What a pity that this pathbreaking work is out of print while publishers flood the bookstores with fantasy-as-history in an unending stream.

Bishop Robinson, a theological modernist whose "Honest to God" made him controversial within the Anglican communion, began this book as what he labels "a theological joke": "I thought I would see how far one could get with the hypothesis that the whole of the New Testament was written before 70", the year in which the Roman army sacked and burned the Temple of Jerusalem. As it turned out, he got much further than he had ever expected, a journey made more impressive by his lack of any predisposition toward a "conservative" point of view.

His conclusion is that there is no compelling evidence - indeed, little evidence of any kind - that anything in the New Testament canon reflects knowledge of the Temple's destruction. Furthermore, other considerations point consistently toward early dates and away from the common assumption (a prejudice with a seriously circular foundation) that a majority of primitive Christian authors wrote in the very late First or early-to-middle Second Century under assumed names.

For want of data, absolute proof of Robinson's thesis is impossible, and the weight of his arguments varies - from overwhelming in the case of the Epistle to the Hebrews through powerful (the Gospels, Acts and the Epistles of John) to merely strong (the Pastoral Epistles, the non-Johannine Catholic Epistles and Revelation).

In a postscript, Robinson reconsiders the dates of several subapostolic works: The Clementine Epistles, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache, the accepted dates for which range from the 90's to the latter half of the Second Century. He shows that, freed of the "push" of late dating of the canon, the most natural dates for these writings are earlier and that all could well have been written by 85 A.D.

Whether or not one agrees with every word of Robinson's analysis, he makes his case well and should force all students of the New Testament to rethink seriously the presuppositions that underlie much of what is currently written about First Century Christianity. Of course, that's not likely to happen unless some publisher brings "Redating the New Testament" back into print.

In some ways Robinson's "Redating" is of the same genre as Eisenman's 1997 "James the Brother of Jesus." Unfortunately, Eisenman hardly mentions Redating and certainly fails to give the attention to John's Gospel that Bishop Robinson would have us give. Yet, through Eisenman's focus on James (and subordination of John and Peter) he achieves a higher level of connectivity with other sources (particularly Josephus) and perhaps makes some real progress as to the problem Bishop Robinson, too, thought very real: the surprising lack of contemporary references to Jesus and his colleagues. Robinson would have been pleased at the extension of his work, even if he might not have favored the redactionism of Eisenman.

Robinson argues that the gospels were oral traditions later reduced to writing. Eisenman does not say precisely this, but he would have us conclude that later "foreign" editors and redactors got the names wrong and mixed up, including the names of Joseph, Mary, Mary Salome, Simon and Judas and even Jesus, himself. He tells us what he thinks the real names were and makes connections that follow on from this analysis. One should reread Robinson and then go on to Eisenman.

In the latest reviews it is said that Eisenman does not take us beyond mere plausibility. The same, of course, was true for Robinson. The speculations they make, however, are charged with excitement and are remarkably well integrated and worked out so that the plausibility is worth noting. In the context of their works, they make it plausible that the next discoveries or rediscoveries will yield all the more.

Robert Gray

Dr. Robinson does an excellent job. Tho a difficult read--it's not the Sunday funnies--it is very scholarly. Dr. Robinson's premise is that a very important event in Jewish/Christian history is absent from the New Testament; since the destruction of the Temple (in 70 AD by the Romans) isn't mentioned anywhere in the NT, that indicates a pre 70 AD writing of each New Testament source.

But this is the best book on Christianity and its existential relation(s) to the embodied life that I've ever read! Every paragraph of Robinson's closely reasoned interpretation of Paul, the most prolific Christian enscripturated writer, opened whole new vistas on how the body, existentially understood, ties together every facet of Christianity. I'll have more to say about this book in a subsequent review . . . But, if you can find a copy of this little jewel, grab it and see what I mean. I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this too.

I'm using this book for my son's third grade Bible program. It's fast moving and fun, yet very extensive with weekly memory verses and step by step bible reading and questions about the child's own walk with the Lord. It puts the child in the role of a movie director researching Jesus' life for a movie. There are lots of study questions, as well as games and puzzles to make it really interesting. Third grade is the very youngest I would have a child doing this study, in fact we are taking 2 weeks to do each weekly unit, and it would be just as interesting for an older child up through jr. high.

This is a rich exposition of John's gospel, interpreting the text in its immediate context and in its canonical context. It also draws applications for today. Having said that, "today" is a relative term: Pink applies it to situations that were true of the evangelical church in the mid 1940's. But there is so much timeless material here, that the commentary is really a must for the pastor's bookshelf. In particular, the comments on John 1 and John 3 and John 9 are flat out brilliant. Yet I must also concur with the previous reviewer who noted that occasionally, Pink spiritualizes the text a bit too often. Particularly with numbers, but also with his interpretation of John chapter two, which he sees as an symbolic reference to Judaism as a "dead husk." In his attempt to draw applications for today, he sometimes reads things into the text that aren't there (notice some of his comments on John 7-8). But for the most part, this is a tremendously rich treatment of the Gospel of John.

GOOD POINTS: 1. Pink strongly emphasizes that the Gospel of John reflects the deity of Christ. 2. Each chapter is 7 - 15 pages and covers a specific event in the Gospel of John. The outline of the book follows the chapters in Scripture consecutively and completely. 3. Study questions are provided by Pink to focus the readers attention to the main points in the Gospel. 4. Pink prayerfully considers each text and has been blessed with an ability to lucidly present rational commentary on texts. BAD POINTS: 1. I humbly suggest that he may spiritualize a bit much, especially with the use of numbers. However, the main points of the Gospel are clearly presented.

I have just completed the 15 week study from this book and I found that I truly learned more studying the bible through the inductive system than by any other means. I highly recommend this book!

I really like how this book is structured for a group environment. You can meet once a week and go over what you learned, but in between you are guided on how to study daily. Most importantly it is focused on the Bible & you're reading the scripture along with each lesson. It doesn't skip around a book in the Bible & just pick out key points, it stays focused on what is said in context and forces you to look inwardly about your true relationship with the Lord! Enjoy!