Today we’ll look at RETHINKING THE DATES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, by Jonathan Bernier, published in 2022. We’ll start by looking at Bernier’s review of an apparently old argument:

“It has been argued that Luke-Acts evinces knowledge of Josephus’s works, and more specifically, his Antiquities, written ca. 93. Robinson [John Arthur Thomas Robinson (1919-1983), English New Testament scholar and Anglican Bishop] deals with Lukan knowledge of Josephus in one sentence, dismissing it with the suggestion that it had been largely abandoned by then-contemporary scholarship. Such dismissal is not sufficient for our purposes, in normal part because more recent scholarship has sought to resuscitate the argument that Luke knew Josephus…

“Insofar as the subject matter covered by Josephus partially overlaps with that covered by Luke, we should hardly be surprised to see some coincidences  between their respective texts…Only two areas of possible contact between Luke-Acts and Josephus merit an extended discussion: (1) the treatment of Quirinius and the census and (2) the accounts of Judas the Galilean [Acts 5:37], Theudas [Acts 5:36], and “the Egyptian.” [Acts 21:38] Both Luke and Josephus report that Quirinius undertook a census. Luke situates it during the reign of Herod the Great (d. 4 BCE), but Josephus places it following the depositions of Herod Archelaus in 6 CE…For our purpose it is sufficient to note that to the extent that Luke’s account is fundamentally irreconcilable with Josephus’s, we have reason to doubt that either one stand as a source for the other.”

Finally, someone uses the idea of the same subject matter being covered as a reason that similar ideas or topics are expressed. 

Bernier does say that the two accounts are “irreconcilable,” which is true; but it is also very likely that they are describing two different census events.

We’ll continue on with Bernier’s look at the rebel leaders mentioned in Josephus and Acts:

“…Josephus and Acts mention only three — and precisely the same three — rebel leaders who operated in the decades before the Jewish War: Judas the Galilean, Theudas, and the anonymous figure known only as ‘the Egyptian.’ The question before us whether this convergence is best accounted for by Luke’s use of Josephus’s writings. The logical alternatives to Lukan dependence upon Josephus are that Josephus used Luke-Acts, or that Josephus and Luke-Acts each had independent reason to single out these three figures…In Acts 5:36-37, Luke’s Gamaliel I places Theudas’s revolt before that of Judas the Galilean, but Josephus reports that Judas’s revolt predated Theudas’s by about forty years. It has been argued that this contradiction actually demonstrates that Luke knew Josephus, because at one point Josephus discusses Theudas shortly before discussing Judas’s sons. The argument is that Luke was confused: he read about Theudas, saw a reference to Judas, and concluded that Theudas must have preceded Judas.  Although this is possible, it does not seem probable. Turning to a place where Luke clearly diverges from Josephus in order to demonstrate that Luke knew Josephus only demonstrates how weak the hypothesis is. For the same reason, we should be wary of affirming Josephus’s dependence upon Luke-Acts. Indeed, the divergence gives us reason to suspect that Luke and Josephus are independently reporting upon the same course of events, possibly using some sources in common.”

³⁶For, some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and a group of about four hundred men joined him. But he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and come to nothing. ³⁷After this man, Judas of Galilee appeared in the days of the census and drew away some people after him; he also perished, and all those who followed him were scattered.     (Acts 5:36,37; NASB)

Bernier tackles “the Egyptian” next. It’s clear from the passage in Acts that “the Egyptian,” just like the other two rebels, were remembered by people quoted in Acts. So, Berner asks why Josephus mentions “the Egyptian,” and why don’t Josephus or Luke know his name?

