What do you think?
Rate this book
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament
2023 Word Guild Award Winner (Biblical Studies)
This paradigm-shifting study is the first book-length investigation into the compositional dates of the New Testament to be published in over forty years. It argues that, with the notable exception of the undisputed Pauline Epistles, most New Testament texts were composed twenty to thirty years earlier than is typically supposed by contemporary biblical scholars. What emerges is a revised view of how quickly early Christians produced what became the seminal texts for their new movement.
This paradigm-shifting study is the first book-length investigation into the compositional dates of the New Testament to be published in over forty years. It argues that, with the notable exception of the undisputed Pauline Epistles, most New Testament texts were composed twenty to thirty years earlier than is typically supposed by contemporary biblical scholars. What emerges is a revised view of how quickly early Christians produced what became the seminal texts for their new movement.
318 pages, Paperback
Published May 3, 2022
39 people are currently reading
218 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
June 11, 2022
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? What about extra-canonical texts like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas (you thought I was going to say the Gospel of Thomas!)? 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?
The tendency since the turn of the 2oth century if not earlier is to assume that most of the texts, including the Gospels, were written after 70 CE if not later. There is justification for doing so, but is it possible that the majority of the New Testament texts could be dated before 70 CE? Is there "evidence for early composition?" As the subtitle of Jonathan Berniet's intriguing book suggests, there could be evidence for such a position. While I have generally followed the majority of scholars who date the Gospel of Mark to sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, based on Jesus' references to the destruction of the city. If Mark is the earliest Gospel then the others fall after that. But what if Mark is much earlier?
Bernier offers an intriguing argument that there are basically three positions on dates. There is a Lower date, Middle (Majority), and Higher. It is the middle chronology that I have generally embraced, feeling that the argument for higher rates such as dating Matthew to the 2nd century is more based on ideology than evidence. With regard to Paul's undisputed letters, there is no conflict, everyone affirms dates in the 50s. What he wants to do is demonstrate how taking a lower date, fitting most of the New Testament before 70 CE makes the most sense of the evidence, even if much of the evidence is circumstantial. Bernier largely follows, though not always, John A. T. Robinson. Making the two of them the only scholars to do something like this, with no comparable study yet undertaken for the Middle and Higher positions since the turn of the 20th century, something he hopes advocates of those positions will take.
While I count myself among those who embrace the Middle position since it's the majority position among New Testament scholars. Since I'm not a NT scholar I tend to trust their judgment. At the same time, I find the idea of early dating intriguing. That is especially true of the Gospels. If, as Bernier suggests, Mark could have been written around 45 CE, with Matthew being written around 50 CE, that puts two Gospels written before Paul's letters. So, could we have evidence of Jesus' life and ministry that dates within a little more than a decade after his death?
While Bernier starts with Robinson, he wants to go beyond Robinson's Redating the New Testament. One of the major concerns he has with Robinson's approach was "his less-than-adequate attention to the method and organization of his study." (pp. 8-9). Thus, he wants to address concerns about how 70 CE is interpreted, the interpretation of Domitian and Nero. Interestingly, Bernier, like Robinson, is less than enthralled with the idea of a large 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 the method and organization that he finds most problematic and wishes to improve upon.
Central to his 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, the role of 70 CE. 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 prior to 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 2 years. With that the book ends, suggesting that it was written about that time. 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. It is at this point that he addresses the Pauline texts, setting a chronology that fits what the majority of scholars agree upon. 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.
What made John Robinson's attempt to redate the New Testament so challenging in the 1960s was that he was no conservative. The author of Honest to God, he had strong liberal credentials and yet he seemed to back a position on dates that had generally been held by conservatives who wanted to cement the authority of the New Testament. Liberals tended to go in the other direction. I sense that Bernier is evangelical in inclination, but the argument here is less ideological and more an attempt to provide a rationale for an early date. That would make the New Testament more authoritative, especially, the Synoptic Gospels and Acts if they could be placed early in the life of the church. Fifteen years is a lot closer to the events than forty years later or afterward. I have questions about moving most everything before 70 CE, and yet perhaps that date is too arbitrary? So there's much to contemplate here. I need to acknowledge here the endorsement of the book by James McGrath, a New Testament scholar I highly regard who is no conservative. Whether we all agree on the dates, I believe McGrath is correct that Bernier's arguments "will undoubtedly serve as an impetus to refreshing scholarly conversations for decades to come."
