It's no secret that my nearly-completed monograph Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament aims to argue a renewed case for what I call a "lower" chronology for the composition of the New Testament texts. By "lower" chronology I mean simply to say that with the exception of the undisputed Pauline epistles I would date most of the New Testament texts approximately 25 years earlier than the majority of my colleagues. The best known advocate of such a chronology prior to myself is surely John A.T. Robinson, late Anglican bishop of Woolwich, whose Redating the New Testament argued that the entirety of the New Testament was written prior to 70 C.E. Legitimately, people might wonder about the relationship between my work and Bishop Robinson's. As such, in a series of posts, I intend to focus upon certain critiques that I myself would bring against Redating. In doing so however I want to emphasize that I do not think that these critiques mar the overall framework developed in Robinson. Indeed, I think that his chronology for the composition of the New Testament texts is probably closer to the mark than most alternatives. Nonetheless, insofar as excellence is not the same as perfection, critique is a legitimate way to improve even the best of things.
In this post I want to critique what I call Robinson's Neronian error. He advances this error in response to a more pervasive Domitianic error. We'll start with the latter. The Domitianic error seems to have receded in frequency among contemporary biblical scholars, although I don't think we can say that it has disappeared entirely. It consists of two limbs. The first is the affirmation that Christians suffered widespread persecution in the final years of Domitian's reign. The second limb is the supposition that virtually any unspecified reference to persecution found in the New Testament refers to this putative Domitianic persecution of the 90s. Example of this error in operation: Hebrews writes about persecution, therefore it was written in the 90s. Robinson rightly critiques this Domitianic error on two grounds. First, the empirical evidence for this persecution is limited largely to Domitian's order c. 95 that his cousin Flavius Clemens be executed and Clemens' wife Flavia Domitilla be banished. It is possible, although far from certain that Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla, or perhaps both were Christians. While we cannot exclude the possibility of a persecution of Christians in the 90s, we would probably want more positive evidence than the execution of one imperial cousin who might have been a Christian and the banishment of his wife who might also have been a Christian. More crucial to us however is Robinson's again quite right objection to the second limb, namely that while many of these unspecified references to persecution found in the New Testament could be describing the experience of a putative persecution that occurred in the 90s, they could as easily be describing the experience of persecution at some other time.
But it's on his critique this second limb that Robinson gets himself into trouble. He moves in most cases almost immediately from correctly noting that these unspecified references to persecution need not be referring to events of the 90s to stating that they probably refer to events of the 60s, under Nero. In so doing, he virtually recapitulates the Domitianic error, except now as the Neronian error. This latter error has structurally identical limbs as the former. The first is the affirmation that Christians suffered widespread persecution in the final years of Nero's reign. The second limb is the supposition that virtually any unspecified reference to persecution found in the New Testament refers to this putative Neronian persecution of the 60s. Example of this error in operation: Hebrews writes about persecution, therefore it was written in the 60s. (Italics used to emphasize that only the emperor and the decade change for Robinson: the basic logic of his argument does not). Now, this Neronian error is arguably less egregious than the Domitianic error, in that the first limb is far stronger in the former than the latter. The evidence that in the final years of Nero's reign Christians suffered what they experienced as persecution is stronger (although not unassailable) than the evidence that Christians suffered likewise in the final years of Domitian's; indeed, both Tacitus and Suetonius report that this was the case. Where Robinson, again, gets into trouble is on the second limb of the error, for just as these unspecified references to persecution in the New Testament need not refer to events of Domitian's reign neither need they refer to events of Nero's. They could conceivably refer to persecution at virtually any point from the 30s onward, and indeed in some even many cases need not necessarily refer to a specific persecution at all. Just as they need not refer to a Domitianic persecution, they need not refer to a Neronian either.
There is no question that for the purposes of establishing the dates of the New Testament documents contemporary scholarship's Domitian has been too big. There is equally no question that Robinson's Nero is also too big. Both the Domitianic and the Neronian error must be abandoned. (So too the related but less prevalent Trajanic error, which sometimes seeks to correlate biblical texts with the limited but better documents actions taken by Pliny the Younger towards the end of Trajan's reign, specifically c. 112).
