24 (AD 31-33). However, Acts 11:1 refers to “the apostles ... who were throughout Judea” which could have included Matthew (AD 40). Barnabas was certainly still in Jerusalem at that time, so that would give us a range of dates for Matthew from AD 31-41. Those two traditions imply that Barnabas already had a copy of the gospel of Matthew with him when he took Mark to Cyprus in AD 50, and that Barnabas had received his copy of Matthew’s gospel directly from Matthew himself, evidently while both Matthew and Barnabas were still living in Jerusalem (i.e., before AD 41 when Barnabas left for Antioch). Barnabas was sent to help in the teaching and edification of the saints in Antioch (Acts 11:22). Barnabas needed help in the teaching work, so he went to Tarsus to find Saul and bring him back to Antioch (Acts 11:25). Barnabas and Saul taught the Antioch church for a whole year before they took a Gentile contribution back to Jerusalem. Here we actually see the Jerusalem Church sending teachers and prophets (Acts 11:27) to churches outside Palestine. So the teaching and missionary trips were already underway by this time (AD 41). It seems probable that Matthew had already left Jerusalem by that time, thus implying that his gospel was already written before he left.
Dating the Gospel of Mark (AD 38-44)
AD 38-44 – The Gospel of Mark is so similar to Matthew that many believe it was written after Matthew. In fact, most (if not all) of the earliest traditions about the sequence of writing for the three synoptic gospels, say that Matthew was first, Mark second, and Luke last (e.g., Eusebius). Tradition posits a very close relationship between Mark and Peter, which would explain some details found in Mark’s gospel that are not mentioned in Matthew, which only one of the twelve apostles could have related to Mark from their eyewitness perspective. Peter is the most likely one of the apostles from whom Mark could have obtained those details. This implies that Mark wrote it at a time when he was in Jerusalem and had easy access to Apostle Peter. According to Eusebius and others, when Peter read Matthew’s account of the gospel, he used Mark to write an account which better reflected his own perspective, and to add details that Matthew did not include. That means that Mark could have written his gospel before he went to Antioch the first time in AD 44 (cf. Acts 13:5). Some have objected that this was when Mark was still young and immature, as evidenced by his quitting the journey and returning to Jerusalem in AD 46 (Acts 13:13). That objection certainly deserves serious consideration, even though it is not enough in itself to negate the possibility of Mark writing his gospel before he went to Antioch in AD 44. But it is also quite possible that his return to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13), and his three-year residence there (AD 46-49), could have been the time when Peter commissioned him to write his version of the gospel. However, I prefer a date before he left Jerusalem the first time (i.e., before AD 44). The high volume of similarities with Matthew implies that it was written not long after the Gospel of Matthew, at a time when Mark was still in Jerusalem with access to Apostle Peter, from whose perspective Mark seems to be writing. We know that Mark left Jerusalem in AD 44 to go to Antioch with Barnabas and Paul, and a short time later went with them on Paul’s first missionary journey to Cyprus. But he turned back from Paul and Barnabas after they left Cyprus (AD 46), and returned to Jerusalem (Acts 13:13). Then after the council in Jerusalem (AD 49), Mark went back to Antioch with Barnabas and Paul. When Paul left on his second missionary journey, Mark went to Cyprus with Barnabas (AD 50). There are two separate traditions which say that Barnabas already had a copy of the gospel of Matthew with him when he took Mark to Cyprus in AD 50, and that Barnabas had received his copy of Matthew directly from Matthew himself, evidently while both Matthew and Barnabas were still living in Jerusalem (i.e., before AD 41 when Barnabas left for Antioch). In contrast to Matthew’s gospel, which was clearly written with a Hebrew Jewish audience
