Category: Robinson 1976 - Wittenberg Door Campus Ministry

Conclusions Regarding New Testament Dating

7/2/2026

Scholarly 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).

Christian Writings in the Early Post-Apostolic Age

6/30/2026

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.

The Fourth Gospel and the Epistles of John in Historical Context

6/25/2026

Scholarly 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).

Dating Revelation

6/23/2026

Scholarly 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.

Dating the Epistle to the Hebrews

6/18/2026

Scholarly 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.

The Epistles of Peter and Jude

6/16/2026

Scholarly 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).

Historical Context of James

6/11/2026

Scholarly 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.

The Relationship of Acts and the Synoptic Gospels

6/9/2026

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.

Known Dates and Paul's Epistles

6/4/2026

Scholarly Reading
6/4/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 3: The Pauline Epistles." (pp. 31-85). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)

   The dates of Paul are rather clearly established, according to Robinson (Robinson 1976, p. 31). Robinson does observe that an inscription at Delphi, published in 1905, gives clarity to the time of Gallio's consulship, which influenced interpretation of the timeline of Paul's activities, adjusting some estimates by about two years (Robinson 1976, p. 30). However, Robinson provides a number of reasons that cause us to consider dating of his letters to be provisional. In particular, the calendar systems used were not standard, and reckoning was normally made in relation to officials' reigns. Further, the reckoning of intervals of time was sometimes inclusive and sometimes exclusive (Robinson 1976, pp. 32-33). The coordination of time elements in Acts with Paul's letters is also of great importance, though they normally are found in agreement (Robinson 1976, p. 33).
   Though it is tangential to the cause of dating Paul's letters, it is interesting to note that the date of Paul's encounter with the proconsul Gallio (Acts 18:12-17) could not have been before early summer of 51, based on the inscription in Corinth. The events of Acts 15, which have often been held to be in 51, must be earlier, perhaps in 48. Robinson lays the details out clearly (Robinson 1976, p. 35).
   Robinson considers the chronological statements of Galatians 1-2 as very important, but easily misconstrued (Robinson 1976, pp. 36-37). The intervals of time cited by Paul may be inclusive or not. They also may have reference either to time from Paul's conversion or to time from the last event mentioned. Robinson further observes that the visits of Paul to Jerusalem recorded in Galatians 1:18-24 and Acts 9:26-30 would appear to be the same, but that the two accounts mention very different activities at the time (Robinson 1976, p. 38). Robinson continues by discussing the various accounts of Paul in Jerusalem at some length.
   The visits of Paul to Jerusalem described in Acts 11:30-12:25 and in Acts 15 present a significant challenge to chronological analysis, in Robinson's mind (Robinson 1976, pp. 40ff). The visit from chapter 11 may not be mentioned in any letters because of the lack of need to transmit a particular message. However, it is clear that, in Acts 15, a decree was made which was to be circulated. Particularly in the setting of Galatians, this decree would have been relevant (Robinson 1976, p. 41). The gist of the message, however, was central to Paul's work in Galatia. It may have been unnecessary to comment further. Robinson further considers that the cultural context in Rome and Corinth may have been so different that the decree from Acts 15 would have been impracticable.
   Having established Paul's presence in Corinth before Gallio in AD 51, Robinson looks for a date of Porcius Festus replacing Felix in Judea (Acts 24:27) (Robinson 1976, p. 43). As of Robinson's writing, no inscription has been found to clarify this date. Josephus and Tacitus give contradictory information. The emperor Nero had recalled Felix, which places the event after Nero's accession in 54. Felix had been subject to complaints made to Nero, and had been under the protection of his brother Pallas. This places the recall no earlier than late in 55 (Robinson 1976, p. 43). However, Eusebius assigns Nero's accession as 55 and Felix' recall in 56. The reference in Acts to "two years" throws further confusion into the matter, as it may be inclusive or exclusive and as it may indicate an ongoing imprisonment during which Paul's various hearings occurred (Robinson 1976, p. 44). Robinson details the information of Eusebius, along with other scholars, who tend to place Paul's arrival in Jerusalem in 57, with his imprisonment there lasting into 59 (Robinson 1976, p. 46).
   Armed with these beginning and ending date ranges, Robinson moves to consider the events of Paul's third missionary journey. After leaving for Asia Minor probably in spring of 52, Paul arrived shortly in Ephesus, where he was teaching until late in 54 (Robinson 1976, p. 46). This is covered in Acts 18:23-19:20. Robinson then sees some lack of clarity in the dating, while Paul remained in the area but Timothy and Erastus went to Macedonia, probably bringing us to summer of 55 (Robinson 1976, p. 47). From Ephesus, Paul went through Macedonia to Greece, then back to Macedonia (Acts 20:1-4). His goal was to be in Jerusalem by Pentecost, which Robinson identifies as the festival in the year 56 (Robinson 1976, p. 47).
   Robinson now pulls in information from Paul's letters, which confirm time in Corinth with Silas and Timothy (Acts 18:5; 2 Corinthians 1:19) (Robinson 1976, p. 47). The sequence of travels found in Acts is also alluded to by using the letters to the Thessalonians and Philippians (Robinson 1976, p. 48). The planned travels match well with the summary after the fact in Acts. Robinson further considers that 1 Corinthians was likely "written in the spring of Paul's last year in Ephesus, round about Easter-time," referencing 1 Corinthians 5:7 (Robinson 1976, p. 48). Paul's travel plans were interrupted, provoking his changes of plans from 2 Corinthians 1:15; 12:14; and 13:1ff (Robinson 1976, p. 49). 2 Corinthians provides numerous details about the interruptions to Paul's plans and the eventual decision to write the second letter to Corinth, probably late in 55 or early in 56 (Robinson 1976, p. 50). Yet Robinson is troubled by the sheer number of things on Paul's schedule and by the fact that he needs three months in Achaia before going to Jerusalem. Therefore, Robinson posits the sketchy time surrounding Acts 20;2 to have moved us to an arrival in Jerusalem for Pentecost in 57 (Robinson 1976, p. 51).
   Once Paul had arrived in Jerusalem, the timeline of events becomes more specific and clear. The details from Acts 24:11 and following have a rather clear chronology, bringing us through Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea until near the time (Acts 27:1) that Paul was put aboard a ship for transfer to Rome (Robinson 1976, p. 51). Paul's arrival at Rome thus was in the spring of 60, followed in Acts by two years of house arrest, leaving the narrative in 62 (Robinson 1976, p. 52). Robinson sums up the work of Paul with a brief timeline.
   Based on the chronology of Paul's work and travels, as well as the people and events mentioned in the letters of Paul, Robinson constructs a chronology of the letters (Robinson 1976, pp. 53-84), giving a brief explanation of the specifics of each:
   1 Thessalonians from Corinth, summer 50
   2 Thessalonians from Corinth, late 50 or early 51
   1 Corinthians from Ephesus, spring 55
   2 Corinthians from Macedonia in 56
   Romans from Corinth early in 57
   Galatians - difficult to place and date, probably between 2 Corinthians and Romans in 56
   Philippians - probably from Caesarea or Rome
   Pastoral Epistles - possibly by Paul, if so, similar to Philippians
(Robinson leans toward Caesarea during Paul's imprisonment there, probably in 58, in the order: Philippians, Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Timothy)
   Robinson finally places 1 Timothy in late 55 and Titus in spring 57. See a concise chart on p. 84.

