Robinson redating the new testament
For much of this late dating there is little real evidence. In a letter that serves as an appendix to Robinson’s book Redating the New Testament, Dodd wrote: “I should agree with you that much of the late dating is quite arbitrary, even wanton, the offspring not of any argument that can be presented, but rather of the critic’s prejudice that, if he appears to assent to the traditional position of the early church, he will be thought no better than a stick-in-the-mud.”5 Many years earlier the same point was made by C. Torrey, professor of Semitic Languages at Yale from 1900 to 1932. This cataclysmic event brought to an end the sacrificial worship that was the center of the Jewish religion and it should have merited a mention in the NT books if they were written afterwards. He wrote: “I challenged my NT colleagues to designate one passage from any one of the four Gospels giving clear evidence of a date later than 50 A. In particular, one would have expected to find a reference to the event in the Epistle to the Hebrews, for it would have greatly strengthened the author’s argument that the Temple worship was now obsolete. Along with Harvard theologian Harvey Cox, he spearheaded the field of secular theology and, like William Barclay, he was a believer in universal salvation.Robinson wrote several notable books, the most famous being Honest to God in 1963. The present text, we have reason to believe, was preceded by earlier drafts.
(3) With regard to the arguments for a post-70 date for Luke, the first assumes Mark was not written before A. Is it really plausible to think that Mark would wait decades before writing his brief gospel, which would be so valuable in sharing and leaving with newly established churches as the gospel preachers went about teaching and preaching? As a matter of fact, Jesus’ prophecies are actually evidence that the gospels were written before A. 70, for Luke never casts the Romans in the role of enemies in his writings. Besides that, we have Josephus’s descriptions of the sacking of Jerusalem in A. 70, and many of the striking peculiarities of the city’s destruction are absent from the prophecies.(2) The second argument assumes that Jesus did not have divine power to predict the future as the gospels state He did.In other words, the argument assumes in advance that Jesus was merely human.Invoking these dates barely opens the door to argue that the New Testament documents, especially the Gospels, are mythological and that the writers created the events contained in them, rather than simply reporting them. In the 19th century, Ferdinand Christian Baur (17921860), founder of the Tubingen School of theology, maintained that the majority of the New Testament documents were pseudonymous works and gave little weight to the evidence of numerous citations provided by the early Christian writers (commonly known as church fathers).The Right Reverend Dr John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919 in Canterbury, England– December 5, 1983) was a New Testament scholar, author, and former Anglican bishop of Woolwich, England.