This is a scholarly book that addresses the academic community, but it is accessible. I think that clergy might benefit from reflecting on the possibilities of redating the New Testament, and I speak here primarily to those of us in the more moderate to liberal mainline community. The key here is the care with which Bernier dives into the evidence and presents it in a compelling way. So check it out!
The tendency since the turn of the 2oth century if not earlier is to assume that most of the texts, including the Gospels, were written after 70 CE if not later. There is justification for doing so, but is it possible that the majority of the New Testament texts could be dated before 70 CE? Is there "evidence for early composition?" As the subtitle of Jonathan Berniet's intriguing book suggests, there could be evidence for such a position. While I have generally followed the majority of scholars who date the Gospel of Mark to sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, based on Jesus' references to the destruction of the city. If Mark is the earliest Gospel then the others fall after that. But what if Mark is much earlier?
Bernier offers an intriguing argument that there are basically three positions on dates. There is a Lower date, Middle (Majority), and Higher. It is the middle chronology that I have generally embraced, feeling that the argument for higher rates such as dating Matthew to the 2nd century is more based on ideology than evidence. With regard to Paul's undisputed letters, there is no conflict, everyone affirms dates in the 50s. What he wants to do is demonstrate how taking a lower date, fitting most of the New Testament before 70 CE makes the most sense of the evidence, even if much of the evidence is circumstantial. Bernier largely follows, though not always, John A. T. Robinson. Making the two of them the only scholars to do something like this, with no comparable study yet undertaken for the Middle and Higher positions since the turn of the 20th century, something he hopes advocates of those positions will take.
While I count myself among those who embrace the Middle position since it's the majority position among New Testament scholars. Since I'm not a NT scholar I tend to trust their judgment. At the same time, I find the idea of early dating intriguing. That is especially true of the Gospels. If, as Bernier suggests, Mark could have been written around 45 CE, with Matthew being written around 50 CE, that puts two Gospels written before Paul's letters. So, could we have evidence of Jesus' life and ministry that dates within a little more than a decade after his death?
While Bernier starts with Robinson, he wants to go beyond Robinson's Redating the New Testament. One of the major concerns he has with Robinson's approach was "his less-than-adequate attention to the method and organization of his study." (pp. 8-9). Thus, he wants to address concerns about how 70 CE is interpreted, the interpretation of Domitian and Nero. Interestingly, Bernier, like Robinson, is less than enthralled with the idea of a large 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 the method and organization that he finds most problematic and wishes to improve upon.
Central to his 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, the role of 70 CE. 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 prior to 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 2 years. With that the book ends, suggesting that it was written about that time. 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. It is at this point that he addresses the Pauline texts, setting a chronology that fits what the majority of scholars agree upon. 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.
What made John Robinson's attempt to redate the New Testament so challenging in the 1960s was that he was no conservative. The author of Honest to God, he had strong liberal credentials and yet he seemed to back a position on dates that had generally been held by conservatives who wanted to cement the authority of the New Testament. Liberals tended to go in the other direction. I sense that Bernier is evangelical in inclination, but the argument here is less ideological and more an attempt to provide a rationale for an early date. That would make the New Testament more authoritative, especially, the Synoptic Gospels and Acts if they could be placed early in the life of the church. Fifteen years is a lot closer to the events than forty years later or afterward. I have questions about moving most everything before 70 CE, and yet perhaps that date is too arbitrary? So there's much to contemplate here. I need to acknowledge here the endorsement of the book by James McGrath, a New Testament scholar I highly regard who is no conservative. Whether we all agree on the dates, I believe McGrath is correct that Bernier's arguments "will undoubtedly serve as an impetus to refreshing scholarly conversations for decades to come."
This is a scholarly book that addresses the academic community, but it is accessible. I think that clergy might benefit from reflecting on the possibilities of redating the New Testament, and I speak here primarily to those of us in the more moderate to liberal mainline community. The key here is the care with which Bernier dives into the evidence and presents it in a compelling way. So check it out!
April 23, 2022
Groundbreaking. This ought to revolutionize the field of NT studies.
