One of the most significant writers of the 20th century was JAT Robinson. This is due to two books he wrote. The first, Honest to God, was significant in promoting liberal theology and religious scepticism. So it is perhaps surprising to know that the second was more likely to find support among conservative Christians. In Redating the New Testament, he argued, contra most scholarship of the time that that entire New Testament was likely written before AD70.
Generally speaking, his arguments have been ignored or rubbished but there hasn’t been much engagement with them. So, Jonathan Bernier has picked up the baton in Rethinking the dates of the New Testament. This engagement with and development of Robinson’s work is long overdue.
Bernier is appreciative of Robinson and agrees with his thesis but argues that Robinson fell down in terms of methodology. The result is that the work seemed eccentric and in Bernier’s opinion relied mainly on an argument from silence.
This argument is that the events of AD70, the sacking of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple were so huge that it would be impossible for writers post AD70 not to engage those events. The New Testament does not
I personally don’t think Bernier is completely fair to Robinson as I would argue that the case is a little more nuanced than an argument from silence. Given that Jesus’ prophetic words seem to refer to AD70 like events and given that the authors could easily have been writing around the time of them it does seem rather odd that they are not engaged with, at least in the epistles or in Acts.
However, I do think that Bernier’s work is more structured, considers a greater range of internal and external evidence and is therefore superior to Robinson’s.
His methodology considers synchronisation as he looks at how books relate to each other before addressing biographical and contextual data. On this basis for example, he concludes that Luke-Acts was likely the last of the synoptic works and given its abrupt ending before the end of Paul’s trial, possible further journeys and eventual death suggests a date no later than AD62.
If correct, and I personally find the argument convincing, then the first Gospel was probably written as early as the 40s. This would confirm that we have access to eye witness evidence of Christ’s life death and resurrection.
Like Robinson, Bernier’s reconstruction does not really entertain the possibility of supernatural truth – that the miracles and resurrection really happened. I personally consider that a weakness for both.
However, all in all, I believe this to be a crucial contribution to New Testament scholarship and essential reading for pastors, evangelists and apologists too. I hope it will be widely read and unlike its predecessor, engaged with rather than dismissed.
Faithroots 