<![CDATA[ Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

<![CDATA[ Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry - Blog]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 17:15:43 -0500Weebly<![CDATA[What Is A Development or Deformation of Liturgy?]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 01:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/what-is-a-development-or-deformation-of-liturgyScholarly Reading
8/11/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 11: The Middle Ages: Development and Deformation." (pp. 338-379). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (Personal Library)
   After a candid admission that even defining the parameters of the Middle Ages is difficult at best, Bouyer notes that there were a number of liturgical "renascences" beginning in about the eleventh century (Bouyer 1968, p. 339). These were creative moves which may have constituted both deformations and developments of the eucharistic liturgy.
   During the Middle Ages, in the Byzantine tradition, as in much of the East, the eucharist was regularly that of Basil, James, or Chrysostom. These were gradually stripped of variations from one another (Bouyer 1968, p. 340). Apart from the influence of Byzantium, prayers were added to the liturgy (Bouyer 1968, p. 341). Bouyer's overall opinion is that, especially in the West, this has been harmful to liturgy. "When it is not fixed, it tends only to dissolve" (Bouyer 1968, p. 342).
   As an example, Bouyer turns to the eucharist of Nestorius (Bouyer 1968, pp. 342ff). In this, he sees a number of "exhausting dissertations which have more the feeling of coming from a professorial chair than an altar" (Bouyer 1968, p. 350). The Armenian eucharist, in contrast, is well ordered and, in Bouyer's view, beautiful. He goes on with extensive quotations from it (Bouyer 1968, pp. 351ff). In these quotations there are numerous instances of the priest praying a particular text silently or in a soft voice, while the choir continues iwth something else. This is the first documentation of such a practice. Bouyer takes as a third example Maronite anaphoras from Ethiopia, in which the liturgy seems interrupted by exclamations or digressions (Bouyer 1968, pp. 358ff).
   In the West more broadly the Roman canon was gradually adopted and universal by the eleventh century (Bouyer 1968, p. 360). The gradual adoption may be illustrated by comparison of numerous Medieval sacramentaries, of which Bouyer mentions the Leonine (Bouyer 1968, p. 360), the Gelasian and the Gregorian (Bouyer 1968, p. 361). The various Gallican sacramentaries, which Bouyer has already discussed, are also examples of these adoptions. The sacramentaries typically provide numerous liturgical options. For instance, Bouyer notes about 200 different prefaces for the eucharist found in the Gelasian sacramentary (Bouyer 1968, p. 362).
   The practice of "the silent canon," in which many of the eucharistic prayers are prayed silently or in an undertone by the celebrant, is a challenge to our study of liturgy in this period (Bouyer 1968, p. 366). The actual practices are not always clearly stated. The practice may have developed from an impatience which led priests to continue in the liturgical prayers while the choir or congregation was singing or chanting (Bouyer 1968, p. 371). Bouyer mentions an alternative theory for the origin of the silent canon, namely that it was inspired by mystery religions and a desire to protect the prayers from profane imitations (Bouyer 1968, p. 374). However, ancient authors who discuss the practice do not indicate any protection of the liturgy as a reason for the silence. Eventually, the liturgy would progress along two independent tracks, one for the priest and one for everyone else (Bouyer 1968, p. 377).

]]><![CDATA[Medieval Eucharists Way Out West]]>Thu, 06 Aug 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/medieval-eucharists-way-out-westScholarly Reading
8/6/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 10: The Gallican and Mozarabic Eucharist." (pp. 315-337). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (Personal Library)
   Bouyer considers the extreme western rites, those of the Gallican and Mozarabic types, to have stronger connections with Syrian rites than with Alexandrian or Roman rites (Bouyer 1968, p. 316). He notes this is even visible in the architecture and arrangement of church buildings as well as in the dress of priests, bishops, and deacons.
   In essence, from a liturgical standpoint, Bouyer considers the Gallican and Mozarabic rites to be the same, as they have only slight differences (Bouyer 1968, p. 317). About the time of Charlemagne, liturgical books which adopted elements of the Gallican liturgies were brought to Rome, where they had a strong influence on liturgical usage due to the Roman framework of the liturgy (Bouyer 1968, p. 318). This resulted in a greater similarity between the Roman and Gallican rites.
   Within the many texts of the Gallican type, Bouyer finds the prayers tend to be abbreviated when compared with the West Syrian evidence. He also finds in them a strong influence of Augustine, with material freely borrowed (Bouyer 1968, p. 320). Dating of the liturgies is difficult. Bouyer notes texts copied as early as the seventh century, but of material of unknown earlier date (Bouyer 1968, p. 321). The additional problem of transmission of materials from East to West by someone who would be capable of such a fundamental task is still unresolved. Bouyer is able to suggest nobody during the course of hundreds of years who would be capable of such a task, with the possible exception of Eusebius, bishop of Milan 451-465/6 (Bouyer 1968, p. 324). Chiefly due to the volume of liturgical materials, Bouyer does not evaluate them individually. He rather illustrates different varieties of situations in which many hands of composition and redaction can be found.
   The variety found in the formularies of the Gallican type lead Bouyer to conclude that there was an extended period of liturgical improvisation (Bouyer 1968, p. 329). Because of an extensive culture of improvisation, at some point a written formulary was imposed on churches (Bouyer 1968, p. 330). However, Bouyer sees this as a compositional movement in which improvised formularies were applied to churches. A weakness with his theory, conceded by him, is that the liturgy remained fluid despite the existence of formularies. He concludes that this was possible due to a lack of overriding authority exercised to create stability (Bouyer 1968, pp. 331-332).
   Bouyer concludes the chapter with a discursus into the offertory prayers of the Gallican rites, which he thinks may be related to Jewish Teffillah, though not displaced from the eucharist proper (Bouyer 1968, pp. 336-337).

]]><![CDATA[Does the Byzantine Eucharist Represent an Evolutionary Missing Link?]]>Tue, 04 Aug 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/does-the-byzantine-eucharist-represent-an-evolutionary-missing-linkScholarly Reading
8/4/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 9: The Classical Form of the Byzantine Eucharist: The East Syrian Survivals of Intermediary Types." (pp. 281-314). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (Personal Library)
   In the East Syrian region, Bouyer notes the rise of "liturgies attributed respectively to St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil" (Bouyer 1968, p. 281). These were adopted by the church in Constantinople. In Antioch, apparently from before Chrysostom's time, there was a so-called liturgy of the twelve apostles. Chrysostom's liturgy follows this in general, but with additions and omissions (Bouyer 1968, p. 282).
   Bouyer moves into an analysis of this liturgy of the twelve apostles, which may have connections both to a short Antiochian liturgy and to Apostolic Constitutions (Bouyer 1968, p. 282). The text is similar to that of St. James. Notably, in the second portion, while the focus is on Jesus' merciful love, it is presented primarily as a quotation.
   Next is a comparison of the liturgy of the twelve apostles with the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Bouyer 1968, p. 286). Here bouyer observes the dialogue consists largely of direct quotes from St. Paul. There is also significant material that parallels the liturgy of the twelve apostles, though this text is Syriac and that one Greek (Bouyer 1968, p. 287).
   The liturgy of St. Basil may be of an earlier date than that of St. Chrysostom, but later than the liturgy of the twelve apostles (Bouyer 1968, p. 290). It was brought into use in Egypt, then in a longer form into Cappadocia (Bouyer 1968, p. 291). Much of this liturgy is created from biblical sentences arranged into a selective narrative about God's person and work. In contrast to the liturgy of St. James, that of St. Basil draws a complex picture of the interactions of the persons of the Trinity (Bouyer 1968, p. 297). Further, Bouyer observes that "[t]he unfolding of the prayer itself assembles the whole content of the Eighteen Blessings more precisely than any other previously cited Christian formulary" (Bouyer 1968, p. 303). Even the progression of ideas is mostly intact.
   Bouyer brings us back to the liturgical traditions of East Syria, where some groups use an expanded form of the liturgy of Addai and Mari, under the identity of Nestorius or of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Bouyer 1968, p. 304). Here, the epiclesis is after the intercessions, rather than being before them. All in all, Bouyer concludes that the liturgies reviewed in this chapter are all related to the prayers of the Palestinian synagogues, and that especially the Roman and Alexandrian liturgies developed naturally from these roots (Bouyer 1968, p. 310).

]]><![CDATA[Newsletter for August 2026]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2026 21:16:19 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/newsletter-for-august-2026

July 31 2026 Newsletter

]]><![CDATA[West Syrian Eucharists and the Agape Meal]]>Thu, 30 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/west-syrian-eucharists-and-the-agape-mealScholarly Reading
7/30/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 8: The West Syrian Liturgy: The Apostolic Constitutions and the Liturgy of Saint James." (pp. 244-280). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (Personal Library)
   Bouyer begins this chapter with his presupposition that at some point in early Christianity "the service of prayers and readings and the eucharistic meal were combined into one" and that the liturgy of Rome and Alexandria were "practically universal in the Church" (Bouyer 1968, p. 244). However, in the fourth century a different type of eucharistic liturgy emerged in Western Syria, which Bouyer calls "profoundly different" though with "the same elements" (Bouyer 1968, p. 244). These liturgies are found in the 8th book of Apostolic Constitutions (frequently also called the Clementine liturgy), as well as in the Liturgy of St. James.
   Though some scholarship has attempted to consider the West Syrian liturgies "original," Bouyer considers this "the most curious aberration conceivable" (Bouyer 1968, p. 246). He takes the level of development to be far too advanced to have come from the earliest Christian period. Bouyer proceeds for several pages to discuss distinctions between a Hebraic form of expression, which features compact statements in short sentences, with the complex Greek periodic writing. The composition of Apostolic Constitutions decidedly follows the Greek patterns rather than the Hebraic ones (Bouyer 1968, p. 250).
   The eucharistic liturgy from Apostolic Constitutions, though lengthy, could well be done in about 15 minutes, which strikes Bouyer as a reasonable period, considering the importance of the eucharist and the breadth of the prayers (Bouyer 1968, p. 251). The comprehensive nature of the liturgy is striking. Theological claims are specific and concise.
   Bouyer reproduces Apostolic Constitutions book 8 in an English version, inserting a few comments on the different sections, which consist of an introduction followed by prayers arranged in a trinitarian scheme (Bouyer 1968, pp. 253 ff). In the portion pertaining to the Father, we note especially that his work of creation takes place through the Son, who is also presented as the Logos of God (Bouyer 1968, p. 258). The portion pertaining to the Son focuses on the paradoxes inherent in Jesus' full divinity and humanity, as well as on Jesus' earthly works of ministry (Bouyer 1968, p. 262). The third portion, pertaining to the Holy Spirit, incorporates the institution narrative (Bouyer 1968, p. 265). There follow prayers for specific individuals and situations, which vary based on place and time (Bouyer 1968, p. 267).
   Bouyer next turns his attention to the liturgy of St. James, which he takes to be a later synthesis of material from Apostolic Constitutions (Bouyer 1968, p. 268). It is a more compact liturgy, with many allusions to Jerusalem. The liturgy of St. James was used for many years throughout the East, before being replaced by liturgies attributed to Basil and to Chrysostom (Bouyer 1968, p. 269). The liturgy, while showing an economy of arrangement, still contains extensive and broad ranging intercessions (Bouyer 1968, p. 277). This combination of extensive prayer and precise structure strikes Bouyer as something which would take many years to develop (Bouyer 1968, p. 278).

