Robinson’s Dating of the Gospels

J.A.T. Robinson became known for his booklet “Honest to God”, in which he challenges the prevailing, often naive, conceptions of God of his time. He is much less known for his book on the Gospel of John and even less for his book on the question of dating New Testament literature [1]. I will return to his interpretation of John elsewhere, but here his research into the dating of the Gospels and the role of the year 70 therein is of importance.

The Year 70, the Fall of Jerusalem

It has already been noted that the year 70 plays an important role in the dating of the Gospels. All three synoptic Gospels have a so-called “apocalyptic” discourse at the end, just before the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, in which the fall of Jerusalem is announced along with all kinds of other disasters that precede the Second Coming of the Son of Man on the clouds. The prediction of the downfall of Jerusalem is one of the most important arguments for a late dating of the Gospels. For how could they have known? You can only determine that after the event.

But Robinson challenges the self-evidence of this view. Nowhere in the Gospels, he notes, is the fall of Jerusalem mentioned as a past fact [2]. Others have also pointed out that this is remarkable [3]. Someone has even called it an astonishing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies [4]. Robinson wants to take a fresh look at this issue, and although he is aware of Farmer’s research into the order of the Gospels’ origin, he starts with Mark, if only to go along with the assumption of most researchers of his time, as he says. Thus we read in Mark:

1When He left the temple, one of His disciples said to Him: “Teacher, look at these huge stones and impressive buildings!”
2Jesus said to him: “These great buildings you see now—be assured that not a single stone will be left upon another; everything will be torn down.”
3When He sat down on the Mount of Olives, opposite the temple, and Peter, James, John, and Andrew were alone with Him, Peter asked Him the question: 4“Tell us, when will all this happen, and by what sign will we recognize that the time has come?”
Mark 13:1-4

What stands out here to begin with is that this last question is not answered, nor is it answered anywhere else in Mark. More importantly, according to Robinson: why could Jesus not have made such a prediction? Josephus tells of the rebellion of another Jesus from 62 AD who does make a prediction. The fact that there is no correlation between the question at the beginning and Jesus’ answer suggests that this text was not written afterwards, that is, after the events of the year 70. In the text of Mark, there is only one reference to the temple:

14When you see the “abomination of desolation” standing where it does not belong (reader, understand this well), then everyone in Judea must flee to the mountains;
15whoever is on the roof of his house must not go down to get anything,
16and whoever is in the field must not go home to get his cloak.
Mark 13: 14 – 16

This cannot refer to the actual events of the year 70. It is written much more by analogy with the events of 168–167 BC, when the temple was desecrated by the placement of an idol under the regime of Antiochus Epiphanes (the “abomination of desolation”). This, together with the fact that pagan rites were imposed, resulted in Mattathias and his sons “fleeing to the hills, leaving behind all their possessions in the city” (1 Maccabees 2:28). The Roman Emperor Caligula did attempt to erect his statue in the temple in the year 40, but due to his premature death, this did not happen. In Eusebius, it is found that before the war, the Christians left the city and did not flee to the mountains, but to Pella, a Greek city in the Decapolis. In other words, if the prophecy in Mark had been written after the year 70, it would have had to look different. The parable of the wedding feast is often cited from Matthew. The guests for the wedding feast do not show up:

5But they ignored them (the messengers who came with the invitation) and departed, one to his field, another to his business.
6The rest took his servants captive, mistreated them, and killed them.
7The king was enraged and sent his troops against them; he had the murderers killed and their city burned down.
8Then he said to his servants: “Everything is ready for the wedding feast, but the guests were not worthy. 9Therefore go to the city gates and invite everyone you meet to the wedding.”
Matthew 22:5-9

According to Robinson, verse 7 was inserted into the text of Mark by Matthew [5]. Now—as Robinson points out once again—it is not immediately clear how, while the food is getting cold, the King sends an army against the city and has it reduced to ashes, only to invite new guests then. But moreover, if it was written after 70, then a distinction should have been made between the city, which was not burned, and the temple, which was indeed reduced to ashes. Such details are consistently missing from the prophecies in the apocalyptic discourses, according to Robinson. They are kept so general that they cannot have been written after the fact.

