Dating the Gospel of Mark (AD 38-44

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

25 in mind, Mark’s gospel was written from more of a Hellenistic perspective, evidently at a time after the uncircumcised Gentiles (e.g., Cornelius) had been brought into the Church (i.e., after AD 38), and probably after the Caligula crisis was over (AD 41). The Gentile Christians might have had difficulties with the strong Jewish orientation of Matthew’s gospel, and so Mark wrote a Hellenistic version of the gospel to help those new Hellenistic-oriented Jews and Gentiles. This adaptation of Matthew’s Jewish- oriented gospel to a Hellenistic audience may explain why Mark was so interested in going to Antioch with Barnabas to help teach the Hellenistic and Gentile Christians there in Antioch and nearby Cyprus. Since Mark was related to Barnabas, and since Barnabas was a native of Cyprus, the possibility exists that Mark shared a similar Diaspora Jewish or Hellenistic cultural and linguistic background. That would explain the Hellenistic orientation of his gospel, as well as why he wanted to go to Antioch and Cyprus where that orientation was dominant.

The Gospel of Mark was evidently finished and in circulation before Luke wrote his gospel in about AD 61, since Luke says he used at least two other accounts in his preparation for writing, and his account draws from some of the unique material in Mark’s account.

It is possible that Paul and Luke had already acquired a separate copy of Matthew’s gospel, so that when Mark brought his own gospel account to Rome (AD 61), Luke then had access to both Matthew and Mark. This would harmonize well with the tradition that says Barnabas’s copy of Matthew was buried with Barnabas just as he had requested. This implies that Mark had already produced his own gospel using Barnabas’s copy of Matthew before it was buried with Barnabas on Cyprus. Knowing that he would be without that copy of Matthew, Mark could have hurriedly made his own shortened version of the gospel using Matthew as his guide.

Tradition says that Barnabas had a copy of Matthew’s gospel with him when he took Mark to Cyprus in AD 50. Mark could have used that copy of Matthew as his source to write his own account of the gospel (circa AD 55). Barnabas and Mark probably did not stay on the island of Cyprus that whole time, since the Epistle of Barnabas mentions a recent trip to some churches elsewhere, and 1 Cor 9:6 implies that Barnabas had done some mission work in the area of Greece and was known to the saints in Corinth. It is also likely that Barnabas and Mark traveled back to Jerusalem for some of the annual feasts (Passover or Pentecost), where Mark could have collaborated with Peter to produce the gospel of Mark. Mark would have left a copy of it there with the church in Jerusalem.

It is also possible that Barnabas and Mark worked separately on some occasions (especially if Barnabas had gone to Asia or Greece or Rome as tradition suggests), and Barnabas took his copy of Matthew with him. Mark would have wanted to have a gospel account to keep with him while Barnabas was gone. This might explain why he created his own abbreviated version of Matthew’s gospel to use in his own independent teaching work while Barnabas was gone with the copy of Matthew. It is also possible that Mark made a copy of Matthew’s gospel before he buried the copy that Barnabas had. He then could have taken both gospel accounts with him to Paul in Rome. These considerations still allow a wide range of possible dates for Mark, from as early as AD 41 to as late as AD 60.

According to tradition, just before Barnabas was killed by the Jews on Cyprus (AD 60-61), he instructed Mark to bury him with his copy of Matthew’s gospel, and then go to Paul and join him. Mark could easily have made a copy of Matthew’s gospel and taken it, along with his own gospel of Mark, to Paul in Rome. Luke then would have had access to the other two gospel accounts, enabling him to more easily compose his own new account that was targeted toward a gentile audience (especially for Nero’s court in Rome). This would explain why all three gospels are so similar in content and organization. Matthew was written first. Barnabas had a copy of Matthew, which Mark used to compose his own version. Luke then used both Matthew and Mark to compose his synoptic account.

However, since it seems that Mark was still in Jerusalem consulting with Peter at the time