Monday, April 01, 2013

Johannes van Der Ven: Resurrection & Theodicy Theme (PhD Edit)

Fraser River, British Columbia-trekearth

















Theology and Suffering

Professor van der Ven explains that his theodicy is an enlightened attempt in philosophy and theology to explain and justify the existence of God in an evil world.[1]  An aspect of his work in theodicy is an effort to understand why the problem of evil and suffering are a human problem.[2]  Professor van der Ven explains that his theodicy project was motivated by a desire to make sense of certain pastoral praxis concerning Christian ministers struggling with how to assist people who are suffering.[3]  It seems that many pastors have a deep sense of frustration and desperation in trying to provide hope to people,[4] even though Christianity theoretically and theologically, is a faith and philosophy that provides ultimate salvation from suffering.[5]  To assist in understanding suffering practically, van der Ven establishes certain religious symbols and reviews their interpretations.[6] 

According to Eric Vossen (1993), Jürgen Moltmann, has had major influence in the development of theodicy concepts and symbols.[7]  Moltmann appears to be commenting on this issue when he asks if the fatal problems of modern humanity will be apprehended and solved with critical interaction with the gospel,[8] or will other sources, that are less problematic, be sought.[9]  It seems that Christian ministers and leaders must provide theoretically sound explanations for evil and suffering, and provide practical ways for the God of the Bible to be of comfort.[10]  As sufferers seek the power of the gospel, these persons must have something tangible to rely on for support.[11]  If Christianity and the gospel is seen as theoretically and practically corrupt and useless,[12] then the Church may be rejected as an option for providing the explanation for evil and suffering.[13]

For example, within the Christian community,[14] if someone has lost a loved one, theological explanations of why sin and death exist in the universe can be useful in helping the sufferer make sense of the death.[15]  God’s justice can be understood somewhat,[16] but for the sufferer to realize theologically that death is a result of human sin and a corrupt world system,[17] it is not really all that comforting, although the concept is Biblically and theologically correct.  The helpful traditional practical explanation that the resurrection awaits those who trust in Christ, is both theoretically and practically sound, and may be of comfort to a believer.[18]  

Yes, God is a creator who demands justice,[19] but through the atoning work and resurrection of Christ, his love and grace is also shown to followers.[20]  The resurrection of Christ, from a traditional perspective, is also not purely a theological concept, as the Kingdom of God is progressing towards its culmination.[21]  It can be pointed out practically that the resurrection of Christ as King has to take place for a culminated Kingdom of God to ultimately occur.[22]  An actual Kingdom would require the resurrection of a historical Christ.[23]  The historicity of Christ in detail is obviously out of the scope of this thesis, but my point is that it is vital to ground Christian practical theology in the historicity of Christ.[24]  If Christ was not a real person, and his supernatural resurrection untrue, then the Biblical doctrines concerning his resurrection cannot be trusted.[25]  Christ’s resurrection validates his ministry, according to Erickson.[26]  There would be no hope, from a traditional Christian perspective, for everlasting life and salvation for those who have died without the resurrection.[27]  Death would thus end all hopes of ultimate reunion between those who remain and those who have died.[28]
           
Benefits of an Empirical Study of Theodicy

Professor van der Ven suggests that an empirical study would be useful in finding connections between a rational belief in God,[29] and faith in that same God,[30] in regard to theodicy.[31]  It is important for van der Ven to understand what people experience, and how they deal with the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of these experiences in a religious sense.[32]  It would seem valuable, through empirical research, to gain an understanding of how people within the Church deal with the problem of evil.[33]  This research may provide ministers and leaders with insights on how to better serve their attendees and members.[34]  It would be important to find out if people within the Church primarily deal with suffering in faith, believing that God is just and good, or is there also reason at work?[35]  It would seem to be important for persons within the Church to have at least a basic rational understanding of theological reasons for the problem of evil.[36]  Simultaneously, there should be a faith in place that can trust in a God that has intervened in history through his prophets, apostles and, of course, the atoning and resurrection work of Christ.[37]

Related to this issue, according to van der Ven, is the tension between divine omnipotence and divine love.[38]  Christ is seen as both a representative of the divine judge,[39] and the expiatory sacrifice and sufferer for humanity.[40]  Expiation is the idea that Christ’s atoning death covers sin in believers and cleanses followers from corruption, according to Erickson.[41]    Professor van der Ven is wise to suggest that an empirical analysis of how the ideas of God’s justice and love work together would be useful.[42]  Understanding these concepts may be a struggle to many within the Church that are suffering, and ministers and leaders need to be aware of these difficulties in order to be of greater assistance.[43] 