³⁷As Paul was about to be brought into the barracks, he said to the commander, “May I say something to you?” And he said “Do you know Greek? ³⁸Then you are not the Egyptian who some time ago stirred up a revolt and led the four thousand men of the Assassins out into the wilderness?”     (Acts 21:37,38; NASB)

Bernier concludes:

“Why, if there were innumerable rebel figures, did Josephus choose a figure whose name he did not know? The most intelligible answer is that the Egyptian’s operations were remembered as in some way significant. These operations loomed large in the memories of those who lived through the period, even though his name did not. Josephus singled out this figure because his sources, oral or written, did so before him; he may have selected Judas and Theudas for much the same reason. This raises the possibility that Luke, too, emphasizes these three figures on the basis of his own sources. Indeed, given their precise combination of similarities and differences, it is likely that both Luke and Josephus drew upon different sources from the decades leading up to the Jewish War that nonetheless emphasized Judas, Theudas, and the Egyptian. Certainly, the crucial differences between Luke and Josephus in the treatment of these figures should make us wary of positing that either is directly dependent upon the other…The relationship between Luke-Acts and Josephus’s writings should be considered non probative for establishing the compositional date of the former.”

I think his conclusions make sense. Focusing on these three insurrectionists could easily have involved a majority opinion or example set that both authors ran into when doing research. More than that, I believe that when Luke put things in people’s mouths (i.e., Gamaliel I and Paul/the commander), it’s how he heard it, either in person or in the retelling by witnesses. I don’t believe he was providing a modern fictional device of providing dialogue to explain background information.

Bernier moves on to look at a version of Luke’s Gospel produced by Marcion (active in Rome ~140s per the late second- and early third-century Church Fathers). Marcion was looking to make a version of this Gospel that matched his personal beliefs, and so, he appears to have redacted Luke. Bernier reports that some commentators have chosen to see Marcion’s “Gospel” as a “proto-Luke.” This, of course, would put the writing of Luke sometime after the 140s, which would seem to the point of looking at it this way.

“I have found Judith Lieu’s assessment of the matter to be most compelling.[Judith M. Lieu (b. 1951) a British theologian and historian of religion specializing in NT and early Christianity; from her book: MARCION AND THE MAKING OF A HERETIC: GOD AND SCRIPTURE IN THE SECOND CENTURY, 2015] Lieu argues that Marcion used a text very close to our Lukan Gospel as the basis for his Gospel, albeit one that perhaps lacked certain passages. Lieu also argues that Marcion did not simply utilize this version of the Lukan text but rather modified it to suit his theological interests. Lieu further suggests that as such our canonical Luke’s Gospel must postdate Marcion. I am not convinced that this need be the case. Given the diversity of second-century texts, it seems altogether possible that Marcion’s core text lacked passages found in coeval variants of the Lukan text. Indeed, one might be very surprised to discover that Marcion had a copy of Luke’s Gospel identical to what we find in NA [Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th ed. 2012 – a critical edition of the New Testament in Koine Greek put out by the German Bible Society]. Regardless, apart from this qualification, Lieu’s position seems the best balance between the reality of textual diversity in the second century and Marcion’s apparent interest in producing a Gospel shorn of material he deemed to be inappropriate.”

If Lieu’s conclusion is that “Luke” was writing after Marcion, then I don’t find her arguments very “compelling.” Bernier response of: “I am not convinced that this need be the case” is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Apostles as Spirit-led authors either. In Marcion, we have a person rewriting a Gospel to suit his beliefs rather than a man following the dictates of the Holy Spirit. Why would we take his writings as inspired? You see, this lack of faith leads people down dark alleys and away from the Truth. We don’t believe blindly, rather we have been given parameters within which we seek verification, and one of those parameters is that the Bible writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The next argument from Bernier, is whether Luke uses Paul’s letters as a resource. He uses the arguments of Richard Pervo (1942-2017) who claims that “Acts demonstrates knowledge of Paul’s Letters and thus must date later than 100.” As I read about this, I was thinking about how hard it would be to grow up with the surname Pervo. Kids must have been merciless. In looking up this man, I found out that he was an American biblical scholar who was an Episcopal priest and professor at University of Minnesota until 2001, when he plead guilty to child porn charges (both possession of and distribution of; Wikipedia notes that he had “thousands of images” of child porn on his work computer at the university). Wow. 

