. Baur'. In 1850 the Tübingen school was
indeed heard vocally, but it was never more than a
small minority of scholars even in Germany. Again, it
is a serious over-simplification to describe the
history of the dating of the fourth Gospel as 'an
extraordinarily simple one. . . . The radical critics
like Baur began by dating it anything up to 170 and
have since steadily come down' (p. 259). One could
not guess from this that Loisy in 1936 was still
dating John in 130-5 with a second edition in 160-70;
nor would one realize that in this century British
scholarship has been characterised by a slow and
reluctant but definite abandonment of apostolic
authorship and any claim to an early date. It is also
misleading that Robinson does not point ot hte
relationship of his work to a continuous tradition of
gently conservative English scholarship in which it
stands. Most of the positions he argues for can also
be found, for example, in Charles Raven's _The New
Testament_ of 1931. The Roman Catholic tradition up
to the 50s, as found, for example, in the notes to the
Confraternity version of the Bible, is also very close
indeed to Robinson's position (this places after 70
only John's Gospel and Epistles). It is only by
ignoring these antecedents that Robinson can give the
impression he is arguing a very bold and radical
position with the help of long-forgotten schoalrs of
the past. A truer description might be that he is
fighting a rearguard action against the change in
emphasis of British scholarship which has come about
in his lifetime, which he has never come to terms
with, and which has left him stranded in the company
of the Conservative Evangelicals.

It is perhaps part of the same weakness that Robinson
fails to appreciate the strength of the case he has to
meet. In several places he does not mention or answer
the objections which will come immediately to mind to
his critical readers. To take two examples: there is
a powerful case, perhaps best set out by Mitton, for
holding that the peculiar relationship of Ephesians to
Colossians is such that no explanation involving
Pauline authorship is plausible, whether one places
Ephesians near to or far from Colossians in date.
Robinson boldly says 'I have never really doubted the
Pauline authorship of Ephesians' (p. 63), but does not
discuss the arguments at all. Again, the character of
John's [p. 257] theology and his portrayal of Jesus
have persuaded many scholars that there is no choice b
ut to place John fairly late and at least outside
Palestine, if not outside Judaism. Robinson claims an
early date and Palestinian origin for John, but he
makes no serious attempt to list and controvert the
arguments which on the face of it count against this.

At the heart of Robinson's case lies the claim that
the fall of Jerusalem must have been an event of
earth-shaking significance for the Christian Church,
which could not but be reflected in its literature.
The absence of references to it argues for a pre-70
date for all the New Testament. This is a weak case.
On the face of it there are references to the fall of
Jerusalem as post eventum prophecies in Matthew and
Luke, and perhaps in Mark, and it is only be sleight
of hand that Robinson can avoid the clear implications
of these passages, especially of Matt. xxii. 1-10,
demanding of the Gospels a precision of detail if they
are to be post eventum which is found indeed in some
Jewish post eventum references to the destruction of
Jerusalem but which cannot be claimed to be invariable
in such references. But in any case it is not clear
that we should expect extensive references to the Fall
of Jerusalem in all parts of the New Testament to be
dated after 70. Robinson does not himself show why it
should have been of such central significance, simply
quoting other (critical) scholars who have said that
it was. The fall of Jerusalem must have been of
central importance to Palestinian Jews, of lesser but
still considerable importance to diaspora Jews. It
was presumably of great significance to those Jewish
Christians, if any, whose worship was still centred on
the temple. But to Jewish Christians to whom the
temple was no longer central it would have been
significant not directly but as a point of controversy
against the Jews; and to Gentile Christians it must
have been even less important, except again for
possible use in controversy. We should not be
surprised to find works dating to after 70 which do
not refer to it, and it is wrong to treat this as a
silence which is of profound significance for dating.

Robinson deals at greater length than we might have
expected (chap. 3) with the exact chronology and
interrelationship of the Pauline epistles. On the
(sometimes speculative) details of this I do not
propose to comment. Outside the certainly genuine
Pauline epistles there are two different types of
argument to be found. Some letters are widely held to
be pseudepigraphical, and so of after 70; there are
others of which the date is in dispute between the
periods before and after 70, but where pseudepigraphy
is not in question, and the arguments about dating
stand on their own feet.

