This an accessible academic book that builds on the previous work of John Robinson in “Redating the New Testament” as a quasi spiritual successor. As such it pretty much treads the same group, with slightly different analysis and opinion on the arguments presented for both an earlier and later compositional date assignment (as well as a providing a benchmark of a nominal middle ground for comparison). For the most part, it doesn’t move the earlier dates much, but it does answer some of the criticisms advanced against it as well as addressing some of the arguments for the later dating. The basic premises is that many of the arguments against are in fact inconclusive (aka non-probative) as best; however, the arguments for the earlier dates typically rest of a more likely than not (for best fit) analysis, so clearing there is room for disagreement. What I found most edifying though was the interconnectedness of all the scriptures that pretty much required everything to move as a block (as everyone more or less agreed on the sequence). I did find his analysis to be clear and persuasive, with a common organization to to each group of text that were examined and would be very interested in any counter arguments that are likely on the horizon.

The method of analysis detailed in the Introduction and it well worth the read so that you understand the approach undertaken. In each chapter, there is a section on synchronization or how the text under consideration is related to other text. The next section is typically contextualization where the author attempts to place the text within the appropriate time periods that make the most sense, while still recognizing that other time periods may not be completely foreclosed by the challenges identified. The next step is to examine what is known of the presumed author, with particular attention to when and where they were active at the proposed time. In the interest of identifying fallacious augmentation (both in previous arguments and in the current analysis), several other data points (or evidentiary scope) are examined; the most come fallacy identified appeared to be an argument from Silence (or the absence of evidence presuming the negation of it). In all, this was a strong book to read if you wish to understand what was happening within the early church, even if you do not access the earlier dates proposed, and it is for that reason I highly recommend this book.

<spoiler>Introduction
Part 1 - The Synoptic Gospels and Acts
- Chapter 1: Synchronization
- Chapter 2 - Contextualization and Authorial Biography
Part 2 - The Johannine Tradition
- Chapter 3 - The Gospel of John
- Chapter 4 - The Epistles of John and Revelation
Part 3 - The Pauline Corpus
- Chapter 5 - Critical Matters in Dating the Pauline Corpus
- Chapter 6 - The Compositional Dates of the Pauline Corpus
Part 4 - Hebrews and the Letters of James, Peter and Jude
- Chapter 7 - Hebrews and James
- Chapter 8 - 1 and 2 Peter and Jude
Part 5 - Early Extracanonical Writings
- Chapter 9 - 1 Clement and the Didache
- Chapter 10 - The Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas
Conclusion
</spoiler>

I was given this free advance review copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.

#RethinkingtheDatesoftheNewTestament #NetGalley

My Thoughts:
The Content: I view this book as very well researched and in-depth. The author is consistent in their arguments and does so with minimal bias. There is a great deal of humility shown in the research. The author indicates their knowledge that this book will create an unbalanced amount of research for earlier dates and encourages people who hold a different view to write their arguments. The author tries to stick to their field of study throughout the book.

Who is this book for: This book was rigorous for me. I have a Bachelor's in Biblical Studies and a Masters of Divinity. For this reason, I wouldn't recommend it to everyone. However, I think this book is a helpful resource for a person wanting to study this subject in more depth. I believe that this book would be great for someone researching a specific NT letter (this would mean only reading certain portions and not the whole book).

Questions/Comments: (1) I wish this book went into a bit of detail regarding the importance of the argument. For example, what would an earlier date mean, what would it prove, what would the implications be, would anything about our study of scripture change? However, these questions have little interest to the author. I think these answers could increase the interest in the work. (1.5) I would be interested to know how this would affect commentaries already published, commentaries currently being published, etc. (2) My only noted issue in this book was in the section on dating James. The author chose to accept an author of James to make his argument easier to prove. He spoke of contested authorship elsewhere. Yet he did not entertain a different author in the case of James. The reason appears to be that it helps prove his point that the dates should be earlier than we have previously thought.