Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament

The Evidence for Early Composition

Bernier, Jonathan

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781493434671
• Topic: Theologie & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblische Studien

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.

Part 1: The Synoptic Gospels and Acts

1
Synchronization

The aim of part 1 is to establish the probable dates for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles.1 Due to the densely interconnected nature of these texts, they will be treated together. We begin in chapter 1 by considering matters of synchronization in relation to all four of these texts, then continue in chapter 2 with matters of contextualization and authorial biography. Although most scholars date Mark’s Gospel to ca. 70, Matthew’s Gospel to ca. 80, and Luke-Acts to ca. 85 through 90, this chapter argues that Acts was written ca. 62 and the Synoptic Gospels before that date, with Matthew’s Gospel likely written prior to Luke’s Gospel, and Mark’s Gospel prior to Matthew’s Gospel.

Synchronization

This chapter will consider (1) external attestation of the Synoptic Gospels and Acts, (2) the Synoptic problem, (3) the Synoptic Gospels’ respective relationships to the events of the Jewish War and especially the destruction of the temple in 70, and (4) chronological concerns specific to Luke and Acts, such as the unity of Luke-Acts, the relationship of Luke-Acts to the writings of Josephus, Marcion, and Paul, and the end of Acts. Through the work of synchronization, we conclude it is probable that the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as well as the Acts of the Apostles, were in each case composed no later than ca. 62.

External Attestation

It is likely that Papias was aware of Mark’s Gospel and with less probability also Matthew’s Gospel.2 It is also likely that Ignatius of Antioch was aware of Matthew’s Gospel.3 Given that these writers were most likely active during the reign of Trajan (r. 98–117), we should be wary of dating either of these Gospels much later than 120. In his definitive and careful study of the relevant material, Andrew Gregory concludes that there is no certain evidence that Luke’s Gospel and Acts were being read before, respectively, ca. 150 and ca. 170.4 On the basis of attestation, we thus cannot exclude a date for Luke-Acts as late as the mid-second century.

The Synoptic Problem

Few questions have vexed modern New Testament scholarship more fully than that of the interrelationships among the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke.5 That these three texts are related is beyond any reasonable doubt, and a definitive account of their interrelationship would greatly advance the cause of Synoptic chronology. Here is a concrete example: one of the earliest proposals to explain the interrelatedness of the Synoptic Gospels was the so-called Augustinian Hypothesis, which in its modern form argues that Matthew wrote first, then Mark used Matthew’s Gospel as a source, and then Luke used both.6 If this were to be affirmed, then we would have established a relative chronology for the Synoptic Gospels: Matthew’s Gospel would predate both Mark’s and Luke’s; Mark’s Gospel would postdate Matthew’s and predate Luke’s; and Luke’s Gospel would postdate both Matthew’s and Mark’s. This would not itself establish absolute dates, but if we were to build upon this relative chronology by dating any one Synoptic Gospel absolutely, then we would have also identified at least some temporal limits for the other two.

Unfortunately, Synoptic source criticism has not yet reached a place of consensus. In Redating the New Testament, John Robinson makes too much of the disagreements among Synoptic source critics. He ultimately opts for a somewhat idiosyncratic approach to the Synoptic problem, which focuses too much on the development of the Synoptic Gospels and consequently becomes mired in tangentially relevant considerations.7 In reality, Synoptic source criticism is not as divided as a casual glance might suggest. Among Synoptic source critics working today we find a strong preference for Markan priority—that is, the supposition that Mark wrote first, with Matthew and Luke utilizing his Gospel as a source text. Contemporary proponents of Markan priority are further divided between those who affirm the Two Document Hypothesis and those who affirm the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis.8 This division has to do with the so-called double tradition—that is, the material that Matthew and Luke have in common but that is not in Mark. Proponents of the Two Document Hypothesis (Markan priority with Q) argue that, for the double tradition, Matthew and Luke each independently used a third, nonextant source dubbed “Q”; and proponents of the Farrer-Goulder Hypothesis (Markan priority without Q) argue that Luke’s source for this double-tradition material was simply Matthew’s Gospel.

From the above, it is evident that both solutions to the Synoptic problem preferred by specialists affirm that, among the Synoptic Gospels, Mark’s Gospel was written first; they either do not exclude (in the case of the Two Document Hypothesis) or affirm (in the case of the Farrer-Goulder view) the hypothesis that Luke was written last. Thus we can reasonably operate on the working supposition that the chronologies placing Mark’s Gospel first and Luke’s last are those least likely to run into source-critical difficulties. Yet it must be emphasized that our preferences for Markan priority and even more so for Lukan posteriority are not immune to revision. If there is compelling reason on other grounds to date Luke’s Gospel earlier than either Matthew’s or Mark’s, then we must consider the possibility.9 Still, the data appear to be such that we can reasonably and provisionally operate on a preference for chronologies in which the date of Luke’s Gospel is later than the date of Matthew’s, which is in turn later than the date of Mark’s.

The Matter of 70

Many New Testament scholars consider it a given that the Synoptic Gospels—or at least Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels—betray knowledge of the events of the Jewish War (66–73), and more specifically the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70.10 Speaking specifically regarding the Gospel of Matthew, Donald Hagner refers to “the dogmatism of critical orthodoxy concerning a post-70 date.”11 This is unfair. Scholars who hold that one or more of the Synoptic Gospels are post-70 compositions do so because they believe that the evidence best supports this position. Indeed, it goes without saying that any text betraying knowledge of the second temple’s destruction as a past event must postdate 70. Nonetheless, whether the Synoptic Gospels do betray such knowledge is not as self-evident as often supposed. For his part, Robinson rightly observes that the Synoptic Gospels, and indeed the entirety of the New Testament, never refer to the destruction of the temple as a past event; this observation is indeed foundational for his development of a lower chronology.12 As discussed in the introduction to this study, however, Robinson so emphasizes this point that he risks lapsing into a fallacious argument from silence. Fortunately for proponents of the lower chronology, arguments from silence are not required. Rather, attentive readings of the relevant material in the Synoptic Gospels are such that Luke’s Gospel might reasonably be thought to predate 70, while Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels almost certainly do. In what follows in this section, we first consider relevant passages that are least probative for purposes of establishing the compositional dates of the Synoptic Gospels and then move toward those which are most probative.

The Torn Curtain (Matt. 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45)

Perhaps the weakest argument for post-70 dates for any of the Synoptic Gospels involve the traditions of the torn curtain. They read as follows.

At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. The earth shook, and the rocks were split. (Matt. 27:51)

And the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. (Mark 15:38)

And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. (Luke 23:45b)

Robinson fails to discuss these verses, probably because none of them reports the temple’s destruction. Indeed, the fact that these verses do not report the temple’s destruction does somewhat vitiate the hypothesis that these verses suppose the temple’s destruction. Nonetheless, a scholarly tradition holds that these passages—especially the Matthean and Lukan variants—suppose the destruction of the temple as background.13 Frequently they are read as portents of the destruction, written after it had occurred. This is hardly impossible. Josephus, a...