In the discussion of the possibly pseudepigraphic
works (the Pastorals, [p. 258] Ephesians, 1 and 2
Peter are most obviously in question; I would add
myself Colossians and 2 Thessalonians) Robinson starts
by weighting the arguments as heavily as he can
against the very existence of pseudepigraphical
writings in the New Testament (most clearly on pp.
186-8 and 348), as if there were something
intrinsically unlikely in their creation. But given
that pseudepigraphy was known in Judaism and in the
Greco-Roman world, and is common in Christianity after
the mid second century, it is hard to see why a great
fuss should be made over allowing its existence in the
first half of the second century too. The fact that
some Christians at the end of the second century
objected strongly to the creations of pseudepigraphs
(such as the Gospel of Peter) cannot be evidence for
'the Church's attitude', since others in the Church
were at the same time creating such works. The
alternative Robinson offers in the case of 2 Peter,
and as a possibility for the Pastorals (for he does
not rule out the possibility of Pauline authorship) is
that they were written by a contemporary in the name
of and with the authorization of the professed author
(2 Peter by Jude). It is fair that we in turn should
ask for parallels, which we are not offered, for this
procedure. It seem substantially less likely in the
abstract than pseudepigraphy. Robinson compares the
Pastorals to the charges composed by a modern
missionary bishop for an archidiaconal visitation, and
adds 'It is not unknown for a busy bishop to have
these written for him'. Robinson, himself a bishop,
should know; but he gives no example, and it has the
ring of a serious libel on his colleagues. And though
I myself regard 2 Thess. ii. 2. and iii. 17 as
tell-tale signs of inauthenticity, if they are
authentic, as Robinson holds, they surely count quite
as strongly against the possibility that Paul could
have allowed to be circulated in his own name letters
which were not composed by himself, as against
pseudepigraphy.

To move now to individual cases, Robinson's argument
about 2 Peter is forced. Special pleading is heard in
the explanation of the character of the references to
Paul, and the inclusion of the Pauline epistles in the
GRAFAI. We find too a slippery argument on dating of
a kind Robinson uses more than once: defintely _later_
second-century features (listed on p. 190) are treated
as 'second century' without more ado, as a way of
pushing 2 Peter into the first century (p. 191). If 2
Peter is clearly earlier than the Apocalypse of Peter
this should at least raise the question whether the
latter may be later than the date often given it of c.
135, rather than be used immediately as an argument
for putting 2 Peter well before 135.

On the Pastorals Robinson is regrettably ambiguous.
He does not firmly decide between Pauline authorship
and contemporary composition [p. 259] by someone else,
although his sympathies appear to be towards Pauline
authorship (p. 70). The claim that 'Paul would not be
the last church leader whose style (and indeed
subject-matter) in an _ad Clerum_ differed markedly
from his already highly diverse and adaptable manner
of speaking and writing for wider audiences' is
greatly in need of confirmation by detailed examples.
I find it particularly hard to accept the verdict that
there is nothing in the doctrinal positions of the
Pastorals inconsistent with a date in the life of
Paul. More will be said later on the question of
doctrinal development. In the discussion of 1 Peter
no reference is made to the unparalleled character of
the 'descent into Hades', which is surely not early;
and teh discussion of the character of the Greek of 1
Peter is evasive. A claim that Peter could produce
Greek of the quality here found needs good parallels
(e.g. from the English of German refugees of poor
education) before it can be taken seriously; and
Robinson himself admits the fragility of the Silvanus
hypothesis. The best case he can make in the end is a
plea for a 'suspension of judgement'; which ill
accords with the confidence with which at the end of
the book 1 Peter is placed in 65.

To turn to works for which pseudepigraphy is not in
question, I find that Robinson makes his most
persuasive case (though I do not in fact agree with
it) for a date in the 60s for Hebrews and Revelation.
These were the dates preferred by the Tübingen
school too. If development is to be found within the
New Testament both in my view are likely to be
substantially later; but there is legitimate room for
disagreement here.

Of other books, the synoptic Gospels are not
persuasively handled. Robinson's solution of the
problem of the synoptic relationship (parallel
development of three different traditions, gradually
crystallizing int gospels) makes easier his dating of
all three before 65 (though it is not essential to
this), but is certainly wrong: the linguistic details
of the synoptic relationship demand a direct literary
connection between the three works, very probably in
their present form, with Mark standing as a mid-term
between Matthew and Luke. No serious consideration is
given to the evidence for this. Another feature, the
presence of legendary elements in the Synoptics, needs
explanation and apology if all three are of before 65.
Robinson appears to grant the existence of such
material when he speaks of 'some quasi-legendary
stories' (p. 102); but does not ask whether this has
possible implications for dating. In the case of
Acts, again, although the old argument is very
tempting that Acts stops with Paul preaching freely in
Rome because this is the last event the author knows
to record, Robinson does not look at the reasons which
have led to a widespread rejection of this view: the
[p. 260] detail of Acts, and especially the thin and
legendary character of the material on the earliest
Church in Jerusalem, and apparent inconstistencies
with Paul, about his apostleship as well as about the
Council of Jerusalem, continue to persuade most
scholars that Acts must be from well after 70.