]]><![CDATA[Eucharistic Descriptions from the 5th and 6th Centuries]]>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/eucharistic-descriptions-from-the-5th-and-6th-centuriesScholarly Reading
7/28/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 7: The Alexandrian and Roman Eucharists." (pp. 187-243). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame. (Personal Library)
   The eucharist in the Roman canon, in use since the sixth century, is not very similar to that of Hippolytus or of Addai and Mari. The differences are so great as to lead Bouyer to conclude that it is not a descendant of either and that those earlier forms were unlikely to have been used in Rome (Bouyer 1968, p. 187). The changes are too extensive for Bouyer to embrace a scenario in which the schema in Hippolytus could have made such a transformation.
   In this regard, Bouyer compares the liturgy found in Ambrose of Milan, which bears more similarity to the Roman canon than to Hippolytus (Bouyer 1968, p. 190). Yet to decide the order from Milan, in about a hundred years, supplanted that of Hippolytus as allegedly used in Rome, strikes Bouyer as an impossibility (Bouyer 1968, p. 191).
   Rather than evaluating the claims of Hippolytus that unacceptable innovations were being made in Rome, Bouyer pursues the similarities between the intercessions in Alexandrian usage and those in the Roman canon (Bouyer 1968, p. 192). The Alexandrian rite shows an influence from the West Syrian rites, but with substantial rearrangement of the petitions. Bouyer describes the various portions of the eucharistic prayers and their meaning in some detail. He particularly finds that after the sanctus, the themes and most of the order of the prayers correspond closely to the Jewish meal prayers (Bouyer 1968, p. 197).
   The Alexandrian liturgy bears comparison with an archaic work found as the Der Balizeh anaphora, as well as the anaphora of Serapion (Bouyer 1968, pp. 200 ff). In the Der Balizeh fragment, Bouyer finds language which is almost identical to that of the liturgy of St. Mark. In the anaphora of Serapion, a contemporary of Athanasius, Bouyer finds numerous peculiarities, but a strong correspondence to the liturgy of St. Mark (Bouyer 1968, p. 207).
   Bouyer continues with a comparison and analysis of both the anamnesis and the epiclesis in Egyptian liturgies (Bouyer 1968, p. 209). In his analysis, Bouyer notes a number of elements which he considers to show evidence of direct dependence on other documents (Bouyer 1968, p. 211).
   Having tied the Alexandrian eucharist to other liturgies of greater antiquity, Bouyer compares the Alexandrian and Roman eucharists, along with their possible antecedents. He finds considerable structural and verbal parallels (Bouyer 1968, p. 215). In the course of his extensive comparative comments, Bouyer also includes substantial theological commentary, discussing the doctrines which could lead to the specific wording and structure of the prayers.
   Having discussed at length the parallels between the Alexandrian and Roman liturgy, Bouyer turns to an analysis of the Roman eucharist on its own merits (Bouyer 1968, p. 227). He first discusses at length the Proper Preface and its variability, which has, in the West, settled in a form of different prefaces according to the season of the church year (Bouyer 1968, p. 230). As he walks through the liturgy he concludes the similarity to Alexandrian liturgy likely shows dependence on it or that the two have a common ancestor. In the end of the chapter, he returns to Hippolytus, again emphasizing that the eucharistic liturgy in Hippolytus could not have developed into that of the Roman canon (Bouyer 1968, p. 243).

]]><![CDATA[Eucharist Is Described in the 3rd and 4th Centuries]]>Thu, 23 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/eucharist-is-described-in-the-3rd-and-4th-centuriesScholarly Reading
7/23/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 6: The Patristic Eucharist and the Vestiges of the Primitive Eucharist: The Liturgies of Addai and Mari and of St. Hippolytus." (pp. 136-186). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame (Personal Library)
   Bouyer asserts that written versions of liturgical prayers only came about in response to fears that tradition could be changed without a written safeguard (Bouyer 1968, p. 136). Thus he explains the existence of texts which codify prayers. He additionally asserts that the written versions were based on existing practice and that they left room for alteration in details but not for wholesale change (Bouyer 1968, p. 137).
   This freedom for alteration in details means that we can expect to see a wide variety of eucharistic prayers, which can generally be sorted by region, but that they are very likely to have a common structure and many elements in common. This is what Bouyer finds, as he considers the difficulty in identifying specific roots of liturgical prayers in different locations (Bouyer 1968, p. 138). Rather than seeing liturgy as subject to central control, for instance, from Rome or Byzantium, the liturgy developed through a pattern of relatively voluntary borrowing and adaptation (Bouyer 1968, pp. 139-141).
   Bouyer continues with an analysis of the West Syrian and Gallican-Mozarabic types of liturgy (Bouyer 1968, p. 143). He briefly details the structure, which is noteworthy due to its clarity of form.
   Alexandrian and Roman eucharistic prayers follow a different order than those in the West Syrian tradition. The prayers are not so clearly focused on the persons of the trinity as on the creation and redemption of the living and the dead (Bouyer 1968, p. 144). In the Alexandrian tradition the intercessions are grouped near the beginning, while the Roman form has them more spread out (Bouyer 1968, p. 145).
   Another type, from East Syria, follows the liturgy of Addai and Mari, more ancient than those previously discussed. Here the intercessions are grouped together and, unlike anywhere else, are between the anamnesis and the epiclesis (Bouyer 1968, p. 146). Bouyer takes the structure to be built from elements coming from different times, and that, apart from the prayers of the patristic period, it represents the oldest eucharistic composition we have (Bouyer 1968, p. 147). Yet the prayers are closely related to the Jewish prayers over the cup at the end of a meal.
   Bouyer compares the anaphora of Addai and Mari to its descendants among Nestorian and Chaldean Christians (Bouyer 1968, pp. 147 ff). He considers the root material to be similar. By eliminating paragraphs which he thinks are later interpolations, it is possible to derive "a rather well formed prayer in three paragraphs" which correspond to the traditional Jewish cup prayer (Bouyer 1968, p. 150).
   Though not a main feature of his argument, Bouyer makes a comment which is relevant to my studies. Footnote 18 on p. 149 cites "Dom Bernard Botte, "Problèmes de l'anaphore syrienne des apôtres Addaï et Mari," in L'Orient Syrien, vo. X, fasc. 1, 1965, pp. 89ff. The text is translated into French on pp. 91ff, after the Missale Urmiense (Rome) 1906. Brightman, op. cit., pp. 283ff. A better form of the text was published by W.F. Macomber, "Orientalia Christiana Periodica vol. xxxii, fasc. 2, 1966, pp. 336ff." Botten observed the absence of the Word of Institution in the liturgy. Bouyer summarizes Botte's argument as follows. "[T]he liturgical manuscripts where these words do not appear are legion, even in cases where there is not the least doubt, if only according to the commentators of the period, about their compulsory presence in the celebration. This is actually the case in the West, with all the texts of the Gallican liturgy, with all the earliest texts of the Mozarabic liturgy, and in the East with many Syriac manuscripts. particularly among the Maronites. We should simply suppose that every celebrant knew the customary formula in a given rite by heart." (Bouyer 1968, p. 152).
   Having discussed at some length the liturgies descended from Addai and Mari, Bouyer attempts a reconstruction of what he would take to be the original form of the eucharistic text (Bouyer 1968, p. 154). He concludes that after his "restoration" the "prayer appears obviously with a character that is still fully Semitic" (Bouyer 1968, p. 155). The changes made have effectively made the prayers, though Christian, entirely Semitic in structure and phrasing. From this Semitic root, Bouyer postulates the later developments were added as a greater explanation of the sacrament (Bouyer 1968, p. 156).
   Bouyer has suggested, by the fact that the eucharistic prayers are based on Jewish mealtime prayers, that the eucharist was a regular meal at first, then became detached from a meal. He sees this as the pattern found in the Apostolic Tradition, in which the (putative) author, Hippolytus, draws in archaic liturgical patterns to demonstrate the antiquity of the eucharist (Bouyer 1968, p. 158). Though readily admitting that a thorough evaluation of the matters of authorship, provenance, and text history is beyond the scope of this volume, Bouyer moves into an analysis of the text in terms similar to his evaluations above (Bouyer 1968, p. 159). However, before dealing with actual eucharistic prayers, Bouyer gives a lengthy discursus about the likely identity of Hippolytus and his philosophies, as well as can be postulated based on other works with the same attribution. Having concluded that Hippolytus was likely from a remote Syrian community and was trying to create a liturgy which would seem ancient, Bouyer provides the eucharistic portions as reconstructed by Dom Botte (Bouyer 1968, pp. 168ff).
   It is significant at this point to note the text is "reconstructed" so as to say what it may have said before multiple accretions came into it. Bouyer gives his clear opinion that, as reconstructed, there is no clear epiclesis and that the text could seem incoherent at times (Bouyer 1968, p. 170). However, Bouyer presses on, summarizing Botte's defense of the Latin text as he reconstructed it (Bouyer 1968, p. 172). Though the argument for finding an original reading by translation of the Latin into Greek by way of Syriac is elegant, it is not clear whether it is actually helpful in confirming a historical context for the development of the theology in the eucharistic prayers.
   Bouyer concludes, eventually, that since the eucharistic prayers of Hippolytus cannot be divided into the three separate berakoth of the Jewish meal prayers, even though they contain all the typical petitions in order, the eucharistic prayers would not represent anything which might have been prayed in the apostolic period (Bouyer 1968, p. 180). Rather, he views Hippolytus as a later, Hellenistic author, who is simply archaizing. I observe that though there is a claim of Hellenism on p. 180, on p. 167 Hippolytus was from a remote part of Syria.
   Because of the similarity in organization of the eucharistic portions of Addai and mari with Hippolytus, Bouyer concludes that they had a common and ancient root, that of the last three berakoth used at a Jewish meal. They are separated in Addai and Mari, and combined into one in Hippolytus. The content is very similar, as is the order (Bouyer 1968, p. 182). Both liturgies point to God in Christ as the one who blesses his people and uses them as priests before him (Bouyer 1968, p. 183). Bouyer closes the chapter with several brief references to other, later liturgies which have preserved some or all of the elements found both in Addai and Mari and in Hippolytus.

