Once we have dispensed with the
need to date any of the Synoptic Gospels later than 70 (and established that
Mark’s and Matthew’s likely predate Luke), it becomes attractive in terms of both
explanatory scope and parsimony to suggest that Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels
address the gentile mission more fully because they date from a time after that
mission had become a significant factor in early Christianity. Mark’s Gospel
does not address the gentile mission because it dates from a time before that
mission became significant. Such attractiveness only increases when we notice
how Mark takes for granted that Jesus was Torah observant, whereas Matthew and
Luke give a more explicit account. The relative emphasis placed upon the
question of Torah observance by Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels is quite readily explained
if Mark’s Gospel was written before the full flourishing of the gentile mission
provoked sustained reflection upon the extent to which non-Jewish converts must
adhere to the Mosaic law. Such reflection seems to have emerged most fully in
the mid to late 40s, reaching a climactic turning point with the Jerusalem
Council (ca. 48). Insofar as the Matthean and Lukan Gospels demonstrate a
greater awareness of such reflection than does the Markan Gospel, we can
proceed on the hypothesis that Mark’s Gospel is most fully intelligible if it
dates earlier than the mid-40s. (Jonathan Bernier, Rethinking the Dates of
the New Testament: The Evidence for Early Composition [Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Academic, 2022], 70-71)
Further Reading:
James G. Crossley, The Date of Mark’s Gospel: Insight from the
Law in Earliest Christianity (Journal for the Study of the New Testament
Supplement Series 266; London: T&T Clark International, 2004)