Theodicy Theme

In developing the theodicy theme, van der Ven states that there are three criteria needed.[44]  These are scientific relevance,[45] practical relevance,[46] and researchability.[47]  Scientifically, the project uses both descriptive and hypothesis testing forms,[48] and therefore theological attitudes and practices are described and insights are sought for why certain beliefs exist.[49]  Professor van der Ven calls this approach explorative-explanatory research as he attempts to understand typical attitudes and how they influence pastoral work.[50]

In regard to practical relevance, van der Ven attempts to examine experiences in order to make observations concerning central theological tenets, and the concepts of pastoral care that result.[51]  The scientific study should produce observations that may show certain theological assumptions lead to a certain way of performing pastoral care.[52]  It may be that some inadequate theology leads to less than adequate care,[53] or possibly that the theology is adequate,[54] but it is not being correctly reflected in pastoral work for those within and outside of the Church.[55]  It is also possible that certain societal views cause difficulties in the acceptance of controversial traditional Christian doctrines.[56]  Researchability attempts to find information concerning the intensity of certain human sufferings,[57] and to find out how sufferers view their situation.[58]  These three criteria are put together, the theodicy theme and a question is formulated as to what kind of attitudes exist concerning religious suffering,[59] what factors can determine these viewpoints,[60] and what kind of practical, pastoral understanding can be gathered from this research.[61]  Professor van der Ven is attempting to take certain philosophical and theological concepts, which he calls ‘explicit theodicy’,[62] and examine how these concepts are dealt with by sufferers, which he then calls ‘implicit theodicy.’[63]

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

BALLARD, PAUL AND JOHN PRITCHARD (2001) Practical Theology in Action, London, SPCK.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1996) ‘Sin, The Biblical Understanding of Sin’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?  Grand Rapids, Zondervan.  MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOLTMANN, JÜRGEN (1993) The Crucified God, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PATTON, JOHN (2000)(2007) ‘Modern Pastoral Theology in the United States’, in James Woodward and Stephen Pattison (eds.), The Blackwell Reader in Pastoral and Practical Theology, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.),  Atlanta, John Knox Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005)  The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1993) Practical Theology, Translated by Barbara Schultz, AC Kampen, Netherlands, Kok Pharos Publishing House.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (1998) God Reinvented?, Leiden, Brill.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2005) ‘Theodicy Items and Scheme’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006a) ‘Dates of Nijmegen authors’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES (2006b) ‘Symbols versus Models’, in a personal email from Johannes van der Ven, Nijmegen, Radboud University, Nijmegen.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES, PAUL VERMEER, AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) ‘Learning Theodicy’, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 9, pp. 67-85. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

VAN DER VEN, JOHANNES AND ERIC VOSSEN (1996) Suffering: Why for God’s Sake? Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.

VOSSEN, H.J.M. ERIC (1993) ‘Images of God and Coping with Suffering’, Translated by S. Ralston, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 6, pp. 19-38. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

WINQUIST, CHARLES E. (1987) ‘Re-visioning Ministry: Postmodern Reflections’, in Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Formation and Reflection: The Promise of Practical Theology, by Lewis S Mudge and James N. Poling, Philadelphia, Fortress Press. 



