A Review of Jonathan Bernier's Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament

Dr. Jonathan Bernier recently published a book (Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament; Baker Academic, 2022) defending an early chronology for the New Testament corpus, the first study of its kind since John A. T. Robinson's 1976 book Redating the New Testament. With the exception of some of the Pauline epistles, Bernier argues for dates of composition "twenty to thirty years earlier than is typically supposed by contemporary biblical scholars". His text is systematic, thorough, and approachable, though the strength of the arguments varied depending on the NT book in question. In this review, I will discuss the pros and cons of the book, overview the arguments adduced for an early date, and assess the strength of his conclusions.

Introduction

These are the dates Bernier defends:

Matthew: 45-59
Mark: 42-45
Luke: 59
John: 60-70
Acts: 62
Romans: winter of 56/57
1 Corinthians: early 56
2 Corinthians: late 56
Galatians: 47-52
Ephesians: 57-59
Philippians: 57-59
Colossians: 57-59
1 Thessalonians: 50-52
2 Thessalonians: 50-52
1 Timothy: 63-64 if Pauline, 60-150 if pseudo-Pauline
2 Timothy: 64-68 if Pauline, 60-150 if pseudo-Pauline
Titus: 63-64 if Pauline, 60-175 if pseudo-Pauline
Philemon: 57-59
Hebrews: 50-70
James: prior to 62
1 Peter: 60-69
2 Peter: 60-69 if Petrine, 60-125 if pseudo-Petrine
1 John: 60-100
2 John: 60-100
3 John: prior to 100
Jude: prior to 96
Revelation: 68-70

1 Clement: 64-70
Didache: 60-125
Epistle of Barnabas: 70-132
Shepherd of Hermas: 60-125

Perhaps the best thing about the book is the systematic treatment of each topic. Each section begins by listing and numbering each piece of evidence to be considered, which correspond to the bold-faced section titles. At the end of each section is a conclusion recapping the evidence considered and stating the current possible date range. There is also a cumulative conclusion at the end of each chapter giving a higher-level recap. The result is an argument that's extremely easy to follow.

My disagreements were principally regarding the evidential weight assigned to various data. I will discuss some of these below.

Overview of the Book

The book is divided into an introduction and five parts. I will briefly discuss each of them.

Introduction

Bernier explains the three main chronologies defended by New Testament scholars as so:

• Lower (defended in this volume)—most of NT prior to 70
• Middle (majority view)—NT generally between 70-100, with the exception of the undisputed Pauline epistles
• Higher—dates much of the NT to the second century
  

Next, Bernier surveys the history of scholarship on the compositional dates of the New Testament and notes that this is the first book-length defense of the lower chronology in almost fifty years, while the middle and higher chronologies haven't been defended at such length since the Victorian era. Accordingly, he argues that three books are needed, each rearticulating a robust argument for one of the three dating schemes. With this volume, he is attempting to do that for the lower chronology.

The next section discusses some of the shortcomings of A.T. Robinson's infamous book. Specifically, Bernier argues 1) that Robinson relies too much on arguments from silence, and 2) that while Robinson is correct to reject NT references to persecution as necessarily referring to the Domitianic persecution, he makes many of the same errors with the Neronic persecution—failing to establish that many references to persecution in the NT refer specifically to the Neronic persecution and not something else.

The next section discusses criteria that will be used for generating hypotheses: synchronization, contextualization, and authorial biography. Bernier uses these three criteria to structure each discussion of dating. Synchronization deals with whether certain portions of a text are more intelligible before or after certain dates. This is often used with reference to the destruction of the Temple in the year 70. For example, a description of the Temple that uses the present tense is more intelligible before the year 70, and thus should incline us toward a pre-70 date. Contextualization deals with the themes of the book in relation to early Christian development in areas like Christology or ecclesiology. Authorial biography deals with what we know about the author. It can yield the most precise dates of the three criteria, such as dating Romans to the winter of 56/57.

Part 1 - The Synoptic Gospels and Acts

Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts are the first texts considered by Bernier. He discusses several data that have figured prominently in discussions of the dating of the Synoptics and considers most of them to be nonprobative for purposes of establishing a compositional date. A notable exception is the reference to the desolating sacrifice in the "texts of desolation", which Bernier argues makes the most sense if the Synoptics were written prior to 70.

Bernier also discusses some concerns specific to Luke-Acts, such as the unity of Luke-Acts, whether Luke knew Josephus, the relevance of Marcion's Gospel, Luke's (non)use of Paul's letters, and the enigmatic ending of Acts. He puts a lot of weight on this last piece of evidence, citing Karl Armstrong's new book on the subject, Dating Acts in its Jewish and Greco-Roman Contexts.

