Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition Paperback – 3 May 2022

This is a painstaking and careful examination of the evidence within the pages of the New Testament for the dating of the various 27 books that make it up. The thorough, detailed and unemotional examination of the text makes this a persuasive piece of academic writing. Each book is treated in the same way, all the evidence is weighed and the author is careful neither to overstate nor understate the implications of each factual nugget or historical reference. Previous scholars are engaged with and the material is presented in such a way that it could easily be used in a seminar group since the same pattern of headings is used for each of the books under the spotlight. Essentially, the case is made that the New Testament writers completed the canonical texts much earlier than is often supposed.

In this fascinating study, Jonathan Bernier has setup a scholarly framework for assessing the composition date of ancient texts. He has then applied this dating framework to both the New Testament books, and to a selection of early extra-canonical writings. He describes his approach as “inferential.” He defines a research question, generates a hypothesis that may answer it, and adjudicate between competing hypotheses to determine the best answer.Bernier argues that most of the canonical texts of the New Testament were composed between 45AD and 70AD. But in making this argument, he rejects the argument from silence approach that I have previously discussed here. Instead, he gathers data and organizes it around the following rubric:Synchronization:Here we form an argument based on the text’s temporal relationship to other events. We ask two questions:1 – Is there material here that’s fully intelligible only if written PRIOR TO a given event?2 – Is there material here that’s fully intelligible only if written AFTER a given event?The answers to these questions help us home in on a possible time frame, and also decide what level of confidence we can have in that measurement.Contextualization:If there’s evidence a particular literary genre flourished at a particular time, this gives us warrant to argue texts showing this form are likely to date around this time.Authorial Biography:This is the most precise dating method to Bernier. It proceeds based on what we know about the author from other sources. This does also lead him to discussions about options on the identity of the author, and also the authenticity of individual books.Our knowledge is always partial in these matters, but he seeks the firmest argument that is simplest and free from logical fallacies.Positives:Bernier is exhaustive in his assessment of the surviving historical data that allows dating of these ancient texts. He genuinely seems willing to follow the data where it leads, and he is not committed to a particular conclusion based on his religious convictions. He does not need to date the texts early at the start of his book. Rather, he reaches this conclusion by following the steps laid down in his argument.Overall, he forms a convincing argument that places many of these texts around the middle of the first century. For example, he argues the Synoptics Gospels were written between 45 and 59, while John was written between 60 and 70. He is also open for counter arguments, though he observes that these are thin on the ground. Rather, usually the skeptic will appeal to scholarly consensus rather than try to actually do the work of assessing real historical data as Bernier has done. Bernier has firmly placed the ball in their court. They have work to do to convince us that later dates are better for the New Testament.He is also aware of some of the supposed problems that have been thrown up by skeptics in the past 20 years. For example, if the first Christians were illiterate, the books could not have been written by who they are supposedly authored by. The gospels, for example, would not have emanated from unschooled Galileans. Of course, the arguments supporting this skeptical claim are very thin indeed. The traditional identifications of both Luke and Matthew, for example, would not have identified unschooled individuals based on their stated occupations. One was a physician, the other worked to gather finances on behalf of the occupying Roman authorities. Both roles would have required education and writing ability. But further, Bernier looks at the studies exploring the level of education amongst people in Roman Judea. If we assume only 2.5% were literate, then that would have been reflected in the early Christian community that formed prior to AD50. Consequently, when we are told 3000 joined up at Pentecost (Acts 2:41), then 75 were literate. If 500 saw the risen Christ (1 Corinthians 15:6) then 12 were literate. It is reasonable to assume that in the early decades of the church, hundreds of literate people were part of this new movement. And there was always the option to employ scribes to write down this new covenant text if necessary. Writing the experiences of eyewitnessesNegatives:His rubric for assessing the dates of the texts is only as useful as the data available to assess. His conclusions are well argued, yet they are tentative.But what can we reasonably expect from a historical work like this? It is the job of the historian to sift the available data and draw the most likely conclusion. Such an argument is always going to be tentative. We cannot have cast iron certainty about when these texts were authored.The demand for this level of certainty is usually only made by those who have a prior commitment to discrediting the New Testament. Perhaps to avoid the claims it makes about Jesus of Nazareth, the birth of the church, and what this might mean for them. This book will probably not change the mind of someone who is firmly committed to discrediting the New Testament due to their own a-historical issues. For them, the New Testament can’t be truthful, because if it was, they might have to actually do something about the claims that it makes, and they are not willing to do such a thing.Yet these arguments are cogent. For those who are willing to lay their prior commitments aside, his arguments have great value.ConclusionWhat’s powerful about Bernier’s approach is that it could be used to date any piece of writing, and the conclusions one draws will be based on the way we treat the data. He argues this approach leads to early dates, but he is open to counter arguments from others who might wish an alternative middle or late dating of books. His approach is flexible.His conclusions are important. The implications of early dating need to be considered. This would lead us to conclude these New Testament books are what they appear to be. A selection of biographical works, containing eyewitness testimony. And also letters written during the early decades of the Christian movement, addressing difficulties and challenges that had arisen. But also, they discuss the aftermath of Jesus of Nazareth’s death, resurrection, and ascension, the genuine lived experiences of the first members of the early Christian movement.

