Basic HTML Version
85). He argues tha t every situation
or doctrine evidenced in the New
Testament could and did come to
the fore in the approximate period
15 to 40 years after the crucifixion of
Jesus.
But do not suppose that Robin–
son's purpose is in any way bent
toward critical or academic icon–
oclasm. Far from it. His is not a
negative purpose, nor is
Redating
a
negative book.
Posltlve Contrlbutlon
Throughout, in closely reasoned
point-by-point treatment , Robinson
presents a basis or a justifica tion for
his dating of each book, and chal–
lenges the reader, scholarly or other–
wise, to prove him wrong. He does
not claim to be infallible, but is con–
vinced that in the main he is on the
right track in lowering New Testa–
ment dates.
This is not the place to reexamine
his evidence (nor to j udge it), but
merely to point to its support for the
position that the New Testament is,
after all, exactly what it should be :
the record written by apostles and a
few other teachers in the very first
generation of Christians.
lt
may come as a shock to sorne
Jay Christians today to find him da t–
ing the book of Revela tion (and in–
deed all the writings of John) pre–
A.D. 70. Robinson notes that " the
consensus of the textbooks, which
inform the student within fairly
agreed limits when any given book
of the New Tes tament was written,
rests upon much slighte'r founda–
tions than he probably supposes"
and, "surprising to discover ... only
one book ofthe New Tes tament, the
Apocalypse, is da ted in early Chris–
tian writings" (p. 337). Nevertheless,
he takes issue with the reliability of
even that one sole exception. He
dates the book of Revela tion's back–
drop of persecution ofChristians (as
weU as its scenes of an existing
Temple) not in the reign of Emperor
Domitia n (whose supposed per–
secutions he gives reasons to doubt),
but in the then recent reign of Nero
in the mid-60s (whose persecutions
of Christians are not in dispute).
This was, after a ll , he points out,
following Hort, "'the general ten-
The
PLAIN TRUTH
January
1978
dency of criticism' for most of the
nineteenth century" (p. 224).
An "objec tion has sometimes
been brought against a date in the
60s from the fact tha t Laodicea, al–
most totaUy destroyed in the earth–
quake of 60-61 , is addressed as an
a tftuent church. But the city took
pride in having rebuilt itself without
wa iting for help from imperia l
funds, and by the end of the decade
might well have boasted, ' How well
1 have done! 1 have everything l
want in the world' (Rev. 3: 17). Jron–
ically Moffatt holds that it is irrele–
vant to connect this with th e
reconstruction after the earthquake
because by the 90s ' the incident is
too
f~r
back' ! This is an instance of
how arbitrary [and circular!] dating
procedures so often are" (p. 230).
OtherBooks
The epistles of John, Robinson be–
lieves, retlect the same period of
budding heresy and takeovers by
false teachers that is evidenced in
the letters of Paul in the la te 50s and
beginning of the 60s. The same can
be said for Jude and
II
Peter. The
deviation of the grammar and writ–
ing style from
1
Peter to
Il
Peter and
11
Peter's stylistic resemblance to
Jude, Robinson accounts for by sug–
gesting that Jude wrote
JI
Peter a t
Peter's direction and for his signa–
ture. The "first" letter implied in
IJ
Peter 3:
1
was not
1
Peter but
Jude.
1
Peter is placed a t the onset
of the Neronian persecution, spring
65.
The book of James was written
very early, in the 40s, before there
was a st rict differentiation of Juda–
ism from the Christian Church,
which otherwise would have been
reflected in this piece of typical Jew–
ish-teaching literature.
Robinson accounts for the alleged
ditferences of language between the
different writings of John on the
grounds of the elapse of a decade–
critical in the life of the Church–
between the epistles and Revelation.
John's Gospel, an even earlier book,
retained in John's final editing the
marks of its original uncanonical
composition in the la te 30s or 40s.
The other Gospels shared a sim–
ilar early origin, in forms which
were written and rewritten in the
40s and 50s. But Robinson com–
ple tely rejects the necessity of
having them written by the eccle–
siastical "community," as has been
the usual scholarly view in this gen–
eration. As to their resemblances
a nd common sources, he says:
"Though practically no one would
question the fact of literary inter–
relationship between the synoptists,
it is less clear than
it
was fifty years
ago tha t the first three Gospels can
be set in a simple chronological se–
ries or that we know what the order
of the sequence is. Equally it is
much less evident than ít once
seemed that John is dependent
upon, and for that reason later than,
the synoptists" (pp. 338-339).
The book of Acts dates itself by
th e otherwise unanswerable ques–
tion of why it ends as it does, with
no clímax, no special event, as if left
unfinished to be continued as Jater
events occurred. Robinson's verdict :
Acts was written no later than A.D.
62. Acts then gives us the clues for
const ru c ti ng the framework of
Pa ul 's life and letters, which, Robín–
son accepts, were all written by Paul
(not claiming the unsigned book of
Hebrews, which, however, he be–
lieves was quite obviously written
at a time when the Jewish Temple
services it describes were in full
swing).
Final Thought
Throughout his monumental work,
Robinson insists he is not alone in
seeing the evidence for various ear–
lier datings than has been the recent
custom. In comment and footnotes
he carefully documents a recent
trend back toward conservative
views, and an increasing tendency
toward agreement with the kind of
da ting he now espouses.
Wha tever the final verdict-and it
is clear that scholarly debate has
been reopened- the "book, some–
what paradoxically, seems certain to
prove a powerful intellectua1 sup–
port for orthodox Christiani ty"
(Na–
tional Review,
April 1, 1977).
Whatever the degree of accep–
tance on certain individual datings,
the case Robinson presents is worth
reading.
D
29