Redating the new testament

Brace, April 19th, 2010: This refers to the challenge to the earlier, I think much looser, dating of the New Testament prior to something like the 1970s. Indeed, the temple was referred to by the Apostle John 10 Revelation 11 as though it were still standing. He believed that AD70 was a pivotal year for the early church with the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem and found it quite staggering that that event would have gone unmentioned 10 those books which had been believed to have been written very late, such as the epistles of John and the Book of Revelation.

The destiny ('Theophilus'), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts -17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia.

For example, Galatians was often thought to have been a very early book yet it contains the mature Paul of Romans, so even many years ago I believed that Galatians was not a very early epistle at all and must have been written around the same time as the theologically-mature Epistle to the Romans.

I had not learned of the "Robinson redating" by then, but I was later pleased that he had backed up much of what I had come to believe.

I am especially thankful to the author for suggesting an answer to what was for me an unsolvable intellectual puzzle - namely, the relationship between Jude and Second Peter.

His hypothesis that Jude was the author of both letters (with Peter basically adding a few paragraphs to Second Peter, and then signing his name to the whole thing) sounds totally plausible.

Leave a Reply