Scholarly 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.
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.
RSS Feed