Obviously, not being God, I don’t know this man’s heart, but knowing this about him certainly colors his credibility a bit. After this event, he resigned from the university and his priesthood, but he continued to publish under Westar Institute (the Jesus Seminar people), but even they don’t list him as a “member.” All of this would have been known in 2022 when Bernier wrote his book. Does this information mean that Pervo was a bad scholar, or an unbelievable source? Not exactly. You’ve probably noticed that I question the faith of many of these commentators when they make their belief in things non-biblical obvious in their writing. Pervo’s history makes me wonder about his faith rather than his knowledge: but as we often see, a deficit of faith often leads a person down mistaken paths of knowledge. We’ll approach these arguments with an open mind, but also in faith.

Bernier lays out his case:

“One specific quote epitomizes the difficulties with Pervo’s argument: ‘Luke made use of canonical 2 Corinthians, which is not attested before ca. 120-130 (Marcion, possibly Polycarp) and was not available before 100.” For our purposes, two relevant claims are made here. First, that Luke used 2 Corinthians; second, that Luke would not have had access to 2 Corinthians before 100. Regarding the first claim, Pervo’s evidence for Luke’s knowledge of 2 Corinthians consists of the parallels he identifies between Acts 9:23-25 and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33.

“After some time had passed, the Jews plotted to kill him (in Damascus), but their plot became known to Saul. They were watching the gates day and night so that they might kill him; but his disciples took him by night and let him down through an opening in the wall, lowering him in a basket.  (Acts 9:23-25) [NRSV]
“In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas guarded the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands. (2 Cor. 11:32-33) [NRSV]

“It is certainly possible that in composing Acts 9:23-25, Luke had access to 2 Corinthians 11:32-33. Both narrate what is likely the same event…Nonetheless, there is little verbal agreement between the two texts. Indeed, the only verbal similarity that Pervo can identify is that both refer to Paul being let down in a basket. The reported details differ significantly between the two accounts. In Acts, Paul fears being killed by ‘the Jews’; in 2 Corinthians, he fears being arrested by the ethnarch of King Aretas. Pervo must resort to arguing that ‘Luke has taken up and transformed an item from Paul’s correspondence,’ thus speaking about a ‘inversion of fact represented in the appropriation of 2 Corinthians to Acts 9.’ Given that there is little verbal agreement between the two passages and significant differences between them, it seems at least as probable, if not more so, that Luke simply is not making use of 2 Corinthians.”

If we look at this story about the basket as a mere myth, and not an historical event, then we can see a correlation between these two Bible passages. As an historical event, we can understand that different motives might be ascribed by different authors, and even conclude that both motives may have been true (i.e. that the ethnarch was looking to arrest Paul because the Jews had drawn him into their plot, or that the Jews heard that the ethnarch was looking to arrest Paul and saw this as an opportunity to kill Paul with impunity). If it’s a myth, then we have to think in terms of transmission, and which was the original story, and then why it would be changed in a new telling, which is what Pervo appears to be doing here.

On to the second point:

“What should we make of Pervo’s claim that Luke would not have had access to 2 Corinthians before 100? Pervo’s primary argument for this claim is that while 1 Clement makes use of Romans and 1 Corinthians, it does not make use of 2 Corinthians. He more fully argues that 2 Corinthians ‘would have been manna from heaven for the composer(s) of 1 Clement, because it presents the founding apostle, Paul, vigorously chastising the Corinthian believers for rebelling against lawful (“apostolic”) authority — and that is the very subject of 1 Clement itself.’ As always, we must be wary of any argument from silence. The composer(s) of 1 Clement might not have had access to 2 Corinthians, true; it is also possible that, for whatever reason, they decided not to make use of it. Further, if we do grant that the composer(s) of 1 Clement did not have access to 2 Corinthians, it does not follow that no one did. It is entirely possible that 2 Corinthians was unknown in Rome when 1 Clement was written from that locale, yet was already available elsewhere…virtually all scholars agree that 2 Corinthians was written in the 50’s. Thus, unless we imagine that 2 Corinthians disappeared as soon as it left Paul’s hands only to be rediscovered ca. 100, we should imagine that it had at least some circulation from the late 50’s through to the end of the century.

