Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament (Jonathan Bernier) -- A Review
Does the date of composition matter
when it comes to either interpreting the New Testament or receiving it as an
authoritative word for the church? Is early better than later? What about those
extra-canonical texts like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas
(you thought I was going to say the Gospel of Thomas!)? If they date to
the same period as the canonical texts, does that give them more authority for
the church today than if we date them later? We pretty much know that Paul's
undisputed letters were written in the 50s CE, but what about the Gospels and
the other letters and texts? Do we really know when they were written? Could we
misread clues that suggest later dates for texts than perhaps they might have
been written? Oh, and is this a conservative-liberal argument? In the end, does
any of this matter?
I lay before you my review of
Jonathan Bernier’s argument on behalf of an early composition of the New
Testament. Now, I’m not a biblical scholar. Yes, I’ve taken my share of
graduate-level New Testament classes, As an academic scholar, my area of
expertise is 18th-century British Church History. Nevertheless, I am
deeply interested in how people interpret the Bible, and whether they do so responsibly.
While I was educated in more evangelical contexts, I inhabit a more liberal
space. That being said, when it comes to dating texts, I’ve always wondered why
many liberals pushed for late dates of composition. Of course, one scholar who
embraced early composition was the famed liberal Anglican bishop John A.T.
Robinson, author of the rather controversial (for the early 1960s) book Honest to God. So, early composition isn’t necessarily a conservative position.
While I perceived Bernier to be on a more conservative side of things, he
teaches at a Jesuit institution and is a follower of an important Jesuit
theologian, Bernard Lonergan. The fact that he draws on Robinson’s position,
though he improves upon it, suggests that he is interested in separating this
conversation from the typical conservative-liberal debate.
For my purposes, we begin with the
tendency that has existed since the turn of the 20th century, if not earlier, to assume that most New Testament books, including
the Gospels, date to a period after 70 CE, if not later. There is justification
for doing so, but is it possible that the majority of the New Testament texts
date to a period before 70 CE? That was the position taken by John Robinson.
So, is there "evidence for early composition?" As the subtitle of
Jonathan Bernier's intriguing book suggests, he believes there is significant
evidence for taking that position. That has interesting implications for how we
read texts, especially the Gospels. While I have generally followed the
majority position that assumes that the first gospel written, the Gospel of
Mark, should be dated to a period sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, based
on Jesus' references to the destruction of that city. If that is true, then the
other Gospels have to be dated even later. But what if Mark was much earlier,
perhaps as early as 45 CE? Are you intrigued by that possibility? I am. That
would mean Mark predates Paul’s letters.
Before I go any further I need to
introduce you to the author of the book Rethinking the Dates of the NewTestament: The Evidence for Early Composition. Jonathan Bernier is the
assistant professor of New Testament and executive director of the Lonergan
Research Institute at Regis College, University of Toronto. Regis College is a
Jesuit school. He holds a Ph.D. in New Testament from McMaster University and
has written a previous volume on the quest for the historical Jesus.
When it comes to dating the New
Testament, according to Bernier, there are essentially three positions. There
is a lower date of composition, middle (majority), and higher. Not being an
expert in these matters I tend to follow the majority position on things like
this, and so I tend to follow the middle chronology. That seems safest.
Nevertheless, I try to keep an open mind. Of the two other possibilities, I’m
more inclined to go with earlier dates than later ones. I’ve always felt that
the arguments that suggest, for example, that the Gospel of Matthew was written
in the second century are based more on ideology than evidence. Now, concerning
Paul's undisputed letters, there is no conflict. Everyone seems to agree that
most of Paul’s undisputed letters were written in the 50s CE, and early 60s at
the latest. As for the rest, well, we’re left looking for clues that suggest
possible dates.
What Bernier wants to do with this
book, which is rather technical, is demonstrate that it’s possible to fit most
of the New Testament into the period before 70 CE. In fact, in his view, that
makes the most sense of the evidence, even if much of the evidence is
circumstantial. In doing this, Bernier largely follows, though not always, the
trail blazed earlier in the mid-twentieth century by John A. T. Robinson. He
points out that he and Robinson are essentially the only scholars who have
attempted to provide a study like this. He notes that no comparable study has yet
to be undertaken on behalf of the Middle and Higher positions, at least not
since the turn of the 20th century. Having offered this defense of a lower
date, he challenges advocates of the other two positions to do the same kind of
study. Then we can compare the arguments based on the evidence we have before
us.
While I count myself among those
who embrace the middle position since it's the majority position among New
Testament scholars and since I’m not a New Testament scholar I tend to trust
their judgment, I find the idea of early dating intriguing. That is especially
true of the Gospels. If, as Bernier suggests, Mark was written as early as 45
CE, with Matthew being written around 50 CE, that would mean two of the four Gospels
were written before Paul's letters. That would also mean that we would have
evidence of Jesus' life and ministry that dates to a period a little more than
a decade after his death (and resurrection)? To get there, of course, we have
to deal with how we read passages dealing with the destruction of Jerusalem in
70 CE.
While Bernier starts with Robinson,
he wants to go beyond Robinson's Redating the New Testament (1976). One
of his major concerns with Robinson's approach is "his less-than-adequate
attention to the method and organization of his study." (pp. 8-9). Thus, Bernier
wants to address concerns about how 70 CE is interpreted, as well as how one
interprets the reigns of Roman emperors Domitian and Nero. Interestingly,
Bernier, like Robinson, is less than enthralled with the idea of large-scale
persecution under Domitian. As for Neronian persecution, which Robinson drew
upon, Bernier notes that it was too localized in Rome to influence events
elsewhere. While he addresses these concerns, it is Robinson’s method and
organization, though not the conclusions, that he finds most problematic and
wishes to improve upon.