Finally, Luke. In his version of the apocalyptic discourse, the following is stated:

41When He saw Jerusalem before Him, He began to weep for the city.
42He said: ‘If only you had known on this day what serves for peace! But that remains hidden from you, even now.
43For a time will come when your enemies will erect siege works against you, surround you, and enclose you on all sides.
44They will level you to the ground and destroy your children, and they will not leave a stone upon another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s mercy.’
Luke 19: 41-44

That must be taken together with a text further on:

20When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, know then that the destruction of the city is near.
21Whoever is in Judea must flee into the mountains, whoever is in Jerusalem must leave, and whoever is in the countryside must not go into the city,
22for in those days the punishment will be carried out, whereby everything that is written will be fulfilled.
23How disastrous it will be for the women who are pregnant or have a child at the breast in those days! For the land will be in deep misery, and a severe judgment will fall upon the people.
24The inhabitants will perish by the sword or be carried away into captivity everywhere, while Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles, until their time is over.
Luke 21: 20-24

Many exegetes see in this the more specific information that we have been missing until now [6]. But Robinson points to an article by Dodd, in which he argues that this is not so much about the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus, but rather that the conquest of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 served as the model for this prophecy [7]. Moreover, the text of Luke suggests that even after the encirclement by the armies of the Romans, one would still have the opportunity to enter or leave the city. In Mark and Matthew, the previously quoted words “he who is on the roof of his house should not go down to fetch anything, 16and he who is in the field should not go home to fetch his cloak” do not refer to the city one would have to leave, but to one’s house, into which one should not enter before fleeing. Luke also does not answer the initial question as to when all this would happen, and focuses on the destruction of the city rather than the temple. Furthermore, in Luke’s apocalyptic discourse, there is nothing that goes beyond general terms, such as the words about wars and rumors of wars. Robinson concludes his reflection on the significance of the year 70 with the finding that, considering the fact that all three synoptic Gospels actually provide vague information about the end of Jerusalem, the findings point to a time of writing before the year 70 rather than afterwards.

The date of Acts and the Gospels

In Acts, the pressing question is why the account of events suddenly stops at Paul’s arrival in Rome. Luke recounts in detail how Paul travels from Jerusalem to Rome and that he is able to receive people in his house there for two years without difficulty. But his readers learn nothing about the outcome of the trial. After all, Paul had appealed to the emperor. There is also nothing to be found about the persecutions under Nero and the large number of Christians who were slaughtered during them, nor about the death of James, the brother of Jesus, in 62. Luke could have really used the latter, for this James was killed by the high priest Ananus, who took advantage of an interregnum following the death of Procurator Festus to administer the death penalty, even though the Sanhedrin was not actually authorized to do so. In fact, we can only conclude that the book simply breaks off, because Luke finished it in 62. Moreover, this means that the Gospel of Luke must have been written before that date.

Robinson holds the conviction that no single specific gospel contains the oldest tradition continuously and exclusively. The written and oral tradition that underlies every gospel is sometimes best preserved in its original version by Matthew, sometimes by Luke, but mostly, in his judgment, by Mark [8]. However, Mark should not be seen as the document underlying all three. Robinson views the Gospels in their current form as parallel but not isolated developments of material common to various circles of the Christian mission, rather than as a simple chronological order. This also implies that these traditions influenced one another in the course of their editorial formation. It must be borne in mind that the Gospels were essential for the preaching, teaching, and apologetics, as well as the liturgy of the Christian communities. This means that they grew out of and along with the needs of these communities. That such traditions and written and unwritten sources existed is clearly evident, according to Robinson, in the introductory words of the Gospel of Luke, in which Luke himself mentions that he examined many sources.

At a certain point, the Gospels were written down, more or less as we know them today, but not necessarily in their final form. One can assume that they underwent revision even then. The course of development of these Gospels was strongly influenced by the context and the problems that arose within it.

Matthew represents the Gospel for the Jewish-Christian church in Palestine. It helps them in defending their position against the dominant Judaism. However, it is not a Gospel of people whose intention is to Judaize Christians, but rather the work of a Jewish-Christian community that was open to missionary work among the Gentiles and all the tensions this entailed. For Matthew contains both very Jewish and very universalist texts. Because of that universalism and the focus on missionary work to the Gentiles, Robinson proposes Antioch as the place of editing. After all, it was from there that the missionary work among the Gentiles began. Luke and Acts are essentially the gospel for the world of the Roman Empire, as interpreted by Paul. However, Luke certainly does not reject the Jewish roots and the Septuagint.

Mark (in whatever order) is the gospel of the Roman center and does not represent one of the wings, but focuses on the church in Rome, which had its own problems and pressures.

John must be seen as an integral whole within this stream of development of the gospels, in a similar process, and especially with a view to the mission of the church among the Greek-speaking Jews in Palestine and later in the diaspora.

