Dating of the new testament
Personally I didn’t follow up on the material provided but I’m sure it can be useful to others as he cites many authors unheard of by majority of scholars.
Also Robinson is very in-depth with his research and doesn’t leave one stone unturned. Robinson (1919-1983) was a thoroughgoing theological modernist.
He notes as well the Pauline attitude towards those circulating books claiming to be written by him. Whether you are a scholar or merely a theological dilettante (like me), you need to have this book in your library.
Redating the New Testament is a cunning book, in which Robinson hides his chronological theory, substantiated with the heavyweights of biblical scholarship, behind a facade of light-footed intellectual frivolity.
Below I will attach some of the charts he provides related to the dating of the books and some of the historical events in the book of Acts (Paul’s timeline for example) My favorite sections that Robinson wrote on were that of Acts, Hebrews and Revelation. He began writing this book as a theological exercise, as "little more than a theological joke".
His main and final conclusion thus is “There is, first of all, the observation that all the various types of the early church’s literature (including the Didache, a version of its ‘manual of discipline’) were coming into being more or less concurrently in the period between 40 and 70.”This book will definitely effect you if not completely change your mind on the assumed dates that you have been taught without any internal exegetical or external historical evidence. At some point he asked himself "why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70." He notes that none of the books make any reference (actual or metaphorical) to the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. Robinson (1919-1983) was a thoroughgoing theological modernist.
He also is well aware of what other scholars before him have done, most notably: Lightfoot, Westcott, Hort, Reicke, Guthrie, and others.
To be brief I would highly recommend this book to any laymen New Testament scholars who want a long list of reading after Robinson, as he provides a myriad of sources.
While the author is finite and fallible (as he admits) he does an amazing job dealing with the arguments and counter-arguments and confidently arriving at a date.He, like most western theologians since the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, view the authors of scripture primarily as competing individuals rather than as part of the Church.He has difficulty accepting the authors of scripture as people who cooperated in the proclamation and promulgation of the Gospel.This is the complete dating of the New Testament to which Robinson arrives after detailed and scrupulous research. He contrasts this with the apocryphal books, with their use of the Bishop Dr. He began writing this book as a theological exercise, as "little more than a theological joke".Dating-of-the-NT-Chronologi Next is the timeline of the apostle Paul derived from the book of Acts and some of Paul’s own statements particularly in Galatians. At some point he asked himself "why any of the books of the New Testament needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem in 70." He notes that none of the books make any reference (actual or metaphorical) to the destruction of Jerusalem as a past event. One of Robinson's contributions is to draw attention to the chains of inferences and preconceptions that are used by those arguing for the late dating of the canonical New Testament scriptures.