April 11, 2022
This an accessible academic book that builds on the previous work of John Robinson in “Redating the New Testament” as a quasi spiritual successor. As such it pretty much treads the same ideas, with slightly different analysis and opinion on the arguments presented for both an earlier and a later compositional date assignment (as well as a providing a benchmark of a nominal middle ground for comparison). For the most part, it doesn’t move the earlier dates much, but it does answer some of the criticisms advanced against the low chronology, as well as addressing some of the arguments for the later dating. The basic premises is that many of the arguments against are in fact inconclusive (aka non-probative) at best; however, the arguments for the earlier dates typically rest on a more likely than not (for best fit) analysis, so clearly there is room for disagreement. What I found most edifying though was the interconnectedness of all the scriptures that pretty much required everything to move as a block (as everyone more or less agreed on the sequence). I also found his analysis to be clear and persuasive, with a common organization to each group of text that was examined and would be very interested in any counter arguments that are likely on the horizon.
The method of analysis detailed is the Introduction and it is well worth the read so that you understand the approach undertaken. In each chapter, there is a section on synchronization or how the text under consideration is related to other text. The next section is typically contextualization where the author attempts to place the text within the appropriate time periods that make the most sense, while still recognizing that other time periods may not be completely foreclosed by the challenges identified. The next step is to examine what is known of the presumed author, with particular attention to when and where they were active at the proposed time. In the interest of identifying fallacious argumentation (both in previous arguments and in the current analysis), several other data points (or evidentiary scope) are examined; the most common fallacy identified appeared to be an argument from Silence (or the absence of evidence presuming the negation of it). In all, this was a strong book to read if you wish to understand what was happening within the early church, even if you do not agree with the earlier dates proposed; it is for that reason I highly recommend this book.
I was given this free advance review copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#RethinkingtheDatesoftheNewTestament #NetGalley
The method of analysis detailed is the Introduction and it is well worth the read so that you understand the approach undertaken. In each chapter, there is a section on synchronization or how the text under consideration is related to other text. The next section is typically contextualization where the author attempts to place the text within the appropriate time periods that make the most sense, while still recognizing that other time periods may not be completely foreclosed by the challenges identified. The next step is to examine what is known of the presumed author, with particular attention to when and where they were active at the proposed time. In the interest of identifying fallacious argumentation (both in previous arguments and in the current analysis), several other data points (or evidentiary scope) are examined; the most common fallacy identified appeared to be an argument from Silence (or the absence of evidence presuming the negation of it). In all, this was a strong book to read if you wish to understand what was happening within the early church, even if you do not agree with the earlier dates proposed; it is for that reason I highly recommend this book.
I was given this free advance review copy (ARC) ebook at my request and have voluntarily left this review.
#RethinkingtheDatesoftheNewTestament #NetGalley
June 4, 2022
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.
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.
June 13, 2022
A well argued case for an earlier dating of the NT, with enough restraint to acknowledge that (sometimes quite large) date-ranges have to suffice instead of precise dates.
A number of years ago I heard Daniel Wallace say that he thought Mark was written in the early 40s - I was intrigued by this but wanted to hear how he got there. It was so rewarding to find this book gave a good case for such a date.
Also love to see the early date of Revelation being promoted in a non-partisan, non-preterist-affirming context (as much as I am a preterist). Although, I did think the understanding of Revelation 13:3 unnecessarily puts the date after Nero's death, rather than during his reign.
A number of years ago I heard Daniel Wallace say that he thought Mark was written in the early 40s - I was intrigued by this but wanted to hear how he got there. It was so rewarding to find this book gave a good case for such a date.
Also love to see the early date of Revelation being promoted in a non-partisan, non-preterist-affirming context (as much as I am a preterist). Although, I did think the understanding of Revelation 13:3 unnecessarily puts the date after Nero's death, rather than during his reign.
May 27, 2022
Methodologically straightforward, considerate, and compelling. Although each chapter is repetitive in its methodology, it is definitely a unique contribution to the field. I only have a few strong disagreements with the evidence/methodology he presents (particularly when parroting opinions and consensus’s of other scholars for the sake of brevity) pertaining to the Epistle of Barnabas, Gospel of John, and Epistle of James.
Nevertheless, it is well-researched and carefully constructed. It will be an essential resources for generations of scholars to come.
Nevertheless, it is well-researched and carefully constructed. It will be an essential resources for generations of scholars to come.
July 16, 2022
Good update on Robinson’s book on the same subject and clear arguments for pre-70 date for New Testament
May 22, 2022
When were the books of the New Testament written?