Matthew is concerned more than the other evangelists with a relationship to the temple, the priests, and the sacrifices. Regarding the Sabbath, Jesus says in Matthew:

5 And have you not read in the law that the priests who officiate in the temple on the Sabbath and thus profane the Sabbath are innocent?
6 I tell you: here is something greater than the temple!
7 If you had understood what is meant by: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” then you would not have condemned the innocent.
Matthew 12:5-7

Only Matthew has the quote from Hosea 6:6 here: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” It is striking, according to Robinson, that he does not have the quote from 1 Samuel 15:22, as Mark 12:33 renders it, where love for God and neighbor “means much more than burnt offerings and sacrifices.” That is not surprising, given that the Levitical system, the cult of sacrifice in Jerusalem, was still fully in operation in his time. He also has much more references to the Sadducees, a group that lost its influence after the destruction of the temple. Also worth mentioning is the temple tax, which Jesus says must be paid anyway, so as not to cause difficulties (Matthew 17:24-27). That makes Matthew the most Jewish gospel.

All Gospels have preliminary stages in which they developed and grew and changed according to needs. This is least true for Luke, who acts as the author after processing all his sources, as he himself states. Matthew, as has been established by several people, has different layers of tradition and came into being through an accumulative process [9]. It contains both old and new things, as it itself states (Matthew 13:52). In this way, Matthew reflects a period in which the coexistence of two communities necessitates the clarification of the specifically Christian line regarding a number of practical matters that are no longer self-evident. That could be the period between 50 and 64 AD [10].

The Gospel of John and the Epistles of John are discussed by Robinson in a separate chapter [11]. John is usually dated late, around the year 100. In his initial publications, Robinson went along with this, but he has since abandoned this view, which was actually the reason for re-examining the dating of all New Testament writings [12]. John is often regarded as the most theological gospel, yet it is at the same time full of historical detail. This gospel must have had its own source and tradition. Robinson seeks that source in the ranks of the Greek-speaking Jews in Judea and in the diaspora. The Father-Son comparisons with which the gospel is full must be understood in terms of character, not status, and thus belong to a Hebrew/Aramaic, Palestinian context [13].

If John were to be dated so late, one would expect the fall of Jerusalem to be explicitly mentioned somewhere in this gospel. But that is not the case [14]. Likewise, the cleansing of the temple in John is not placed at the end, where it could be a foreshadowing of the end of Israel, but is entirely focused on Jesus’ commitment, under the influence of the preaching of John the Baptist, to the religious purity of Israel.

In John 5:2, where John tells the story of the healing of the crippled man in Bethesda, the colonnades at Bethesda are mentioned in the present tense. Based on this, Robinson assumes that the Gospel of John must have been written before the fall of Jerusalem, when this colonnade was still intact. At the end of the Gospel of John, in John 21:18,19, it is indicated how Peter will die, by being crucified:

18Truly, I tell you, when you were young you put on your own belt and went wherever you wanted, but when you grow old another will take your hands, put on your belt, and take you where you do not want to go.’
19With these words He indicated how Peter would die to the glory of God.
John 21:18,19

If it can be concluded from this that the Gospel of John was written after the death of Peter, then John has a clear dating: around 64 or 65 AD.

In its current form, the Gospel of John is a call to the Greek-speaking diaspora of Judaism in Asia Minor to accept Jesus as Christ [15]. It is the Greek-speaking Jews who are present at the feast in John 12:20 and want to see Jesus. It is the sheep that are not of this flock and yet listen to the voice of Christ (John 10:16). That does not mean that the Gospel of John is not missionary in character, but it brings the world into Jerusalem, not the other way around.

Thus, not only for the Gospels and Acts does Robinson arrive at a much earlier dating then customary is the case: all the books of the New Testament were written before the year 70. They each have a message for a specific target group, and they develop into their final form in the preaching and catechesis of these groups, who, moreover, through all mutual contacts, also heard of one another’s traditions and were influenced by them. The evangelists who write them down give them their final form. Thus Robinson. [1] Robinson, John A.T., 2000. Redating the New Testament, Wipf & Stock, Eugene, Oregon, Original SCM Press, 1976.
[2] Robinson 13.
[3] Robinson 14 So Moffat, Moule.
[4] Robinson 14, footnote 4. Bo Reicke calls it “An amazing example of uncritical dogmatism in New Testament studies…”
[5] Robinson 19.
[6] Kümmel for example, Robinson 26.
[7] Robinson 27: C.H. Dodd, “The Fall of Jerusalem and the “Abomination of Desolation””, JRS 37, 1947,47 – 54”.
[8] Robinson 94.
[9] Robinson 102.
[10] Robinson 104.
[11] Robinson 254 ff.
[12] Robinson 263.
[13] Robinson 269.
[14] Robinson 276.
[15] Robinson 292.