Blog

Comments are temporarily disabled.

  • Francis W. Upham’s “Thoughts on the Holy Gospels” (part three)
    by admin

    Theologians of the 1800s wrote with a flowing eloquence and style which is foreign to the ears of our present generation. Upham begins chapter three, “The Received Date of the Gospels,” with a rebuke not only against unbelieving skeptics, but also against orthodox religious leaders, who undermine the Gospels not only by their acceptance of late dates, but also by asserting that only educated scholars such as themselves are qualified to assess the dates of the Gospels:

    THE infidel assumption, so madly echoed by some of the orthodox divines, that the Apostles never thought of a written Gospel, is made for the purposes of debate.1 Infidel writers see it is needed to open the way for their assumption that the Gospels are later than the days of those who wrote them. They also assume that scholars only can tell whether they are later or not, and that they are the only scholars.

    Francis W. Upham, Thoughts on the Holy Gospels: How They Came to Be in Manner and Form as They Are (New York, NY: Phillips & Hunt, 1881), 52.

    Brooke Foss Westcott was one of those educated divines who drew the ire of Upham for dismissing the early church as being capable of publishing and distributing Gospel writings and ultimately, of collectively identifying those works which were to be included in the canon:

    Were there ready means for writings, thus revered, to reach all the congregations then rapidly forming throughout the Roman world? At this point we again take issue with Westcott. [For] he says, “‘The means of intercourse were slow and precarious.” … [Further] “Its formation was impeded by defective communication.”2

    Upham, Thoughts on the Holy Gospels, 57. Upham is evidently citing Brooke Foss Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, 2nd ed. (London: MacMillan, 1866), xiii, 4.

    Upham counters this perspective by appealing to the substantial intercourse of the “apostolic generation,” as evidenced in the book of Acts, in the various letters sent from one region to another, and in the messages sent to the seven churches by John.3 “From Athens, St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians that their faith had sounded abroad, not only in Achaia and in Macedonia, but in all the world” (1 Thess. 1:7–10).4 Charitable collections for those in Jerusalem were “taken up, not only in these two provinces, but in Galatia,” Ephesus, and Antioch.5 Personal tidings were exchanged between those of the various churches. Indeed, “all classes are moving about. An Asiatic slave, Onesimus, finds his way to Rome, and is sent back to Colosse … Women travel as well as men. Phoebe … bears Paul’s letter to the Romans,” and so on.6

    There were congregations at the four centers—Rome, Antioch, Ephesus, and Alexandria. A common government and free-trade made intercourse throughout the empire such, that the Christians in any country could readily send copies of each of the Gospels, in its turn, to any other country. Roman energy had made all the provinces accessible from all the large cities. In the summer-time oar-driven galleys, little dependent on the folly of the winds, swiftly crossed the great mid-land sea, and recrossed from shore to shore. From the milestone, still at the capitol, there were roads to the borders of the Roman world. …

    [Correspondingly,] beyond its eastern borders, the multitude of Jews in the Chaldean plain and in the Persian highlands were known by pilgrimages and annual offerings to their countrymen in Jerusalem, until the fall of the city; and long afterward there were constant means of intercourse between the congregations in the East and the Far-East and those in the Roman world, through the channels of … trade.

    Upham, Thoughts on the Holy Gospels, 58–60.

    Upham also emphasizes that “Many of the Jewish converts had sought their fortunes in foreign lands; they had the education common to the wealthier class of their countrymen; travel had sharpened their wits, and their minds were enlarged with experience of affairs.”7 Further:

    In early Christianity, as in all popular movements that have become lasting, there were some aristocrats who brought into it the characteristic forethought of their order. In Jerusalem a great company of the priests, in wealthy Corinth the ruler of the synagogue, and in royal Antioch the foster brother of the Tetrarch of Galilee, who, with the prince, was educated at Rome, “were obedient unto the faith.” In the household of Cesar, that city on the Palatine within the great city, there were Christians before Paul went to Rome. These were Jews in the domestic imperial service; but they were not all Jews. There were Christians in the princely household of the Roman Narcissus as well as in that of Aristobulus, the grandson of Herod.

