New redating testament
Roman historian Colin Hemer has provided powerful evidence that Acts was written between AD 60 and 62. There is no mention in Acts of the crucial event of the fall of Jerusalem in 70. There is no hint of the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 or of serious deterioration of relations between Romans and Jews before that time. There is no hint of the deterioration of Christian relations with Rome during the Neronian persecution of the late 60s. There is no hint of the death of James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. At that time a new phase of conflict began with Christianity. Acts seems to antedate the arrival of Peter in Rome and implies that Peter and John were alive at the time of the writing. The prominence of 'God-fearers' in the synagogues may point to a pre-70 date, after which there were few Gentile inquiries and converts to Jerusalem. Luke gives insignificant details of the culture of an early, Julio-Claudian period. Areas of controversy described presume that the temple was still standing. Adolf Harnack contended that Paul's prophecy in (cf. If so, the book must have appeared before those events. Christian terminology used in Acts reflects an earlier period.Harnack points to use of always designates 'the Messiah,' and is not a proper name for Jesus. The confident tone of Acts seems unlikely during the Neronian persecutions of Christians and the Jewish War with the Rome during the late 60s. The action ends very early in the 60s, yet the description in Acts 27 and 28 is written with a vivid immediacy. The earlier dating of Revelation fits with the fact that John seems to assume a still-standing temple in Revelation 11, it also fits with the widely-believed concept that at least some of Revelation's symbols (if not all) refer to the catastrophic events of AD70-73. 'if you want to find out how Robinson manages to date the whole of the NT before AD 70, you will have to follow him in this long and Oinstaking detective work.However, for the Eastern Church, the question of who wrote what is subordinate to the question of inspiration and canonicity.
The destiny ('Theophilus'), style, and vocabulary of the two books betray a common author. The significance of Gallio's judgement in Acts -17 may be seen as setting precedent to legitimize Christian teaching under the umbrella of the tolerance extended to Judaism. The prominence and authority of the Sadducees in Acts reflects a pre-70 date, before the collapse of their political cooperation with Rome. The relatively sympathetic attitude in Acts to Pharisees (unlike that found even in Luke's Gospel) does not fit well with in the period of Pharisaic revival that led up to the council at Jamnia. He believed that AD70 was a pivotal year for the early church with the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem and found it quite staggering that that event would have gone unmentioned in those books which had been believed to have been written very late, such as the epistles of John and the Book of Revelation. Robinson definitely came from the more liberal tradition of Anglicanism, and wrote many things which many of us would not support, however, his redating of the New Testament was, in the opinion of many of us, long overdue and it solved many former problems and questions. He has difficulty accepting the authors of scripture as people who cooperated in the proclamation and promulgation of the Gospel.
To the western scholar and theologian, the questions of who wrote what and when are quite important.
Robinson (1919-1983) was a thoroughgoing theological modernist.