5 dating tip - Robinson redating the new testament

On the basis that the fall of Jerusalem is never mentioned in the New Testament writings as a past fact, Dr.

(Robinson contrasts the restrained style of the canonical books with the more flamboyant and detailed post-event writings of II Baruch, II Esdras, and the Sibylline Oracles.) Ultimately he supports the (then shocking) conclusion that none of the New Testament books were written after 70 A. What is also clear is that Robinson (as a theological modernist), has no conception of the church or tradition as an authority.

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.

"If the chronology of the documents and the pattern of development should turn out to be anything like what I have suggested, then there will be scope for numerous new 'trajectories' to be drawn and for rewriting many introductions to - and ultimately theologies of - the New Testament.

For dates remain disturbingly fundamental data." Dr.

However, for the Eastern Church, the question of who wrote what is subordinate to the question of inspiration and canonicity.

Where the modern scholar might look askance at seeming interpolations such as the ending chapter of the Gospel of Mark, within the Eastern Church this interpolation is not a problem, because the Church determined that the supposed (and probable) interpolation is part of inspired scripture.

He has difficulty accepting the authors of scripture as people who cooperated in the proclamation and promulgation of the Gospel.

To the western scholar and theologian, the questions of who wrote what and when are quite important.

Robinson, dean of chapel at Trinity College, Cambridge, and assistant bishop of Southwark, is published (1976) by SCM Press, 58 Bloomsbury Street, London, England.

Tags: , ,