Contemporary New Testament scholars agree that Paul’s seven undisputed letters — Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon — date to the 50s. They disagree about the compositional dates of the remaining New Testament books, however.
In Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, Jonathan Bernier identifies three chronological frameworks used by contemporary scholars: (1) “lower” chronologies date the remaining books prior to 70, (2) “middle” chronologies date them from 70–100, and (3) “higher” chronologies date them after 100.
For centuries, Christian tradition taught that the named authors of New Testament books actually wrote them, dating the books’ composition to the Apostolic Era, roughly mid- to late-first century. In Bernier’s terms, Christian tradition was a hybrid of lower and middle chronologies.
Liberal scholars, most notably Ferdinand Christian Baur, challenged this tradition in the nineteenth century, arguing that aside form Paul’s undisputed letters, the New Testament was written in the Post-Apostolic Era, well into the second century.
Today, the consensus among scholars — whether traditional or liberal — favors middle chronologies for the bulk of the New Testament.
Bernier himself makes a case for lower chronologies, arguing that the majority of New Testament books was written prior to 70, with a handful of exceptions. For the Pastoral Epistles — 1–2 Timothy and Titus — he offers a date-range of 60 ( if the letters are authentic) to 175 at the latest (if they are pseudonymous). For 2 Peter, the date range is 60 ( if authentic) to 125 (if pseudonymous). He argues that 1 and 2 John have a range from 60–100 and that 3 John is no later than 100.
He also offers date-ranges for early Christian writings outside the New Testament, including 1 Clement (64–70), Didache (60–125), Epistle of Barnabas (70–132), and Shepherd of Hermas (70–125).
Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament is the first complete scholarly monograph on the topic of the New Testament books’ dates of composition since John A. T. Robinson’s Reading the New Testament (1976), which also argued for a lower chronology.
J. V. M. Sturdy set out to write a refutation of Robinson and thus make the case for a higher chronology but died before it was completed. Jonathan Knight edited Sturdy’s manuscript into Redrawing the Boundaries (2007).
Before Robinson, the most recent scholarly monograph to synthesize the data pertaining to the dates of New Testament books was Adolf von Harnack’s Die Chronologie der Litterateur bis Irenaeus (1897), which argued for a middle chronology but has not yet been translated into English.
Although both Robinson and Bernier argue for lower chronologies, the latter identifies “significant problems” with the work of the former: “Robinson’s tendency to approach the events of 70 [i.e., the destruction of Jerusalem] through arguments from silence”, his “Neronian error” of assuming that New Testament references to persecution must be dated to the 60s, when Nero reigned, and a “less-than-adequate attention to the method and organization of his study.”
It is on this last point, methodology, that Bernier makes his signal contribution to the chronological debate. He approaches the question as a historian, following “three fundamental steps”: “identify and define the research question, generate hypotheses that might answer the question, and adjudicate between competing hypotheses in order to determine the best answer.”
Here, the research question is when a particular book of the New Testament was written.
The hypothesis-generation step involves “basic procedures” that help historians explicate all the arguments for a range of dates. The first procedure is “synchronization,” which refers to “establishing the text’s temporal relationship to other events or situations, including the composition of other texts.” This is followed by “contextualization, which seeks to establish the text’s probable relationship to the general course of early Christian development in areas such as ecclesiology, Christology, gentile inclusion, and so on.” The final procedure is “authorial biography,” which identifies “what we know about the author and prompts us to ask when in her or his life a given text is best situated.”
Once historians have generated hypotheses, they must infer which proposed date of composition is most probable. Bernier argues that the preferable hypothesis “(1) employs the fewest number of logical fallacies, (2) can account for the greatest quantity of relevant data, and (3) can do so with the highest degree of parsimony.”
Bernier follows this methodology consistently throughout the book, showing that it can lead responsible historians to date the New Testament books earlier rather than later. He makes no appeals to tradition, authority, revelation, or miracle to sustain his arguments. And he draws no conclusions regarding the theological or apologetic implications of his work.
While the intended audience of Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament is New Testament scholars, I read the book as an ordained Christian minister and believe a wider readership may find it useful to understanding how the dates of Christian Scripture are determined. Though Bernier draws no theological or apologetic implications from his conclusions, I think lower chronologies tend to raise the historical value of the New Testament books because they shrink the timeframe between events and the writings about them.
