When Were the Gospels Written?

"When Were the Gospels Written?" Wenham pp. 223-244

p. 223 "On the face of it the synoptic apocalypse makes a date before 70 probable for all three gospels - there is no suggestion of Jesus' momentous prophecy having been fulfilled." Wenham also cites 2 Corinthians 8:18 to identify a date for Luke's gospel. p. 223 "The 'brother whose fame in the gospel is throughout the churches; is evidently Luke, and his fame derives from his gospel-book. (This usage of εὐαγγέλιον was to be expected any time after Mark 1:1 had been written.) It makes 55 the latest possible date for Luke."

p. 223 "mark is to be dated c. 45, after Peter's first visit to Rome in 42-44."

p. 223 "Matthew is to be dated before the dispersal of the apostles in 42. Irenaeus is often misinterpreted in favour of a date after Paul had reached Rome.'

As regards the dating before or after 70, Wenham observes that there is a good deal of eschatological discussion in the synoptic gospels, pointing to a great destruction. But while this is predicted, there is a difference between predictions and statements of current situations. p. 224 "The eschatological discourse foretells the shocking disaster which forty years later was to engulf the Jewish people, yet not one of them tells us that Jesus' prophecy was fulfilled."

Finding an appropriate date for Acts, since we want to put Luke before it, is important in dating. Wenham observes that the final events of Acts require a date at least as late as 62. But with the positive attitude shown in Acts about the Roman government it is hard to feature a date after 70. Scholars tend to be moving toward earlier dates for Acts, pushing it as early as 62. p. 229 "The decisive reason for rejecting 62 for the dating of Acts has been the dating of Luke (and lying behind that the dating of Mark).

So when do we date Luke? It does not seem to be the case that Luke is the first part of an organic whole. But the books are clearly by the same author and seem to have been created in the sequence of Luke followed by Acts. p. 230 "An attractive way of dating Luke, if it must be dated no later than 62, is to place it during the time of Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea: 57-59. This is related in a we-passage which records the arrival of Paul and Luke in Jerusalem: 'When we had come to Jerusalem' (21:17), and their departure from Caesarea: 'we put to sea' (27:2). During this long stay in Palestine, Luke would have had ample opportunity for interviewing scores of witnesses and building up an accurate body of information to put in his gospel. It is perfectly possible that Luke did this, but there is evidence to suggest that we should look for an even earlier date."

The suggestion then of 2 Corinthians 8:18 is that Luke may well have been famous for having written a gospel account. The account could well have been written during the period of 49-57, when Luke does not appear to have been in the story of Acts. 2 Corinthians was written about 56, thus allowing a good period of time for Luke to have written a gospel account. p. 231 "There are noteworthy references in the great early fathers, Origen, Eusebius, Ephraem, Chrysostom, Jerome, identifying the brother 'whose praise in the gospel had spread through all the churches' with Luke." There is also some manuscript evidence that 2 Corinthians (p. 231) "was written from Philippi διά Titus and Luke. If in fact this reference is to Luke and the "gospel" is a reference to a written account, we have a date prior to 56 for the publication of the gospel.

The question remains whether or not it is appropriate to refer to "gospel" as "a written account of what Jesus did" at this time period. While the word simply means "good news" Mark 1;1 could certainly be taken to look like the title of a book, whether Mark intended it that way or not. So it is certainly possible that after the publication of Mark, subsequent authors who wrote an account of Jesus' life might be referred to as people who wrote a "gospel."

p. 237 "So then, this piece of external evidence, if we have assessed it correctly, would give us our first firm gospel date: the gospel of Luke was written before 56, the approximate date of 2 Corinthians." Wenham suggests that to become famous it would have taken at least a year's time, given the pace of travel within the Roman empire.

In chapters 6 and 7 Wenham concluded that Peter and Mark were probably in Rome from 42 to 44. As to the dating of Mark's gospel, (p. 238) "any date between 44 and the writing of Luke in the early 50s is...possible."

p. 239 "There is a suggestion [in Eusebius] that the writing of the gospel preceded the departure of Matthew from Palestine. As we have seen (pp. 160-62) there was a widespread belief that the apostles were dispersed from Jerusalem twelve years after the crucifixion." Wenham suggests, though, that Eusebius points toward an early date in the 30s or 40s for Matthew, but that Irenaeus considered the date to be in the 60s. He analyzes the data and observes that Eusebius actually seems to put Matthew in the year 41. This would be consistent with the idea of Matthew writing the gospel down before leaving Jerusalem about twelve years after the resurrection.

Wenham makes his conclusions on pp. 243-244, which I quote extensively.

"The argument of Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke, which has eight major stages, has been cumulative:
1.) Verbal synoptic likenesses and differences are best explained by independent use of the primitive form of oral instruction.
2.) Genre and order are best explained by a literary relationship.
3.) In particular, Luke knew Mark's gospel.
4.) Dates should be reckoned by working back from Acts, the natural date of which is 62.
5.) Luke's gospel was apparently well known in the mid-50s.
6.) According to tradition Mark's gospel gives Peter's teaching in Rome.
7.) Peter's first visit to Rome was probably 42-44 and Mark's gospel was probably written about 45.
8.) The universal tradition of the early church puts Matthew first, which means a date around 40."

Wenham states that his theory "confirms the general soundness of early tradition, showing the external evidence and the internal evidence to be in remarkably close agreement. It gives us two gospels containing the teaching of apostles and a third by one who had followed everything closely for a long time. These were written at dates when many were alive who could confirm or contradict what was written. This means that the Christian is fully justified in accepting anything that is written in these books until it is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be in error. It confirms the right of the Christian church to maintain its traditional stance with regard to the foundation documents of the faith without impairing its integrity - and for that we should be thankful indeed."