    Upham, Thoughts on the Holy Gospels, 67–68.

    Hence, there is little reason to accept the skeptical paradigm of limited intercourse during the apostolic era, which might have limited the publication of the Gospels.

    By way of conclusion, we will defer to Upham to summarize, with his unrestrained invective, his view of the skeptics who challenge the dates and authorship of the Gospels:

    Many of the skeptical writers of our day and generation are constitutionally given to doubt; their self-conceit mistakes their mental disease for an aptness for finding out truth; and their hallucinations bewilder those who take books for oracles. But in the question as to the date and authorship of the Gospels there is no room for the conceits and subtleties of learning, falsely so called. It may be well to clear up its perversions of the character of the times in which the Gospels were written, and of those by whom, and for whom, they were written; it may be well to free the question of the genuineness and authenticity of the Gospels from side issues that have nothing to do with it, from inquiries that lead nowhere, from facts that are fancies, and from facts of no account; but, really, it ought not to be made a question at all. If it be made such, it is not a question for scholars to settle now, any more than it was such in the beginning. It is not a question where learning is required, but only the common sense that God gives, leaving all free to use it to their own good, or to abuse it to their own peril and harm. And common sense, if it do no violence to itself, cannot but dispose of the question at once, by treating as sheer impertinence the silly assertion that the memory of the ever-existing family of Christ is not the sufficient, the proper, evidence of her own records.

    Upham, Thoughts on the Holy Gospels, 74.
  • Book Review. Trustworthy: Thirteen Arguments for the Reliability of the New Testament
    by admin

    Trustworthy: Thirteen Arguments for the Reliability of the New Testament. By Benjamin C. F. Shaw. Forward by Gary S. Habermas. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2024, xiii + 142 pp.

    Benjamin Shaw’s Trustworthy is a welcome addition to a subgenre which aspires to provide confidence in the biblical text, while targeting a non-academic audience. Recent favorites within this subgenre include treatments on the formation of the canon, such as Michael Kruger’s The Question of Canon (2013) and Benjamin Laird’s Creating the Canon (2023); books which address the text and transmission of the New Testament, such as Neil Lighfoot’s How We Got the Bible (2003) and F. F. Bruce’s reissued The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (2003); and those texts which specifically address Gospel or New Testament reliability, such as Peter Williams’ Can We Trust the Gospels? (2018). Now, Shaw has made his own contribution, touching on issues such as the textual evidence, NT genres and audience expectations, NT dating and authorship, NT creedal traditions, historical criteria, undesigned coincidences, archaeology, non-biblical sources, the canon, the life transformation of those impacted by the NT, and the minimal facts argument.

    In the first chapter, I particularly appreciated Shaw’s identification of online resources where students of the Bible can survey manuscripts for themselves (p. 14–15). Shaw then goes on to explain common copyist errors, equipping the layman with sufficient insight to be skeptical of popular level challenges to NT reliability, as voiced by atheists such as Bart Ehrman (p. 17–20). The subsequent chapter on NT genres and audience expectations also addresses an important topic, while introducing the reader to some of the work of Richard Burridge and Craig Keener. The chapter was necessarily brief, yet I did find myself wishing that the author had shifted from merely countering known antagonist Ehrman to instead addressing the genre-based challenges currently being raised from within evangelicalism, such as Mike Licona’s claims concerning events surrounding the crucifixion of Christ.

    The chapter on NT dating should be applauded for acknowledging that although many liberal scholars are estimating dates for Mark around AD 65 and Matthew and Luke around AD 80–85 or later, and although many evangelical scholars are dating the earliest Gospel in the late 50s (p. 35), some scholars are arguing for earlier dates. For example, Jonathan Bernier’s Rethinking the Dates of the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition (2022) is favorably highlighted as proposing a date range for Mark of AD 42–45 and for Matthew of AD 45–59.1 Shaw concludes by asserting that with any of these dates, “the Gospels were still written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses. Either way, the Gospels were written within a reliable time frame” (p. 41). Shaw’s optimism that confidence in the reliability of the Gospels should arise merely because aged witnesses were still alive is not defended, which tactfully avoids having to address the variety of theories which purport to explain how a multi-decade delay in publishing the deeds and sayings of Jesus could have resulted in an accurate and reliable record of the witness testimony concerning such. This is a challenge often raised by critics which students will ultimately need to be equipped to address.