That said, I do not agree with everything Bernier writes. For example, I am less open to pseudonymity than he is, even though he argues that most of the New Testament books are authentic. I have reservations about some of his remarks questioning Luke’s historical accuracy on certain matters. And I’m not sure he gets the details of the internal chronology of Paul’s letters right.
Even so, I recommend Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament to scholars and non-scholars alike. It is a fair-minded, methodologically rigorous treatment of the topic. And, given the fact that no similar defenses of middle and higher chronologies have been published in the last 125 years, it is the most definitive treatment currently available.
Book Reviewed
Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2022).
P.S. If you liked my review, please click “Helpful” on my Amazon review page.
November 14, 2022
I tend to agree with Bernier's conclusions on the early dating of the books of the New Testament. However, I found a great deal of the content tedious and repetitive. I guess I don't have the kind of scholarly mind that finds comfort in dry methodology.
November 24, 2024
Rethinking The Dates Of The New Testament
John AT Robinson's book on re-dating the New Testament was a revolutionary analysis authored by one liberal scholar surrendering to the perspective that the internal evidence of the Gospels, the Pauline corpus, the Petrine corpus, and the others support an early compositional date, namely prior to AD70.
Now, Jonathan Bernier was determined to take the mantle and improve upon the system that Robinson had used for his analysis. Indeed, in Bernier's studious book he begins by bringing to light the problems with Robinson's own system and tendency to make an argument from silence. Acting as the successor, this book challenges the conventional dating of the New Testament as well as challenging Robinson's dating matrix; Bernier shows the traditional date-ranges by separating them as "Early", "Middle" and "Late" date-ranges for each book, including where Robinson's date-ranges lies in comparison, to then finally including his own date-ranges in the final matrix at the conclusion.
Bernier persuasively argues that most New Testament writings were composed significantly earlier than traditionally thought in the "Middle" and "Late" date-ranges, and does this through the internal evidence of the historical, textual, and literary analysis under the methodological genres of synchronisation, contexualisation, and authorial biography. Synchronisation compares the New Testament writings with historical events and contemporary texts to establish some bearing of a timeline; contextualisation pits the writings within the historical, political, social, religious and cultural context of the first-century for a richer understanding and interpretation of the writings; authorial biography serves to explore the authors, proper or pseudonymous, in their personal experiences and backgrounds. Included in this is Bernier's evaluation of using the key-date of the pivotal events in AD70, similarly to AT Robinson, as an intelligible-marker for the writings, whether some writings provide a clearer sense of context and more intelligible reading pre-70 or post-70.
Bernier's approach is intriguing as he presents the arguments from both sides of the conservative-liberal dichotomy, drawing on their work to synthesize a nuanced and balanced perspective, which ought to encourage further examination of the texts in Biblical scholarship.
John AT Robinson's book on re-dating the New Testament was a revolutionary analysis authored by one liberal scholar surrendering to the perspective that the internal evidence of the Gospels, the Pauline corpus, the Petrine corpus, and the others support an early compositional date, namely prior to AD70.
Now, Jonathan Bernier was determined to take the mantle and improve upon the system that Robinson had used for his analysis. Indeed, in Bernier's studious book he begins by bringing to light the problems with Robinson's own system and tendency to make an argument from silence. Acting as the successor, this book challenges the conventional dating of the New Testament as well as challenging Robinson's dating matrix; Bernier shows the traditional date-ranges by separating them as "Early", "Middle" and "Late" date-ranges for each book, including where Robinson's date-ranges lies in comparison, to then finally including his own date-ranges in the final matrix at the conclusion.
Bernier persuasively argues that most New Testament writings were composed significantly earlier than traditionally thought in the "Middle" and "Late" date-ranges, and does this through the internal evidence of the historical, textual, and literary analysis under the methodological genres of synchronisation, contexualisation, and authorial biography. Synchronisation compares the New Testament writings with historical events and contemporary texts to establish some bearing of a timeline; contextualisation pits the writings within the historical, political, social, religious and cultural context of the first-century for a richer understanding and interpretation of the writings; authorial biography serves to explore the authors, proper or pseudonymous, in their personal experiences and backgrounds. Included in this is Bernier's evaluation of using the key-date of the pivotal events in AD70, similarly to AT Robinson, as an intelligible-marker for the writings, whether some writings provide a clearer sense of context and more intelligible reading pre-70 or post-70.
