After talking to a few people I decided to summarize the previous The Late Date of the Gospels blog post series regarding 2 issues: (i) A Second Century date for Mark and (ii) The theory Luke comes after Matthew.

MARK

I argued that the traditional dating of Mark around 70 CE is unsupported because it is mostly based on the prediction of the destruction of the temple but if you accept it all that is really established is the document is post 70 CE, not how near or far it is from it. I supplemented this with the idea that the storyline from the conversion of the soldier at the cross to the burial by Joseph of Arimathea is alluding to Jesus as the new and greater reformer than Cleomenes III in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives which would put Mark sometime after the turn of the century. The gospels also seem to be patterned after the form of Plutarch’s biographies.

Some scholars like Hermann Detering date Mark into the second century.

For example, Detering’s Thesis: In his scholarly work, Detering has contended that the New Testament, including the Gospel of Mark, does not originate from the first century but from the second century. Detering associates the composition of Mark with the Bar Kochba Revolt (132-136 AD), suggesting that the apocalyptic themes in Mark, particularly in chapter 13. His article titled “The Synoptic Apocalypse (Mark 13/par): A Document from the Time of Bar Kochba” (2000) lays out these arguments, positioning Mark’s Gospel in this later historical context.

Matthean Posteriority:

The usual solution to the synoptic problem is Paul came first, then Q, then Mark, then Matthew, and then Luke came last. Matthew and Luke used Q and Luke possibly copied from Matthew. Key pieces of evidence here include the genealogies, which are too different to come from Q but too coincidental for both Matthew and Luke introducing them into the New Testament independently. So, was Luke copying Matthew and using Q (Luke having the more primitive versions of the Q sayings), or did Matthew copy Luke and use Q?

One key piece of evidence here is Ehrman’s point that originally Luke lacked the first 2 chapters. So, either Luke copied Matthew and omitted the miraculous nativity, or Luke was earlier and Matthew later invented/added the birth narrative. One methodological point to note is one reason scholars argue for Marcan priority is that Mark lacks Matthew’s birth narrative, and this lack makes little sense if Mark was copying Matthew. But we have the same thing with Luke! If the nativity and indeed the first two chapters of Luke were later additions, but still fit well with the original core of Luke, why would Luke omit the nativity if he was copying Matthew? Such evidence suggests Matthew is later than Luke: Matthean posteriority.

What do proponents of the Matthean posteriority theory argue?

Matthew’s use of Luke: Proponents of this theory argue that there are instances where Matthew seems to have modified or expanded upon material from Luke, suggesting Luke was available to Matthew when he wrote his Gospel.

Literary dependencies: Scholars look at the agreements between Matthew and Luke against Mark, where Matthew’s wording or additions closely resemble Luke’s more than Mark’s, suggesting Matthew knew Luke’s text.

Order and structure: Matthew’s arrangement of material sometimes follows Luke’s order rather than Mark’s when all three have the same pericope (narrative unit), which could indicate Matthew’s knowledge of Luke.