[1] van der Ven (1998: 207).
[2] van der Ven (1993: 157).
[3] van der Ven (1993: 157).
[4] van der Ven (1993: 157).
[5] van der Ven (1993: 157).
[6] van der Ven (1993: 159).
[7] Vossen (1993: 21).
[8] Moltmann (1993: 9).
[9] Moltmann (1993: 9).
[10] Ballard and Pritchard (2001: 5).  Pattison in Woodward and Pattison (2000)(2007: 137).
[11] Browning (1985)(2005: 2).
[12] Moltmann (1993: 9).
[13] Moltmann (1993: 9).
[14] Or perhaps outside of the Church as well.
[15] As with the four theoretical viewpoints presented in this thesis.
[16] Brown (1984: 34).  Adams (1996: 794).  Mounce (1990: 365-366). 
[17] Bloesch (1987: 16). 
[18] Anderson (2001: 54).  Moltmann (1993: 171-172).
[19] Brown (1984: 34).  Adams (1996: 794).  Mounce (1990: 365-366). 
[20] Thiessen (1956: 132).  Whale (1958: 124). 
[21] Moltmann (1993: 171-172).
[22] Moltmann (1993: 171-172).
[23] Moltmann (1993: 171-172).
[24] Anderson (2001: 37).  Erickson (1994: 661-682).
[25] The Apostle Paul admits this would be the case in First Corinthians 15: 12-19.
[26] Erickson (1994: 691-693).
[27] Thiessen (1956: 332).
[28] Anderson (2001: 54).
[29] van der Ven (1993: 160).
[30] van der Ven (1993: 160).
[31] van der Ven (1993: 160).
[32] van der Ven (1993: 160).
[33] van der Ven (1993: 160).
[34] van der Ven (1993: 159).
[35] van der Ven (1993: 160).
[36] van der Ven (1993: 160).
[37] Anderson (2001: 54).
[38] van der Ven (1993: 161).
[39] van der Ven (1993: 161).  Mounce (1990: 365-366). 
[40] van der Ven (1993: 161).
[41] Erickson (1994: 811). 
[42] van der Ven (1993: 160).
[43] van der Ven (1993: 159).
[44] van der Ven (1993: 169).
[45] van der Ven (1993: 169).
[46] van der Ven (1993: 169).
[47] van der Ven (1993: 169).
[48] van der Ven (1993: 169).
[49] van der Ven (1993: 169).
[50] van der Ven (1993: 170).
[51] van der Ven (1993: 170).
[52] van der Ven (1993: 170).
[53] Winquest (1987: 1).  Self-consciousness and care must be brought to ministry through practical theology.
[54] In particular in the context of theodicy.  Phillips (2005: xii). 
[55] Bloesch (1987: 12).
[56] van der Ven (1993: 170).  This could include free will and sovereignty theodicy approaches.
[57] van der Ven (1993: 170).
[58] van der Ven (1993: 170).
[59] van der Ven (1993: 170).
[60] van der Ven (1993: 170).
[61] van der Ven (1993: 170).
[62] van der Ven (1993: 170).  Explicit theodicy would be closer in association with concepts similar to theoretical theodicy such as free will, sovereignty and soul-making perspectives than would implicit theodicy which would be dealt with more by practical and empirical theology and statistics.
[63] van der Ven (1998: 208).

Monday, March 25, 2013

Suffering, Coping & Prayer (PhD Edit)

Ustronie, Morskie, Poland-trekearth

Theodicy Models

In his 1993 work, ‘Images of God and Coping with Suffering’ Vossen presents three theodicy models, which are related to the work of van der Ven and Vermeer.[1]  One, the retaliation model, that Vossen sees as relying heavily on the idea of God the supreme, omnipotent judge.[2]  Two, the plan model, where God is viewed as guiding earthly happenings according to his intentions,[3] and the emphasis is on God’s omnipotence and love for humanity.[4]  Three, the compassion model, where suffering is understood as an intrinsic aspect of finiteness and contingent occurrences.[5]  The atoning work of Christ[6] is central to this model as God is seen as showing compassion to humanity through this work, and is in solidarity with humankind.[7]  Vossen writes that the three models represent three different general assumptions about God.[8] The retaliation model is based primarily on the idea of God’s transcendence,[9] the plan model is a balance between the transcendent and immanent,[10] and the compassion model represents, for the most part, God’s immanence.[11]  Vossen’s approach is very similar to van der Ven’s with no great difference in opinion presented.[12]  Vossen’s work, like that of van der Ven and Vermeer, is largely a collaborative effort with the University of Nijmegen.  The three men have worked together and shared data.

