John a t robinson redating the new testament christian bbw dating
We have some reason to believe that Paul was put to death in the Neronian persecution of A. 64, which means the Book of Acts was composed before this time. This evidence leads us to believe that the first three Gospels were all composed within thirty years from the time these events occurred, a time when unfriendly eyewitnesses were still living who could contradict their testimony if it was not accurate. 80 date might be questioned when it comes to the Gospel of John. There is strong tradition John wrote Revelation there at that time. The evidence points out that: 1) the documents were not written long after the events but within close proximity to them, and 2) they were written by people during the period when many who were acquainted with the facts or were eyewitnesses to them were still living. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? This type of evidence has recently led one liberal scholar, John A. Robinson, to re-date the New Testament documents much earlier than most modern liberal scholars would have us believe. Albright, the great biblical archaeologist, to comment, “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after A. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today” (William F. There is a strong possibility the apostle John’s banishment to Patmos under Domitian was as late as A. This is testified to by Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, and Irenaeus (cf. The inescapable conclusion is that the New Testament picture of Christ can be trusted. It is that certain obstinate questionings have led me to ask just what basis there really is for certain assumptions which the prevailing consensus of critical orthodoxy would seem to make it hazardous or even impertinent to question.Yet one takes heart as one watches, in one’s own field or in any other, the way in which established positions can suddenly, or subtly, come to be seen as the precarious constructions they are.I have no intention of inflicting on the reader a history of the chronology of the New Testament, even if I were competent to do so.Let me just cut some cross-sections at fifty-year intervals to show how the spanof time over which the New Testament is thought to have been written has expanded and contracted with fashion. For till then, with isolated exceptions, the historical study of the New Testament as we know it had scarcely begun.The Book of Acts ends with the apostle Paul being alive in Rome, his death not being recorded. 30, which would make the composition of Luke at the latest within thirty years of the events. Robinson, Redating the New Testament, London, SCM Press, 1976 A.
The way in which this can happen, and has happened, in New Testament scholarship may best be seen by taking some sample dips into the story of the subject.This implies more than the alteration of a few dates: it changes the entire pace and nature of the cultural development. it did not greatly affect the relative chronology for the different regions of Europe: the megalithic tombs of Britain, for instance, were still later than those further south. Then in 1966 came a second revolution, the calibration of the radiocarbon datings by dendrochronology, or the evidence of tree-rings, in particular of the incredibly long-lived Californian bristle-cone pine.This showed that the radiocarbon datings had to be corrected in an upward (i.e.Robinson has argued in Redating the New Testament that the entire New Testament could have been completed before A. 70, which is still well into the eyewitness period. Albright, Recent Discoveries in Bible Lands, New York, Funk and Wagnalls, 1955, p. “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. Moule from whose New Testament seminar so small a seed has produced so monstrous a manuscript, on which he gave such kindly judgment; to my friends, Ed Ball, Gerald Bray, Chip Coakley, Paul Hammond and David Mc Kie, who advised or corrected at many points; and finally to Miss Jean Cunningham of the SCM Press for all her devoted attention to tedious detail. This is a question that the outsider might be forgiven for thinking that the experts must by now have settled.