“Pervo further argues that Acts must postdate not only the composition of certain Pauline Epistles but also the first collection of Paul’s Letters. This does not follow, as the letters could have circulated independently as soon as they were first sent to their destination churches. Moreover, the existence of such a collection is conceivable as early as the 60’s. David Trobisch [David Johannes Trobisch (b. 1958), a German NT scholar with a focus on the epistles of Paul] has argued that Paul himself approved a collection that included Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians…such scenarios are at least as plausible as any that would date the first collection of Paul’s writings later in the century.

“…Of the eight Pauline Letters that Pervo thinks Luke to have most likely known, six (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians) are among the undisputed letters — that is, those that virtually all New Testament scholars agree were written at least in part by Paul. Moreover, virtually no scholars would date these letters later than 62. These texts have little bearing, then, on the date of Luke-Acts, regardless of whether they were known to Luke. Yet Pervo also argues that Luke likely used Ephesians and Colossians, if these are pseudo-Pauline letters, and if they date after 62, then Luke-Acts must date likewise. Yet as we saw with Acts 9:23-25 and 2 Corinthians 11:32-33 above, Pervo is unable to produce the level of verbal agreement that we would normally expect when trying to establish that one text demonstrates knowledge of another…Ultimately, the relationship of the Pauline corpus to Acts is best considered non-probative for establishing the compositional date of Acts.”

Bernier makes a fairly thorough argument here. To be honest, I think it’s thorough enough to totally refute Pervo’s ideas on this topic.

In his last argument on Luke, Bernier uses Harnack to argue the case of Acts ending before Paul’s death as a point of reference for dating Acts. We looked at these arguments when we studied Harnack himself, so we will skip the details here. Instead we will look at Bernier’s conclusions regarding these arguments:

“…Suddenly the failure to mention Paul’s fate is wholly intelligible: Luke did not write of Paul’s fate because Paul had yet to meet it. He devotes, I suggest, considerable attention to the events of 57 through 62 because he was frequently with Paul throughout that period. A date of ca. 62 is otherwise viable; on the basis of such significantly greater intelligibility, we should be inclined to suppose that Acts dates to around that time, thus also Luke’s Gospel, and in turn Matthew’s and Mark’s most probably earlier.”

We will look at more of Bernier’s book when we get to John, and also when we study the Early Church Fathers’ input on order and dating.

Our next source is stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates/. This author starts right out saying that “the key to dating the Gospels is the Book of Luke.” We get a hint at where this author is headed by the following quote:

“In dating Luke’s gospel, which is addressed to ‘most excellent Theophilus,’ it should first be noted that nowhere does the author identify himself as the Luke who was a companion of Paul, mentioned in three Pauline epistles. In fact, other than the title ‘the Gospel according to Luke’—which is admitted by all authorities to be an addition and not original to the text—Luke’s name does not show up in any gospel. Despite outward appearances, it is by no means certain that the author of Luke, who was neither an apostle nor a known disciple, was anywhere near in time to the events he is recording. When we factor in the Acts of the Apostles… there is also no record of that book having been written or existing before the end of the second century.”

The author then makes a big point that we don’t know who “Theophilus” was. Need I remind anyone that there were people who claimed that King David and Pontius Pilate (among many others) were not historical figures until just recently, when archaeological evidence showed that they were, indeed, historical.

Luke’s name not appearing in “any gospel” just means that he was either not a disciple of Jesus while Jesus was teaching, or, he just wasn’t one of the Apostles. If he was a Gentile, then the former is probably true, and if a Jew, then the latter is very possible. Claiming an early date for Luke still puts Luke 10 to 30 years after Jesus’ Resurrection. The author seems to be implying that Luke was reading and copying gospels when he says: “Luke’s gospel discusses an apparent myriad of preceding gospels…” What Luke actually says is:

¹Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, ³it seemed fitting to me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in an orderly sequence, most excellent Theophilus; ⁴so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.     (Luke 1:1-4; NASB)

“Investigating” doesn’t just imply reading and copying, especially in the first or second century. Getting access to written material (usually scrolls) was a very expensive proposition; rather, one would assume that Luke spent a lot of time interviewing and talking to people who either knew Jesus and were familiar with the events first hand, or people who actually knew those people who were eyewitnesses. For example, much of the early history of John the Baptist and Jesus’ nativity are thought to have come from Mary. It makes sense that this type of information gathering would be done 10-30 years after the events that are reported. 