]]><![CDATA[Eucharist as an Expansion of Berakoth]]>Tue, 21 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/eucharist-as-an-expansion-of-berakothScholarly Reading
7/21/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 5: From the Jewish Berakah to the Christian Eucharist." (pp. 91-135). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame (Personal Library)
   Bouyer observes that Jesus has an unequalled understanding of both the Old Testament and of the application of prayer. The one prayer of any length which is recorded of Jesus and which is not intended for his disciples to emulate is found in Luke 10:21-22, cf. Matthew 11:25-27 (Bouyer 1968, p. 93). This prayer both rejoices in the presence of God and urges a knowledge of God to spread through the world. The spread of God's will is accomplished because of God's good pleasure (Bouyer 1968, p. 94). The berakah in John 17 is centered on the glorification of God specifically through Christ (Bouyer 1968, p. 96).
   Bouyer concedes the importance of an analysis of whether the Last Supper was the Passover meal or not, but he maintains that for the purpose of his current work the origin is less important (Bouyer 1968, p. 97). The paschal references in the berakoth are present whether the meal is a Passover meal or not (Bouyer 1968, p. 99). The elements of blessing are the same for any meal. While we would always hope our prayers and blessings are appropriate for any occasion, the evening meal blessings particularly fit the time of Passover (Bouyer 1968, p. 99).
   In the narrative of the Last Supper, Jesus tells his disciples to repeat the meal in his memory. Bouyer does not think it remotely unreasonable to think the meal would be repeated, as it was already a part of the culture of the disciples. Rather, the memorial aspect was what would be new. Bouyer prefers the translation "as my memorial" which he sees as more closely related to a rabbinic understanding of ceremonies (Bouyer 1968, p. 103). Here, in harmony with the overall context of a Jewish understanding of berakoth, the celebration recognizes God's presence with his people, which is to be remembered by God and men (Bouyer 1968, p. 104).
   Within the context of the Jewish berakoth, then, Bouyer considers it essential that we understand the entirety of the Eucharist as a Christian expansion of the Jewish berakoth used for mealtimes (Bouyer 1968, p. 104). Accordingly, we also find Paul's letters opening with berakoth, a model of liturgical practices in other contexts (Bouyer 1968, p. 107). Bouyer illustrates the developed use of berakoth at some length with extensive biblical quotations.
   Bouyer moves on to the earliest documented liturgies with the Didache (Bouyer 1968, p. 115). He emphasizes that liturgical prayers almost certainly existed prior to the time when they were gathered together (Bouyer 1968, pp. 115-116). The prayers of the Didache have strong roots in Judaism, particularly in the mealtime prayers. In Bouyer's opinion, the eucharistic prayer of Didache 9-10 is almost entirely Hebrew in nature, with only a few modifications (italicized on p. 116) made to adjust it for use in a Christian setting (Bouyer 1968, p. 117).
   In contrast with the Didache, Bouyer finds in the Apostolic Constitutions "a prayer that has been entirely recomposed in a Chrsitian perspective" (Bouyer 1968, p. 119). Bouyer reviews scholarly theories about the origin of the text at some length. His view is that, though the prayers are of Christian origin rather than adaptation, they are still built using Jewish forms of prayer (Bouyer 1968, p. 121). He then proceeds to reproduce the particular prayers, describing how they would fit into a Jewish meal celebration based on their structures. Throughout, the Christian liturgical prayers follow the structure of the Jewish meal prayers, with details customized for the current setting and interpolated Christian formulae. The eucharistic prayers of Apostolic Constitutions, then, have significant roots in Jewish liturgy.

]]><![CDATA[July 20th, 2026]]>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 23:07:55 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/july-20th-2026Discussion Evenings
From the Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry News Desk - July 21, 2026

What's a worldview? It's the perspective that shows up in our culture. Put simply, it's the glasses we use to look at the world. Everyone has one. In fact, most people have several, depending on what part of the world they're looking at.
It's important for everyone, but especially Christians, to be aware of the perspective used by themselves and others to look at the world. One of the best ways to sharpen that ability is to talk together with others about various aspects of the culture. We at Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry do it sometimes by way of watching a movie and then discussing it. We've done that three times this summer, once in a theater and twice at home.
Last Friday, July 17, a gathering of twelve of us watched a few selected episodes of The Twilight Zone, from 1959-1961, and analyzed the perspectives that came to the surface. What is the purpose of having our possessions? What happens when the value of protecting my family collides with the value of caring for my neighbors? What do we do with power? How does power influence our thinking when it comes to friendships and trust of other people? How does our relationship with the power of government interact with our relationship with God?
It's always a good thing to practice thinking as a Christian about topics like these. Truth be told, we typically try to avoid some topics. But thought provoking programs, books, articles, and films bring up topics that make us uncomfortable.
We had a generous grant from Thrivent Financial to support our movie and discussion evening. Because it was a generous grant, we also managed to purchase several copies of a book for future discussions. During the upcoming semester, we'll be forming a discussion group on campus, probably on Tuesdays, that will work our way through Alfonso Espinosa's new book, Contending for Christ through the Creed. Here we'll concentrate on the ways the historic Apostles' Creed addresses the order of the world, the nature of God, and the nature and role of humans. I hope we have a good turnout for these discussions as well!

]]><![CDATA[Mid-July Financial Update]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 19:48:20 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/mid-july-financial-update Mid-July Financial Update
From the Wittenberg Door News Desk - 7/17/26
Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry is funded by the generosity of our contributors. As a 501(c)(3) charitable organization we are glad to receive gifts which are tax deductible and which further our goal of providing face-to-face pastoral care to the students, faculty, staff, administrators and their families in the collegiate communities of Columbia Missouri.
Our annual budget, which is able to support all ministry activities and a full-time chaplain is approximately $100,000. In the past, we have not been able to raise our entire budget, though we remain hopeful. As of the middle of July, we have received about $20,000 in gifts, representing 20% of our budget.
As we pursue our goal of calling a full-time chaplain who will receive adequate pay, I urge you to continue providing the financial support this organization needs to continue. At present, Wittenberg Door is able to cover the expense of maintaining presence on campus and to care for transportation. However, we're still far away from being able to pay a salary. If you know people or organizations who would like to hear about our work or would consider contributing to support, please help us be in contact with them.

]]><![CDATA[What's Coming Up?]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 17:22:35 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/whats-coming-up

What's Coming Up?
From the Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry News Desk - July 15, 2026

Our Dinner and Conversation evenings have always been the most visible activity Wittenberg Door has sponsored. We'll be continuing those starting August 21 and continuing on alternating Friday evenings through the semester.
What else do we do? The "meat and potatoes" of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry is centered around study and discussion of Scripture. In the upcoming year we will have the third straight year of a Bible discussion group at a local fraternity house. When we started it was my strong recommendation to the men. Last year the leadership asked if it could continue. We took a walk through the biblical ideas found in Luther's Small Catechism. Before the end of last year, the leadership and the ten or so men who had been attending told me they wanted to continue. Thanks be to God for an increasing interest in His Word!
I have been talking with some of the collegiate people around Trinity Lutheran Church. I believe they want to make a plan to show themselves at a public space around campus rather frequently, to hang together, study together, do a little biblical discussion and prayer together, and make it known that Lutheran Christians have a presence on the Mizzou campus. I'm hoping that some of the fraternity brothers will join in as well, and that people from the other Lutheran congregations in town will decide to join with us as a show of unity in Christ.
Thinking of discussions, I was given a book for Father's Day written by a dear brother in Christ, Alfonso Espinosa, who has been an encouragement to me since we first met on the internet and especially since we spent some face to face time at a conference a few years back. Contending for Christ through the Creed will make an excellent book discussion item. Consisting of 12 brief chapters (about 10 pages each), the book walks through the idea that "contention" is often a very good thing, as we identify, evaluate, and defend truth claims. We'll be working on a day and time to have discussions, probably starting them in the first week of September.
A plain ordinary Bible discussion on campus has temporarily fallen off the calendar. Those who have followed Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry for a long time may well remember our Lunch and Learn Bible discussion. For most of the years, it was a very small group, normally myself and our staunch supporter, Harry, who died unexpectedly in March. I'd like us to restart a Bible discussion, and hope to turn up several people who have a similar desire. This year we'd probably discuss the lectionary readings on the schedule for the upcoming Sunday's church services.
Finally, one of the activities which I've always enjoyed engaging in and which has been a very effective tool for building relationships is doing some conversation partner work for those who are non-native English speakers. For the past two years I've not done this due to schedule constraints. However, it's ready to start up again. In conversations with the International Center and with the Asian Affairs Center, I've found there are plenty of people who want English conversation partners, but there are not enough native English speakers who are willing to participate. Please pray that we can make a difference in the lives of our visitors. If anyone local is interested in serving as a conversation partner, please let me know!
It's wonderful as a Christian and as part of a Christ-centered ministry to welcome others who would like to learn more about God's Word, God's people, and the culture they're living in. Leviticus 19:33-34 tells God's people very clearly that they are to love and care for foreigners who are residing among them, since the people of Israel were also foreigners when in Egypt. By showing a warm welcome to others we are God's ambassadors, loving and serving our new neighbors.

