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).
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).
RSS Feed