Chapter 2 seeks to narrow down the pre-70 date by providing evidence from contextualization and authorial biography. Bernier argues that Maurice Casey's work on Markan translation of Aramaic is probably nonprobative for the purposes of dating the Gospel. He then discusses Crossley's argument from Mark's silence on the Gentile mission, concluding that it lends some support to pre-45 dating of Mark, but "this hypothesis is sufficiently tentative that it should be supported by additional argumentation". (71) Unfortunately, it seems to me that Bernier never supplied this additional argumentation.

Bernier also discusses the relationship between Mark and Peter. He argues that Peter was present in Rome ca. 42 but notes that the evidence for this is late and thus not decisive. He concludes that Mark was written sometime between 42 and 45. 

Pivoting into a discussion of Luke, Bernier argues that the famous "we-passages" are best explained if the author of Acts was present for the events in question. As a key piece of evidence, he cites the fact that the we-passages begin in Philippi and trail off when the narrative returns to Philippi. He argues that the best time for Luke to have written his Gospel would be ca. 59, with Acts being written sometime between 60-62.

Lastly, in discussing Matthew, Bernier argues that a date can't be nailed down with as much precision. He concludes that Matthew must postdate 45, since it postdates Mark, and predate 59, since it predates Luke. 

Part 2 - The Johannine Tradition

The synchronization section of chapter 3 covers several lines of evidence. Most of these are deemed to be nonprobative or otherwise of limited evidential value. Of particular interest was Bernier's discussion of the Birkat Haminim and the tenuity of the argument that it necessitates a post-80 date for John.

The lone piece of positive evidence given for a pre-70 date is the use of the present tense to refer to the pool of Bethsaida in John 5.2: "in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool...". Accordingly, Bernier spends the better part of six pages defending its evidential value. I think he succeeds in showing that it should be taken as evidence for an early date. However, since this is the only significant factor that weighs in Bernier's analysis of the dating of John's Gospel, it should be taken with caution. Of course, we can't always expect a multi-pronged cumulative case for dating a specific text, but I don't think agnosticism on the matter of John's date is a particularly irrational position.

In the next sections Bernier critiques further arguments for a later date of John, such as Johannine Christology. Arguing that John's Christology is approximately as high as that of Paul, he correctly asserts that the Christological factor doesn't have much bearing on the date of John's Gospel.

There is little evidence bearing on the dating of the epistles of John. Bernier concludes that 1 and 2 John were written sometime between 60-100 and 3 John was written no later than 100, as he was unable to establish a lower bound for the latter.

Bernier discusses several factors regarding the date of Revelation:
1. external attestation
2. the succession of kings in Revelation 17:9-11
3. the death of Nero in Revelation 13:1-18
4. the passages about the temple in 11:1-2 and 11:13
5. food sacrificed to idols
6. Rome as "Babylon"
7. Revelation's Christology
8. Revelation's ecclesiology
9. Irenaeus' ostensible testimony to a mid-90s date for Revelation

Bernier places the most weight on point #4. Revelation 11:13 reads: "At that moment there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven."

Josephus reports that all of Jerusalem fell in 70 AD (Jewish Wars 7.1.1 §§1-4), and moreover, it was not an earthquake that caused the fall but Roman soldiers. Bernier argues: "It is difficult to imagine that an author writing after 70 would employ the fall of Jerusalem for symbolic effect and yet grossly misrepresent the nature of that fall, and more to the point, underestimate its extent." (122)

Concerning point #9, Bernier offers no alternative interpretation but rather argues that the internal evidence should win out. The problem with this, of course, is that Bernier gave only two pieces of internal evidence for a pre-70 date, which were at least partially epistemically dependent, so the counterevidence they can sustain is limited.

Part 3 - The Pauline Corpus

Part 3 is structured differently than the other parts. Instead of dating texts in both chapters, Bernier spends Chapter 5 discussing how to date the Pauline corpus and Chapter 6 actually dating it.

Of particular note is his discussion of the importance of Acts in dating Paul's letters. He defends an interesting argument for the chronological accuracy of Acts (e.g., whether Acts narrates events in the order they happened): he adduces four key events that can be dated independently (the crucifixion of Jesus, the death of Herod Agrippa, Gallio's tenure in Corinth, and the succession from Felix to Festus) and demonstrates that Acts narrates these all in the order that they occurred. Obviously, this isn't sufficient to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Acts is chronologically accurate, but it certainly points in that direction.

Here are Bernier's dates for the Pauline corpus, with brief explanations:

1 and 2 Thessalonians
On the basis of Paul's Corinthian sojourn, Bernier argues that 1 and 2 Thessalonians were written between the years 50 and 52.

1 and 2 Corinthians
On the basis of Paul's Ephesian sojourn and the data contained in 1 Corinthians 16.8 ("But I will remain in Ephesus until Pentecost") Bernier argues that 1 Corinthians was written in early 56. On the basis of correlation with Acts, Bernier argues that 2 Corinthians was written in late 56.

Romans
On the basis of correlation with Acts, Bernier argues that Romans was written in the winter of 56/57. The integrity of Romans is considered to be nonprobative for purposes of establishing the compositional date.

