ROCKING THE BOAT: How liberal theology redates the New Testament closer to the time of Jesus

This is an intriguing book. John A. T. Robinson was a liberal theologian who achieved fame and notoriety with the book "Honest to God". Later, he took an unexpected turn - at least for a liberal - and claimed that all of the New Testament had been written before AD 70. This is the position Robinson is defending in "Redating the New Testament", now available in reprint edition.

Three things makes Robinson's position curious.

First, even conservative Christians accept that parts of the New Testament were written after AD 70. For instance, the Gospel of John is almost universally dated to around AD 100, in the conservative case because of Church tradition that John wrote his gospel in very old age. Likewise, Revelation is often dated to the reign of Domitian, even by fundamentalists (except those who believe in Preterism). Indeed, as long as you believe that the gospels or Acts were written by actual apostles or companions to apostles, it matters little when they were penned down. To the best of my knowledge, no Christian group claims that *all* of the NT corpus predates AD 70.

Second, Robinson often uses liberal (!) arguments for his early dates. Thus, his book should be unacceptable to conservatives, let alone fundamentalists!

Third, if Robinson is right, it's difficult to see how *he* could have remained a Christian. If all of the NT was written before AD 70, then the original message of the apostles was patriarchal, homophobic, and hierarchical. Even worse, the message was phoney, since the prophecies of future events weren't real prophecies. (See further below.) So what's the point in remaining a Christian? Why not become something else, a spiritual existentialist perhaps? Thus, Robinson has redated the New Testament only at the expense of emasculating it. It becomes pointless scripture, to both liberals and conservatives. A rather curious end point!

But what about the concrete arguments? Perhaps inevitably, they are of varied quality. Robinson does make a surprisingly strong case for pre-70 authorship of the synoptic gospels and Acts. His arguments for 1 Peter, James and Revelation being early are somewhat shakier, but still worth considering. As for Hebrews, are arguments for a pre-70 date even necessary in that case? By contrast, the idea that the Gospel of John is very early cannot possibly be correct. The same goes for the notion that all Pauline epistles are authentic. They are not. And Robinson's claim that 2 Peter was actually written by the apostle is "out there". 2 Peter was disputed even by some Church Fathers, not even on theological grounds, but simply because nobody had heard of the text before the end of the second century. That in itself should tell us something.

To a large extent, Robinson's case is built on the fact that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70 isn't more prominently featured in the New Testament. Nor are the deaths of Peter and Paul. He contrasts this with writings everyone agrees comes from after AD 70, such as 1 Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas, which explicitly mention the destruction of the Temple (Barnabas) or the martyrdoms (Clement). But what about the Olivet Discourse, found in somewhat different versions in the synoptic gospels? Isn't that discourse about the Jewish war and the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans? And if so, aren't they typical examples of phoney prophecies, concocted after the fact? Robinson seems to agree that the prophecies are phoney, but argues that precisely for *that* reason they might have been penned before the Jewish war. He points out that the Olivet Discourse draws on traditional Jewish apocalyptic imagery. The "abomination of desolation standing in the holy place", and even the destruction of the sanctuary, are mentioned already in the Book of Daniel. The call on the faithful in Judea to flee to the mountains is taken from 1 Maccabees, where the original Maccabees do indeed take to the hills in preparation of an armed struggle against the Greeks. The whole notion of an apocalyptic attack on Jerusalem is standard fair in Old Testament prophecy, obviously because of the capture of the city by the Babylonians, and the destruction of the First Temple. (And to some extent, the constant desecrations of the Second Temple afterwards, by Greeks and Romans.) Nor was Jesus the only pre-70 Jewish prophet who warned that the Second Temple would be destroyed unless people repented. At least one other such prophet is known (curiously, his name was also Jesus or Joshua). Warnings of this kind were yesterday's news.

Robinson then argues that apart from these generalities, there are few specifics about the Jewish war and the destruction of the Temple in the Olivet Discourse. The veiled reference to "the abomination of desolation" apparently standing in the Temple might be a reference to Caligula's plans to place a statue of himself inside it. But Caligula, of course, lived before the Jewish war. In many ways, the prophecies of Jesus are erroneous. The Christians in Jerusalem or Judea didn't flee to the mountains. They fled to Pella, a pagan town in the Decapolis which happens to be below sea level! The prophecy also gives the somewhat curious advice that those who want to escape should do so after Jerusalem has already been encircled by the foreign army. Finally, and most notoriously, the gospels claim that Jesus' second coming would take place shortly after the capture of Jerusalem. Which, of course, it did not. Had the synoptic gospels really been written after AD 70, surely the prophecies would have been "improved" upon? With this ultraliberal argument, Robinson draws the conclusion that the whole thing might have been written before the war. The general and even erroneous prophecies were retrospectively interpreted as being about the actual Jewish war (the prophecies of Daniel were interpreted in this manner, as well). The delay of the parousia has been more difficult to explain away, as we all know, with each Christian group having its own pet solution.

I must admit that Robinson's case for the synoptics and Acts being earlier than the Jewish war is surprisingly strong. As already mentioned, his arguments concerning other texts moves from strong (Hebrews), quite strong but unconclusive (James, Revelation), weaker (John, the Pastorals), and patently absurd (2 Peter).

Finally, a small word of warning. "Redating the New Testament" is a very hard read, unless you already know quite a lot about the issues under consideration. It's not really directed at the general public. The book is very "in house". Also, Robinson doesn't always quote from the New Testament, making it necessary to constantly check his scriptural references, unless you know them by heart. Thus, you essentially have to read the book with a Bible next to you. (The author prefers the NEB.)

I recommend the book, not because I agree with all it says, but because we all need to get our boats rocked from time to time.