This is a great overview of the dating of the whole NT. Most authors focus on only on one or two books and make assumptions about how that fits into the rest based on out-of-date ideas about the NT as a whole. They veer towards later dating by giving too much weight to inconclusive evidence. This book makes a good case that the most natural reading of the NT taken as a whole is that it was written earlier than is often supposed. I would have liked more detail on individual books.

This book was well written, and well thought out in a total impartial manner. Seems unbiased but persuasive to the max. Totally changed my opinion about who wrote books in the New Testament and when they were written. I feel like a theologian almost, like a budding entry level expert. Spoiler alert, the New Testament was written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.. Not only does this totally makes sense as presented in this book, the implications of it will strengthen anyone’s Christian faith. This idea of a new covenant… wow! Book a revelation written around 68-69 A.D, that is totally mind blowing and sensical. On so many levels.. Ok I distress. Highly recommended, trust me it will change your understanding, disproving everything you’ve been led to believe. BTW this type of scholarly opinion is relatively new. There is another book out there redating the NT closer to the apostles’ lifetime. OK another spore alert : of course it makes sense that the NT was written during the lifetimes of the apostles. They would be the ones who would decide what was authentic. The tricky part was disseminating each new book across the Christian world. It would’ve taken years for all the new churches to get scrolls or codices of each book. But the timeline given here totally makes sense. As you can tell I can’t say enough about this book, it gave me a spiritual awakening. I want to tell the world what I now see has the truth. Of course, the conspiracy theory part of me thinks the so-called biblical scholars who say the New Testament was written in the second century are trying to undermine the religion as a whole. I don’t know why there hasn’t been more discussion about what the most likely scenario is given the content of each book.And it makes way sense that John when at Patmos wrote Revelation in the late 6O’s. Read this book and you’ll understand.Can you believe the only reason people say the NT was written after 70ad was based on a faulty argument. There is no prophecy about the dexctruction of Jerusalem in 70ad. Read this book and you’ll freak! I can’t believe even Wikipedia has the wrong dates of when the books were written. Maybe I’ll revise the pages to reflect everything in this book.BTW It would be neat if someone wrote an fictional account of the early years using ideas and opinions presented in this book. I can totally see it in my head, maybe I’ll write a book about how difficult it was to write the books before actual books were even invented. LOL one last thing:, I think the reason why books themselves were invented was so the New Testament, as a manuscript collecting all the codices, could be shared with every new church as they popped up in all the countries of the old world.