Galatians
Bernier gradually narrows the lower bound for Galations from 31 to 40 to 42 and finally to 47. On the basis of correlation with Acts, the upper bound is argued to be 52.

Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon
The primary datum for dating these three epistles is Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea from 57-59. Bernier argues that they were all written from this time period. Notably, Bernier does not seem to entertain serious doubts as to the authenticity of Ephesians and Colossians.

Philippians
Bernier judges the integrity of Philippians to be more probable than not, arguing that it was written during Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea from 57-59.

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus
Given the disputes as to the authenticity of these letters, Bernier adduces two date ranges for each of them: one if Pauline, the other if pseudo-Pauline. He argues from multiple lines of evidence that these letters, if authentic, would postdate Paul's career as recorded in Acts. He also argues that Paul plausibly had a post-Acts career from ca. 62-68. He concludes that 1 Timothy and Titus were written no later than 150 and 175 (respectively), if pseudo-Pauline, and from 63-64 if Pauline, and that 2 Timothy was written no later than 150 if pseudo-Pauline, and from 64-68 if Pauline.

Part 4 - Hebrews and the Letters of James, Peter, and Jude

Bernier dates Hebrews between the years 50 and 70. The majority of his analysis consists of refuting arguments for a later date. To establish the lower bound of 50, Bernier cites Hebrews 13.23, specifically the phrasing "our brother, Timothy". He argues that this makes most sense after Timothy had entered into ministry, ca. 50. To establish the upper bound of 70, Bernier cites Hebrews 10.1-3 ("would not the sacrifices have ceased?"). This makes more sense if the Temple hadn't been destroyed. Otherwise, the point of the argument could be lost: "If in 85 I were to ask, 'Would not the sacrifices have ceased being offered?' you likely would respond, 'But they have!'" (191)

Bernier dates James no later than 62, the date of James' death. His primary reason for doing this is his acceptance of traditional authorship. Bernier discusses and refutes many arguments for a later date, though in some cases he didn't condemn those arguments as strongly as could be warranted, such as the claim that James 3.9-10 betrays knowledge of the Birkat Haminim.

Bernier's lower bound for 1 Peter is the year 60. This is reached on the basis of 1 Peter's knowledge of Romans and Ephesians, as argued by Ora Delmer Foster. The authorial biography section includes a discussion of objections to the traditional authorship view. Bernier's upper bound is 69, which he judges the last possible year of Peter's death. Notably, Bernier does not even provide a date for if the epistle is pseudo-Petrine, despite his doing so for 2 Peter, as he believes 1 Peter is likely authentic.

Bernier argues that "2 Peter is probably the strongest candidate for pseudonymous authorship in the NT corpus." (228) If authentic, he gives the same 60-69 date range as 1 Peter. If pseudonymous, the upper bound is pushed out to 125.

There is little evidence for the dating of Jude, due to the brevity of the letter and the questions surrounding its authorship. Bernier concludes that Jude was probably dependent on 2 Peter, setting a lower bound somewhere in the 60s. He argues for an upper bound of 96, based on the fact that Jude had probably passed away by the time of the Domitianic reign.

Part 5 - Early Extracanonical Writings

References to the deaths of Peter and Paul solidly exclude a date for 1 Clement earlier than 64. Narrowing down this range, Bernier refers to 1 Clement 40-44, which uses the present tense to refer to the temple administration. Judging most other lines of evidence to be nonprobative, Bernier argues that this present tense should incline us to prefer a pre-70 date for the letter, when the temple was still standing. The final date range is 64-70.

The Didache is argued to date between 45-125. the upper bound is established by the contextual relevance of concerns about traveling teachers, apostles, or prophets and Gentile inclusion, which Bernier argues are most intelligible in the 40s-60s but look increasingly out of place the later one dates the text.

Very little can be said to narrow down the date range of the Epistle of Barnabas. The reference to the destruction of the Temple in 16.3-4 necessitates a post-70 date. Bernier argues that the verses also tell against a date after the Bar Kokhba revolt, as that would have made the prophecy about the temple being rebuilt less likely. Thus, Bernier settles on a wide date range of 70-132.

The Shepherd of Hermas also resists restriction to a narrow date range, in part due to its composite nature. On the basis of ecclesiology, Bernier gives a date range of 60-125.

Conclusion

Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament is a must-read for anyone interested in the central topic of the book—namely, dating the New Testament. I would contend, however, that the discussion is a bit too esoteric for general reading in New Testament reliability. Bernier has done New Testament scholarship a great service by presenting anew the case for earlier dates of the NT corpus. Due to numerous disagreements about the strength of the evidence as well as a desire to withhold my final conclusions until I've researched the relevant issues further, I was ultimately unconvinced that I should confidently embrace an earlier chronology, but Bernier has certainly shown the flaws in a position of epistemic dogmatism with regard to the consensus dating. I agree with Bernier that more books are needed on this subject, particularly defenses of middle and high chronologies, so that the merits of each case can be more easily judged.