Jat robinson redating the new testament Free chat no strings
No New testament documents make clear reference to the destruction of the temple.Some appear to prophecy the destruction, but it is clearly written as prophecy and not fulfilment, and even then it is not an absolute certainty.If that is so, we could not say that the Gospel of St. Mark was written in 45, as we can say, for example, that Second Corinthians was written in 55 or 56. Baur (1792-1860), an Hegelian rationalist, held that the Gospels were written between 130 and 170. He first begins by outlining the assumptions on which the post-A. 70 dating hinges: Most critics date the writing of Mark around A. 70 because the Christian theology in it is quite developed and Jesus’ predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem (Mark 13) show that the event was at hand. The value of those arguments, however, hinges on certain assumptions: (1) With regard to Mark, the first argument assumes that “the Christian theology” was not in fact Jesus’ own.To say it is “developed” assumes that it was once “primitive.” Actually the argument cuts both ways: one could argue that because Mark was written early, the theology is not” developed,” but truly characteristic of what Jesus taught.
(3) With regard to the arguments for a post-70 date for Luke, the first assumes Mark was not written before A. Is it really plausible to think that Mark would wait decades before writing his brief gospel, which would be so valuable in sharing and leaving with newly established churches as the gospel preachers went about teaching and preaching? As a matter of fact, Jesus’ prophecies are actually evidence that the gospels were written before A. 70, for Luke never casts the Romans in the role of enemies in his writings. Besides that, we have Josephus’s descriptions of the sacking of Jerusalem in A. 70, and many of the striking peculiarities of the city’s destruction are absent from the prophecies.
@Mawia Well, the Revelation to S John the Divine is generally believed to have been written between AD70 and AD95.
But you're right that beyond superficial relative dates, there is very little evidence at all as to the actual date of any book.
They had delegated imperial authority in Vespasian's absence.
Hegesippus could simplebe mistaken about the dates, confusing events that happen in 69 or 70 with similar events in 95 or 96.
Robinson dated the composition of Matthew from 40 to 60, using dots to indicate the traditions behind the text, dashes to indicate a first draft, and a continuous line to indicate writing and rewriting.