Meta Description: Join Dr. Jeff Winkle and Dr. David Noe in Ad Navseam Episode 202 as they return to John Wenham’s assault on the Synoptic Problem. Discover the case for Matthew’s priority, why Mark’s gospel reads like a raw oral history, and whether the Apostle Peter really went to Rome in 42 AD. Plus, a dispatch from Uganda, the Latin language, and the absolute worst picnic food.
Introduction: Ugandan Excursions and the Power of Repetition
Welcome back, classical gourmands, to Episode 202 of the Ad Navseam Podcast! Broadcasting from the rather shivery depths of the Vomitorium, Dr. Jeff Winkle is currently navigating the grueling academic grind of final exams at Grand Rapids Community College, wading through deep stacks of student blue books. Meanwhile, Dr. David Noe recently returned from a much warmer climate, having spent two highly productive weeks teaching at the Knox School of Theology in Mbale, Uganda.
Falling into a steady routine of teaching, eating, reading, and sleeping, Dave spent his mornings teaching introductory Attic and Koine Greek from the ground up to men from Uganda, South Sudan, and Kenya. In the afternoons, he taught classes on rhetoric and public speaking. When his students attempted to use digital tools on their phones to look up biblical Greek, Dave gently dissuaded them, insisting they unplug and learn the actual mechanics of the language. Dave credits his own success in language acquisition to a massive appetite for repetition, firmly standing by the ancient pedagogical maxim repetitio mater memoriae (repetition is the mother of memory). By the end of his time there, his students were successfully reciting the Greek vowels forwards and backwards.
The Main Event: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem
With the travelogues out of the way, the hosts turn their attention to Part 2 of their extensive review of John Wenham’s 1991 book, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem.
To set the stage, the hosts review the famous assertion by the classicist R.C. Jebb: there are two supreme literary questions in Western history. The first is the Homeric question (who wrote the Iliad and Odyssey?), and the second is the Synoptic problem (where did the Gospels come from, and in what specific order were they written?)
For decades, the dominant academic consensus has been the “Two-Source Hypothesis”. This prevailing theory argues that the Gospel of Mark was written first (Markan priority), and that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark as a narrative framework while supplementing it with a lost, purely theoretical document known as “Q” (from the German word Quelle, meaning source) to account for their shared sayings of Jesus.
Wenham’s entire project aims to completely dismantle the Q hypothesis, arguing that it is entirely unnecessary. According to Wenham’s assessment of the internal and external evidence, the timeline actually looks like this: Matthew was written first (possibly in a Semitic language like Aramaic), Mark represents the teachings of Peter (who actively knew Matthew’s gospel), and Luke was written last (knowing and using both Matthew and Mark, but maintaining a large measure of independence).
The Case for Matthew’s Priority
In Chapter 5, Wenham shifts strictly to the external evidence to support Matthew being the first gospel. He notes that the early Church Fathers—including Papias, Irenaeus, Pantinus, Origen, and Eusebius—are virtually unanimous on three major points. First, Matthew the tax collector was the definitive author; second, it was the first gospel written; and third, it was written specifically for Hebrews in the Hebrew (or Aramaic) dialect.
Modern skeptics frequently try to discount this massive weight of tradition by claiming it all stems from a single unreliable source in Papias. Some scholars, such as J. Kurtzinger, have attempted to reinterpret Papias’s phrase Hebraidi dialecto to mean that Matthew merely wrote in a “Hebrew style” or with an orderly Jewish arrangement, rather than actually composing the text in the Hebrew language. Wenham powerfully defends Papias, pointing out that Eusebius was not discussing literary style in that context, but rather the historical succession of early Christian writers.
Furthermore, Dr. Winkle astutely points out that one of the most compelling arguments for Matthian authorship is the sheer obscurity of the man himself. Apart from his job as a tax collector and his inclusion in the list of the Twelve Apostles, Matthew is a complete unknown. If the early church was going to forge a document or assign an anonymous text to an authoritative figure, they would have logically chosen a much more famous name, like Peter or Paul. Additionally, as a former customs official for the Roman government, Matthew would have been highly literate, accustomed to taking detailed records, and uniquely equipped to document the sermons of Jesus. The historical oddity of his selection actually serves as a strong badge of authenticity, much like the fact that the Gospels report women as the very first witnesses to the resurrection—a countercultural detail no first-century author would invent if they were trying to build a fabricated legal case.
Wenham also quotes the scholar Martin Hengel, who notes that early Christian communities set up book chests containing Old Testament scriptures and Christian documents. Hengel argues that there was strict scribal discipline, and these early scribes invented the specific title Evangelion kata Markon (Gospel According to Mark) very early on. This early entrenchment of the titles further bolsters the reliability of the traditional authorships.