Bernier's approach is intriguing as he presents the arguments from both sides of the conservative-liberal dichotomy, drawing on their work to synthesize a nuanced and balanced perspective, which ought to encourage further examination of the texts in Biblical scholarship.
September 23, 2023
This is a comprehensive scholarly work that presents a grading system for dating New Testament texts and argues that, in general, evidence supports earlier dates (aka earlier chronology) for the writings of the New Testament. Jonathan writes "with the notable exception of the undisputed Pauline Epistles, the majority of the texts that were eventually incorporated into the New Testament corpus were likely written twenty to thirty years earlier than typically supposed by contemporary biblical scholars."
I really enjoyed learning the scholarly perspectives on the New Testament and the various hypotheses of when the four gospels and the subsequent letters were written. Having read this, I am more aware of the importance of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and how this plays a role in interpreting and dating the texts in the New Testament. I also learned more about early church history in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
There will always be a component of faith required when reading and applying the Bible to our lives in the 21st century. But, I think it is really exciting and really important to understand how we obtained these texts and how the texts have been preserved throughout history.
My one comment regarding this book is that it reads as if it is a doctoral thesis and can be repetitive at times. Of course, that is part of the strength of this book. By being repetitive and following the same grading system for book after book in the New Testament, it is clear this is a comprehensive defense of lower chronology. That being said, it really isn't for the lay reader and I would stay is best suited for a seminary student, pastor, or biblical scholar.
I really enjoyed learning the scholarly perspectives on the New Testament and the various hypotheses of when the four gospels and the subsequent letters were written. Having read this, I am more aware of the importance of the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and how this plays a role in interpreting and dating the texts in the New Testament. I also learned more about early church history in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
There will always be a component of faith required when reading and applying the Bible to our lives in the 21st century. But, I think it is really exciting and really important to understand how we obtained these texts and how the texts have been preserved throughout history.
My one comment regarding this book is that it reads as if it is a doctoral thesis and can be repetitive at times. Of course, that is part of the strength of this book. By being repetitive and following the same grading system for book after book in the New Testament, it is clear this is a comprehensive defense of lower chronology. That being said, it really isn't for the lay reader and I would stay is best suited for a seminary student, pastor, or biblical scholar.
September 24, 2024
Solid attempt to date the all of the New Testament books. Bernier is thorough in his methodology, telling you what that method is and how he is using it when he considers each book. He is very cautious to draw conclusions when the evidence is spotty. I probably found the information on authorship to be the most interesting given that it is difficult to discern in some cases. He does give weight to some of the NT books potentially being pseudonymous such as 2 Peter which is hard to stomach. It would seem to assume that a falsehood, in this case the name of the author, is part of scripture.
The book does get repetitious at times. For each NT book he tells us what he's going to tell us, argues for it, and then tells us what he told us. After a while though you can skip the the beginning and ending summaries and just focus on the actual arguments. Overall it is a impressive attempt to date all of the New Testament books in one volume. This has not been attempted since 1976 when John Robinson wrote "Redating the New Testament."
The book does get repetitious at times. For each NT book he tells us what he's going to tell us, argues for it, and then tells us what he told us. After a while though you can skip the the beginning and ending summaries and just focus on the actual arguments. Overall it is a impressive attempt to date all of the New Testament books in one volume. This has not been attempted since 1976 when John Robinson wrote "Redating the New Testament."
December 13, 2022
I very much appreciated the Author’s methodical and logical approach towards quite an involved topic. I also liked the inclusion of the 4 non-canonical books, and that they had similar treatment. It is good to have a current (this year!) book looking at the dating of each of the writings of the New Testament, so as to include much of the more recent research and arguments. I did note that the Author was in agreement with many of the more recent commentaries that I have read.
Whilst I found this to be an interesting and fascinating read, I recognise some would find this to be better used as a reference.
It is very well referenced and has a useful and detailed biography. Also it is very well indexed.
A useful addition to the library of any pastor or one who is serious about his/her Bible Study.
Whilst I found this to be an interesting and fascinating read, I recognise some would find this to be better used as a reference.
It is very well referenced and has a useful and detailed biography. Also it is very well indexed.
A useful addition to the library of any pastor or one who is serious about his/her Bible Study.
