Robinson redating the new testament

Robinson wrote several notable books, the most famous being Honest to God in 1963.Robinson's own evaluation of Honest to God, found in the subsequent Exploration into God stated that the chief contribution of this work was its successful synthesis of the work of seemingly opposed theologians Paul Tillich and Dietrich Bonhoeffer.But if He really was the Son of God, as the gospels state, then He could have prophesied the future. But that assumption is itself founded on mere assumptions. At face value, it makes more sense to say Mark was written before A. 70, for it seems unbelievable that Mark (whom critics agree was John Mark mentioned in Acts) would wait thirty to forty years to write down his gospel. If he wrote afterwards, he could not have portrayed the Romans only as friends.(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.No New testament documents make clear reference to the destruction of the temple.Some appear to prophecy the destruction, but it is clearly written as prophecy and not fulfilment, and even then it is not an absolute certainty.

robinson redating the new testament-8robinson redating the new testament-84robinson redating the new testament-28

Bishop John A Robinson makes a well-argued case for this in his book "Redating the New Testament", or its popular version "Can we Trust the New Testament? Extensive quotes of the New Testament in letters known to be written at the end of the 1st century AD show that the NT documents were well known and accepted by that time, although it is technically possible that they may have undergone further editing between then and the dates of the first positively dated manuscripts from a hundred years later. So to answer the questions: As others have noted, dates of the writing of New Testament books are disputed. This page -- -- also gives dates, though some of these are rather earlier than the dates I've usually heard.

Robinson proposed abandoning the notion of a God "out there", existing somewhere out in the universe as a "Cosmic supremo," just as we have abandoned already the idea of God "up there", the notion of the old man up in the sky.

In its place, he offered a reinterpretation of God, whom he defined as Love, spelled with a capital L (Robinson, 1963a, pp. After endorsing Paul Tillich's assertion that God is the "Ground of all being" (ibid., p.

The dating of the New Testament is a matter of some controversy, so there is no consensus answer to the question of which ones were written after the destruction of the temple.

(The Old Testament books were of course written well before).

257

Leave a Reply