Coping Strategies

Vossen presents three coping strategies for the problem of evil, which parallel his three theodicy models.[13]  First is the hope for removal of suffering over time.[14]  A key to this strategy is a trust in God’s sovereign intervention in matters, perhaps supernaturally, or with the help of medical science.[15]  With the first coping strategy, God is viewed by Vossen as being the supreme judge who has retaliated against sin.[16]  Vossen thinks this concept is influenced by the idea of  ‘inner-worldly causality’ where within our world wrong human actions have caused God to punish people.[17]  Second, concentration on the completion of life, realizing that God has a plan and has promised a better life in the hereafter.[18]  This concept ties into an understanding that the present suffering will ultimately work towards the sufferer’s salvation.[19]  The person in pain is being presently prepared for an eventual finalized state of salvation.[20]  Third, concentration on the loving proximity of other people in the present.[21]  This is a survival instinct, which depends on the love, care and compassion of friends and family as sharing with them in solidarity, pain and suffering.[22]  This view is dependent both on the immanent love of family and friends, as well as on the love and care of an immanent creator.[23]



[1] Vossen (1993: 21).
[2] Vossen (1993: 21).  God can rightly judge.  Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3).  De Lubac (1965)(2000: 151-152).  His judgments are supreme.  Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).
[3] Vossen (1993: 21).
[4] Vossen (1993: 21).
[5] Vossen (1993: 21).
[6] Whale (1958: 71-93).  Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178). 
[7] Vossen (1993: 21).
[8] Vossen (1993: 21).
[9] Vossen (1993: 21).  God is distant and separate from humanity.  Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling. (1999: 115).  He is not human and in his holiness will judge humankind.
[10] Vossen (1993: 21).
[11] Vossen (1993: 21).  God shows compassion to his followers and therefore demonstrates a personal closeness.  Lewis (1996: 458-459).
[12] Vossen (1993: 21).
[13] Vossen (1993: 24-28).
[14] Vossen (1993: 24-28).
[15] Vossen (1993: 24-28).
[16] Vossen (1993: 24-28).  Augustine (388-395)(1964: 3).  Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).
[17] Vossen (1993: 24-28).
[18] Vossen (1993: 24-28).
[19] Vossen (1993: 24-28).
[20] Vossen (1993: 24-28).  This a speculative metaphysical argument for the benefits of pain.  Phillips questions whether God, if he exists, would have morally sufficient reasons for allowing such evil.  Phillips (2005: 201).  Although in general terms pain could be a tool used by God for the development of believers it would be quite difficult in concrete terms to equate a person’s pain with a definitive plan of God.  This leaves room for both the theist and atheist to question God.
[21] Vossen (1993: 24-28).
[22] Vossen (1993: 24-28).
[23] Vossen (1993: 24-28).  This assumes a questionable concept of divine care.  Phillips (2005: 201).

March 25, 2013

As one that is Christian, Reformed, and Evangelical, in that order, theologically and philosophically, I do hold to the position that the atoning work and resurrection of Christ leads to salvation which will be worked through each and every individual believer (Hebrews 9, 1 Corinthians 15).

How to deal with suffering, the problem of suffering, problems of suffering, related to theodicy and the problem of evil, and problems of evil, is a related subject. To be honest, as some may have reasoned out, I have some issues with how evangelicals often typically deal with the problem of suffering or problems of suffering.

I will not deal with free will and determinism in much detail here, but as I have noted again and again a major problem would be to place too much emphasis on human free will as in taking too strong of a incompatibilist position in times of suffering, as in placing too much emphasis on human will at certain points, although not disregarding at all human will and sin from my perspective, there needs to a better understanding of God's sovereign willing/choice in all things.

I therefore favour a moderate compatibilist position, which would be soft-determinist.

Another issue is I have, and the one I wish to major on in the second half of this post is the mistake I think evangelicals often make which is to place too much emphasis on pushing unbearable sufferings off philosophically and theologically to the next life, as in Paradise (2 Corinthians 12: 4) and the future culminated Kingdom of God. That can work and be fine, if a person suffering has contentment in regard to a particular suffering, but if one does not, it really is not a good and wise strategy. A person can be correctly told that Christ suffered more spiritually than any other person ever has or will in the atonement, true enough.  Understanding atonement and resurrection is vital in Christian walk.

A person can be reminded of Paul's words:

2 Timothy 2:9-13

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 [a]for which I suffer hardship even to imprisonment as a criminal; but the word of God is not imprisoned. 10 For this reason I endure all things for the sake of those who are chosen, so that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus and with it eternal glory. 11 It is a trustworthy statement: For if we died with Him, we will also live with Him; 12 If we endure, we will also reign with Him; If we [b]deny Him, He also will deny us; 13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

Peter's words:

1 Peter 1:3-9

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to obtain an inheritance which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various [a]trials, 7 so that the [b]proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which [c]is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ; 8 and though you have not seen Him, you love Him, and though you do not see Him now, but believe in Him, you greatly rejoice with joy inexpressible and [d]full of glory, 9 obtaining as the outcome of your faith the salvation of [e]your souls.