I'm not a Biblical scholar so I had always just assumed that scholars had the dating of the Gospels and other New Testament books fairly correct, although it seemed to me just common sense that the synoptic Gosels -- Matthew, Mark and Luke -- preceded 70AD and the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple. The claim that Jesus' reference to destroying the temple had to post date the actual destruction of the temple because otherwise it would be a prophecy seemed lame for the simple reason that I have no idea why Jesus couldn't have prophesied something.Bernier has far better reasons, though, and his reasoning has him concluding that the Gospels, Pauline letters, the other letters, and some non-canonical books like Clement 1 and the Didache, are generally far earlier than the most recent scholarship had concluded.The books uses three criteria for examing the evidence on dating these texts: 1) Synchronization, which means relating the text to known dated events (or other writings) outside that text. For instance, if the text refers to the death of a king, and we know when the king died, we know the text was written after that date. Or if the text is referred to by a different author whose life span we know, we can safely say the book existed before that author was writing; 2) Contextualization, which refers to placing the text within the known development of Christian thought, ecclesiology and other factors. For instance, if a text has a "high Christology" -- ie, views Jesus as fully divine -- prior scholars would place the book later in the life of the Church on the assumption that high Christology was a late development. Bernier shows why this is probably wrong -- ie, high Christology was the case from the outset, as evidenced by Paul's letters (or as I have long thought, even by the first few verses of the earliest Gospel, Mark). Or if the text refers to forbidding Gentile believers from eating meat sacrificed to idols, we are justified in placing this text around the time period when this was an issue for the early church; 3) Authorial biography, which means, assuming we have decent reasons to think we know who authored a text, we are obviously justified in placing the text within the author's lifespan, and, if we know details about the author's life, as we do for Paul and Peter and others, we may be able to tie specific texts to specific known events. This later criterion is especially useful to Bernier in dating the letters of Paul.This was a really informative book and I learned a lot from it. I feel a lot more informed about how the texts were traditionally dated, and why early dates make great sense.The book in paperback is 280 pages of text before the bibliography and index.

This book was very helpful in demonstrating how to try to determine the dates of writing for the NT. The systematic approach employed by the author (Bernier) was easy to follow.It was an edifying and fun "mental exercise" to walk through the process along with the author!Admittedly, I was drawn to the book because I am a "Preterist" and most of us are pleased to know that there are others out there who believe the pre-70AD dates for the NT are correct. Knowing in advance that this was Bernier’s “general” conclusion, I was happy to read the book.I personally believe that the internal evidence for the Book of Jude points to it being the only NT book that was written after 70AD (After the Second Coming of Jesus). However, that is a discussion for another time and place.There are a number of other points where I disagree with the author. Most of these issues are where (IMO) the author strayed from the “internal” evidence and sided with the more popular “external” evidence. However, none of these issues took away from the enjoyable experience of reading the book. My flesh wants to post these issue here in this book review and to offer a better way to process the internal evidence. However, my Spirit is telling me that I should just stop here.Overall, this book was a blessing and I recommend it for anyone who reads the Bible.Thank you to the author for providing us with a great resource!

Jonathan Bernier offers a thorough coverage of the issues which face the chronologist in finding dates for the books in the canonical New Testament (as well as a few extra-canonical works at the end). Bernier is unwilling to exaggerate and offers criticisms of previous works even when they support his viewpoint (see his coverage of John Robinson's Redating the New Testament throughout). In establishing dates Mr. Bernier does not allow logical errors, assumptions, or poorly established scholarship to give false credence to later dates. Furthermore, when the data is sufficiently confusing or hard to interpret, Bernier does not reach and will often decide that a piece of evidence cannot be confidently used to support one or the other position. Combining this honesty, thoroughness, and fairness with the strong positive evidence for early dates makes this work a must-have if you are interested in discovering when the New Testament was most likely composed.In terms of readability, I enjoyed reading through the first two parts in full (Synoptics+Acts, Johannine Traditions). After these it is less enjoyable as a reading experience but serves as a first-rate reference material which I will undoubtedly return to repeatedly in the future.

The tendency is for scholars to not wade into the primary sources, but to simply cite one another. What seems like some kind of consensus rooted in common analysis, is merely the lazy echoing of a single author by many others. The return to important primary evidence, and to the treatment of how and why various conclusions have been drawn on faulty logical presuppositions and inferences, are important parts of this work. Bernier occasionally makes the same mistakes himself, as for example in his treatment on the authorship of Hebrews, but he very often identifies and sets aside such major mistakes. His case is reasonable and modest. This is a major resource in a field without deep analysis of the reasons for proposed dates. This important synthetic analysis is very, very valuable.