Is the New Testament truly an “eye-witness” account of events that occurred at the time of Christ and during the life of Paul, or is it a later composition—an account recorded by a second generation of Christians and influenced by Church tradition and theology? This is the question that J.A.T. Robinson sets out to answer in his book, Redating the New Testament.[1]
The consensus among modern scholarship is that the New Testament Scriptures, particularly the Gospels and Pastoral epistles are of late origins. It is usually claimed that Mark was the first gospel written around A.D. 70. Matthew’s composition is dated in the 80’s, followed by Luke in the late 80’s. The Gospel of John, which is regarded as an even later Christological development is dated in the 90’s followed by the Apocalypse, dated in 96.
Late authorship fits neatly within a higher critical worldview that regards Scripture as a natural evolution of Church tradition. One assumes that the evidence for a late date is based on sound evidence rooted in recent discoveries in History, Archeology, Patristics, Papyrology and other related fields – but the problem is that none of these fields can determine conclusively either a late (80-150) or early date (40-70) of composition. Are we then left in the uncomfortable position of relying on personal bias (usually in the case of modern scholarship this is a bias against the supernatural)? Not so, for Scripture itself provides the internal evidence that allows us to accord it an early date.
The significance of 70
As Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon observe; “The fact that both conservatives (F.F. Bruce, John Wenham) and liberals (Bishop John A.T. Robinson) have penned defences of early dating for the New Testament is a witness to the strength of the data for an early date.” [2] J.A.T. Robinson himself comments;
“One of the oddest facts about the New Testament is that what on any showing would appear to be the single most datable and climactic event of the period – the fall of Jerusalem in ad 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple – is never once mentioned as a past fact. It is, of course, predicted; and these predictions are, in some cases at least, assumed to be written (or written up) after the event. But the silence is nevertheless as significant as the silence for Sherlock Holmes of the dog that did not bark.” (JAT 1993, 14) [3]
John Robinson’s survey of New Testament scholarship is extensive and the argument presented varies – from overwhelming in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews through powerful (the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles of John) to merely strong (the Pastoral Epistles, the non-Johannine Catholic Epistles and Revelation). His argument is cumulative — whereas each line of reasoning is possibly unpersuasive by itself, but taken collectively his arguments converge and render the conclusion very probable. The book of Acts is a prime example of a book that seems to have no knowledge of anything that occurs after (roughly) 65 AD. The omission of the martyrdoms of Peter Paul and James (which occurred ca. 64-66 AD) and the neglect to mention the cataclysmic destruction of the temple and dispersion of the Jews makes a the case for an early date for Acts very forceful. This in turn effects the dating of Luke, which most scholars accept should be dated before Acts; in turn this has a knock on effect on the dating of Mark, as scholars believe Luke depends on Mark’s Gospel as a source.
Robinson also reconsiders the dates of several sub apostolic works: The Clementine Epistles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache, the accepted dates for which range from the 90’s to the latter half of the Second Century. In his penultimate chapter, “A Post-Apostolic Postscript,” he dates the “Epistle of Clement” to the early months of 70 AD. Robinson’s important work on dating the New Testament has continued in his book, The Priority of John. [4]
Conclusion
J.A.T. Robinson challenges the presuppositions that underlie much of what is currently written about First Century Christianity. His analysis is thorough and thought provoking – this is not merely an argument about dating but about the historicity of the New Testament. Most Christadelphians would concur with his conclusions – the exception being his early (pre 70) date of the Apocalypse based on the denial that there is any evidence that there was a “Persecution of Domitian” in the 90s (since just about the only “evidence” for this is Clement itself).
I recommend this book to fellow Christadelphians; internal Scriptural evidence on dating is always to be preferred above uncorroborated external evidence – and if it challenges our own preconceptions on the Apocalypse as much as it challenges the bias of modern scholarship on dating the rest of the New Testament – that can only be a good thing.
[1] John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Xpress Reprints 1993; First published 1976 SCM Press). Also available online [April 10 2007] http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1976_robinson_redating-testament.html or as a PDF
[2] Dr John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon, The Historical reliability of the New Testament Text. Available online as PDF format [cited April 10 2007] The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text—Part Four
[3] Similarly C. F. D. Moule: “It is hard to believe that a Judaistic type of Christianity which had itself been closely involved in the cataclysm of the years leading up to ad 70 would not have shown the scars – or, alternatively, would not have made capital out of this signal evidence that they, and not non-Christian Judaism, were the true Israel. But in fact our traditions are silent.” C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament, (London: Adam & Charles Black 1962), 123
[4] In his posthumous publication Robinson tackles the utter subjectivity of the argument that since John is “more Christologically developed” than the Synoptics it must have been longer in the making. He concludes that the topographical and chorographical knowledge of Palestine before 66/70 is more accurate in the Fourth Gospel and that it displays a greater coherence and verisimilitude (and most likely historical accuracy) of the Passion Narrative than the Synoptics. Robinson argues for the priority of John and believes that the Fourth Gospel is independent of the Synoptics, and that they are uninfluenced by one another. J.A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John, (London, 1985: SCM Press).
Review of “The Early Earth” by John Whitcomb (1972)