My view is God's suffering, in a Christian context for a believer does have many purposes, as the Scriptures noted and is not gratuitous.

But if one suffering does not have contentment with the suffering taking place, the lack of contentment is actually more important in dealing with the issue than the level of suffering, so in other words the level of contentment, being significant or not in a person, is more important than the level of suffering.

This is why often citing Biblical examples of suffering including, Christ and the Apostles, or persons in present life that evidently by human standards are doing worse than the sufferer will not significantly alleviate certain non-content persons suffering and not provide peace and joy to the sufferer. Realizing as noted in a previous post that peace and joy for the most part originate from God.

Satire And Theology-Thoughts on Joy and Suffering

In other words, stating 'Look at 'Bob' he has it worse off than you', is often an ineffective strategy to someone that is suffering, depressed and without contentment in a certain area.

A very good answer is in Christ with God's help in prayer is to assist finding a solution to the suffering or assist finding contentment with the suffering. This is often very difficult and may take a community effort, but to be frank, I find the other approach often an intellectual, spiritualized excuse in light of serious suffering.

If when life becomes too difficult, too many things are pushed off to Paradise and the culminated Kingdom, then seemingly for the sufferer this life can become a chore, and although this life is temporal and only represents the seeds of our everlasting life in Christ, is it still an aspect of our life in Christ and should be lived wisely with improvements being sought from within by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, from the Church community and from God. Something for all of us Christians to ponder on.


DE LUBAC, HENRI (1965)(2000)  Augustinianism and Modern Theology, Translated by Lancelot Sheppard, New York, A Herder and Herder Book: The Crossroad Publishing Company.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=11207&search_id=606108&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING  (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

VOSSEN, H.J.M. ERIC (1993) ‘Images of God and Coping with Suffering’, Translated by S. Ralston, in Journal of Empirical Theology, Volume 6, pp. 19-38. Kampen, The Netherlands, Journal of Empirical Theology.

Secret Garden-Facebook
Miri, Malaysia-trekearth

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

Chronology Of New Testament Books

Maple Ridge

Chronology Of New Testament Books

Obviously brief.

In many ways more useful than knowledge of the order of the texts in the Bible.

There is debate among scholars in regard to the dating of several texts and so, therefore I will attempt to provide several sources.

From Bible Study Tools.Com

Quote: 'CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

While no arrangement of these books can be made with absolute confidence, the following dates are sufficiently reliable to serve the purpose of the Bible student.

James - 50 A.D.
First Thessalonians - 52-53.
Second Thessalonians - 52-53.
Galatians - 55.
First Corinthians - 57.
Second Corinthians - 57.
Romans - 57-58.
Philippians - 62-63.
Colossians - 62-63.
Philemon - 62-63.
Ephesians - 62-63.
Luke - 63.
Acts - 64.
First Timothy - 65.
Titus - 65.
Second Timothy - 66.
Mark - 66.
Matthew - 67.
Hebrews - 67.
First Peter - 67-68.
Second Peter - 68.
Jude - 68.
Apocalypse - 68.
John - c. 85.
Epistles of John - 90-95.'

End Quote

Grace Felloship Church and Robert Gundry

Quote: 'New Testament Books in Chronological Order

According to Date Authored

NT Book Date Authored Author

James Mid-40s James, Jesus' half-brother
1 Thessalonians 50-51 Paul
2 Thessalonians 50-51 Paul
Galatians 55 Paul
1 Corinthians 55 Paul
2 Corinthians 56 Paul
Romans 57 Paul
Mark Late 50s-early 60s John Mark
Matthew Late 50s-early 60s Matthew
Philemon 61-62 Paul
Colossians 61-62 Paul
Ephesians 61-62 Paul
Luke 62 Luke Acts 62 Luke
Philippians 62 Paul
1 Timothy 63-64 Paul
Titus 63-64 Paul
1 Peter 63-64 Peter
2 Peter 65 Peter
2 Timothy 65 Paul
Hebrews 68 Unknown
Jude Late 60s-early 70s Jude, Jesus' half-brother
John Late 80s-early 90s John
1 John Late 80s-early 90s John
2 John Late 80s-early 90s John
3 John Late 80s-early 90s John
Revelation Late 80s-early 90s John'

End Quote

From my own texts where noted:

New Testament English Bible order:

Matthew

R.T. France, 80 A.D. or after (page 29) or the early 60s A.D. (page 30).

