Commenting on “synchronization,” Jonathan Bernier notes that it
encompasses the classic work of
establishing the text’s temporal relationship to other events or situations,
including the composition of other texts. (Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the
Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition [Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2022], 23)
The following table (ibid., 23) presents a basic heuristic for
thinking about synchronization:
|
|
|
Is there material in the book that is most fully intelligible
only if written prior to a given event or situation? |
|
|
|
|
Yes |
No |
|
Is there material in the book that is most fully intelligible
only if written after a given event or situation? |
Yes |
The book most likely post-dates the given event or situation,
when preserving material that predates it. |
The book most likely postdates the given event or situation and
might preserve material that predates it. |
|
No |
The book most likely predates the given event or situation. |
There is equal probability that the book predates a given event
or situation. |
|
This is pretty useful for when it comes to dating John’s Gospel vis-à-vis
the death of Peter:
The Death of
Peter (John 21:18-19)
John 21:18-19 is often taken as
evidence that John’s Gospel postdates Peter’s death. . . . we need to consider
the possibility that John 21 is a secondary addition to the book.
Unfortunately, the evidence for the secondary character of John 21 is not as strong
as often supposed. The primary evidence is that the last two verses of John 20
(vv. 30-31) read as an intelligible conclusion to the Gospel. Given John
20:30-31, chapter 21 certainly reads as an epilogue to the Gospel. An epilogue
need not be secondary, however, but rather could have been written as part of
the original text. Yet in its nature as an epilogue, John 21 could conceivably
have been one of the last parts of John’s Gospel to be written, possibly the
very last. As such if John 21 was written before Peter’s death, then there is
strong reason to think that John 1-20 was also written before he died. . . .Let
us consider the possibilities and their chronological implications beginning
with a helpful diagram:
|
|
John’s Jesus anticipates that Peter would suffer a violent
death. |
John’s Jesus does not anticipate that Peter would suffer a
violent death. |
|
Peter suffered a violent death. |
John 21:18-19 either predates or postdates Peter’s death. |
John 21:18-19 predates Peter’s death. |
|
Peter did not suffer a violent death. |
John 21:18-19 predates Peter’s death. |
John 21:18-19 either predates or postdates Peter’s death. |
. . .
Exegetically, the passage does
seem to anticipate a violent death. Historiographically, it seems more likely
that Peter did in fact die a violent death, as—while discussing various
persecutions suffered by the church—the probably first-century text 1 Clement
5.4 reports that Peter went to glory (22). Thus the chronologist must reckon
with the reality that the most likely exegetical and historical scenario
regarding John 21:18-19 can quite plausibly either predate or postdate Peter’s
passing. Insofar as it is generally easier to know how someone died after they
pass than before, there is some reason to think that John 21 was written after Peter’s
death. Nonetheless, the possibility that the author(s) of John 21 could have
correctly anticipated that Peter would suffer a violent death is sufficiently
greater than zero that we should be wary of using Peter’s death to establish
the date of John’s Gospel. (Ibid., 90, 91, 92)