Central to Bernier’s argument are
three methodological concerns: synchronization, contextualization, and
authorial biography. The first piece, synchronization, focuses on the attempt
to establish "the text's temporal relationship to other events or
situations, including the composition of other texts." Thus, here is where
the question of the events of 70 CE comes into play. The questions he asks
under this rubric have to do with whether there is "material in the book
that is most fully intelligible only if written before a given event or
situation?” The other question has to do with whether there is material that is
most fully intelligible if written after the event. Questions here include
external attestation and reception. The second criteria concerns
"contextualization," which has to do with establishing "the
text's probable relationship to the general course of early Christian
development in areas such as ecclesiology, Christology, gentile inclusion, and
so on." (p. 26). The challenge here is not falling into the trap of
circular reasoning, such that a development scheme is used to establish a
chronological one, which in turn is used to defend the original scheme.
Finally, he looks at the authorial biography. He admits the challenge of
precision regarding the identity of the authors, with the exception perhaps of
Paul. Of course, biography has to do with authenticity, but he has chosen not
to dive too deeply into such arguments. However, he does address in four cases
questions of pseudonymity. These would be the three pastoral epistles and 2
Peter. He gives two date ranges depending on whether these are to be considered
authentic or pseudonymous. Yes, he affirms Pauline authorship of Ephesians and
Colossians and Petrine authorship of 1 Peter.
With these criteria in mind,
Bernier takes us through the New Testament, beginning with the Synoptic Gospels
and Acts. As noted, he suggests that there is evidence for dating Mark to 45
CE, with Matthew following in 50, and Luke in 60, with Acts sometime after 62.
With Acts, he notes that it ends with Paul in Rome, having been there for about
two years. With that, the book ends. Does that suggest that it predates Paul’s
death? If not, then what is a better solution? From these texts, we move in
Part 2 to the Johannine Tradition, with a chapter on the Gospel and one on the
Epistles and Revelation. He deals with the Pauline texts in Part 3, setting a
chronology that fits what the majority of scholars agree upon. Finally, we move
on in Part 4 to Hebrews along with the letters of James, Peter, and Jude. For
the latter he sometimes offers a fairly broad range of dates, knowing that
dating Hebrews with precision is difficult.
Part 5 of the book is interesting
as Bernier takes a look at four extracanonical writings—1 Clement and
the Didache (chapter 9), along with the Epistle of Barnabas and
the Shepherd of Hermas (chapter 10). He chose these four in large part
because these were the texts chosen by Robinson in "Redating the New
Testament." He suggests that other texts need similar attention, but this
starts the process. While I’ve always assumed 1 Clement was written around 95
CE, he suggests that the evidence puts it between 65-70. It can’t be earlier
than that as he reports the deaths of both Peter and Paul. The letter also
mentions a Fortunatus. If this is the same Fortunatus as the one mentioned in 1
Corinthians 16:17, would he still be active forty-plus years later? All of this
is intriguing.
What made John Robinson's attempt
to redate the New Testament so challenging in the 1970s to the reigning views was
that he was not a conservative. As the author of Honest to God, he
had strong liberal credentials, and yet he argued for a dating scheme that had
been the province of conservatives who wanted to cement the authority of the
New Testament. That surely wasn’t Robinson’s desire, as liberals like him tended
to question the authority of the Bible, and thus a later date fit their needs
better. While I sense that Bernier is more conservative than the average
liberal, his argument doesn’t appear to be ideological. Like Robinson, he believes
an earlier date for the books fits the evidence better and he offers his
rationale for that view while inviting representatives of the other two
positions to do the same.
While embracing an earlier view
doesn’t necessarily make you a conservative, it is true that such a position
does better support the authoritative witness of the New Testament (it doesn’t
make it inerrant, just closer to the events narrated). When it comes to the Synoptic
Gospels and Acts, if they could be placed early in the life of the church, that
is important as fifteen years is a lot closer to the events than forty years
later or afterward. While I’m not totally convinced by Bernier, I’m intrigued.
I do have questions about moving most everything before 70 CE, and yet perhaps
that date is too arbitrary when it comes to deciding whether a text is early or
late. There's much to contemplate here, and I’m not an expert in the field, so
I’m keeping an open mind, hoping to see what others do with the challenge. As
for why I decided to request a review copy, I need to acknowledge the
endorsement given to the book by James McGrath. McGrath is a New Testament
scholar I highly regard who is no conservative. I suspect that McGrath remains
in the middle, but I believe he’s correct when he writes that Bernier’s
arguments "will undoubtedly serve as an impetus to refreshing scholarly
conversations for decades to come." It appears to be time to reassess the
arguments on the dates of authorship. Maybe we should be so quick to assume
that the attributions the early church gave to the authors of these books,
especially the Gospels, are incorrect. Perhaps tradition is correct.
While this is intended to be a
scholarly book that addresses the academic community, it is relatively
accessible. I say relatively because it can feel like we're getting into the
weeds at points. Nevertheless, Bernier writes with clarity, without getting too
caught up in academic language. At least, it’s accessible to those who have a
degree of background in biblical studies. In other words, clergy should find it
understandable. I do think that clergy will benefit from reflecting on the
possibilities of redating the New Testament. By that, I mean those of us in the
more moderate to liberal mainline community. The key to the value of Bernier’s Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament is the care with which Bernier dives into
the evidence as well as the compelling way he presents the information. So, as
we await similar presentations by adherents of the other two positions, why not
check out Bernier’s proposal. At the very least it will cause you to think
about how dates are given to texts, and whether the method is working!
Comments