H. L. Ellison, 75 A.D. to 80 A.D. (page 1121).

Robert Gundry, 50s or 60s A.D. (page 107).

Mark

David Rhoads and Donald Michie, 65 A.D. to 70 A.D. (page xi).

Stephen S. Short, 58 A.D. to 65 A.D. (page 1157).

Robert Gundry, 50s A.D. (page 107).

Luke

Robert Gundry, 60s A.D. (page 107).

Laurence E. Porter, 80-85 A.D., or about 60 A.D. (page 1183).

John

Robert Gundry, 80s or 90s A.D. (page 107).

Acts

E.H. Trenchhard, 64-65 A.D. (page 1266).

Robert Gundry, 63-64 A.D. (page 107).

Romans

Robert H. Mounce, 56 A.D. (page 26).

Leslie C. Allen, 56-57 A.D. (1316).

C.E.B. Cranfield, 55-57 A.D. (page xi).

James D.G. Dunn, 55-57 A.D. (page xliii).

Robert Gundry, 57 A.D. (page 364).

1 Corinthians

Paul W. Marsh, Estimated 55 A.D. (page 1347).

Robert Gundry, 55 A.D. (page 364).

2 Corinthians

Robert Gundry, 56 A.D. (page 364).

Galatians

Robert Gundry, 49 A.D. (page 364).

F. Roy Coad, 48-49 A.D. (page 1416).

Ephesians

Robert Gundry, 61-61 A.D. (page 364).

Philippians

Robert Gundry, 62-63 A.D. (page 364).

Ralph P. Martin describes two theories, where Paul could have written the text: One captivity of Paul, near Ephesus, in 54-55 is possible. There is another proposed Roman captivity from Acts 28: 30 which dates from 61-63 A.D. Martin (37).

Colossians

Robert Gundry, 61-62 A.D. (page 364).

1 Thessalonians

Robert Gundry, 50-51 A.D. (page 364).

2 Thessalonians

Robert Gundry, 50-51 A.D. (page 364).

1 Timothy

Robert Gundry, 64 A.D. (page 364).

2 Timothy

Robert Gundry, 67 A.D. (page 364).

Titus

Robert Gundry, 64 A.D. (page 364).

Philemon

Robert Gundry, 61-62 A.D. (page 364).

Hebrews

Robert Gundry, 60s A.D. (page 364).

Gerald F. Hawthorne, middle of first century to 120 A.D. (page 1503).

Philip Edgeumbe Hughes, prior to 70 A.D. (page 32).

James

Robert Gundry, 40s or 50s A.D. (page 364).

T. Carson, 40 A.D. to 50 A.D. (page 1535).

1 Peter

Robert Gundry, 64-65 A.D. (page 364).

G.J. Polkinghorne, 62-64 A.D. (page 1551).

2 Peter

Robert Gundry, 65-66 A.D. (page 364).

David F. Payne, No earlier than 90 A.D. or perhaps much earlier (page 1564).

1 John

Robert Gundry, late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

2 John

Robert Gundry, late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

3 John

Robert Gundry, late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

Jude

Robert Gundry, 60s or 70s A.D. (page 364).

David F. Payne, 70-80 A.D. (page 1590).

Revelation

Robert Gundry, late 80s or early 90s A.D. (page 364).

F.F. Bruce, 69 A.D. to 96 A.D. (page 1593).

Robert H. Mounce, One view is prior to 70 A.D. (page 35).

Bibliography

ALLEN, C. LESLIE (1986) 'Romans' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

BRUCE, F.F. (1986) 'Revelation' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CARSON, T. (1986) 'James' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

COAD, F. ROY (1986) 'Galatians' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books ELLISON, H.L. (1986) ‘Matthew’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FRANCE, R.T. (1985) Matthew, Grand Rapids, IVP, Eerdmans.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP. (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan.

MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) 'Jude' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

PAYNE DAVID F. (1986) '2 Peter' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

POLKINGHORNE, G.J. (1986) '1 Peter' in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

RHOADES, DAVID AND DONALD MITCIE (1982) Mark As Story, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

TRENCHHARD, E.H. (1986) 'Acts', in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.