The author goes on to say: “Trying to fit Luke into the middle or end of the first century, however, is an endeavor rife with problems, including that there certainly were not ‘many’ gospels in circulation or even in existence by that time.” This is a straw-man argument: Luke must have been reading and copying from many gospels is the straw man the author has set up, so now he must knock that straw man down to win his argument: there weren’t many written gospels in the first century. 

Next he tries to tie Marcion’s rewriting of Luke’s Gospel into the actual writing of the Gospel: that Luke based his Gospel on Marcion’s version. We’ve discussed this idea already.

The author now moves into the Church Fathers, referencing books from the apocrypha to try to prove his point:

“…in determining which texts Luke may be referring to, a number of Church fathers, including Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, as well as other Christian authorities such as the Venerable Bede (8^th cent.), evidently named books from authors of the second century such as the Gospels of the Egyptians and the Twelve Apostles, as well as the writings of the Gnostic-Christian heretic Cerinthus.”

I started by looking up the Twelve Apostles in Wikipedia, hoping it would lead me to something more reliable. Wikipedia said that the “Gospel of the Twelve” was on a list of heretical works given by Origen. There was also a reference to St Jerome’s COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW, p51-2. This reference is to the preface of the book, written by Jerome, and it starts like this:

“That there were many who wrote gospels, both Luke the evangelist testifies, when he says: ’Since indeed many have tried to tell a story of the things that have been completed among us, just as they themselves who from the beginning saw the word and ministered to him have handed down to us,’ and the literary monuments that endure unto the present time show, monuments which, published by various authors, have been the beginning of various heresies — for example, the gospels according to the Egyptians and Thomas and Matthias and Bartholomew. There is also a gospel of the Twelve Apostles, and of Basilides and of Apelles, and of others whom it would be too long to list.”

There is a footnote that Jerome was quoting from Luke 1:1-2. As a reminder, here is the actual quote as we have it:

¹Since many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, ²just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word,    (Luke 1:1-2; NASB)

The website author lists only one source for his information: HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, TO THE YEAR TWO HUNDRED by Charles Burlingame Waite. He lists the year of the book as 1992, which sounds fairly up-to-date. In reality, the original of the book was printed in 1881. It’s an interesting book, Waite delves pretty deeply into the apocrypha trying to use it to provide context to the Scripture. His chapter on Luke starts out with the statement that Luke was probably written first because it was “compiled from the oldest manuscripts,” and because they would have needed it to “counteract the influence of Marcion” (as in: Marcion wrote his “gospel” first). Waite says that one source reports that Luke “consists of a compilation on at least 33 different manuscripts,” and then he gives a chart with Luke broken up into 33 different segments. He admits that “some of these divisions may be too artificial,” which is an understatement to say the least. He then goes into a long bit comparing Luke to Marcion, saying that the latter’s  “narratives are simpler and  more natural than Luke’s.” 

The author of the website then, using this 19th century book as the gospel-truth, starts dating the apocrypha, and decides that those second century dates apply to the Gospel of Luke.

Of course, claiming that Luke relied on Josephus is the next gambit, but in this case the author gives no details, just a list of the things Luke supposedly borrowed from Josephus. Here’s the list:

• The census under Quirinius/Cyrenius
• The three Jewish rebel leaders
• The death of Herod Agrippa
• Various aspects of Felix’s life
• The tetrarch Lysanias
• The “parable of the hated king”
• The famine during the reign of Claudius
• Pilate’s aggressions…

As you can see, one of those things is “the three Jewish rebel leaders,” which we’ve already seen debunked. As for the other arguments, without details we can’t analyze them at all; how convenient. I don’t think I would recommend stellarhousepublishing.com as a resource. 

I have a few more pages of notes from some online sources, but I realize that they are just repeating arguments that we have already gone over, so I will end it here. Next time we will start on John.