The treatment of John is perhaps the most striking,
but also strange, section of the book. Robinson began
his work on redating the New Testament under the
influence of his own claim that John was the earliest
of the gospels. This has now been abandoned, and John
is seen as completed last of the four gospels; but
only because the synoptic gospels have been made to
leapfrog over John to become even earlier. It is held
that John 'reflects intimate contact with a
Palestinian world blotted off the map in A.D. 70'; and
in the end Robinson attempts even to rehabilitate the
tradition of apostolic authorship. Here again he does
not adequately recognize and attempt to explain the
facts which have slowly pushed the consensus of
British scholars into acceptance of a late date and
non-apostolic authorship. It is unfortunate that no
attempt is made to show that the theology, with its
picture of a self-revealing redeemer who is called 'my
Lord and my God', is possible in first-century
Palestinian Judaism. Perhaps this is because it
cannot be done. Robinson takes Dodd to task for
setting a gulf between John and the events he wrote
about, and says at two points only (which he believes
he can deal with) does Dodd see traces of development
external to Palestine. But it should be noted that on
another page (Historical Tradition in the Fourth
Gospel, p. 94) Dodd refers to a further reason for
placing John at a distances from first-century
Palestine, his misconception that the High Priest
changed annually (xi. 49), and says that 'attempts'
(to avoid this conclusion) 'fail to convince'.
Robinson does not mention this problem. His work on
John is unpersuasive because it lacks control from
what we do know about pre-70 Palestine.

To return now to more general considerations, it is
hard to see why Robinson should so urgently want to
date all the New Testament before 70. This was not
the tradition of the early Church (he has to set aside
Irenaeus's dating of Revelation in the reign of
Domitian), and modern fundamentalists have found no
need to make this claim. There is no susgestion made
that in the formation of the canon there was a
deliberate attempt to include those books and only
those which were written before 70: on Robinson's own
dating the omission of the Didache and of 1 Clement
would then be anomalous. The claim that in the
absence of any such intention, by a sheer fluke, only
those works written before 70 were included seems
extraordinary; and the presence [p. 261] of Daniel in
the Old Testament reminds us how easily a late work
can slip into a substantially earlier collection. Now
on Robinson's own assessment of the evidence the only
proper conclusion is not that a date before 70 is
established for each book, but that for many the date
is wide open, and a firm decision cannot be reached.
If this seems unlikely there may be something wrong
with some of Robinson's working hypotheses, as they
are restated in his last chapter. One must agree with
him that there is very little firm evidence of any
sort for most of the dates given to the New Testament
books; that scholars are heavily dependent one on
another; and that the general consensus is
precariously established, and may well be in need of
substantial alteration (though not, I think, in the
direction favoured by Robinson). But he is wrong,
though not alone in this, on two other points: that no
literary relationship can be found between New
Testament books as a clue; and that the development of
early Christian doctrine, especially in Christology,
was so fast that no conclusions can be drawn from
developed theology to late date. (If he were correct
in these views the only possible conclusion would
appear to be that all New Testament books are quite
andatable in principle as between 30 and 150). On the
first point, though there is something of a fashion,
particularly in England, to deny links between New
Testament books, there are in fact some very clear
literary dependences, established by closer
similarities of wording than is normally found in oral
tradition, and it must be accepted (I would urge) that
Matthew and Luke are dependent on Mark and also on
another common source (or else one on the other of the
two), John on Mark and Luke, James on Romans, 1 Peter
on Ephesians, and Ephesians on Colossians; 2
Thessalonians on 1 Thessalonians; 1 Clement on a
substantial number of books of the New Testament; and
so on. A framework of relationships can be
established in this way.