70 AD as Pivotal in New Testament Dating

6/2/2026

Scholarly Reading
6/2/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 2: The Significance of 70." (pp. 13-30). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)

   The failure of the New Testament to speak of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 as a past event is not missed by Robinson (Robinson 1976, p. 13). Silence regarding such a noteworthy event requires an explanation. The most obvious explanation, of course, for the New Testament to treat the events as those of a yet-unknown future time, is that the events had not yet happened (Robinson 1976, p. 14).
   While Robinson is not entirely certain that the now conventional assumption of Mark's Gospel being composed first is correct, for the purpose of his initial exploration, he starts from that position (Robinson 1976, p. 15). Yet, the order of composition of the synoptic Gospels is not strictly tied to a question of the date relative to AD 70. In Mark 13:1-4, Jesus predicts the destruction of the temple. He then goes on to describe signs of the end to four disciples more privately. The discourse continues without further mention of the destruction of the temple. This suggests to Robinson that not only was the actual discussion before AD 70, but that the creation of the written account was also prior to that time (Robinson 1976, p. 16). In fact, the later reference to the temple, in verses 14-16, indicates a desecration rather than destruction. It further suggests a flight from Jerusalem which was largely impossible by late in 67, when the Roman forces controlled the surrounding hills. The flight, in fact, was not to the hills, but to the city of Pella, and was before the war was in full swing (Robinson 1976, p. 16). The account in Mark would not have been written as it was if after AD 70. Rather, Robinson takes the passage to be informed by events from Daniel 9, 11, and 12 and events from 1 Macc. 1 and 2 which can be dated in the second century BC. The disciples are warned of a similar time yet to come.
   Robinson further notes that the proposal of Caligula in AD 40 to unify the nation by setting up his statue in the temple could easily be seen as a proposed desecration, one anticipated by many but which never happened (Robinson 1976, pp. 17-18). This proposal could well be seen to fit circumstances described in 2 Thessalonians and in Revelation.
   The parable of the wedding feast, from Matthew 22:1-10 (parallel Luke 14:16-24) is Robinson's next step in his survey. The brutal attack on the king's servants, then the king's act of killing his opponents and burning their town is a sign of an allegorical interpretation of the parable (Robinson 1976, p. 19). Luke's addition of a two-fold search for wedding guests, possibly representing a call to Jews and Gentiles, suggests the parable has to do with all sorts of Christians (Robinson 1976, p. 20). The relevant question in Robinson's mind is whether the burning of the town is a representation of the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. Because the destruction of a city by fire was a common theme in literature of the time, it may well not serve as a description of one particular event (Robinson 1976, p. 20). The fact that the whole of Jerusalem was not destroyed by fire, but only the temple, urges a pre-AD 70 date for the account of destruction.
   Matthew 24 provides us with a number of statements which are apocalyptic in nature. However, Robinson contends that Matthew is not explicit about the destruction of Jerusalem or a time of flight from the city (Robinson 1976, p. 22). If the narrative were written after AD 70, Robinson expects there would be an answer in Matthew 24:3 as to the date of destruction of the temple, or at least that the question would be omitted due to the clarity of the answer. Questions of persecution in Matthew 24 are related to conflicts among Christians, rather than involving Romans. The mention of an abomination is specifically that found in Daniel.
   Robinson concludes that Matthew does not predict the events of AD 70 in any more clear terms than Mark does (Robinson 1976, p. 23). Similarly, the text is hard to understand as being written after the events of AD 70. There is further reason to take the synoptic Gospels as being close to the time of the events. Robinson notes the statements of the end coming soon, that those living in Jesus' time will see the end, and that the coming will be before the apostles have been through all the towns (Robinson 1976, p. 24). One would not expect such language so long after the resurrection.
   The discussion of Jerusalem found in Luke 19:41-44 and 1:20-24 is also enlightening. Robinson notes that "here indeed is the greater specification we expect but fail to find in Matthew" (Robinson 1976, p. 26). However, there is reason to doubt whether the passage is an actual description of the events of AD 68-70. Robinson discusses C.H. Dodd (Journal of Roman Studies 37, 1947, 47-54), who argued the descriptions, especially in Luke 21, were standard ways of expressing period warfare (Robinson 1976, p. 27). The ideas would not have been dependent on the events of AD 70. Like Mark, Luke also includes the suggestion of flight, which was impossible between AD 66 and 70 (Robinson 1976, p. 28).