    Moving on, the chapter on NT authorship was helpful in debunking the skeptical claim that the Gospels were originally anonymous. Shaw demonstrates that other contemporary biographical works, whose authorship is generally undisputed, likewise did not include authorial self-identification within the body of the works (p. 47). Rather, there were external methods to identify the author on either the outside of the scroll or on an attached label (p. 48). But further, Shaw points out that the consistent identification by subsequent writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the Gospel authors makes it evident that the Gospels were never treated as anonymous (p. 49).

    The chapter on NT creedal traditions connects formulations within the Pauline writings, such as that found in 1 Corinthians 15:3, to the time frame of the 30s when Paul met with Peter and James in Jerusalem (p. 62). Hence, these received traditions connect back to the eyewitnesses and earliest leaders within the church (p. 62). For the many scholars who accept the middle or latter dates for the Gospels, these creeds are particularly valuable, because they are “considered to be the earliest historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection” (p. 62). Subsequent chapters restate arguments which have become standard fare within the subgenre of this book, and need not be reiterated here, while a final argument applies a minimal facts approach, as developed by Gary Habermas, to highlight “the exceptionally strong reliability of key Gospel events,” such as the resurrection (p. 130).

    Overall, this is a useful book for the lay reader, surveying a variety of arguments for why the NT should be deemed trustworthy. Perhaps it will spur deeper interest in investigating one or more of the arguments, and the provided footnotes will aptly support this effort. However, I offer a suggestion to those intent on publishing in this subgenre, as authors sometimes lose focus on their audience or are actually trying to engage their audience at two very different levels, and it would be helpful if they were clearer about such. For example, in most of this book, the material appears to be aimed at helping the non-academic Christian to be personally convinced of the reliability of the NT. This is a noble goal. However, the creedal argument and minimal facts arguments offer little to establish that the NT is accurate in its details. Rather, they are arguments which might help the Christian convey to their non-Christian counterparts some very simple reasons to consider the NT as a historically grounded book. This is also a valuable endeavor, but it would be helpful if authors assisted the reader in following the shifting purpose of the various arguments. In summary though, Shaw has accomplished what he set out to do (1) by providing a breadth of disparate arguments for affirming the reliability of the NT, (2) by exposing readers to more of the NT, and (3) by providing evidential insights and considerations to readers (p. 6–9). Accordingly, this book is itself worthy of being both read and relished.

    (Revised 7/11/24)

  • New Insights into Acts 12 and 13: John Mark
    by admin

    Elsewhere, I have argued that Matthew was published for the benefit of the Jews, coincident with the events of Acts 10–11, as Peter and Paul began preaching in Rome, the empire. And further, that Mark was published shortly thereafter, leveraging both Matthew’s Gospel and the sermons of Peter, at the request of the Latin believers in Caesarea Maritima.†

    How does this change our understanding of the New Testament?

    In this post, I want to focus on John Mark, who is not formally introduced until Acts 12.1 First, we’ll revisit what the church father’s say about the authoring of Mark’s Gospel, then we’ll review what is commonly recognized concerning John Mark per the NT, then we’ll speculate concerning John Mark’s participation in Peter’s ministry before authoring the Gospel, and finally, we’ll reassess John Mark’s intended role on Paul’s first journey.

    What do the church fathers say about Mark’s authoring of his Gospel?

    Eusebius reports the following per Papias:

    Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.

    Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.39.15; Eusebius, Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2 (New York, NY: Christian Literature, 1890), 172.

    Eusebius reports the following per Clement:

    The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it. But, last of all, John, perceiving that the external facts had been made plain in the Gospel, being urged by his friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel. This is the account of Clement.

    Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.14.6–7; Eusebius, Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, vol. 1, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2 (New York, NY: Christian Literature, 1890), 261.

    To recap, (1) Mark never heard Jesus preach, (2) but he wrote down what he remembered of Peter’s sermons, though not in order, (2) he did this at the request of those in Rome [which I understand to refer to those in Caesarea Maritima, the local roman stronghold] who heard Peter preach, (3) he did this after Peter had departed, and (4) Peter later neither forbade nor encouraged this.

    What does the NT say about John Mark?

    Mark’s Socioeconomic Background

    From Acts 12, we learn that John Mark’s family was somewhat prosperous, owning a house which could host a gathering of disciples, with an outer gate, and having a servant girl. Further, Peter’s voice was known to the servant girl, which suggests that the disciples frequented the home. Also, John Mark had both Jewish and Greco-Roman names, suggesting that he operated in both spheres. Since the house is identified as his mother’s, this suggests that his father was no longer alive, and therefore John Mark may have had a more significant role in the family and family business.

    1 About that time Herod the king laid violent hands on some who belonged to the church. 2 He killed James the brother of John with the sword, 3 and when he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded to arrest Peter also. … 6 Now when Herod was about to bring him out, on that very night, Peter was sleeping between two soldiers, bound with two chains, and sentries before the door were guarding the prison. 7 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood next to him, and a light shone in the cell. He struck Peter on the side and woke him, saying, “Get up quickly.” And the chains fell off his hands. … 12 When he [Peter] realized this, he went to the house of Mary, the mother of John whose other name was Mark, where many were gathered together and were praying. 13 And when he knocked at the door of the gateway, a servant girl named Rhoda came to answer. 14 Recognizing Peter’s voice, in her joy she did not open the gate but ran in and reported that Peter was standing at the gate. (Acts 12:1–14 ESV)

    Mark’s History with Paul

    At the end of Acts 12, we learn that John Mark accompanied Barnabas and Saul to Antioch (12:25). And that he (“John”) subsequently accompanied them on their mission to Cyprus, as their assistant (ὑπηρέτην) (13:4–5). Subsequently, “John” left and returned to Jerusalem, while Paul and his companions continued (13:13). Note that “companions” suggests that Paul was traveling with more than just Barnabas and John. John’s bail-out at Cyprus then leads to conflict at the beginning of the second missionary journey, such that Paul went one way with Silas, while Barnabas and “Mark” returned to Cyprus (15:36–41). Refer to the footnotes for an excellent paper by Erbey Valdez which looks to how John Mark’s name changes in the narrative, which Valdez understands as subtly conveying the reason behind Mark’s abandonment of the first missionary journey and his later change of heart, which led to his readiness to participate in the second journey.2 Elsewhere, Mark is identified as a cousin of Barnabas, and Barnabas is identified as a Levite, a native of Cyprus (Col. 4:10; Acts 4:36).

    Despite the earlier conflict, Paul speaks favorably of Mark in his prison epistles (Col. 4:10; Philem 24). And further, in what is perhaps Paul’s final letter, Paul requests that Timothy bring Mark with him, commenting that Mark “is very useful to me for ministry (διακονίαν)” (2 Tim. 4:11). This is then followed by Paul’s request that Timothy also bring the books and parchments (4:13). Similarly, Peter affectionately calls Mark, “my son” (1 Pet. 5:13). Hence, we know something of John Mark’s story, both that he abandoned Paul and Barnabas, and that he regained their trust and respect, as being “useful for ministry.”

    What can we speculate concerning John Mark’s participation in Peter’s ministry before authoring the Gospel?