Furthermore, there is theological development to be
seen. To trace it is difficult and subjective; but if
the evidence is given its full weight there can be no
serious doubt that the Pastorals and Ephesians are
later than Paul, Matthew than Mark, John than the
synoptics. This remains true even if there was a very
fast early development in Christology in particular as
far as the high evaluation of Christ found already in
Paul. For there are developments still to come, and
the Pastorals and John use Christological expressions
not found in Paul, which clearly go beyond him. It is
intriguing that Robinson can acknowledge a cluster of
late ideas, and see them as common to 2 Peter and
Jude, the Pastorals, Colossians, and Ephesians (p.
174), without recognizing that this is exactly the
sort of evidence which argues for markedly later dates
[p. 262] for these books, and undermines his own
attack on views which find development. Indeed if
Robinson had not steadfastly refused to acknowledge
the existence of such evidence he could have made a
very strong point against the consensus of critical
scholars on dating. 1 Clement and the Ignatian
epistles are markedly more advanced doctrinally than
almost all the New Testament works, and a careful
attention to this could have produced a strong
argument for dating e.g. the Pastorals and 1 Peter
well before 100. Robinson, having no feel for such
development, bizarrely dates 1 Clement in 70, and
misses what is really quite a powerful case. Indeed I
believe that here we see a real weakness in the recent
preferred view of critical scholars, and that either
almost all New Testament works now placed near or
after 100 must be dated earlier than is usual (though
not therefore before 70), or a later date must be
given to 1 Clement and Ignatius, the solution I
prefer.

Literary dependences and theological development
firmly rule out Robinson's position; and we must see
his book as an ultimately unconvincing tour de
force. He is carried away by an attractive theory,
and onesidedly ignores difficulties for his views,
steamrollers the evidence, again and again advances
from an improbable possibility into a certainty. He
ignores his own remark that every statement must be
taken as a question, and so reaches a conclusion which
is unevidenced and intrinsically absurd. These are
faults; and although they might be expected, though
still regretted, in the work of a young scholar, they
are surprising in the work of a scholar of Robinson's
seniority. On the other hand, the book is very
stimulating; it underlines the thin basis of the
typical modern consensus on dating; it forces us to
think again about problems of interrelationship
usually ignored; and if it will not persuade many of
the correctness of the view Robinson himself urges, it
will nevertheless be the stimulus to further work
which will in the longer run take us, perhaps in a
direction unwelcome to Robinson, nearer to the truth.

J. V. M. Sturdy

offa

Offa;

Ticking, ticking, slowly ticking. As I have
maintained, this is a fundie board and a
haven for Evangelist. The key to understanding
the gospels is learning hyperbole
(pesher, Truth, political correctness, tooth-
fairy stuff, fundamentalism). The ticking
is the evolution to the obvious truth (without
the capital T). The gospels were written before
AD 50 and John was written first.
It is not that the "scholars" ignore the fact
that the gospels were written before the "Jewish
War", it is that 99.44% of the scholars are
fundies. (BTW, the 99.44% is my hyperbole
comparing "scholars" to Ivory Soap). The "Little
Apocalypses", i.e., On the face of it there
are references to the fall of Jerusalem as [B]
post eventum[B] prophecies in Matthew and
Luke, ... are fundie fallacies. Jesus got
crucified at the other Jerusalem. Jesus
did not get crucified in the Jerusalem of the
high priest Caiaphas which was the campground of
Pilate, but, they had to travel to the other
Jerusalem in order to capture Jesus. It was
this Jerusalem that Jesus was referring to in
the "Little Apocalypses". Prophecies are made
after the fact and that is why they always
become true and if this Truth is repeated in any
vague sense the fundies say, "it was prophesied!"
Notice that I seldom give links to click on.
The reason is "the shared lack of knowledge
inherent among scholars". Clicking on links
reminds me of a "circle jerk". Oh, a "circle
jerk" is in the bible. It is where Moses turns
his snake into a rod.

Thanks,
Offa

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hello, Peter,

What's up with all this JAT Robinson stuff? It's really quite nonsensical -- he was trying to re-date everything in the NT before 70 CE! And this response by Sturdy was quite relevant -- for 1979, that is, when it first appeared.

I don't think anyone takes Robinson seriously these days, except perhaps for some hard core fundies. As Sturdy writes, even the Catholic tradition, itself, didn't go quite that far out on a limb in dating all the gospels so early.

Here's my favourite part in this whole review by Sturdy,

[quote]

One must agree with him [i.e. Robinson] that there is very little firm evidence of any sort for most of the dates given to the New Testament books; that scholars are heavily dependent one on another; and that the general consensus is precariously established, and may well be in need of substantial alteration (though not, I think, in the direction favoured by Robinson).

