A Look at Jonathan Bernier’s “Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament” (Part 3: Paul’s Letters, Hebrews, James, I/II Peter, and Jude)

In this final post on Jonathan Bernier’s book, Rethinking the Dates for the New Testament, I’m going to try to provide a bird’s eye overview of everything else in this book that I didn’t cover in my first two posts. Basically, everything that isn’t Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, John, and Revelation!

Paul’s Letters
For the most part, there really isn’t too much debate over the dating of Paul’s letters that are universally held to be written by Paul. In his book, Bernier tries to situate Paul’s letters within the timeline provided for us in the Book of Acts. According to Bernier, there are four clearly datable events in Acts:

1. The crucifixion of Jesus (somewhere between AD 29-34)
2. The death of Herod Agrippa (AD 44)
3. The governorship of Gallio in Corinth (July 1, AD 51-June 30, AD 52)
4. The succession from Felix to Festus the governor of Judea (AD 59)

Assuming that all of the Pauline letters are authentic, Bernier dates Paul’s letters in the following way:

• Galatians: AD 47-52
• I/II Thessalonians: AD 50-52
• I Corinthians: early AD 56
• II Corinthians: late AD 56
• Romans: winter of AD 56-57
• Ephesians/Colossians/Philemon/Philippians: AD 57-59
• I Timothy: AD 63-64 (if Pauline)
• Titus: AD 63-64 (if Pauline)
• II Timothy: AD 64-68 (if Pauline)

All things considered, those are the generally accepted dates. There isn’t much controversy over them.

Hebrews
When it comes to Hebrews, Bernier argues that it was written somewhere between AD 50-70. Scholars typically place Hebrews anywhere from the 60s to the 80s, so Bernier’s dates aren’t that terribly off. Hebrews itself is a peculiar book. No one really knows who wrote it, but given the vast amount of Old Testament/Mosaic Covenant/Judaism material in it, it is safe to say that it was written (probably) to a largely Jewish audience. That being said, we have other writings from the early Church Fathers where clearly Gentile converts were well-versed in the Old Testament.

The fact that so much of Hebrews deals with discussion about the Temple and Levitical priesthood might lend one to believe it was written before the Temple’s destruction of AD 70. Bernier points out that Hebrews 10:1-3 speaks of the sacrifices in the Temple being a reminder of yearly sin—suggesting that at the time of writing, those sacrifices were still going on. But at the same time, I think it would make just as much sense if Hebrews had been written shortly after the Temple’s destruction, as a way to further emphasize Christ and the New Covenant as superseding the Temple and the Old Covenant.

Another clue regarding the dating of Hebrews that Bernier brings up in the indications of persecution in Hebrews 10:32-34 and 12:4. The former talks about early struggles and persecutions, while the later talks about not yet getting to the point of shedding blood. Bernier rules out Domitian’s persecution and considers Nero’s persecution, but the “not shedding blood” seems to rule those two out. Instead, he also considers that Hebrews 13:24’s reference to “those from Italy” might suggest those who had been expelled from Rome during Claudius’ expulsion of the Jews (and presumably Jewish Christians) in AD 49. All in all, though, I don’t think a date for Hebrews could be nailed down any more specifically than somewhere between AD 50-80ish.

James
Like Hebrews, James seems to have been written to a primarily Jewish or Jewish-Christian audience. Bernier acknowledges that scholarship normally sees James as originating in Palestine and being written to Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) communities in the diaspora (James 1:1). After all, James 2:2 talks about people who were coming into the synagogue. In any case, since we know James, the brother of Jesus, was killed in AD 62, Bernier (correctly) argues that the letter was no doubt written before AD 62.

Many have noticed James’ seemingly contradictory take to the “faith-works” debate in Paul. Paul spoke of how “works” cannot save, but only “faith alone” could. James, though, says that if faith isn’t accompanied by works, then that faith is useless. The problem with claiming James and Paul are at odds is rooted in a failure to read the respective contexts. Paul is clearly talking to Gentile Christians who were pressured to submit themselves to the works of Torah that were exclusively given to Jews. James, though, is not talking about the works of Torah—he’s simply talking about the good works that will inevitably accompany faith in Christ. In that respect, James’ “works” can be equated to Paul’s discussion about the “fruit of the Spirit.” In any case, since it is clear (to me, at least) that James and Paul are actually talking about the same thing and are in agreement; they are simply couching their comments to suit the two different audiences. But that fact alone—that they are addressing the same issue—is a pretty good indication to date James to around the same time as Paul’s letters, which would be pre-AD 62.

I/II Peter and Jude
When it comes to these three letters, I’m only going to point out a few quick things. First, since I Peter is largely deemed authentic, and since Peter died in the mid-60s, we can conclude that I Peter was written at some point in the 60s. Bernier argues that I Peter knew of Hebrews (or vice versa), so that would fit into the time span he gave for Hebrews. I Peter’s seemingly Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) audience, the reference to “elder” (5:1) and not “bishop,” and the reference to Rome as “Babylon” (5:13) all suggest a relatively early date, probably in the 60s.

When it comes to II Peter and Jude, it is clear they are working from the same material. Bernier says (obviously) that if II Peter is authentic, then that would date it clearly in the 60s. If not, though, it (along with Jude) still can be generally dated to pre-AD 96.

Conclusion
All in all, Bernier’s Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament did provide some interesting points and helped me further solidify certain things regarding the dates of the New Testament books. That being said, I didn’t care too much for the writing style and, as I said in an earlier post, his arguments for the earlier dates of Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, John, and Revelation, although interesting (and even convincing on some points) still doesn’t make me views the NT books as even more reliable. I already think they are.