Dating of Texts and Compelling Evidence

5/28/2026

Scholarly Reading
5/28/26

Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 1: Dates and Data." (pp. 1-12). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)

   Robinson observes that while conventional wisdom would say dates of events should be well established in the scholarly community, because we have a great deal of information in the biblical accounts which is dependent on other dates, a change in understanding of one event may drive adjustment of many dates which are known by their relationship, rather than by independent, fixed points (Robinson 1976, p. 1). He illustrates the effect in terms of carbon dating, which was used in 1949 to expand a 500 year period of history to about 1,500 years, thus rearranging expectations about an overall cultural timeline for early European history (Robinson 1976, p. 2). Further adjustments, related to dendrochronology, starting in 1966, changed assumptions to call for events to have occurred much earlier than the carbon dating assumptions of 1949. Such inquiries in other fields led Robinson to ask questions about possible "deductions from deductions" within biblical scholarship (Robinson 1976, p. 3).
   Robinson briefly summarizes the assumptions of New Testament dating, as they stood about the year 1800, in 1850 (Robinson 1976, pp. 3-4), in 1900 (Robinson 1976, pp. 4-6), and in 1950 (Robinson 1976, pp. 6-7). From the assumptions of about 1800, in which the authorship of the documents is as ascribed in the letters and, in the case of the Gospels and Acts, assumed in early traditions, the time span was expanded by theories about literary style. After about 1900, the dating assumptions tended to contract back to the first century, though authorship was a matter of debate.
   We note this volume has a copyright of 1976. Robinson discusses in some detail a New Testament introduction by Norman Perrin, from 1974 (Robinson 1976, pp. 7ff). Perrin describes the church as gradually developing into an "institution" toward the middle of the second century. Robinson duly questions what Perrin would assume the church was prior to that time (Robinson 1976, p. 8). The schema used may well be driven by Perrin's theological or cultural assumptions rather than by "any serious wrestling with the external or internal evidence for the dating of individual books" (Robinson 1976, p. 8).
   Robinson's questioning of assumptions about the dating of texts led him to ask if there is a compelling reason to date John's Gospel near the end of the first century (Robinson 1976, p. 9). Robinson finds a good deal of evidence for John's lack of dependence on the Synoptic Gospels, as well as a linguistic similarity to Dead Sea Scrolls, suggesting to him a context more like the period of 66-70 than the period of 95-100. This conclusion, however, may change our understanding of the comparative dates of the other Gospels and of their relationships to the Epistles (Robinson 1976, p. 10).
   Robinson's pursuit of the question of John's dating led him, in the end, to push the hypothesis of dating to its limits, evaluating whether an earlier date than previously assumed might be possible (Robinson 1976, p. 10). He freely admits there is much more that could be done to evaluate chronology. However, Robinson considers his evaluation to open enough questions in biblical study to be of interest to the scholarly community as a whole (Robinson 1976, p. 11).