[unquote]

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Offa,

No serious historian agrees with Barbara Thiering other than Barbara Thiering herself. Her whole theory is based on the assumption that the New Testament was all written up in some sort of a Secret Code, that this Code had then completely and mysteriously vanished into the thin air, and that Ms. Thiering is the only one in the whole world who really knows what it was. (Perhaps she had a Special Revelation?)

In short, as we can see, here's a rather strange conspiracy theory par excellence... So is it any wonder then that no serious historian agrees with her?

Nevertheless, her books -- that, BTW, in spite of the Conspiracy, had no trouble finding mainstream publishers -- did manage to attract some sort of a cult following, surely mostly from among those folks who know rather little about history?

Regards,

Yuri.

Simon Magus

Anything that does not mention the fall of Jerusalem is early, huh? Well the Gospel of Thomas does not even mention the death of Jesus so I suppose it must be really early! That line of reasoning doesn't bother me!

offa

Offa;
Yuri, I do not recall using Barbara Thiering as a reference in my post. I disdain Biblical Scholars because they use the same tact you just did, circumventing an argument. My "ticking" clause is about the fact that all the expertise in the world can not prove that the gospels were written after the fall of Jerusalem. The bible and Josephus inform the wary reader that there were multiple names for locations and that was a "twelve year rule". You fundies live in a fundie land and lack free thought.

thanks, Offa

Yuri Kuchinsky

Offa,

Have you read Thiering's stuff before? Because what you say sounds very similar to her theories.

But perhaps you disdain her because she's a biblical scholar?

Best,

Yuri.

offa

offa;
Yuri, I am a fan of Thiering's and discovered her by accident. I do not agree with her on quite a few topics. When I bought Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls I followed up on her references (I missed maybe one or two) and learned that she had a few fallacies. But she did write against the accepted scholarly opinion. Prof. Robert Eisenman sounds like her pupil and he has a long way to go. Even though what she wrote is being proven true she is derided because of the antiquity of her writings. If you have any complaint about what she has written, since, obviously, you have read her, give me an example and I will discuss it with you because I probably have it on my bookshelf.
You are welcome to distract from what I have written, but I guarantee you, in the end the popular opinion will be that the gospels preceded the Jewish War simply because they did.

thanks,
Offa

Yuri Kuchinsky

No doubt about this, Offa!

<strong> No, you got this part wrong. Eisenman is not "her pupil" in any way. Actually, compared to Thiering, Eisenman has a lot more acceptance within the academic community, although even his theories are widely disbelieved. He seems to be just on the margin, while still acceptable. And he doesn't seem to be too interested in replying to his critics; he prefers this rather aloof position.

The only thing he seems to have in common with Thiering is that they both try to connect the Dead Sea Scrolls with Christian origins. But the details are all different. Personally, I find his theories way too convoluted to make much sense. In particular, his portrayal of Paul as some sort of an evil figure seems a bit far-fetched.

<strong> Sorry, but I'm not so interested in Thiering theories. If you think that she'll be proven true, let's just wait and see.

But I agree with you in spirit, anyway. From my point of view, there are no real "liberals" and "conservatives" in NT studies today. Because they are all died-in-the-wool conservatives! And even this Infidels forum seems to be full of these same conservatives, who, for example, are only too happy to parrot such manifest untruths like the Markan Priority come hell or high water.

The evidence just doesn't matter, it seems. "Let's just all agree that Mark came first, and live happily ever after..." Just like with the Christian apologetics, anything is welcome that gives comfort to the faith -- whatever your faith happens to be...

Regards,

Yuri.

offa

Offa;
Alas, "one of her theories!". Which one? About Eisenman, he goes through an extended proof that the radio carbon dating was performed incorrectly and that segements of the "Dead Sea Scrolls" were written in Jesus' time. Thiering was derided for the same argument. Thiering has John the Baptist as the "Teacher of Righteousness" whereas Eisenman has St. James as this teacher. Thiering's wicked priest is Jesus whereas Eisenman's is one of the Annas priests. Funny thing, Eisenman claims Jesus did not exist and Eisenman is a Jew (coincidence?).
In reading the gospels and Thiering be damned, when one realizes, for instance, that the Fig Tree is a position held by a human then they will be gleened as beginning to understand what they read.