]]><![CDATA[Celebrating 250 Years]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 17:01:59 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/july-17th-2026

Celebrating 250 Years
From the Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry News Desk - July 13, 2026
For the most part, Wittenberg Door is apolitical in nature. Actually, we're always apolitical in nature. When we take a stand that looks like a political commentary, it is intended not for the realm of the political (which fits into God's "left hand" realm), but it is intended to provide a biblical response to some other sort of left hand realm issues. It is right and appropriate for Christians to care about and understand the culture and economy in which they live. Simply because the culture isn't the end game doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Lots of cultural and social stances do matter a great deal.
The United States, this year, has reached a milestone in having declared its independence from a colonial power 250 years ago. That's a long time! Our Declaration of Independence has been used as a model for about half the nations on the planet as they have articulated their case for independence.
What does that mean for the work of Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry? Since many of our participants are visitors to this nation, and since Americans traditionally have cookouts and enjoy fireworks on Independence Day, we continue our practice of welcoming people into this culture, especially as we celebrate a quarter of a millennium of freedom! It was great to see older and younger people, sometimes literally passing the torch on.
We also had opportunity to demonstrate the theory that if you give young men something to throw around, they will end up entertaining themselves.
In the end, when all the food has been eaten and all the fireworks have been shot, we found, just like always, at the bottom of it all, the 27 people from four different nationalities and native languages are a precious gift to one another. When we are able to bring a group like this together, it's always a chance to learn, to grow, and to enjoy the fact that we are marvelously created to be bearers of God's image in culture.

]]><![CDATA[Call Process Update - July 15 2026]]>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 16:58:51 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/call-process-update-july-15-2026From the Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry News Desk - July 15, 2026
Our last update on the call process was at the end of January. For those readers who think a new chaplain shows up in a matter of moments, let me assure you that it doesn't usually work that way. What actually happens for the most part is that a ministry will be essentially on hold for quite a while and then when the person who's the right fit turns up, things move very quickly.
We're currently waiting for someone to appear who would be a good fit for Wittenberg Door, preferably someone who is able to be bivocational or who has the ability to mobilize a fairly substantial support base. We expect to start seeing a number of seminary graduates in the next few years, as there are a good number of men in the pipeline.
Our central concern remains that of providing genuine, face to face, pastoral care to the students, faculty, staff, administrators, and families of the collegiate communities in town. Please pray that we will be able to do this faithfully. For those who are able to offer financial support, please do so, remembering that the work of ministry isn't a money making venture but that it does cost money to keep things going

]]><![CDATA[Prayer as What You Do All Day]]>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/prayer-as-what-you-do-all-dayScholarly Reading
7/16/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 4: The Jewish Berakoth." (pp. 50-90). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame (Personal Library)
   Bouyer observes that there are two categories of berakoth in Jewish life. The briefer one, which is used throughout the day, is a simple blessing, while there is a longer form, more complex, used in the services of a synagogue and in blessings at meals (Bouyer 1968, p.50). There are numerous prayer books, some still in use, which provide a wide variety of blessings (Bouyer 1968, p.51). The texts, many of which are found in manuscripts of the late Middle Ages or early renaissance, are largely unchanged as they can be traced through the generations (Bouyer 1968, p.52).
   Bouyer briefly discusses what he identifies as a Protestant view that there was an early freedom in prayer, later made rigid based on prescriptive teaching (Bouyer 1968, p.53). He contrasts this with a view of oral tradition in which freedom remains but written records provide a framework for prayers. In Hebraic thought the intent of the prayers is more important than the specific wording (Bouyer 1968, p.54).
   Because of the emphasis on the intent of structured prayers, Bouyer sees the short berakoth as a consideration of God's presence through his Word in all things and in human actions (Bouyer 1968, p.55). Bouyer goes on to walk through the kind of brief prayers which would accompany normal daily routines.
   The contrast between the routine matters of life and the nature of a synagogue service or a meal shows itself clearly in the difference between the smaller blessings and the greater ones (Bouyer 1968, p.58). Synagogue services are normally preceded by a period of prayer, often including a recitation of Psalms 145-150 (Bouyer 1968, p. 59). After an evening meal, Psalms 113-118 are often sung. There are also various berakoth which are more complex than those used at other times through the day (Bouyer 1968, p. 60). Again, Bouyer provides examples of the prayers which would be typical. He emphasizes throughout the integrity of the worldview which is expressed. God is altogether permeating his world and his people. This is how his glory operates (Bouyer 1968, p. 65). Bouyer continues with a brief discussion in positive terms of mysticism built on these patterns of prayer.
   After the Shema, central to synagogue worship, comes a series of 18 blessings, known as the Tefillah (Bouyer 1968, p. 70). The overall content of these blessings "became fixed at a very early date" (Bouyer 1968, p. 71). Bouyer provides the berakoth according to Babylonian tradition. As we have seen in other contexts, so here Bouyer emphasizes the importance of the Word of God creating unity with God's people (Bouyer 1968, p. 75).
   The Jewish meal liturgy is more closely related to the Chrsitian eucharist than is the synagogue prayer custom. These prayers were used at any meal, but particularly at family meals, especially those of a celebratory nature (Bouyer 1968, p. 79). The meal would begin with thanksgiving for the fruit of the vine, then continue with breaking of bread and prayer. Bouyer references the "cup-bread" sequence of Luke 22, along with Jesus' reference to "fruit of the vine" in this context (Bouyer 1968, pp. 79-80). The prayers of blessing would continue throughout the meal. Toward the end of a holy day meal, a lamp would be lit, hands would be washed in a ceremonial manner, and a final cup would be drunk with words of blessing (Bouyer 1968, pp. 80-81).
   In all the blessings, Bouyer particularly notes that God's work of building and sustaining his people is seen as a work which will continue to the end. There is also a strong element of a "memorial" in which God's people preserve and remain engaged with His word as He engages with them (Bouyer 1968, p. 84). This is the same memorial language used by Jesus in the Last Supper. The aspect of memory and of blessing may be seen as originating in God's care for his people, but also as being his people's response. The prayers repeatedly use language indicating that God receives our blessing (Bouyer 1968, p. 86).

]]><![CDATA[God's Word as Prayer]]>Tue, 14 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/gods-word-as-prayerScholarly Reading
7/14/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 3: The Word of God and the Berakah." (pp. 29-49). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame (Personal Library)
   A traditional Jewish prayer is the berakah, which is often translated into Greek as εὐχαριστία, in English, "blessing" (Bouyer 1968, p. 29). Bouyer cites Audet as considering the term "blessing" to have undergone devaluation so that it no longer captures the concept of expressing wonder before God. The expression is that of reverence for the God who has placed his people in a special, covenantal, relationship with himself (Bouyer 1968, p. 30).
   In Bouyer's view, "the majority of modern Christians" (Bouyer 1968, p. 31) have stripped away the majesty and supernatural nature of the Word of God, leaving behind "a sort of nondescript hodgepodge from which the professional theologian extracts, like a mineral out of its matrix, small but precious bits of knowledge which it is his job to clarify and systematize" (Bouyer 1968, p. 31). This approach to God's Word would have been quite foreign to first century Jewish thought. Rather, in the past, people understood God's Word as his personal intervention into our lives and culture (Bouyer 1968, pp. 32-33). The very cause of existence is the work of the word of God. The result of this power of God's Word, in Bouyer's view, is that Israelites would recognize God working in a personal and practical way to deliver his gifts to people (Bouyer 1968, p. 35).
   Bouyer concludes that within Hebraic thought God pours out gifts, including righteousness, upon His people. The goal is that eventually they come to know Him even as He has known them (Bouyer 1968, p. 37). This is not an intellectual assent, but something which is somehow deeper. God himself is delivered and applied to His people through his word (Bouyer 1968, p. 38).
   The liturgical prayers, then, the Berakoth, are seen as the human response to God's self-revelation in his Word (Bouyer 1968, p. 40). The prayers of the liturgy, as with the Psalms, intend to form people who know God as they have been known by God. Bouyer illustrates this process using a number of prayers of thanksgiving found in the Old Testament. The ultimate thrust of the process, in Bouyer's view, is an internalization of the nature of God and particularly the implications of sacrificial worship (Bouyer 1968, p. 46). It is all about God's exercise of initiative and our reception of His work.

]]><![CDATA[Jewish Liturgical Prayers Lead to Christian Eucharistic Celebration]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/jewish-liturgical-prayers-lead-to-christian-eucharistic-celebrationScholarly Reading
7/9/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 2: Jewish Liturgy and Christian Liturgy." (pp. 15-28). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame (Personal Library)
   The eucharist was not invented out of thin air by the earliest Christians. Bouyer considers it essential to understanding of the Christian anaphora that we consider the sources and ideas from which it sprang (Bouyer 1968, p. 15). The Old Testament and Judaic practices were integral to the growth of Christian tradition (Bouyer 1968, p. 16). Yet Bouyer contends that many scholars seem to believe that Christianity was born from a vacuum, or, more often, from regional pagan antecedents.
   As regards scholarly work on early Christianity, Bouyer shows his strong anti-Protestant bias. "Our critical knowledge of the origins of Christianity first of all remains too dependent upon the work of Protestants and consequently reflects a basic Protestant prejudice: far from completing Scripture, tradition could only be a degradation and a corruption of it" (Bouyer 1968, p. 18). He proceeds to allege a difficulty on the part of non-Roman Catholic scholars in accepting that traditions emerge from reasoned practice in accord with Scripture. He sees this as an especially persistent problem in dealing with the Old Testament. In a positive direction, Bouyer urges what I have long considered indispensable. In our exegesis we must assume that God's Word and Spirit has worked in and through many, though not all, of the ancient communities where it was proclaimed (Bouyer 1968, pp. 20-21).
   Having discussed the vitality of Judaic thought, Bouyer turns his attention to the specific instance of the roots of the eucharistic prayer found in Judaism (Bouyer 1968, p. 22). While Bouyer grants that we have no manuscript evidence of the practice of a seder meal prior to the ninth century, he considers it reasonable to trust the tradition as generally accurate, in similar ways to our trust in the reliability of ancient Greek and Roman cultural information (Bouyer 1968, p. 23). The prayers found in the seder, largely unchanged to this day, show signs of going back to synagogue practice at the time of the origin of Christianity (Bouyer 1968, p. 24).
   Not only prayers, but also traditional readings (Bouyer 1968, p. 25) and even architecture (Bouyer 1968, p. 26) show signs of being adopted into Christianity from Judaism. Bouyer contends that recognition of these elements is important to Christian liturgical expression.

