Journal: Tyndale Bulletin
Volume: TYNBUL 23:1 (NA 1972)
Article: Did Peter Go To Rome In Ad 42?
Author: John W. Wenham

TynBul 23:1 (1972) p. 94

Did Peter Go To Rome In Ad 42?

John Wenham

On the day when this article was begun, The Times (16.3.72) on its front page carried a headline across five columns: ‘Scroll fragments put accepted date of the Gospels in doubt.’ It referred to an article in Biblica 53 (1972) by J. O’Callaghan which reported the finding at Qumran of what was apparently a fragment of St Mark’s Gospel, to be dated only about twenty years after the death of Christ. Whether this identification is confirmed or not, time will tell; but the possibility of such a discovery shows how urgent it is that those who believe in early dates for the Synoptic Gospels should state their reasons. From the point of view of Christian apologetics the importance of the question as to whether to date these Gospels in the 70s, 80s and 90s on the one hand, or in the 40s and 50s on the other, can scarcely be exaggerated.

There are two solid arguments for early dates. Firstly, in all three the fall of Jerusalem is forecast at great length, but no suggestion is made that the prophecy had been fulfilled at the time of writing. This is an argument from silence, but it is quite difficult to imagine that the fulfilment of so cataclysmic a prophecy should have been passed by without mention. (By contrast it will be observed that the fulfilment of the prophecy of world famine in Acts 11:28 is immediately mentioned.)

Secondly, the argument (associated especially with A. Harnack) for dating Acts in 62, 1 at the point where the story ends, is cogent. The reader waits breathlessly to hear what happens at Paul’s trial, but is never told. Harnack’s argument is said to be facile, but the alternatives are unconvincing; they derive their force from the belief (which I am sure is correct) that Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts and that it made

TynBul 23:1 (1972) p. 95

use of Mark, and from the belief (which I question) that Mark could not have existed at so early a date. Luke’s Gospel, which the prologue suggests was the result of careful research, is better dated before the shipwreck (in which all manuscripts would have been destroyed) than after. Luke was nearby during Paul’s two-year stay at or near Caesarea about 57-59, and this would make a very suitable period for the final preparation of his material for publishing.2 Is it conceivable that Mark was written even earlier?

It is hardly conceivable if we take seriously (as we must) the strong tradition that Mark’s Gospel in some way represents the teaching of Peter in Rome, and if we take the usually a...