Mark, Peter, and the Power of Orality
Moving to Chapter 6, the external evidence directly ties the Gospel of Mark to the Apostle Peter. Early sources like Clement of Alexandria and Origen explicitly state that Mark acted as Peter’s “interpreter” or catechist while Peter preached in Rome.
Eusebius explicitly contrasts the highly structured, chronological arrangement of Matthew’s gospel with the much looser, episodic teaching of Peter found in Mark. Dr. Noe notes that Mark reads very much like an authentic, raw oral history. Rather than a strict chronological biography, Mark has a “stream of consciousness” feel, capturing the immediate memories of Peter exactly as he preached them to early Roman congregations. Mark listened to these sermons, learned the catechism, and faithfully wrote it down.
Furthermore, Mark’s gospel is famous for portraying Peter in a rather poor light—he often comes across as a well-meaning but constantly blundering disciple. Why would Peter dictate a gospel that makes him look foolish? Dave compares this transparent honesty to St. Augustine’s Confessions. Having reached a position of immense authority and influence in the early church, Peter displays profound humility by ensuring the written record honestly reflects his early failures and lack of understanding.
Peter in Rome: Establishing the Timeline
Chapter 7 tackles a heavily debated historical issue that serves as the linchpin for Wenham’s entire dating structure: when did Peter actually travel to Rome?
A strong, ancient tradition maintains that Peter arrived in Rome in 42 AD (during the second year of Emperor Claudius’ reign), shortly after his miraculous escape from prison in Jerusalem recorded in the Book of Acts. This early arrival date explains the intense focus on Simon the Magician in Acts; Justin Martyr records that Simon Magus traveled to Rome during the reign of Claudius, and Peter likely followed to combat his magical heresies. Furthermore, Peter’s interactions with Cornelius the Centurion (who belonged to the Cohors Italica, consisting of volunteers from Italy) may have informed Peter that the gospel had already gained a foothold in the capital.
If Peter arrived in Rome in 42 AD, it perfectly aligns with the historical record found in the Roman historian Tacitus. When Emperor Nero blamed the Christians for the great fire of Rome in 64 AD, Tacitus explicitly notes that the Christians were already an “immense multitude”. If the church in Rome was established two full decades earlier by Peter, it explains how they grew into a demographic large enough to serve as a plausible, widely recognized scapegoat for the emperor. While 19th-century church historian Philip Schaff correctly noted there is no explicit New Testament verse placing Peter in Rome, the cumulative weight of the external tradition makes his early presence there highly probable.
Sponsors: Fuel for the Classical Renaissance
Before the hosts pack up and leave the bunker (to deal with a highly anticipated visit from an oven repairman), they thank the generous sponsors keeping the microphones hot.
- Hackett Publishing: Dave just received his complimentary copy of the gorgeous, purple-bound Collected Works of Aristotle translated by C.D.C. Reeve. To build your own library with these incredible, affordable texts, go to hackettpublishing.com and use code AN2025 for 20% off and free shipping (a deal you definitely won’t find on any massive, river-named online emporia).
- Ratio Coffee: Jeff’s morning routine is completely flawless thanks to the one-touch perfection of his Ratio coffee machine, which perfectly executes an automated bloom and brew cycle. Dave is currently using his own Ratio machine to brew the high-quality coffee he brought back from Uganda. Visit ratiocoffee.com/adnauseam and use code ANRATIO2025 for $20 off the flagship Ratio 8, the midshipman Ratio 6, or the highly attainable new Ratio 4.
- Della Chelpka Art: Looking for custom, breathtaking oil paintings? Visit dellachelpka.art and use code Apelles (named after the famous Greek painter!) for a 10% discount on your commission.
- The Moss Method & Latin Per Diem: Take your ancient Greek from “Neophyte to Erudite” at mossmethod.com, or master the Latin language through Hans Ørberg’s Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata at latinperdiem.com/llpsi. Use the code 10PLUS for a 10% discount.
The Gustatory Parting Shot
To conclude Episode 202, Dave delivers a Gustatory Parting Shot from the highly prolific British children’s author Enid Blyton, specifically from her work Five Go Off in a Caravan.
“They held their hard-boiled eggs in one hand, and a piece of bread and butter in the other, munching happily. There was a dish of salt for everyone to dip their eggs into… I don’t know why, but the meals we have on picnics always taste so much nicer than the ones we have indoors, said George.”
While it sounds like a lovely, bucolic scene, Dr. Winkle is thoroughly disgusted. As a staunch opponent of the hard-boiled egg, he states he is perfectly happy to eat on vacation in odd, liminal spaces, provided absolutely no eggs are involved.Keep your notes structured, and Valete!
