Jonathan Bernier. <i>Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition</i>

Interest in when the New Testament was written runs long, but the list of comprehensive studies of the matter is short. Research is almost always conducted on one work or author at a time. Every commentary on Matthew includes an introductory section about its date, for example, but that decision requires a prior determination of Mark’s date—and Matthew’s may in turn implicate those of Luke or the Didache. Any one writing’s time of origin is entangled with several others. Jonathan Bernier (assistant professor of New Testament and the director of the Lonergan Research Institute at Regis College, University of Toronto) describes this as a “spiderwebbing effect” (p. 1), and his Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament provides a “synthetic treatment” (passim) of the evidence for the New Testament, with 1 Clement, the Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas included for good measure. By Bernier’s count, his is the first monograph-length study since John A. T. Robinson’s Redating the New Testament (1976), which was itself the only treatment in the twentieth century. Like Robinson’s Redating, Bernier’s Rethinking places the compositions early, though Bernier arrives at his position independently (esp. 8–17). Rethinking the Dates is a stimulating work, both in its breadth and its conclusions.The Introduction (pp. 1–32) includes two particularly helpful matters. The first is a review of previous attempts to date early Christian writings (pp. 3–8). Bernier divides these into three broad categories he calls “lower” (exemplified by Robinson), “middle” (Adolf von Harnack), and “higher” (J. V. M. Sturdy) chronologies (pp. 3–8), with a handy summary table (pp. 3–4). The second is an explicit statement of method (pp. 22–29). Bernier generates hypotheses by “synchronization” (“establishing the text’s temporal relationship to other events or situations,” p. 23), “contextualization” (“establish[ing] the text’s probable relationship to the general course of early Christian development,” p. 26), and “authorial biography” (establishing a text’s date “from what we know about the author,” p. 27). He then judges his hypotheses by the criteria of “freedom from fallacy” (a hypothesis without fallacies is preferred), “evidentiary scope” (the hypothesis that explains the most data is preferred), and “parsimony” (the simpler hypothesis is preferred) (pp. 28–29).Bernier moves roughly canonically from the Synoptic Gospels and Acts (pp. 35–84), to the Johannine writings (pp. 87–129), Paul (pp. 133–82), and the General Epistles (including Hebrews but not 1–3 John) (pp. 185–235), ending with the four Apostolic Fathers (pp. 239–75). The Epistle of James illustrates his method in practice. Under “synchronization,” Bernier considers the external attestation for the letter, its relationship to other Jesus traditions and to Paul, and the Birkat Haminim (referenced in Jas 3:9–10?) (pp. 196–202). Of these, only external attestation helps, placing a terminus ad quem around AD 125. “Contextualization” does not narrow the range, as Bernier finds that James’s Jewish matrix, reference to “your synagogue” (Jas 2:2), absence of distinctively Christian terminology, and ecclesiology all to fit the first or second century (pp. 202–6). “Authorial biography,” by contrast, contributes significantly, since Bernier concludes that the work is from the brother of Jesus, which limits its composition to sometime before his death in AD 62 (pp. 206–9).Bernier’s chronology is strikingly early (summarized at pp. 277–80). Three writings might even be in the 40s: Mark (42–45), Matthew (45–59), and Galatians (47–52). He also places nineteen New Testament documents (as well as 1 Clement) prior to the fall of Jerusalem. If the Pastoral Epistles or 2 Peter are by their named authors, then four more come before AD 70. The only writings that might cross into the second century are those same four, if they are pseudonymous: 1 Timothy (60–150), 2 Timothy (60–150), Titus (60–175), and 2 Peter (60–125). The Didache (60–125), Barnabas (70–132), and Hermas (70–125) likewise border the turn of the second century.The advanced press for Rethinking the Dates is enthusiastic, with glowing reviews by Chris Keith and Anders Runesson, among others, listed on the back cover. There is warrant for this praise. The book’s greatest virtue is approaching sometimes tired debates with freshness and vigor. Even where there is not agreement about the dating of a particular writing, the standard options are normally entrenched. Bernier places all possibilities back on the table and works through the evidence from scratch. Rethinking is also valuable for its clarity. This is true of Bernier’s method, which he stipulates up front and follows rigorously throughout. It is also true of his content. He provides ample signposting, summarizing the argument and suggested dates frequently. Even though Bernier advertises his tendenz from the start, he also does not press the evidence. He allows that Titus might be pseudonymous, and if so, he extends its possible date of composition into the late second century. Finally, insofar as his conclusions hold, the results are important: the bulk of the New Testament dates to within four decades of Jesus’s death.The strength of the argument is, however, uneven. To pick one example, Bernier’s positive case that Luke could “achieve a significant degree of factuality” (p. 143) is slight compared to the weight he places on it: he speaks of “the indispensability of Acts” (p. 137) for a Pauline chronology. There are three prongs to his argument. First, the prologue of Luke indicates that Luke–Acts aims at historicity (pp. 137–38). Second, the “we” passages of Acts indicate access to eyewitness testimony, whether firsthand or secondhand (pp. 138–39). Third, “four independently datable events”—Jesus’s crucifixion (Acts 1:3, in AD 29–34), the death of Herod Agrippa (Acts 12:23–24, in AD 44), the governorship of Gallio in Corinth (Acts 18:12–17, in AD 51–52), and the succession from Felix to Festus (Acts 24:27, in AD 59)—occur within Acts in the same order as in history (pp. 139–42, at 139). This, Bernier submits, implies chronological sequencing. Aside from the fact that four data points are not many, someone disinclined to agree with Bernier might point to the apparent difficulties omitted from his list, such as the revolutionaries Theudas and Judas the Galilean (Acts 5:36–37) or, in Luke’s earlier volume, the census of Quirinius (Luke 2:1–2; also Acts 5:37). There are counterarguments to these alleged blunders, but Bernier has not himself cinched the case. The decision to adopt Acts as a guide for Paul is not ancillary either. This is especially visible with Philippians. Its date requires only a page of treatment because Bernier deduces a Caesarean origin (AD 57–59) by aligning the reference to praitōrion in Phil 1:13 with Acts 23:35 (pp. 168–69).But perhaps this concern demands too much of a three hundred–page study. Responding to every objection would require a monograph several times the length of this one. There is a place for a reasonably sized volume that attempts a synthetic dating of the New Testament, one that does not answer all questions but invites further dialogue by staking out one consistent chronology. In that, Rethinking the Dates succeeds.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.