In this post I want to critique what I call Robinson's Neronian error. He advances this error in response to a more pervasive Domitianic error. We'll start with the latter. The Domitianic error seems to have receded in frequency among contemporary biblical scholars, although I don't think we can say that it has disappeared entirely. It consists of two limbs. The first is the affirmation that Christians suffered widespread persecution in the final years of Domitian's reign. The second limb is the supposition that virtually any unspecified reference to persecution found in the New Testament refers to this putative Domitianic persecution of the 90s. Example of this error in operation: Hebrews writes about persecution, therefore it was written in the 90s. Robinson rightly critiques this Domitianic error on two grounds. First, the empirical evidence for this persecution is limited largely to Domitian's order c. 95 that his cousin Flavius Clemens be executed and Clemens' wife Flavia Domitilla be banished. It is possible, although far from certain that Flavius Clemens, Flavia Domitilla, or perhaps both were Christians. While we cannot exclude the possibility of a persecution of Christians in the 90s, we would probably want more positive evidence than the execution of one imperial cousin who might have been a Christian and the banishment of his wife who might also have been a Christian. More crucial to us however is Robinson's again quite right objection to the second limb, namely that while many of these unspecified references to persecution found in the New Testament could be describing the experience of a putative persecution that occurred in the 90s, they could as easily be describing the experience of persecution at some other time.
But it's on his critique this second limb that Robinson gets himself into trouble. He moves in most cases almost immediately from correctly noting that these unspecified references to persecution need not be referring to events of the 90s to stating that they probably refer to events of the 60s, under Nero. In so doing, he virtually recapitulates the Domitianic error, except now as the Neronian error. This latter error has structurally identical limbs as the former. The first is the affirmation that Christians suffered widespread persecution in the final years of Nero's reign. The second limb is the supposition that virtually any unspecified reference to persecution found in the New Testament refers to this putative Neronian persecution of the 60s. Example of this error in operation: Hebrews writes about persecution, therefore it was written in the 60s. (Italics used to emphasize that only the emperor and the decade change for Robinson: the basic logic of his argument does not). Now, this Neronian error is arguably less egregious than the Domitianic error, in that the first limb is far stronger in the former than the latter. The evidence that in the final years of Nero's reign Christians suffered what they experienced as persecution is stronger (although not unassailable) than the evidence that Christians suffered likewise in the final years of Domitian's; indeed, both Tacitus and Suetonius report that this was the case. Where Robinson, again, gets into trouble is on the second limb of the error, for just as these unspecified references to persecution in the New Testament need not refer to events of Domitian's reign neither need they refer to events of Nero's. They could conceivably refer to persecution at virtually any point from the 30s onward, and indeed in some even many cases need not necessarily refer to a specific persecution at all. Just as they need not refer to a Domitianic persecution, they need not refer to a Neronian either.
There is no question that for the purposes of establishing the dates of the New Testament documents contemporary scholarship's Domitian has been too big. There is equally no question that Robinson's Nero is also too big. Both the Domitianic and the Neronian error must be abandoned. (So too the related but less prevalent Trajanic error, which sometimes seeks to correlate biblical texts with the limited but better documents actions taken by Pliny the Younger towards the end of Trajan's reign, specifically c. 112).
When is this monograph coming out, and what do you think the dates should be? Also on a unrelated note, I read your post on the resurrection. Do you believe it hapened?
ReplyDeleteHopefully the monograph should be coming out in 2021. I would tend to agree with the broad outlines of Robinson's chronology. I'd put Mark's Gospel around 40; Matthew's around 50; Luke's around 60; John's in the late 60s; Acts c. 62; the majority of the Pauline epistles in the 50s; Hebrews around 50ish; James in the mid-40s; Revelation about 68 or 69. I'm still working through 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, and the Johannine epistles, which are by far the hardest texts in the New Testament to date.
ReplyDeleteRe: the resurrection. As a matter of policy, when speaking as a historian (as I am in this blog) I limit what I say to what one can say as a historian. One can I think say that on Friday, 14 or 15 Nisan, sometimes between 29 and 34 CE, Jesus of Nazareth was believed to be dead, and that within a few days (tradition would suggest less than 48 hours later) he was believed by some to be alive. Those I think are facts that a historian can and probably must reasonably affirm. Beyond that, we move into areas that I don't think we have the requisite data for the historian to address.