June 15, 2022
This book is a "sequel" to John Robinson's "Redating the New Testament." Whole Bernier doesn't agree with ever part of Robinson's work, he does accept Robinson's argument that the dates of composition for most of the New Testament should be 20-30 years earlier than what is typically agreed upon by modern day New Testament scholars. The book is systematic, formulaic, consistent, and dry. Little attention is given to why this argument matters, and the reader is left to apply these arguments on his or her own. To be fair to Bernier, this monograph is intended to focus solely on the questions and issues relating to dates, and Bernier does this well.
November 7, 2025
Fascinating & Defensible
I really enjoyed the author's honesty, the three pegs, upon which he built his proposed dates, and his willingness to consider all the data and not just ignore data that disagrees with his conclusions. I also respect the fact that he encourages scholars who believe the dating should be middle or late dating to do a similar work supporting their conclusions. If this were to be done, then the reader would be left to decide for himself or herself their own conclusions about dating these different books of the New Testament and early Christian writings. I would recommend this work for the reader to consider an early dating.
I really enjoyed the author's honesty, the three pegs, upon which he built his proposed dates, and his willingness to consider all the data and not just ignore data that disagrees with his conclusions. I also respect the fact that he encourages scholars who believe the dating should be middle or late dating to do a similar work supporting their conclusions. If this were to be done, then the reader would be left to decide for himself or herself their own conclusions about dating these different books of the New Testament and early Christian writings. I would recommend this work for the reader to consider an early dating.
August 1, 2022
Who in the world is this book written for? It certainly isn't for laymen such as me, and I would think theologians would also find it boring. I have never read a book that contained so many words I had never heard of, let alone for which I didn't know the meaning. The author refers to earlier dates as "lower" dates, which seems odd to me. He also acts as if the identity of the "beloved disciple" in the Gospel of John can't be determined. I have never heard that before. This could have been an interesting subject, but surely there are better books than Bernier's.
June 26, 2022
The author argues for the lower chronology of NT books with the almost every book being composed pre-70 AD.
The author generated hypotheses by synchronization (establishing a text’s date in relation to other events, including the composition of other texts), contextualization (establishing a text’s date by what we know about the general development of early Christianity), and authorial biography (locating the composition in the life of the author).
The author generated hypotheses by synchronization (establishing a text’s date in relation to other events, including the composition of other texts), contextualization (establishing a text’s date by what we know about the general development of early Christianity), and authorial biography (locating the composition in the life of the author).
April 23, 2025
Four stars, with a caveat: it’s a tedious beast cover to cover. Probably inevitable. Bernier describes his system for arriving at dates to NT books in the introduction (the best part), and in the remainder of the book he shows, book by book, how that works practically. The practical section is both necessary and, for most, would function well as a reference; the summary cliff notes at the end make it manageable. Now, if only all those later daters would come along with comprehensive NT studies.
January 26, 2025
Excellent stuff! Bernier really goes into great detail, breaking down logically the arguments for early dates. He analyzes each book and each author in the same way and is very fair, giving a date range for each that he has defended thoroughly with internal and external evidence. If you're interested in this subject, you can't get a better resource than this.
May 30, 2022
Very interesting read. I didn't agree with everything, but Bernier meticulously organized his research and cited numerous sources I want to look into further. My full review can be found here: https://thinkchristiantheism.blogspot...
May 25, 2025
Solid work that many scholars, pastors and seminary students will find challenging. I have my disagreements (based on my own dissertation research) that Bernier is wrong about Nero but, otherwise, he makes a fine argument and it deserves a wide readership.
May 28, 2023
Solid book with solid evidence for earlier dating of most of the Greek Bible....and easy to follow....
October 7, 2023
More like 4.75. I might comment on this book sometime later. It was a fun read -- great detective work.
August 12, 2025
Argumentation this clear is such a gift, even if you disagree.
November 18, 2023
Jonathan Bernier challenges the tacit consensus among the New Testament guild that the majority of the writings date from after 70 AD (and are thus pseudonymous) with a lucid and carefully argued re-presentation of the “lower” chronology, arguing that nearly everything in the New Testament ought to be dated before the fall of Jerusalem. Nothing in this book is particularly new or innovative, but Bernier has done the great service of putting everything in one place. It becomes repetitive by the nature of the argument, but that is no vice; rather the systematic, consistent, and transparent form of the argument is the great virtue of the volume. Everyone interested in the critical questions surrounding the New Testament ought to consult this work.
June 16, 2024
Bernier gave the best explanation I have ever read of the hypothetical second Roman imprisonment for Paul.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews