Latest Posts:
- Galatians 3:1. Publicly proclaimed or previously written?
I have previously asserted that the proegraphē in Galatians 3:1 should be translated as “previously written,” rather than as “publicly portrayed” (LSB, ESV, NASB95) or as “vividly portrayed” (NET), and that in this passage Paul is making reference to a document that he had put before their eyes which recounted the crucifixion of Christ. Namely, a Gospel such as Matthew.1
We can debate whether Paul was referring to an OT passage or to a Gospel text but let us acknowledge that our English translations are not properly representing Paul’s method of presenting his gospel nor the source of authority behind his present chastisement.
Approaching this from the other direction, if Paul had actually meant to refer to a prior verbal presentation of a crucified Christ that Paul had put before their eyes, as commentaries often contend, then would he have used proegraphē?
Listen to how Paul and others refer to things that have been publicly declared:
28 for he powerfully refuted (διακατηλέγχετο/diakatēlencheto) the Jews in public (δημοσίᾳ/dēmosia), demonstrating (ἐπιδεικνὺς/epideiknys) by the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ. (Acts 18:28 LSB).
20 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable, and teaching (διδάξαι) you publicly (δημοσίᾳ) and from house to house, (Acts 20:20 LSB)
21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased, through the foolishness of the message preached (κηρύγματος), to save those who believe. (1 Corinthians 1:21 LSB)
19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached (κηρυχθείς) among you by us—by me and Silvanus and Timothy—was not yes and no, but has become yes in Him. (2 Corinthians 1:19 LSB)
21 if indeed you heard Him and were taught (ἐδιδάχθητε) in Him, just as truth is in Jesus, (Ephesians 4:21 LSB)
My point is that Paul had a variety of handy ways to refer to a message that had previously been preached orally which he could have employed, without using terms that refer to that which had been previously written.
- 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.
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.)
- Latin loan words do not demonstrate a Greco-Roman audience for Mark
In this article I want to challenge the assertion by some scholars that Mark’s use of transliterated Latin words supports the argument that Mark was written for a decidedly Greco-Roman audience, in contrast with Matthew and its Jewish audience. I originally wanted to employ this argument in support of my own belief that Mark was indeed written for this audience; unfortunately, I have not found this Latin “loan word” argument to be persuasive.1
For example, James Edwards offers several arguments to substantiate his contention “that Mark wrote for Gentile readers, and Roman Gentiles in particular.”2 Edwards points to Mark’s infrequent quotations from the OT, his explanations of Jewish customs presumably “unfamiliar to his readers (7:3–4; 12:18; 14:12; 15:42),” his translation of “Aramaic and Hebrew phrases by their Greek equivalents (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22, 34),” his incorporation of transliterated Latin words, and his presentation of “Romans in a neutral (12:17; 15:1–2, 21–22) and sometimes favorable (15:39) light.”3 While I agree with his conclusion regarding the intended audience, I need to challenge the validity of his appeal to Mark’s use of transliterated Latin words.4
BASIC OBSERVATIONS
The BDAG lexicon identifies at least thirteen Latin loan words that are used in the Synoptic Gospels.5 In the ESV, these words are translated as penny (assarion; e.g., Mt 10:29), denarius (dēnarion; e.g., Mk 6:37), centurion (kentyriōn; Mk 15:39–45); tax (kēnsos; e.g., Mk 12:14), penny (kodrantēs; e.g., Mk 12:42), “a guard of soldiers” (custodia; e.g., Mt 27:65), legion (legion; e.g., Mk 5:9), basket (modios; Mk 4:21), headquarters (praitōrion; e.g., Mk 15:16), handkerchief (soudarion; e.g., Lk 19:20), executioner (spekoulatōr; Mk 6:27), pot (xestēs; Mk 7:4), and scourged (phlagelloō; e.g., Mk 15:15).6 Edwards adds Caesar; however, I suggest that use of a recognized title for a ruler does not support the argument that Mark favors Latin transliterations more so than the other Synoptics, especially since Caesar appears frequently in all three Synoptics.7
In the assessment that follows, the use of these thirteen Latin loan words will be considered more closely. By my count, Matthew utilizes nine of these loan words, with eighteen instances; Mark utilizes ten, with fifteen instances; and Luke utilizes five, with seven instances. Hence, at a surface level it is difficult to claim that Mark is substantively more prone to the use of Latin loan words than Matthew.
UNIQUE EPISODES AND DESCRIPTIONS
For the most part, my observation is that variations in the use of loan words are largely driven by which episodes each Gospel includes and the level of detail provided. This is well illustrated in how the Gospels employ the loan word denarius (dēnarion). Notably, five instances of Matthew’s use of denarius are found within his parable of the unforgiving servant (Mt 18:23ff) and the parable of the laborers (Mt 20:1ff); these parables are both unique to Matthew. Similarly, Mark employs denarius within unique descriptive material not found in the other Gospels—as the disciples express concern over the cost of feeding the 5,000 (Mk 6:37) and the cost of the ointment poured on Jesus’ head (Mk 14:5). Likewise, Luke employs denarius in parables which are unique to that Gospel—the parables of the money lender (Lk 7:41ff) and of the good Samaritan (Lk 10:35ff). At the same time, all three Synoptics employ denarius as part of the dialog over the payment of taxes to Caesar (Mt 22:19; Mk 12:15; Lk 20:24). Thus, this one Latin loan word, whose use is most often found within unique episodes or descriptions, accounts for more than a fourth of the overall use of Latin loan words in the Synoptics.
This variability is also evident in the use of other words. Only Matthew speaks of the soldiers on-guard at the tomb (Mt 27:65-66; 28:11) and thereby uniquely includes three instances of custodia. Only Matthew and Luke refer to the buying of sparrows with pennies (assarion; Mt 10:29; Lk 12:06). Only Luke includes the parable of the ten minas, with its associated reference to a handkerchief (soudarion; Lk 19:20). Only Matthew has the dialog over the payment of the temple-tax, where Jesus revisits the question of paying taxes (kēnsos) to the king (Mt 17:25). Furthermore, while all three Synoptics discuss John’s execution, only Mark refers to an executioner (Mt 14:10; Mk 6:27; Lk 9:9). In the garden confrontation, only Matthew has Jesus referring to the twelve legions of angels (Mt 26:53; Mk 14:48; Lk 22:51). Only Matthew and Mark refer to the scourging (phlagelloō) of Jesus before Pilate (Mt 27:26; Mk 15:15; cf. Lk 23:25).
There is also an instance where Mark adds a Latin loan word to explain another word. Specifically, while Luke refers to the widow’s donation at the temple as being two small coins (lepton; Lk 21:2), Mark adds: “which make a penny (kodrantēs)” (Mk 12:42). This might appear to support Edwards’ loan word argument, except that elsewhere there is a contrast between how Matthew and Luke refer to coinage. In the teaching on reconciling with accusers, Matthew refers to paying “the last penny (kodrantēs)” (Mt 5:26), using Mark’s loan word above, whereas Luke’s similar lesson substitutes lepton (Lk 12:59). This suggests that we ought not put too much weight on which terms are used for coinage, unless we want to argue that both Matthew and Mark were written to a Greco-Roman audience, given their employment of kodrantēs.
A similar situation exists in the question of paying taxes to Caesar, where Luke chooses an alternate word. Matthew and Mark refer to the tax by employing kēnsos (twice in Mt 22:17–19; once in Mk 12:14), whereas Luke substitutes phoros, translated in the ESV as tribute (Lk 20:22).
There is also an instance where Mark employs a Latin loan word as part of an explanation for the Jewish washing of cups, pots (xestēs), and other vessels, in the context of a Pharisaic complaint that the disciples ate with unwashed hands (Mk 7:4). Matthew’s parallel of the Pharisaic complaint does not offer a similar explanation for the Jewish practice (Mt 15:2; also cf. Lk 11:38). Granted, this Latin loan word usage is unique to Mark, but what is more significant is that Mark is adding descriptive material, explaining Jewish customs.
In summary, I contend that this variability in the use of Latin loan words, which is predominantly due to unique episodes and descriptive material, or in the naming of coinage or of taxes, severely undermines any argument that Mark particularly favors these words to an extent that one might infer a Greco-Roman audience. Rather, we must defer to other arguments, such as Mark’s choice of content and of explanatory material, as the basis for claiming a Greco-Roman audience.
ONE INSTANCE WHERE MARK FAVORS A LATIN LOAN WORD
Per my assessment of these thirteen Latin loan words, the only one which might demonstrate that Mark favors Latin loan words in a way that Matthew, in particular, does not, is the word used for centurion. At the foot of the cross, Mark refers to the kentyriōn (three times in Mk 15:39–45), whereas Matthew and Luke employ hekatontarchos (ruler of 100; Mt 27:54; Lk 23:47). Similarly, at the healing of the centurion’s servant, Matthew and Luke also employ hekatontarchos (three times in Mt 8:5–13 and twice in Lk 7:2–6); although, Mark does not recount this episode. This difference might offer speculative support to my belief that Mark was written at the request of the centurion, Cornelius, and friends in Caesarea Maritima, as I have argued elsewhere. And yet, the existence of a single distinctively Markan term can hardly be taken seriously as unambiguous evidence for anything.
CONCLUSION
Quite simply, in my opinion there is simply insufficient evidence based on a review of the Synoptics that Mark’s use of transliterated Latin words implies a Greco-Roman audience. On the other hand, I yet contend that some of Edwards’ other arguments for a Greco-Roman audience do still have merit. Other lines of evidence, such as the “phrasal Latin idioms” highlighted by Rodney Decker may also suggest a Greco-Roman audience.8
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.)
- Another advocate for an early Matthew—Final Decade Before the End, by Edward E. Stevens
Edward E. Stevens, Final Decade Before the End: Jewish and Christian History Just Before the Jewish Revolt (Bradford, PA: International Preterist Association, 2014).
Edward Stevens is one of the most vocal modern proponents of full preterism, the belief “that Christ has already fulfilled his promise to return and consummate redemption in himself and his ongoing spiritual kingdom (the church).”1 Per Stevens, the “battle of Armageddon was fought at AD 70 when God used the Roman armies to stop the Jewish persecution of Christians.”2 Further, by the conclusion of the war, “all the Old Testament prophecies about the Kingdom and Jesus’ return had been fulfilled.”3
I don’t accept these preterist beliefs. Rather, I anticipate a pretribulational premillennial return of Christ, at which time Christ will establish his millennial kingdom, fulfilling his promises to national Israel. Although, my alignment of the rapture and tribulation in the narrative of Revelation is a bit unorthodox, as elaborated in my article in Eleutheria (now called the Liberty Theological Review).4
Regardless, what I do appreciate is that Stevens’ Final Decade Before the End argues for an early Matthew and Mark. More broadly, the book develops a timeline for key events between Christ’s death (which Stevens places in AD 30) and the Jewish rebellion in AD 66, with particular focus on the travels of Paul and the authoring of the NT writings. Biblical and historical data is cited throughout to support his timeline. Few modern scholars are willing to commit themselves to the level of detail which Stevens offers, yet even if we were to challenge particular dates, I contend that there is still value to the exercise. For example, with respect to Galatians, Stevens argues that the letter was written after the Jerusalem Council, during Paul’s second missionary journey, while Paul was in Corinth.5 Whereas, I contend that Galatians was written around two years earlier, before the Jerusalem council (which Stevens dates as AD 49).
Stevens dates Matthew as being published in AD 31–38 and Mark as AD 38–44.6 Again, this is on the premise that the resurrection was in AD 30. Stevens notes the parallels between Matthew 24 (the Olivet Discourse) and Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians as a basis for arguing that Matthew was written before AD 51, his date for the Thessalonian letters, with the assumption that he could have acquired a copy when he was in Jerusalem for the council.7 However, his basis for then pushing the date of Matthew into the 30s is due to a consideration of the intended audience.
Matthew’s gospel was clearly written with a Hebrew Jewish audience in mind, while Mark’s gospel was written from more of a Hellenistic perspective. Matthew writes as if he is not aware of any uncircumcised Gentile believers, nor writing with their perspective in mind. He does not explain things for the Gentiles, like Mark and Luke did. Everything he says is coming from a Jewish perspective, and written to Jewish people who did not need an explanation for all those things. This implies that Matthew wrote at a time before the uncircumcised Gentiles (e.g., Cornelius) had been brought into the Church, when the Church was still totally Jewish (i.e., before AD 38).8
With regard to Mark, Stevens contends:
Since it seems that Mark was still in Jerusalem consulting with Peter at the time he wrote his gospel [per the testimony of Eusebius and others], and apparently had access to Matthew’s gospel [given the textual similarities], I would prefer to keep the date for Mark somewhere within the range of AD 41-44. That is after the latest likely date for Matthew (AD 38), and before Mark went to Antioch with Barnabas and Paul in AD 44. It also was after the first Gentiles had come into the Church (AD 38) and after the Caligula crisis (AD 39-41).9
These arguments line up well with what I have advocated; although, I’ve allowed a bit more flexibility on dates, given the uncertainty of the date of Christ’s resurrection.
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.)
- Irenaeus affirms an early Matthew: Rome means Roman Empire in 1 Maccabees 8 also
In A Trustworthy Gospel, I make the case that Irenaeus is referring to Rome, the empire, when reporting that
Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. (Against Heresies 3.1.1)
Hence, Irenaeus can be understood as declaring that Matthew was written as the apostles first began preaching to those outside of the land of the Jews—to such as Cornelius in Caesarea Maritima and to the Greeks in Antioch, as described in Acts 10–11. The rational for this is summarized in Irenaeus’ “at Rome” affirms an early Matthew!
1 Maccabees 8 offers another example where Rome can be understood as referring to Rome, the empire.
In the first several chapters of 1 Maccabees, the text recounts the woes of Israel after the Seleucid king, Antiochus Epiphanes, plundered Jerusalem, slaughtered many, aspired to stamp out Jewish religious practices, and set up the “abomination of desolation upon the altar” (1 Macc. 1:54).1 The Jews revolted. As the battles continued, Judas Maccabeus eventually sought the aid of the Romans against the Greeks. In the following passage the treaty reached between the Romans and Jews is summarized. Note (1) the flexibility in the use of the Greek terms which underlie the references to Rome and Roman/Romans (Greek roots are Ῥώμη and Ῥωμαῖος/Ῥωμαῖοι) and (2) note particularly 1 Maccabees 8:24, which uses Ῥώμῃ to refer not just to the city but to all of the Roman empire which is under direct Roman rule.
19 They went therefore to Rome [εἰς Ῥώμην], which was a very great journey, and came into the senate, where they spake and said, 20 Judas Maccabeus with his brethren, and the people of the Jews, have sent us unto you, to make a confederacy and peace with you, and that we might be registered your confederates and friends. 21 So that matter pleased the Romans [αὐτῶν = them] well. (1 Mac 8:19–21)
22 And this is the copy of the epistle which the senate wrote back again in tables of brass, and sent to Jerusalem, that there they might have by them a memorial of peace and confederacy: 23 Good success be to the Romans [Ῥωμαίοις], and to the people of the Jews, by sea and by land for ever: the sword also and enemy be far from them. (1 Mac 8:22–23)
24 If there come first any war upon the Romans [Ῥώμῃ] or any of their confederates throughout all their dominion, 25 the people of the Jews shall help them, as the time shall be appointed, with all their heart: 26 neither shall they give any thing unto them that make war upon them, or aid them with victuals, weapons, money, or ships, as it hath seemed good unto the Romans [Ῥώμῃ]: but they shall keep their covenants without taking any thing therefore. 27 In the same manner also, if war come first upon the nation of the Jews, the Romans [οἱ Ῥωμαῖοι] shall help them with all their heart, according as the time shall be appointed them: 28 neither shall victuals be given to them that take part against them, or weapons, or money, or ships, as it hath seemed good to the Romans [Ῥώμῃ]; but they shall keep their covenants, and that without deceit. (1 Mac 8:24–28)
29 According to these articles did the Romans [Ῥωμαῖοι] make a covenant with the people of the Jews. (1 Mac 8:29)
Again, the point is that Ῥώμῃ can be used to refer to Rome, the empire. Accordingly, Irenaeus can be understood in Against Heresies 3.1.1 as declaring that Matthew was written as the apostles first began preaching to those in the Roman empire [Ῥώμῃ], beyond the domain of the Jews.
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.)