Timeline Charts of the Western Church

Rating:
Summary: A Good Reference
Review: 'Timeline Charts' is a wonderful complement to a Church History book. I wouldn't reccommend it for a stand-alone reference work, as it documents single events, not long-term causes. Also, because of its format, it's not good for in-depth studies. However, it excels in what it aims to do. Additionally, it has some interesting charts in the back (who knew that there are currently 8 Baptist organizations!), though I doubt that most people will find these very useful. A slight warning: the book places the dates of the New Testament books later than many conservative scholars would estimate, though it notes the uncertanity (ex: Jude is placed at 105 a.d.). Still, a helpful reference!

Rating:
Summary: Conservative Christians Be Careful
Review: While this is a work of great volume, detail and overall is an excellent timeline, I am disappointed that the editors at Zondervan did not look more closely at the author's content. Suprising for an "evangelical" publisher like Zondervan, this work generally assumes the critical theories of the 19th & 20th centuries as "fact" when it comes to the dating and authorship of much of the New Testament canon.

For example on p. 16 she writes (under the year 65 AD): "The Pastoral Epistles - the Epistles to Timothy and Titus -- are written. (Their dating, not to mention their authorship, is a point of substantial controversy. Estimates range from 65 to 110)." It gets worse!

On p. 17, she writes (under the year 70): "Disciples of the apostle Paul write Colossians and Ephesians. (Possibly as late as 90) Some scholars suggest Colossians is written by Paul around the time of Philemon." Notice here that the authorship by Paul (in her mind) is ruled out right away, and "oh by the way", some people actually think Paul might have written Colossians - can you believe it?.

One more that I've noticed, p. 18 (under the year 100): "1 Peter is written. (ca.)". This clearly shows that she does not believe Peter is the author, since his death is listed as being in 64 or 68 on her charts. She apparently doesn't believe he wrote 2nd Peter either, since 2nd Peter is listed (with 1st, 2nd and 3rd John) as being completed in 110 AD, thus in one listing ruling out Peter and John as the authors of the books that claim their authorship.

The author is much better once she gets into the rest of the timelines of the Western Church, but I have serious problems recommending this resource to anyone who believes that the Scriptures were actually written by who they say they are written by!

An excellent scholarly counter to these types of claims of pseudonymity (writings claiming to be written by one person that were actually written by another)is the excellent "An Introduction to the New Testament" by D.A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris (all 1st rate New Testament scholars by the way!)and also published by Zondervan! They go into detail in the case of all NT books that critics claim are pseudopigraphic. Here are a few of their findings:

"One noteworthy fact among the Jews and the Christians is the rarity of pseudepigraphic letters. Writers might claim great names as having been responsible for other kinds of literature, but only two pseudonymous letters have come down to us from Jewish sources....A false claim to writing a letter would probably be easier to detect than, say, a false claim to writing an apocalypse. Whatever the reason, pseudepigraphic letters among the Jews are extremely rare." (P.367).

"The difficulty is not the idea of pseudonymity but the lack of evidence that the New Testament Christians gave any countenance to the idea. Nowhere is evidence cited that any member of the New Testament church accepted the idea that a pious believer could write something in the name of an apostle and expect the writing to be welcomed. The contrary, as we have seen, is often maintained." (p.370).

"There appears to be no example of anyone in the early church accepting a book as truly canonical while denying that it was written by the author whose name it bears." (p. 371).

So, to sum up. You can use this for your post-apostolic history, but be very wary about the dating of the writing of the books of the NT canon. Look for a reliable conservative source instead.