]]><![CDATA[Is the Eucharist a Matter of Theory or Spirituality?]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/is-the-eucharist-a-matter-of-theory-or-spiritualityScholarly Reading
7/7/26

Bouyer, Louis. (1968). "Ch. 1: Theologies on the Eucharist and Theology of the Eucharist." (pp. 1-14). In Eucharist: Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame (Personal Library)
   Bouyer states as his purpose in this book "to try step by step to follow the progressive unfolding of the Christian eucharist" (Bouyer 1968, p. 1). Specifically, he focuses directly on the anaphora of the eucharist (Bouyer 1968, p. 2), which he considers to be the core of worship. Throughout the study, he intends to emphasize the wonder which should accompany reflection on the divine work and presence.
   Study of Apostolic Constitutions book 8 has motivated Bouyer and others to seek out the center of early Christian thought and to explore the development of the eucharist (Bouyer 1968, pp. 3-4) The depth of theology to be found is not only a motivation but also a delight. For this reason, Bouyer urges finding the theology of the eucharist as something which emerges from the liturgy rather than imposing a theoretical theology upon the liturgy from outside (Bouyer 1968, p. 5). Bouyer briefly describes a number of theological ideas he considers to be unfairly imposed onto important texts and liturgical elements, such as the notion of the precise moment at which consecration takes place. Bouyer does consider the 16th century Reformation to have isolated the words of institution from the greater concepts of the eucharist (Bouyer 1968, p. 9), something I consider the radical Reformation to have done, but not the Lutheran Reformation. Bouyer disagrees, taking the Lutherans to have stripped away the centrality of the anaphora.

]]><![CDATA[Conclusions Regarding New Testament Dating]]>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/conclusions-regarding-new-testament-datingScholarly Reading
7/2/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 11: Conclusions and Corollaries." (pp. 336-358). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
   In his summary, Robinson notes that he had not fully appreciated the actual lack of firm dating information before he began his research. The most certain secure date in the life of Paul, for instance, is his encounter with Gallio in Acts, since it is clear from other sources when he served as proconsul (Robinson 1976, p. 336). Relative dating is possible, but we have very few anchor points.
   Similarly, while there is a good bit of external evidence from early Christianity regarding authorship of New Testament works, there is virtually no clear information regarding dating except a statement in Irenaeus regarding Revelation (Robinson 1976, p. 337).
   Specific mentions of New Testament books in the early church are likewise absent, but for the mention in 1 Clement of Paul's letter to the Corinthians (Robinson 1976, p. 338). Other mentions of writings are not until Justin, Papias, and Irenaeus.
   Robinson further notes the inherent difficulty of evaluating citations of other works to assist in dating (Robinson 1976, p. 339). Though there is abundant evidence for literary connections, demonstrating dependence or chronology is elusive.
   Robinson affirms, then, a complex pattern of events described in the New Testament happening, being considered and discussed, then being written down in such a way as to be meaningful to a contemporary situation and audience (Robinson 1976, p. 340f). Those writings do not carry the specific and unambiguous information which could be desired by modern scholars. However, Robinson provides a number of assertions of certainty regarding dating which have been made by relatively recent scholars, many of which are not deserving of the air of certainty expressed (Robinson 1976, p. 342f).
   A particularly problematic element of the scholarship is the fact that scholars are free to assign periods needed for ideas to develop or be communicated (Robinson 1976, p. 344). An assumption of passage of time "simply because" is open to a charge of making arbitrary assumptions. Robinson describes many assumptions, which, if they are seen as assumptions rather than actual established fact, erode much scholarly work about the development of Scripture and theology.
   Robinson recapitulates his findings with two useful chronological charts indicating his dating of works (Robinson 1976, p. 352) and their development (Robinson 1976, p. 353).

]]><![CDATA[Christian Writings in the Early Post-Apostolic Age]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/christian-writings-in-the-early-post-apostolic-ageScholarly Reading
6/30/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 10: A Post-Apostolic Postscript." (pp. 312-335). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
   Robinson asks a question which certainly has merit. If the New Testament was completely penned before AD 70, what happened between that time and the later period when we begin to see more Christian writings? (Robinson 1976, p. 312). While it is entirely possible that there was a time period around 70 and after when little writing was preserved, particularly due to persecution, a vivid view of the parousia at any time, and a realization that the apostolic writings were sufficient, it is also possible that scholars have mis-dated some works due to a wrong assumption about dating the canonical works.
   Standard works of scholarship provide three more or less fixed dates in the subapostolic generation. 1 Clement is normally taken to be written in 95 or 96. The death of Ignatius is normally considered to be within a few years of 110. The Epistle of Barnabas, which looks back to the fall of Jerusalem but does not know of its reconstruction in 132-135 under Hadrian, is normally dated about 130 (Robinson 1976, p. 313). Robinson describes some of the references of Barnabas, in 4.4-6 especially, to suggest the reign of Vespasian and his sons Titus and Domitian, who shared rule (Robinson 1976, p. 315). This could, therefore, suggest authorship before Vespasian's death in 79. Robinson references a number of Jewish apocryphal writings which come from the period and share significant characteristics with Barnabas (Robinson 1976, pp. 316f). These betray a level of destruction and conflict which is not expressed in any of the New Testament writings. Robinson sees Barnabas as having an undeveloped theology, some marks of a primitive gnosticism, and none of the theological development which he would associate with the second century. He therefore places it around the year 75 (Robinson 1976, p. 319).
   The Shepherd of Hermas is often associated with the Epistle of Barnabas. Though a Muratorian fragment related to the canon suggests a date of about 145-150, Robinson considers the fragment to be an unreliable source of information (Robinson 1976, p. 319). As to the dating, Robinson notes that second century authors Tertullian and others, who critique its contents, do not consider it a recent composition (Robinson 1976, p. 320). As to internal evidence, the Shepherd makes a reference to Clement, who is apparently at Rome, but not yet the famous bishop. The persecutions also are more akin to those under Domitian than those of a later time (Robinson 1976, pp. 320-321). Some of the first generation of Christians are still living.
   The third early document associated with this period is the Didache. Robinson observes that dating estimates for this work differ widely, from about AD 50 to the fourth century (Robinson 1976, p. 323). Robinson is aware of the commentary by Audet, published shortly before Robinson's book. Here, Audet makes a persuasive argument which I observe has gained considerable traction since that time, that the Didache comes from Antioch, probably between about AD 50 and 70 (Robinson 1976, p. 323). Robinson finds Audet's argument against the Didache's direct literary dependence on any canonical sources to be credible and strong (Robinson 1976, p. 325). In particular, Robinson notes the lack of a developed hierarchy, the strikingly early form of eschatology in the final chapter, and the lack of polemic against heterodoxy or gnostic tendencies, all of which urge a date between about 40 and 70 (Robinson 1976, p. 326).
   Having laid the framework of an early date for Barnabas, the Shepherd, and the Didache, Robinson returns to 1 Clement (Robinson 1976, p. 328). The question of 1 Clement hinges on the date of Clement, the bishop, and whether he wrote the letter while bishop or before that elevation. The letter itself does not show the highly developed distinction between "elder" and "bishop" which appears in Ignatius, possibly only 10-15 years later (Robinson 1976, p. 328). The references of the letter to persecution are normally taken as referring to the reign of Domitian (Robinson 1976, p. 329). However, Robinson has no difficulty taking the "recent" persecutions as a reference to the political chaos at Rome in 69. This could easily place the letter in the beginning of AD 70. There are simply no reasons that the letter must be dated later. The sacrifices are spoken of as current, and though the first generation of Christian leaders is at least diminished, this does not require long periods of time to have passed.]]><![CDATA[The Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of John in Historical Context]]>Thu, 25 Jun 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/the-fourth-gospel-and-the-epistles-of-john-in-historical-contextScholarly Reading
6/25/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 9: The Gospel and Epistles of John." (pp. 254-311). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
   Robinson opens this lengthy chapter with the observation that, regardless of assumptions of authorship of the five "Johannine" writings, the conventional scholarly opinion places them more or less between AD 90 and 100 (Robinson 1976, p. 254). It seems clear to Robinson that, despite linguistic differences, the thought world and the idioms of the Gospel and Revelation are closely related, and that, if his dating of Revelation in the 60s is correct, there is apparently some understanding of the Johannine way of thinking at that early time (Robinson 1976, p. 256).
   In consideration of the authorship of the gospel, when Robinson looks at external witnesses, he notes the traditions that John lived to a very old age, probably after the year 100, and that his gospel was the last to be written (Robinson 1976, p. 257). Yet it is not clear whether he waited to extreme old age to write the gospel account.
   The scholarly debate Robinson describes, based on internal evidence, considers that the fourth gospel was written with knowledge of both Mark and Luke (Robinson 1976, p. 262). This does not per se require a long period, such as several decades, to pass before composition.
   Robinson considers the logical processes which have led to some dating suggestions for the gospel to be unsatisfying (Robinson 1976, p. 263). He describes at length and in detail the work of C.H. Dodd, who particularly calls for an extensive process of research and incorporation of material from numerous sources on the part of the evangelist. Dodd makes numerous statements to the effect that it would have been very difficult for the author, post AD 70, to learn about the intricacies of life, politics, and geography of the period of Jesus' ministry.
   Robinson's conclusion is that to delay the date of composition significantly due to the need of a later author to engage in research, or to delay it so as to allow multiple layers of composition and redaction separated by substantial periods of time is unnecessary (Robinson 1976, p. 283). It is altogether reasonable to take the completed form to be not terribly long after Peter's death in the mid sixties.
   Particularly due to the similarities of John 1:1-4 and 1 John 1:1-4, Robinson turns to dating of the Johannine Epistles as a means of testing the potential dating of the Gospel in the second half of the sixties (Robinson 1976, p. 285). In prior works, Robinson has assumed a late date for the epistles, probably in the 90s, and has concluded a situation and destination akin to those of Jude and 2 Peter. The teaching of the letters likewise addresses a denial of the person and work of Jesus as Christ, the Son of God (Robinson 1976, p. 286). As we saw in Jude and 2 Peter, there is no reference to persecution in the letters of John (Robinson 1976, p. 287).
   Based largely on the similarity in context, Robinson places 2 and 3 John at about the same time as 2 Peter and Jude (Robinson 1976, p. 288). He suggests that 2 John was the first of the letters, with 3 John possibly making a reference to the recent second letter. He would place 1 John slightly after the other two, all in the later part of the 60s.
   Robinson does consider that the epistles speak in the context of a knowledge of the theological terminology and priorities of the fourth Gospel (Robinson 1976, p. 290). He expects it would take some, though not many, years of exposure for the letter's recipients to live in that philosophical world. This is entirely possible for people in the 60s if the Gospel is from the 50s. As to a location, early tradition places John in Ephesus at the time of the Jewish war (Robinson 1976, p. 292). The consideration of Ephesus returns Robinson to his work with evidence from the fourth gospel.
   John's gospel shows a strong acceptance of Hellenistic Jews who are spread throughout Asia minor (Robinson 1976, p. 292). At the same time, however, Robinson finds that the Greeks are regularly described as coming in to find Jesus, rather than as staying in their diverse locations until missionary activity reaches them (Robinson 1976, p. 293). After extensive consideration of the spectrum of Hellenistic Judaism and the interactions between Palestine and other areas, Robinson concludes that John's gospel likely has Palestinian roots (Robinson 1976, p. 296). This does not mean it would be approachable only to a strongly Hebraic audience. The book shows considerable comfort with the Greek speaking world.
   Robinson next moves to the issue of authorship for John's gospel (Robinson 1976, p. 298). Based on the language used, Robinson posits an author whose first language was Aramaic but who was well versed in the Septuagint, using Semitisms frequently along with vocabulary from the Septuagint. However, the Greek usage is very correct (Robinson 1976, p. 299). This, in Robinson's opinion, in no way would rule out the son of Zebedee (Robinson 1976, p. 300). In fact, in many ways Robinson considers John, among the twelve, as the prime candidate to have the inside information and knowledge of local practices and geography needed to compose the gospel account (Robinson 1976, p. 302). Additionally, John was known to engage in ministry specifically in Jerusalem and Samaria. This would have placed him in Hellenized and Gentile communities extensively (Robinson 1976, p. 303).
   A difficulty remains as to dating John's Gospel. At some point, John is found in Ephesus, a move to Asia Minor which would have acquainted him with the geography and churches of the region. This influences dating of the gospel account due to its relationship with Revelation, where the churches of Asia are a known quantity (Robinson 1976, p. 306).
   John's knowledge of gospel traditions should not be taken as an indication of a composition date in or around AD 95 (Robinson 1976, p. 306). He may well have been in Asia as early as the mid fifties, and able to use tradition which had, by that time, spread broadly. John's expression of ideas shows a freshness which suggests earlier, rather than later, dating to Robinson.
   Robinson sums up his work in this chapter with a tentative conclusion (Robinson 1976, p. 307). He sees the formation of tradition and collation of ideas in Jerusalem up to about AD 50, followed by a "first edition" of the gospel about 50-55. He places the epistles in the period of 60-65, then the current form of the gospel, including the prologue and epilogue sometime after 65 (Robinson 1976, p. 307).

]]><![CDATA[Dating Revelation]]>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/dating-revelationScholarly Reading
6/23/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 8: The Book of Revelation." (pp. 221-253). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)

   Robinson opens this chapter by observing that Revelation has more early dating traditions than any other New Testament documents (Robinson 1976, p. 221). Nonetheless, it is important to trace the evidence as carefully as that of any other writings. Robinson specifically questions the truth of Eusebius' assertion that the apostle John wrote both the fourth gospel and the Apocalypse and that it was written by the end of the reign of Domitian (Robinson 1976, p. 222). In particular, the later in life John was writing, the less vigorous Robinson would expect the writing to be.
   The matter, in Robinson's view, is made more difficult by Eusebius' record of Clement of Alexandria, who records John living a very active life after the year 96 (Robinson 1976, pp. 222-223), if, in fact, Domitian was the "tyrant" referred to by Clement. Tertullian describes John's exile to Patmos after the execution of Peter and Paul (Robinson 1976, p. 223). This exile is dated by Jerome as being under Nero rather than Domitian (Robinson 1976, p. 224). Robinson notes in this regard numerous 19th century scholars who reflect a common opinion that the aged John was actively writing at the end of Nero's reign, thus probably between 68 and 70 (Robinson 1976, pp. 224-225).
   When considering dating evidence within Revelation itself, Robinson takes the text to describe two situations, one in chapters 1-3 and in 22:6-21, and one in 4:1-22:5 (Robinson 1976, p. 226). The first is focused on Asia Minor, while the second focuses on Rome and Jerusalem. This setting draws Robinson's attention to the similar situations in 1 Peter. Revelation shows a greater familiarity with the details of congregations in Asia Minor than does 1 Peter. The descriptions of persecution in Revelation also have a level of detail and ferocity absent from 1 Peter. The descriptions of the situation in Asia Minor strike Robinson as similar in nature to the trials described in Jude and 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 227).
   This level of trouble in the churches of Asia Minor is interesting to Robinson especially in that the churches are specifically not under pressure from the imperial cult (Robinson 1976, p. 228). The pressure, rather, appears to be harassment and corruption which is not systemic in nature. Robinson briefly discusses the argument that these conflicts could not have arisen quickly after the churches' founding in Paul's time (Robinson 1976, p. 229). Yet we know of trouble arising quickly in the congregations of Galatia and in Corinth. There is no reason to require a long period of time for people to fall into error.
   The central portion of the text, 4:1-22:5, shows substantial marks "of an intense experience of the Christian suffering at the hands of the imperial authorities" (Robinson 1976, p. 231). This is viewed as a series of past events, though possibly quite recent. The terror under Nero certainly presents itself to many as a likely candidate. Other scholars point to the Flavian persecution under Domitian, which was possibly more consistent and widespread.
   Robinson reviews Eusebius' account of persecutions, observing that while there were deaths of important Roman men, all the mentions of Christians are in the context of banishment (Robinson 1976, p. 232). It appears from the few remarks about Christianity that Domitian was opposed to the Roman aristocracy but may have been neutral or even slightly favorable toward Christians, at one point promoting an injunction against persecution. As it pertains specifically to Revelation, Robinson notes that the persecution is mentioned only at Rom (Babylon) rather than throughout the wider culture (Robinson 1976, p. 234). This strikes one as more apposite to Nero than to Domitian, as Nero did specifically call for persecution of Christians at Rome.
   There is some reference in the persecution narrative to economic troubles in Jerusalem. Robinson observes evidence of scarcity in 6:6 and a period of turmoil in Jerusalem from the beginning of Revelation chapter 11. This corresponds in many ways to the trouble in the war of 66-70, which began before the death of Nero (Robinson 1976, p. 238). Robinson goes on to discuss a number of passages for which scholars have assigned an earlier author whose work was incorporated into Revelation (Robinson 1976, p. 242). This appears to be the main tool used by scholars who insist on the writing coming from the time of Domitian, but who find passages which fit a pre-70 date better.
   Revelation 17:9-11, which describes the existence of seven kings, five of whom have fallen, one who reigns, and one who is not now reigning but will not reign for long, has spurred a great deal of discussion (Robinson 1976, pp. 242-243). Robinson reviews a number of attempts which have been made to identify the time required by this statement. The best models he finds, including a collection of apocalyptic writings from essentially the same time period, points to a dating of Revelation in the time of Nero, not Domitian (Robinson 1976, p. 248).
   In the end, Robinson concludes that the violent sack and burning of Rome after Nero's suicide is the best reflection of the prophecies of Revelation. The number of emperors works. The first and military conflicts fit the late part of 69 or the start of 70, when the temple in Jerusalem was also moving toward destruction (Robinson 1976, p. 252). This also places John the son of Zebedee as elderly but not so advanced in age as to be incapable of the travels and activities described of him early in this chapter.

]]><![CDATA[Dating the Epistle to the Hebrews]]>Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/dating-the-epistle-to-the-hebrewsScholarly Reading
6/18/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 7: The Epistle to the Hebrews." (pp. 200-220). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
   Hebrews, with its persistent theme of Christ being superior to the temple and sacrificial system, as well as the theme of persecution which tempts Christians to depart from the faith, can well be tied to the time of the destruction of the temple and the rise of overt Roman persecution (Robinson 1976, p. 200). However, Robinson notes that much recent scholarship on Hebrews has moved opinion to suggest a variety of dates, including those before AD 70 (Robinson 1976, p. 201). The references to the forty year wandering of Israel has often been tied to the period of AD 30-70 as a time of Israel's disobedience.
   Passages, such as Hebrews 10:2ff, speak of the sacrificial system as a present and ongoing reality (Robinson 1976, p. 202). It would be unusual, at the least, to make such an argument after the work of the temple had ended. Though there are isolated mentions of ongoing sacrifice after 70, Robinson considers them to have been individual private acts or statements of an ideal, not descriptions of the routine sacrificial cult continuing as before but in different situations (Robinson 1976, pp. 202-203). The arguments in Hebrews such as in 9:1-10 and 8:13 lead to a concept of a sacrificial system which is coming to a close, rather than one we expect to continue.
   Robinson observes that there is agreement on a clear relationship of Hebrews 1:3-13 and 1 Clement 36:2-5, placing the text of one or both texts no later than the year 96 (Robinson 1976, p. 205). It is certainly possible that Hebrews was written considerably earlier than 1 Clement.
   The severity of the persecution referred to in Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31; and 12:15-29 is more extreme than any other found in the New Testament. Robinson considers this not to fit a period other than that of Nero until about AD 250 (Robinson 1976, p. 207). This rules out any time prior to Clement except that of Nero. Robinson provides several pages of illustration of the severity of persecution.
   Eventually, Robinson entertains the possibility that the letter comes from the time when Neronian persecution could be seen growing, but that it looks back to a period sometime in the 40s when Christianity was not actively preparing for overt persecution (Robinson 1976, p. 211). He further takes the repeated use of the language of commerce, images of a cultural center, and the urban metaphors to suggest that Hebrews was intended for an audience in Rome (Robinson 1976, p. 213).
   If Hebrews was written to Christians in Rome during the reign of Nero, considering that 13:23 mentions Timothy, it would be surprising that there would be no mention of Peter or Paul, unless, of course, they had already died. For this reason, Robinson suggests a tentative date in AD 67 (Robinson 1976, p. 215).
   As to authorship of Hebrews, Robinson is quick to observe that the recipients of the letter were assumed to know who the author was (Robinson 1976, p. 215). This does not mean that we can be certain. Robinson briefly discusses the arguments for and against a number of authors, including Aquila and Priscilla, Apollos, and Barnabas. In the end, the author and place of writing are no more than educated guess work. However, Robinson is reasonably confident the letter was addressed to Christians at Rome near the end of Nero's reign, about 67.

]]><![CDATA[The Epistles of Peter and Jude]]>Tue, 16 Jun 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/the-epistles-of-peter-and-judeScholarly Reading
6/16/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 6: The Petrine Epistles and Jude." (pp. 140-199). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
   Robinson considers chronology for the Petrine epistles and Jude to be a great challenge, especially as we have little information by which to ascertain relative dates for these writings (Robinson 1976, p. 140). In particular, with the end of Acts, we have little information with which to track Peter's movements (Robinson 1976, p. 141). 1 Clement 5 indicates a trip of Paul to the "extreme west," and claims that Peter and Paul were both killed in the same wave of persecution as one another (Robinson 1976, p. 142). Robinson takes this necessarily to be a persecution under Nero.
   The persecution of Nero after the fire of Rome would be a likely time for Peter's death. As Tacitus' Annals 15.44 suggests, this would be in the year 64 (Robinson 1976, p. 143). However, Suetonius does not tie a persecution to the fire at Rome. Nor do any early Christian authors tie persecutions to the fire (Robinson 1976, p. 144). It is only connected in Tacitus or sources which quote him. A further problem is that, based on Tacitus, a significant period of time may have passed between the fire and Nero's persecution. The rebuilding of the city was well under way before the time of persecution (Robinson 1976, pp. 144-145). Robinson thus suggests the persecution began no earlier than spring of 65 (Robinson 1976, p. 146).
   A second possibility is suggested by Sulpicius Severus (Chronic. 2.29.3), recorded for us by Eusebius. He places prohibitive edicts after the wave of Neronian persecution, followed by the death of Paul, then Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 147). Jerome's translation of Eusebius fills in dates, giving the fire of Rome in 64, with Peter and Paul dying in a first subsequent wave of persecution in 68.
   After weighing the various claims, Robinson concludes it is more likely, based on Tacitus, who dealt with other chronology, and Clement, who was writing only a couple of decades after the fact, that Peter's death may well have been in 66 or 67 (Robinson 1976, p. 150).
   1 Peter itself claims to have been written from Rome. It is addressed to members of a Christian diaspora, and likely to one in which a majority are Gentiles (Robinson 1976, p. 150). The references to suffering suggest a time of persecution, or an expectation of future persecution. This sets the letter aside from Paul's letters, as well as from Hebrews, which describes past persecutions (Robinson 1976, p. 152). There is an apparent hope, but with reservations, that the government will engage in fair treatment.
   Robinson considers whether the setting in 1 Peter corresponds to the letters between Pliny and Trajan. The situation under Trajan is one in which Christianity is already considered illicit. This does not line up with Peter's cautious optimism (Robinson 1976, p. 154).
   The time of Domitian has also been suggested for 1 Peter. That period has often been associated with Revelation (Robinson 1976, p. 155). However, Peter's situation does not seem as dire as what is described in Revelation.
   The period of Nero fits 1 Peter well, though Robinson does concede relatively little evidence confirming its composition by the apostle exists. There is also little evidence that Peter could not have been the author (Robinson 1976, p. 156). The fears of persecution fit the time period. Particularly, Robinson notes the parallel between Tacitus' mention of persecution against those who confessed, compared to 1 Peter's urging in 4:16 that the only crime Christians should be convicted of is their confession of Christ (Robinson 1976, p. 157). Additionally, Robinson suggests that the paschal images and the expectation of coming persecution would be at home in Rome in April of 65, as the signs of persecution were arising at the time of Passover (Robinson 1976, p. 161).
   Robinson finds numerous authors who observe that the theological and ecclesial language in 1 Peter point to an early time period. The Holy Spirit is only mentioned four times, and the eschatology is relatively immediate (Robinson 1976, pp. 162-163). There are also few indicators that could detract from a theory of apostolic authorship (Robinson 1976, pp. 163-164). The explicit statements of eyewitness testimony in 1:8 and 5:1, as well as 4:13 suggest an author who was present with Jesus (Robinson 1976, p. 165).
   As a final argument about the authorship of 1 Peter, Robinson discusses the Greek style and the mention of Silas, who is otherwise known as an associate of Paul. It would not be reasonable to assume that Peter could have ministered as he apparently did in Antioch or in Rome without knowledge of Greek (Robinson 1976, p. 167). Silas, also, as a companion of Paul, would likely have been very capable in terms of Greek style (Robinson 1976, p. 168). The Greek usage is thus quite plausible in a letter from Peter.
   In the end, Robinson concludes that 1 Peter is quite reasonably taken to be composed by Peter, and likely from around April of AD 65 (Robinson 1976, p. 169).
   Robinson considers the chronology of 2 Peter and Jude, which bear striking interrelationships, to be "a good deal murkier" (Robinson 1976, p. 169). He begins his evaluation here with Jude, who claims a relationship to James, presumably the author of the letter of James, discussed previously (Robinson 1976, p. 170). Jude's letter shows an urgency to warn Christians about deceivers in their midst. This scenario suggests to Robinson that sufficient time has passed to allow heresy to creep into the Christian community (Robinson 1976, p. 171). This, in Robinson's analysis, is comparable to the situation of 2 Corinthians, but more developed in the sophistication of the deceit.
   Despite the sophistication of the opponents described in Jude, Robinson finds no trace of second century gnosticism (Robinson 1976, p. 172). The conflict is more similar to the moral issues described in Revelation 2-3.
   Robinson turns (rather abruptly) to evaluate 2 Peter, which refers to the author as "Simeon Peter" and makes no indication of a place of authorship or destination of the letter (Robinson 1976, p. 173). The style of address and the terms used to describe Christians suggests an early period rather than any later development of gnosticism (Robinson 1976, p. 174). The passage in 1:12-18 suggests impending death, as well as an identity as an eyewitness of the work of Jesus (Robinson 1976, p. 176).
   Robinson discusses a second passage, 2 Peter 3:1-4, which has been used to allege a late date for 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 179). He notes that the passage, which is more obscure than we would expect of a later, pseudepigraphical author, also uses language which is consistent with numerous of Paul's letters. The passage refers to the death of "the fathers," which Robinson (reasonably) takes to refer to the death of many of the first generation of Christians (Robinson 1976, p. 180). This is consistent with the writing of an apostle in the 60s.
   2 Peter 3:15f is considered by Robinson as the greatest challenge in dating 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 181). The reference to Paul's writing "in all letters," presented without an article suggests knowledge of letters, but not of a grouping that would indicate a canonical set of letters (Robinson 1976, p. 182). The suggestion is that Paul is still alive and writing letters.
   A remaining difficulty is the significant difference in style between 1 and 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 184). Robinson considers it unlikely that "the two epistles can in any immediate sense be the product of the same mind, let alone of the same pen" (Robinson 1976, p. 186). However, Robinson observes that those who argue for pseudonymity feed their arguments by an assumption of pseudonymity itself. The widespread practice was not clearly evident until the middle of the second century(Robinson 1976, p. 187). The practice was condemned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and 3:17. It was also roundly condemned by orthodox Chrsitian writers in the second century and beyond (Robinson 1976, pp. 187-188). Further, 2 Peter makes none of the attempts to grind theological axes which we find in known pseudepigraphy (Robinson 1976, p. 189).
   At this point Robinson returns to the literary relationship between 2 Peter and Jude (Robinson 1976, p. 192). Robinson's theory is that Jude came before 2 Peter, chiefly because it contains virtually no material not common to the two letters. Had 2 Peter existed first, it would likely simply have been recirculated.
   Robinson's suggested solution to this problem is that Jude had been engaged in writing 2 Peter, then was interrupted to write a brief letter on his own authority, warning Christians against deceivers. He then returned to composition of 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 193). Rather than attempting to impersonate Peter, it is possible that Jude is writing 2 Peter as a representative of Peter, the apostle and bishop of Rome (Robinson 1976, p. 194).
   Robinson suggests that 2 Peter may have been rather early, possibly with the reference to "departure" simply indicating a physical departure from Rome, rather than immediately impending death (Robinson 1976, p. 196). This can be seen also in Paul's language in 2 Timothy 4:6-8 and Acts 20:24ff, which were written some years before Paul's death.
   Both 2 Peter and Jude may well have been sent to Corinth, where the philosophical climate could give rise to the opponents described, and where Paul and Silas were known (Robinson 1976, pp. 196-197). This, however, is not entirely clear to Robinson. The climate further suggests a date in the late 50s or early 60s. If this is the case, the reference to departure could well be Peter's departure to Rome, likely in 62 (Robinson 1976, p. 197).

]]><![CDATA[Historical Context of James]]>Thu, 11 Jun 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/historical-context-of-jamesScholarly Reading
6/11/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 5: The Epistle of James." (pp. 118-139). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
   The dating of James is challenging, as there is little to place it in context, and as the authorship is an additional point of debate (Robinson 1976, p. 118). Robinson notes that in 1897 scholars assigned dates nearly a hundred years apart. The relationship of Judaism and Christianity shows James as having strong Judaic influence. Yet Robinson doesn't consider this fact to be of much help (Robinson 1976, p. 119).
   Though Robinson admits the danger of an argument from silence, he also considers James significant in terms of what it does not mention (Robinson 1976, p. 120). Unlike Matthew, James lacks any mention of a distinction between Judaism and Christianity. Though the text seems rooted in Palestine, the agrarian metaphors make no mention of the destruction of agrarian life from the war of 66-70. Arguments are based on the Old Testament, with no suggestion of awareness of any New Testament writings (Robinson 1976, p. 121). The address to the twelve tribes dispersed is a very Jewish type of address, showing no awareness of Gentile conversion to Christ (Robinson 1976, p. 122).
   From a doctrinal standpoint, Robinson finds "no sign of christological sophistication or controversy" (Robinson 1976, p. 123). There is a hope for the coming of the Lord, but no mention of his death or resurrection. The doctrinal and ecclesiological issues which arose quickly in early Christianity, such as hierarchy and authority are absent (Robinson 1976, p. 124). Likewise, James shows no contact with the canonical New Testament documents (Robinson 1976, p. 125). All this suggests the earliest period of Christianity.
   Robinson discusses the alleged dispute of James and Paul over salvation by faith or by works (Robinson 1976, pp. 127ff). He concludes that if James were wishing to contradict a Pauline concept the argument would be more detailed, especially since James affirms that "the just live by faith." The suggestion, then, is that James may well be writing before, or at least without knowledge of Paul (Robinson 1976, p. 128).
   The introductory verse which identifies James as the author speaks to a high level of authority, and therefore to James, the brother of Jesus, who was the overseer at Jerusalem (Robinson 1976, p. 129). Robinson considers it worth noting that Jude introduces himself as "the brother of James," an endorsement of James' authority (Robinson 1976, p. 129).
   Robinson discusses three major objections which have been made to James as the author of the letter (Robinson 1976, pp. 131ff). James is often alleged to have a view of God's Law which agreed with the legalistic Judaizers (Robinson 1976, p. 131). However, this view of the law finds no support in Acts. James is not a Judaizer.
   A second objection to the authorship of James is the weakness of external testimony to its use in early Christianity (Robinson 1976, p. 132). The epistle was broadly used, with Origen and Eusebius being clear it belonged in the sacred texts despite doubts held in some parts of Christianity.
   A third objection to James as the author is his erudite Greek style, which may be described as "high koine" (Robinson 1976, p. 132). There is no reason, based on our knowledge of literature and archaeology, to rule out Jesus, James, and the apostles being familiar with Greek and Aramaic (Robinson 1976, p. 133).
   Having explored the data, Robinson again considers dating for James. He finds three main approaches. First, it could be "from an unknown Christian . . . from the first half of the second century or the end of the first" (Robinson 1976, p. 135). This view is weak, particularly due to the lack of reference to the historical, cultural, and New Testament developments discussed earlier.
   It is, of course, possible to assume James of Jerusalem as the author. Since he died in 62, there would be no knowledge of the late first century, and it is reasonable that there might be little knowledge of the Synoptics or Paul (Robinson 1976, pp. 136-137). The lack of discussion of relationships between Jews and Gentiles urges a relatively early date.
   Robinson suggests a date for James of prior to the rise of controversy about circumcision or the rise of a large number of Gentile converts (Robinson 1976, p. 138). For James to be known as a prominent leader who needed no apostolic claim, Robinson places James later than 35 (Gal. 1:19), and probably later than 42 (Acts 12:17) (Robinson 1976, p. 138). However, because of the lack of information about the relationship of circumcision and conversion, it should be no later than 47 or 48.

]]><![CDATA[The Relationship of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels]]>Tue, 09 Jun 2026 11:00:00 GMThttps://www.wittenbergcomo.com/blog/the-relationship-of-acts-and-the-synoptic-gospelsScholarly Reading
6/9/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 4: Acts and the Synoptic Gospels." (pp. 86-117). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)

   If we assume the traditional ascription of Acts and Luke to be accurate and to describe one and the same author, Robinson begins with the premise that the dating of Acts is tied up with that of the Synoptic Gospels (Robinson 1976, p. 86). Robinson observes from a stylistic standpoint that the different tone of Paul portrayed in Acts as compared to his epistles can be simply explained by the different audiences (Robinson 1976, p. 87). Further, Luke is presented as writing an historical account as opposed to theological letters. The fact that there are no references in Acts to the letters of Paul suggests a time period contemporaneous to Pual, rather than a later period (Robinson 1976, p. 88).
   Robinson reiterates his arguments from earlier chapters as to the lack of information about the fall of Jerusalem or even the flight of many to Pella around 66 (Robinson 1976, p. 89). These factors strongly urge an early time of composition, as does the conclusion of Acts, which leaves Paul unharmed and in Rome. There is likewise no hint of widespread persecutions of Christians under Nero. This supports Robinson's dating of Acts by the end of 62 (Robinson 1976, p. 91). Logically, then, Robinson takes Luke to be at least slightly earlier. However, this has an influence on the conventional scholarly wisdom of the composition of the synoptic Gospels (Robinson 1976, p. 92). If Luke depends on the other Gospels, they must be earlier. If Mark is the first, it must be before 62.
   Robinson deals, at least in brief, with the problem of synoptic texts by affirming, rather than a two-source or Q hypothesis, the existence of one or more detailed narratives of the works of Jesus, possibly in written, but certainly in oral form (Robinson 1976, p. 94). This information would have been generally accessible in the Christian community. This allows for the gospels to have considerable independence yet to follow familiar patterns.
   As to the earliest development of the Gospels, Robinson turns to Papias, as quoted by Eusebius (Robinson 1976, p. 95). Papias compared the writing of Mark, sourced from Peter's ad hoc sermons, with a more orderly compilation by Matthew. The work of Mark would be based on and oriented toward Christian preaching, while the work of Matthew would be oriented toward the orderly teaching. The orderly teaching is evident in Acts 10:37-41, where there is clearly assumed to be a basic body of knowledge of the facts surrounding Jesus' life, death, and resurrection (Robinson 1976, p. 96). The existence of known assemblies of Christian narratives comes from the earliest Christian period. Robinson considers such a source to be reflected by the Didache's reference to "the Gospel' in 8.2; 11.3; 15.3; and 15.4 (Robinson 1976, p. 96). In Robinson's view, this may be what was indicated by Papias and what Paul would have referred to, rather than what we now know as Matthew's Gospel (Robinson 1976, p. 97).
   Robinson raises an important question in this context. The terms "gospel" as used in the Didache seems to refer to something other than plain teaching (Robinson 1976, p. 98). What this is, however, is not entirely clear. The noncanonical writings referred to as gospels are collections of sayings generally showing a teaching function. Within the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy, the term has normally referred to a kerygma, specifically that which references the teaching and salvific work of Jesus. It is not inconceivable, in Robinson's estimation, that there were numerous collections of material in the early Chrsitian period which could be considered gospel accounts. This is reflected in the prologue to the canonical Gospel according to Luke (Robinson 1976, p. 100).
   The different canonical gospels show arrangement and choice of presentation, as well as material differences which were suited for different audiences. Robinson narrates some of the easily recognized distinctions in brief (Robinson 1976, p. 101). These distinctions, as well as the apparent developments in telling the gospel story over the time period that the document developed, will prove of use in Robinson's attempt to assign dates to the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (Robinson 1976, p. 102).
   Robinson's evaluation of Matthew's Gospel points him to a conclusion that the text comes from a period when Christianity was working to distinguish itself from the Jewish priestly identity, and before the migration to Pella (Robinson 1976, p. 103). The suggestion of a date between 50 and 64 is plausible. By 50, Christianity was becoming established and in need of a specific identity. By 64, the threat of Roman aggression and the difficulty of migration to the Judean countryside was clear (Robinson 1976, p. 104). The apocalyptic material in Matthew, further shows similarity to that of the Didache and the concepts brought forth by Paul in his third missionary period, shortly after the Jerusalem Council about the year 49 (Robinson 1976, p. 106). Robinson particularly ties this to the letters to the Thessalonians.
   Turning his attention to Mark's Gospel, Robinson observes, "It is a curious phenomenon that for the gospel that was least read or esteemed in the early church there is more tradition relating to its date of composition than any other. For the rest there are statements about the sequence in which they were written, which for the most part merely reflects or rationalizes the canonical order" (Robinson 1976, p. 107). The statements from Papias, Eusebius, and Clement of Rome place Mark's composition during the lifetime of Peter, whose preaching served as the primary source material for Mark (Robinson 1976, pp. 107-180). The chronology of Eusebius, which asserts the canonical order of the Gospels as their order of composition may bear some weight, though Roinson thinks it likely that Eusebius simply adopted the canonical order without any information about a dating issue (Robinson 1976, pp. 110-111). However, if indeed Peter was in Rome between 55 and 60, and if Mark wrote while or shortly after Peter's departure, a date around 60 8s certainly plausible. Eusebius does describe Peter as arriving in Rome in 42 and as having served as bishop for 25 years (Robinson 1976, p. 112). Based on Acts 12 and 1 Peter 5:13, Robinson places Mark with Peter in Rome from 42, returning to Jerusalem in 46 or 47, and not being in Rome again until the mid 60s (Robinson 1976, p. 114). This can certainly place the composition of the Gospel before the mid 60s and possibly in the 40s.
   Robinson considers it very possible that Luke counted Mark as one of the other accounts of the traditions (Luke 1:2) (Robinson 1976, p. 115), thus placing Luke slightly later than Mark, yet plausibly by the mid 60s.

]]>