    First, we don’t know when John Mark and his mother became believers, as Papias reports that Mark “neither heard the Lord nor followed him.” Nonetheless, given that Peter frequented Mark’s house in the early chapters of Acts, we can assume that Mark was a believer by this time and that he accompanied Peter during at least a portion of the preaching circuit which ultimately took him to Caesarea Maritima.3 Accordingly, Mark likely observed Peter healing Aeneas, the paralytic in Lydda, and then witnessed the many from Lydda and Sharon “who turned to the Lord” (9:32–35). He was presumably there when Dorcas was raised in Joppa (9:40), and was likely among “the brethren from Joppa [who] accompanied” Peter in bringing the gospel to Cornelius (Acts 10:23; 11:12). In accordance with the testimony of the church fathers, I speculate that Mark then stayed behind in Caesarea Maritima, with Philip, as Peter return to Jerusalem, and it was during this time that he wrote his Gospel. Ultimately though, he was back in Jerusalem, in time to depart for Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, per Acts 12.

    What was John Mark’s intended role on Paul’s first missionary journey?

    John Mark went along “to assist (ὑπηρέτην)” Paul and Barnabas (Acts 13:5). This term is used elsewhere in the NT to refer to prison guards (Matt. 5:25); temple guards (Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54; John 7:32; etc.); ministers of the word (Luke 1:2); the one who handles the scrolls in the synagogue (Luke 4:20); servants of the kingdom in general (John 18:36); and of Paul and others as servants of Christ (Acts 26:16; 1 Cor. 4:1). On the premise that Mark had just recently published a Gospel, his role was most likely in the literary department—caring for scrolls as they traveled from town to town, etc.4 Yet, if the scope of his ministry was limited to caring for the scrolls, then why was Paul so upset to have had Mark abandon the mission?

    I surmise that Paul had the following expectations of John Mark, when he was chosen to assist the mission in Acts 12:25:

    Handler of the Scriptures. On the premise that both the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were published prior to Paul’s first missionary journey, I presume that Mark was expected to manage these Scriptures in the synagogues for Paul, akin to how the attendant (ὑπηρέτῃ) in the synagogue in Nazareth was responsible for managing the scrolls there. Paul, as was “his custom,” reasoned with the the Jews in the synagogue each Sabbath —”from the Scriptures” (Acts 17:2). In each synagogue, I envision Paul as encouraging the audience to compare the claims of the Lord’s Gospel with what was written in the Law, Prophets, and Writings. Previously, I have shown how Galatians 3:1 also alludes to an instance where Paul preached from a Gospel.5 Furthermore, Mark would have been expected to assist those Jews who wanted to continue examining these Gospels, similar to the activity of the Bereans (Acts 17:11).

    Copyist. In so far as Paul and team planned to take up residence in any given town for more than a couple days, it would have been Mark who was responsible for overseeing the reproduction of the Gospels for the benefit of new churches. By my estimation, the Gospel of Mark could easily be copied within a week by a single scribe, while Matthew might stretch into two weeks. We can envision Silas and Luke as overseeing some of that work on Paul’s subsequent journeys.

    Chronicler. Even as the Gospel of Matthew shows evidence of an intentional chronicling of the things which Jesus said and did, I suggest that Paul had a similar expectation regarding his mission. This is not unlike the chronicling which is found in contemporary Jewish and Greco-Roman literature—consider the history of the Maccabees, and the writings of Josephus and his Jewish War. Since Mark bailed on this role during the first missionary journey, Paul presumably tapped Silas for this role on the second journey, and later Luke (Acts 16:10). Note that Silas had earlier been part of the delegation from the Jerusalem council to Antioch, bearing the council’s letter, with the expectation that he would read and explain the letter to his audience (Acts 15:27). And sometime later, Silas (Silvanus) would serve as a scribe (amanuensis) for the letter of First Peter (1 Peter 5:12). Hence, Silas had the necessary scribal skills to serve as Paul’s chronicler.

