Basic HTML Version
WHEN WERE THE NEW
ENT BOOKSWRITTEN?
t
s than two centuries ago the
scholarly current first began to
run toward a new and ditferent
view of the New Testament. The
New Testament books were written,
said the new views, neither when–
nor by whom- the Church and tra–
dition had long supposed and incor–
porated into the very titles of the
books in the Authorized and other
versions.
By 1850, the Tübingen school of
bibLical criticism prevailed. F. C.
Baur, dominating the scholarly
scene, questioned the authorship of
every book except Revelation and
four of the epistles of Paul. Al! the
rest, including Acts and Mark, were
placed well into the second century,
far removed from the events they
described-and from apostolicity!
Once again, by 1900, the scheme
had been modified. Harnack, for ex–
ample, placed only Jude, James and
ll
Peter in the second century. But
views at that time were extremely
varied and scholarly disagreements
volatile.
" By 1950 the gap between radical
and conservative had narrowed con–
siderably, and we find a remarkable
degree of consensus." Thus John A.
T.
Robinson, in the introduction to
his most recent book, delineates the
progress of New Testament dating
in a survey by fifty-year periods.
Robinson Strikes Again
fn
Redating the New Testament ,
the
controversia! Cambridge dean ,
former Anglican bishop, British the–
ologian and author
(Honest lo God.
The Human Face of God,
etc.) has
demonstrated once again that he
can be just as challenging and pro–
vocative as ever. But this time there
is no challenge of the virgin birth,
no espousal of "the new morality,"
no denial of bíblica! absolutes.
Instead, building on the basis of
his numerous eartier articles and a
28
by
Lawson Briggs
vast knowledge of the writings of
otbers, he finds reasons sufficient to
now persuade him to date the origi–
nal writing of every New Testament
book to times earlier by far than are
generally accepted- even before the
culmination of the Jewish-Roman
contlict (A.D. 66-70) and the de–
struction of Jerusalem and its
Temple which occurred in A.D. 70.
Indeed. he finds l!he major clue for
his unusually early dating in these
very events, and in the fantastic sig–
nificance-as it seems to him- of the
New Testament's complete failure
to mention or to otherwise betray
any evidence of the fall of Jerusa–
lem or its results, in spite of its nec–
essarily tremendous impact on the
early Church. Most scholars date
the
books
(with the exception of sorne
of Paul's epistles)
afier
that climactic
event. Kümmel's theory- the stan–
dard dating at present- puts most of
the New Testament writings be–
tween A.D. 80 and 110.
Robinson, though he has the
highest respect for fellow scholars,
has a lot to say about the in–
adequacies of presently accepte.d
scholarly techniques. There is , for
example, his statement concerning
the "manifold tyranny of unexam–
ined assumptions. ... . Ditferent
schools of critics take these over
from their predecessors, and of
course individual commentators and
writers of introductions take them
over from each other. Fashions and
critica! orthodoxies are established
wh ich it becomes as hard to go
against in this field as in any
other. . . . Sorne of this is sheer
scholarly laziness" (p. 345).
Once having become accepted
among scholars, ideas and chronol–
ogies tend to become embedded in
academic concrete.
Continuing, Robinson explains :
"Each new student enters a field al–
ready marked out for him by date-
lines which modesty as well as sloth
prompt him to accept, and having
accepted to preserve. The mere fact
that 'New Testameot introduction'
tends to occupy his earliest and
most inexperienced years has a
formative effect, for good or for
ill , on all his subsequent work"
(p.
350).
Early in the book Robinson ex–
plains the reason for his own inves–
tigation: " In fact, ever since the
form critics assumed the basic solu–
tions of the source critics (particu–
larly with regard to the synoptic
problem), and the redaction critics
assumed the work of the form crit–
ics, the chronology of the New Tes–
tament documents has scarcely been
subjected to fresh examination....
H is only when one pauses to do this
that one realizes how thin is the
foundation for sorne of the textbook
answers and how circular the argu–
ments for many of the relative dat–
ings. Disturb the positíon of one
major piece and the pattern starts
disconcertingly to dissolve" (p. 9).
He speaks of the "remnants of
Tü bingen presu pposi tions" from
which scholarshíp has had great dif–
ficulty shaking itself free , and of the
"lingering intluence of an older crit–
ícism, too thoroughly bent upon
negative results" (p. 164).
And what were those influences
and presuppositions?
A priori
as–
sumptions and guesses regarding
the length of time necessary for the
evolutionary development of Chris–
tian ecclesiastical thought (and/or
the documented congregational
problems and needs) , which are
supposed, sometimes erroneously. to
be evidenced in the books in ques–
tion.
"A priori
arguments from Christ–
ology to chronology," he points out.
"and indeed from any 'devel–
opment' to the time requíred for ít ,
are almost wholly unreliable" (p.
The
PLAIN TRUTH January 1978