by Stuart Gray
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.”[1] He defines a research question, generates a hypothesis that may answer it, and adjudicate between competing hypotheses to determine the best answer.[2]
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:[3]
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:[4]
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:[5]
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 eyewitnesses
Negatives:
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.
Conclusion
What’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.
[1] Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2022), 17.
[2] Ibid., 18.
[3] Ibid., 23.
[4] Ibid., 26.
[5] Ibid., 27.
RESPOND 
and despite the desperate efforts of christians, they still have no evidence for any of their versions of the bible god.
“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 eyewitnesses”
Tradition doesn’t equal evidence for these claims. You also have no evidence of any group of 3000 or 500, they simply vanish. You have no one claiming to be one of these supposed eyewitnesses at all, or a single name. Your assumptions fail.
Well. It is true that someone sounds desperate 😂
nice of you to show you have nothing to show I’m wrong.