Scholarly 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.
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.
RSS Feed