ArchiveEschatology

Karl Jaros: The New Testament was completed before 70 A.D.

Since 1980 I have represented the standpoint that all the documents of the New Testament were completed prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Among German theologians, I mostly receive some head shaking disapproval, since the thought is that this view could only be a consequence of my conservative understanding of Scripture. Even my deceased friend, the papyrologist Prof. Carsten Peter Thiede, was accused of holding to this view only because of his conservative approach to the New Testament. This was the case, even though he held to a considerably ‘more open’ understanding of Scripture than I do and compiled the arguments in more detail and even presented new ones.

But is what we are dealing with here really a question of an understanding of Scripture? Does the favorable view of the Bible held by pious theologians prevent them from taking opposing arguments seriously? No, because also within the Evangelical spectrum this viewpoint is not the majority opinion. At least when it comes to the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, it is almost always dated at the end of the 1^st century, even if there are several arguments for dating Revelation early. I attempt to demonstrate this in my German article “Reasons for an early dating of Revelation before 70 A.D” (the article can be downloaded here). This shows rather clearly that it is poor form to simply reduce this question to ‘bible believing’ versus ‘liberal,’ and that it is rather the limited horizon of German theology that hinders the debate from the get-go.

“Redating the New Testament” by John A. T. Robinson is a detailed thesis that substantiates that all New Testament documents were composed prior to 70 A.D. It was not until 10 years later that a German translation of “Redating the New Testament” appeared via Catholic and Evangelical publishing houses (Paderborn: Bonifatius and Wuppertal: R. Brockhaus, 1986). That Robinson does not argue in a ‘bible believing’ fashion is demonstrated by the manner in which he addresses the question of whether Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem. For Robinson this is not a prophecy. Everything that Jesus announced was already known from contemporary Jewish literature or could be derived from the Old Testament. And even the small differences between Jesus’ announcements and the later, actual occurrences verify that the words of Jesus are older. Robinson was simply ignored within German theology, as well as were all later representatives of his point of view.

Again it is a non-Evangelical, Catholic theologian who in his new introduction to the New Testament has presented the thesis that all New Testament documents were composed prior to 70 A.D. Under the prestigious Austrian Böhlau-Verlag publishing house and in the UTB series, the Viennese Professor Karl Jaros has written the book in German “The New Testament and its Authors: an Introduction.” However, the same fate supposedly awaits Jaros that befell Robinson and others. Some sort of justification will be found, for instance that even though he does not have an Evangelical understanding of Scripture, he is nonetheless rather conservative. Another is that as an Old Testament and Ancient Orient scholar, he is not at all competent to make any statements regarding the New Testament. I dream of the day when historic-critical German theologians grapple historico-critically in order to understand how the late composition of the New Testament became dogma and in an unbiased manner critically weigh the arguments and authors for and against the issue instead of blocking out certain theses and authors from the very start.

Hope founded on Salvation – A Bible Study by the Pope

In his third year as Pope, Benedict XVI set forth his second encyclical “Spe Salvi.”, published 30^th of November, 2007 (www.vatican.va) Traditionally, the first two Latin words of an encyclical provide the topic of the encyclical, and in this case it means “in this hope we are saved,” which is a quote from Paul’s Letter to the Romans (8:24). In 50 numbered sections the Pope unfolds a Biblical teaching on hope.

From numerous New Testament texts the Pope demonstrates that hope is a central component of faith and that people without God are people without a sustainable hope. He expends considerable time on New Testament texts which say that hope does not rest upon an internal subjective attitude, but rather on objective facts. He just as soundly highlights that hope and salvation in the New Testament are not to be understood purely individualistically. It is rather the case that Christians in community with Christ and as God’s people have hope.

Subsequently, the Pope delineated between the Christian understanding of hope and the subjective conception of hope of the French Revolution, of industrial optimism, of Marxism, and of Humanism and calls for a long overdue ‘self-criticism of modern times.’ “It is not science that saves mankind. Mankind will be saved by love.” (12) Prayer and undergoing suffering belong to the practice of a belief in hope, to which the moralism of atheism and of progress ideologies has no answers.

The encyclical will supposedly not be counted as one of the great encyclicals that will still be quoted one hundred years from now. This is due to the fact that the encyclical neither announces a surprising change within the Catholic Church, nor does it take a stance with respect to a highly controversial topic. Calmly and matter-of-factly it refers to the large difference between Christian hope and the missing or illusory and worldly hope of Western ideas of progress. It highlights that Christian hope is only thinkable because there is salvation in Christ and because there are transcendent linchpins beyond earthly time, such as the final judgment, salvation, and eternal life.

However, in another aspect the encyclical contrasts to earlier encyclicals, namely through its strong concentration on the interpretation of New Testament texts and the practical absence of typical Catholic points of view. The encyclical has this in common with the book the Pope wrote about Jesus, although the book was published expressly as private remarks. This time, however, the encyclical is a doctrinal document.

In the first 47 paragraphs of the encyclical there is no statement that would be conspicuous were it to be heard coming from an Evangelical pulpit. In Pope Johannes Paul II’s encyclicals it was exactly the opposite. One could find almost no sentence where Mary, the salvific role of the church, or another Catholic feature was not mentioned. In paragraph 48 prayers for the dead are briefly mentioned. Maria is not appealed to until the final paragraphs 49-50. And whoever reads this long address to Maria will astonishingly determine that it consists practically of a compilation of New Testament statements about Maria and Jesus. A teaching about Maria that is particularly Catholic is not mentioned. The final paragraphs also seem to indicate that the curia required their inclusion so that the encyclical would not sound completely un-Catholic.

(The systematic theologian and religious sociologist Prof. Thomas Schirrmacher has authored numerous books regarding Catholic teaching as well as the book Hope for Europe.)