    Amanuensis. Paul is well known for his letter writing. Accordingly, he may have anticipated dictating and dispatching letters back to Antioch, penned by John Mark, during the course of his first missionary journey. In Galatians 6:11, Paul speaks of the “large letters I am writing to you with my own hand,” as he adds a closing warning and benediction to the letter, suggesting to some scholars (and myself) that Paul may have had a problem with his eyesight (ref. Gal. 4:13–15), which limited his ability to write his own letters; although, more recent scholars are dismissive of the poor eyesight theory.6

    Given all of these expectations on John Mark, one can easily understand Paul’s frustration with Mark’s early abandonment of the first mission, and Paul’s reluctance to depend on Mark on the second journey. Mark was not just expected to carry baggage and run errands, but to directly assist in the spread of the “word of the Lord” (Acts 13:44) by means of his literary skills.7

  • A Synopsis Survey: Which Gospel Is Given Precedence?
    by admin

    Am starting to frame-up some ideas for another paper. The tentative question:

    If Matthew’s Gospel was indeed the first Gospel to be published, while the sequence of events was relatively fresh in the minds of many of its readers, then would Matthew not have been particularly concerned with presenting the life of Jesus in an accurate chronological order?

    Based on my understanding of the church fathers: (1) Matthew wrote within five to ten years of the resurrection and coincident with the events of Acts 10–11. (2) Mark then wrote for the benefit of Cornelius and friends, but he wrote based on Peter’s sermons; therefore, Mark can be expected to be more thematically organized.1 (3) Luke then wrote perhaps a decade later.2

    So how would one investigate or attempt to demonstrate that Matthew offers the most accurate chronology? At this point, I don’t know whether this working theory is valid (or provable) or not, but I’d like to poke at it.

    Let’s start by gathering some resources. What synopses are available and to which Gospel do they give sequential or chronological precedence? A limited survey is provided below.3 What are the key passages which distinguish the different synopses (other than the speeches, which may well be repeated)?

    • Benjamin Davies (1890) arranges the parallel Gospels by giving priority to Mark and Luke’s sequence, and shifting Matthew’s pericopes accordingly.4 Significantly, from Matthew’s perspective:5
      1. the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Mt 8:14) is pulled ahead of the cleansing of the leper (Mt 8:2) to align with Mk and Lk;
      2. the sabbath violations (plucking grain and healing of the withered hand; Mt 12) are pulled well ahead of the visit of John’s disciples (Mt 11) to align with Mk and Lk;
      3. the healing of the centurion’s servant (Mt 8:5) is placed well after the call of Matthew (Mt 9:9) to align with Lk;
      4. the calming of the sea, Gadarene demon Legion to swine, Levi’s feast, Jarius’s daughter, and hemorrhaging woman (Mt 8:18–9:34, less 9:2–9) are all pushed well after the visit of John’s disciples (Mt 11; and well after Matthew’s recruitment) to align with Mk and Lk.
    • Ross Finney (1907), based on Huck, arranges parallel columns in Mark, Matthew, Luke order, and shifts Matthew’s account similar to Davies, at least for the four periscopes noted above.
    • Stevens and Burton (1911), in their harmony of the four Gospels, integrate Matthew per the order above.6
    • A. T. Robertson (1922), in his harmony of the four Gospels, integrates Matthew per the order above.7
    • Bernard Orchard (1976) presents each of the Synoptic Gospels in its own sequential order, while identifying parallels and such with various connecting lines (solid, dash, etc.). When there are sequential differences a pericope is listed in each context; for example, the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law is listed twice, per both the Matthean order and Markan/Lukan order. This is the most visual format for assessing the differences in sequences, relative to the Matthean sequence (or chronology).8 In his subsequent work (1982), he identifies parallels in italics, rather than with lines.9
    • Dwight Pentecost (1981), for compiling his harmony, prioritizes the Markan and Lukan order, over Matthew’s order.10
    • Kurt Aland (1985), similar to Orchard, presents the Gospels in their own sequential order, while listing similar pericopes alongside the other, in varying font styles (small, bold, etc.). 11
    • Burton Throckmorton (1992) likewise presents the Gospels in their own sequential order, while listing similar pericopes alongside each other, in varying font styles (bold, regular, italic).12
    • Cox and Easley (2007), for compiling their harmony, prioritize the Markan and Lukan order, over Matthew’s order.13
    • Yueh Goffin (2011) organizes the parallel periscopes according to Matthean order.14 Of note, from Mark and Luke’s perspective:
      1. the cleansing of the leper (Mk 1:40; Lk 5:12) is pulled ahead of the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law.
      2. the sabbath violations (Mk 2:23; Lk 6:1) are pushed much later.
      3. the healing of the centurion’s servant (Lk 7:1) is pulled forward.
      4. the calming of the sea, Gadarene demon Legion, etc. (Mk 4:35; Lk 8:22) are pulled forward.

