A podcast asserting Matthean priority and an early Matthew: “Truth in My Days” episode 13

Truth in My Days, a Canadian apologetics ministry, offers an extended discussion of Gospel publication dates in one of their podcasts from last year, pushing back against the dates commonly promoted by both liberal and evangelical scholars. For those who are intuitively dissatisfied with the theory that the Gospels were the product of decades of oral tradition, the podcast offers insights and critiques of modern theories of late Gospel publications. TIMD Episode 13.

As a Canadian production, listeners should expect to hear a couple hockey illustrations.

John Tors, supported by his wife, Dr. Adrienne Tors, argue for early Gospel dates based on the following:

(I particularly appreciated the reference below to Ellis’ research into Irenaeus’ use of ἔξοδος)

• Dissatisfaction with the potential impact of late dates on the perceived reliability of the Gospels.
• An absence of any reference to the destruction of Jerusalem implies that the Synoptics were published before AD 70. Given that the Gospels and Acts are eager to mention the fulfillment of other prophecies, including Agabus’ famine prophecy (Acts 11:28), it is reasonable to expect that the destruction of the temple would likewise be mentioned.
• The failure of Acts to record the deaths of Peter and Paul, given that Acts mentions the deaths of Stephen and James, implies that Acts must have been published before their deaths. Similarly, Acts does not mention the period of persecution under Nero, even though Acts characteristically reports periods of persecution. Furthermore, Acts does not complete the story of Paul, but leaves him in prison, which also suggests a date for Acts before Paul’s release or death. (Tors presupposes that Luke and the other Synoptics are all written before Acts.)
• Tors speculates that 2 Corinthians 8:18 refers to Luke, Paul’s traveling companion, who has gained fame after publishing his Gospel. The ESV translates the passages as “the brother who is famous among all the churches for his preaching of the gospel”; however, the Greek text makes no reference to preaching. Rather, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ could be more simply translated as “on account of the gospel.” If this speculation is accepted, then this suggests that Luke’s Gospel must have been published by around AD 54, with Mark earlier, and Matthew earlier yet (30s or 40s), per Tors’ Gospel origins paradigm, as reviewed in another podcast. Gospel Authorship, episode 5.
• “To this day” and “in this day” in Matthew (Matt. 27:7–8; 28:15) need not encompass more than a few years, per Paul’s use of “to this day” in Acts 26:22, as he testifies before Agrippa.
• Tors combines Clement’s claim that Mark was published after “Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome” (H.E. 6.14.6–7) with the belief that Peter visited Rome when going to “another place” per the narrative in Acts 12:17, as asserted by Jerome. [I personally don’t accept that “another place” refers to Rome, given the significance that an early trip to Rome would have to the story in Acts. Rather, I have my own arguments in support of an early publication of Matthew and Mark.]
• Tors correctly rejects the euphemistic translation of ἔξοδος in Irenaeus, when Irenaeus uses this term in the context of the writing of Mark’s Gospel (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 5.8.2; cf. Adv. Haer. 3.3.1). Nominally, ἔξοδος means departure, but some scholars embrace a euphemistic translation: “after their death Mark also … handed down to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter.”¹ I reject this inappropriate translation in my book.² However, Tors helpfully supplies a reference to a study by E. Earle Ellis, who looked at how Irenaeus actually refers to death and found that “for ‘death’ Irenaeus customarily uses θάνατος = mors (some 3.8 times in Book III).³ Thus, the better interpretation is to understand Irenaeus as stating that Mark wrote after the departure of Peter and Paul. Tors understands Irenaeus to be referring to their departure from Rome (the city), on the premise of an early trip to Rome; whereas I contend that Irenaeus is referring to a departure to preach in Rome (the empire), beyond the land of the Jews.

In summary [1:38:00], Tors places Luke before AD 54, Mark before AD 45, and Matthew between AD 35 and 44. (Note that Tors is working on the assumption that the resurrection was in AD 33.)

Tors also refers to the “family 35 colophons” as providing more specific dates for the Gospels. These are notes (colophons) added to a collection of manuscripts (i.e., family 35) dated to the 13th–15th century. Many of these manuscripts include notes that assert that Matthew was published eight years after the ascension, Mark was ten years after the ascension, Luke was fifteen years after, and John was thirty-two years after the ascension. Hence, dates would be AD 41–42; 43–44; 48–49; 64–65, which conform well with the dates given in the summary statement above. Tors also believes that this aligns well with other testimony from Eusebius, with regard to the dates of Matthew and Mark.

1. Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. Kirsopp Lake et al., vol. 1, Loeb Classical Library (William Heinemann Ltd, 1932), 456; Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History (Hendrickson, 2005), 31. ↩︎
2. Daniel B. Moore, A Trustworthy Gospel: Arguments for an Early Date for Matthew’s Gospel (Wipf and Stock, 2024), 25–26; 32–34. ↩︎
3. E. Earle Ellis, “The Date and Provinance of Mark’s Gospel,” in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Segbroeck, vol. 2 (Leuven University Press, 1992), 804n28. ↩︎

NOTE: Comments and dialog are welcome. The “Leave a Reply” field will be accessible below for 10 days after this post was published. Afterwards, please feel free to continue to comment via the contact page. (This is my attempt to manage the spam bots.)