Dating of the new testament
He contrasts this with the apocryphal books, with their use of the earlier destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians standing in for the recent Roman actions. That there is no reason to accept the late dates becomes increasingly clear as these preconceptions are dealt with and swept aside.
(Robinson contrasts the restrained style of the canonical books with the more flamboyant and detailed post-event writings of II Baruch, II Esdras, and the Sibylline Oracles.) Ultimately he supports the (then shocking) conclusion that none of the New Testament books were written after 70 A. What is also clear is that Robinson (as a theological modernist), has no conception of the church or tradition as an authority.
Personally I didn’t follow up on the material provided but I’m sure it can be useful to others as he cites many authors unheard of by majority of scholars.
Also Robinson is very in-depth with his research and doesn’t leave one stone unturned. Robinson (1919-1983) was a thoroughgoing theological modernist.
On the one hand he brilliantly exposes the meagre arguments behind the traditional dating of the New Testament writings, but on the other he replaces this traditional dating with a new theory that in my opinion is even weaker than the chronology he questions.
The apocalyptic writing style was used by suppressed people to hide important information from their ruthless oppressors, in this case by the early Christians to conceal their subversive message for the Romans.The author is clear in making his points and very well equipped with biblical verses to back them up.(Actually I’m surprised at some of the connections he makes with verses from other books, tying it in beautifully with the historical account) If you’re looking for a scholarly work on the dating of the New Testament, this is a must read!Where the modern scholar might look askance at seeming interpolations such as the ending chapter of the Gospel of Mark, within the Eastern Church this interpolation is not a problem, because the Church determined that the supposed (and probable) interpolation is part of inspired scripture.Thus the question of whether the apostle Peter wrote the epistle of II Peter is unimportant, despite its being the subject of never-ending speculation on the part of the theological liberals.