    Tentatively, the next step will be to consider whether these four (and other) disconnects can be adequately explained by the understanding that Mark composed his Gospel based on Peter’s sermons.

  • A Survey of Modern NT Introduction Books: What Dates Are Being Taught for the First Gospel?
    by admin

    What is being taught to students of the Bible, to future pastors and Christian teachers, concerning when the first Gospel was published?

    First, here is what is taught by some of the apologetic works which are addressed in my book:

    Bauckham (2017):1 Mark was published in the 60s CE, thirty years after the death of Jesus, and Matthew in the 80s.

    Keener (2014):2 Mark was published in the mid-60s and Matthew in the 70s.

    Here is what is taught by various recent NT introductory works:

    Blomberg (2014):3 A date for Mark “somewhere in the 60s,” with Matthew later, but still in the 60s.

    Brown and Soards (2016):4 Mark, “most likely between 68 and 73.” Matthew, “80–90, give or take a decade.”

    Burge and Green (2020):5 For Mark, a date before 70 is favored, although a date in the 50s is possible. They also note that “some scholars have even suggested a first draft in the late 40s.” For Matthew, publication was either before AD 70 or in the 80s or 90s, depending on whether one accepts predictive prophecy or Matthean authorship.

    Campbell and Pennington (2020):6 Matthew likely written AD 65–85. Mark likely mid-AD 50s to late 60s.

    Carson and Moo (2005):7 Matthew published not much before AD 70; Mark “sometime in the late 50s or the 60s.”

    deSilva (2004):8 For Mark, “a time before 70 CE is quite likely.” Matthew date tends towards a post-70 date, given (1) that it is subsequent to Mark, (2) that it is hostile towards the Jews, and (3) that it “seems to make a veiled reference to Jerusalem’s destruction.”

    Elwell and Yarbrough (2013):9 They note that since Mark is commonly viewed as being dated “between AD 65 and 70,” Matthew is often dated “between AD 80 and 100”; nevertheless, their opinion is that Mark was likely written in the 40s to 60s, and that Matthew was written sometime “before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70.” They do acknowledge that Wenham assigns an AD 40 date to Matthew, but they contend that this is unnecessary.

    Gundry (2012):10 A date for Mark of AD 45–60, with Matthew slightly later, but before the destruction of Jerusalem.

    Hagner (2012):11 Mark tentatively published “very tentatively in about 65, but no later than 75, and possibly much earlier.” Matthew was possibly written a bit before 70 or perhaps about 80.

    Köstenberger, Kellum, and Quarles (2016):12 Acknowledge that “most contemporary NT scholars date the Gospel of Matthew to the mid- to late 80s.” However, they contend that Matthew may have been written “in the mid-50s or, perhaps more likely, in the early AD 60s.” While Mark was written in the mid- to late 50s.

    McClendon and Cartwright (2022):13 Mark was written “as early as the AD 50s.” Matthew was written “shortly before AD 70.”

    Powell (2018):14 Defers to the opinion of “most scholars,” that Mark was produced “sometime between 65 and 73,” and that Matthew was written “in the decades after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple.”

    Wright and Bird (2019):15 Defers to the opinion of “most scholars [who] place the date of Mark’s composition around AD 65–75”; although, “it is not impossible” that it was earlier. Likewise, defers to the voices of the “many suppose” that Matthew has a setting in AD 80 to 100.

    QUESTION: What NT Introduction text does your school use and does it convey confidence in the witness testimony concerning Jesus, as contained in the Gospels, which the apostles were chartered to provide (Luke 24:46–48; John 15:27; Acts 1:8, 22; 2:32; 1 Pet. 5:1; 1 John 1:2; etc.)?