The Timing of the Gospel of Mark

[Suomipoika]

Okay, just wondering... how much does the estimated timing of the writing of the Gospel of Mark at around 70 AD among scholars rest on the assumption that the words of Jesus about the coming destruction of the temple of Jesrusalem (around 66 AD) "had to be put into Jesus's mouth afterwards"?

Mark 13:1-2: As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!" "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." (NIV)

 

[ebia]

I don't know the answer to your question, but as at least one first rate historian points out, Jesus' predictions of the destruction of the temple didn't require omniscience, just a good dose of common sense. If Israel didn't change it's ways Rome was bound to come down on it like a ton of bricks.

So dating Mark post AD70 based on what could quite reasonably be an entirely human prediction by someone with above average insight would be silly.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Jesus' predictions of the destruction of the temple didn't require omniscience, just a good dose of common sense. If Israel didn't change it's ways Rome was bound to come down on it like a ton of bricks.

I strongly second this. As a Christian who does not believe that Jesus was omniscient on earth I still have a high view of many of his predictions because many of them would have just been obvious (the destruction of the Temple, his imminent crucifixion etc.)

"had to be put into Jesus's mouth afterwards"

I do not know this to be a fact but despite what I said above, I imagine that this at least plays a role in some scholars minds. However, I for one am comfortable with an earlier dating of Mark.

 

[TimRout]

Well then, allow me to step in and suggest that Mark was probably written closer to 50AD, as Ryrie and other conservatives suggest. If the predictions of sinful prophets could accurately portray future events, surely the Son of Man could do so, regardless of one's take on kenosis. Liberals reject the miraculous. They desperately want Mark 13:2 to be a product of enthusiastic recollection, rather than prophetic revelation. If the Lord really did prophesy the destruction of the Temple, then members of the Jesus Seminars would need to repent -- and they're not about to do that.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Woah, While I agree that the Jesus Seminar is full of primarily of Pseudo-Intellectuals, why such an early date? Even under the more traditionalist viewpoints, the writing of this Gospel still would not have been before the death of Peter sometime in the mid to late 60s AD.

 

[ebia]

Well then, allow me to step in and suggest that Mark was probably written closer to 50AD, as Ryrie and other conservatives suggest. If the predictions of sinful prophets could accurately portray future events, surely the Son of Man could do so, regardless of one's take on kenosis. Liberals reject the miraculous. They desperately want Mark 13:2 to be a product of enthusiastic recollection, rather than prophetic revelation. If the Lord really did prophesy the destruction of the Temple, then members of the Jesus Seminars would need to repent -- and they're not about to do that.

I think you are right and wrong. Jesus did predict the fall of the temple, but that required a little bit of intelligent, clearthinking, forsight not divine omniscence - if Israel carried on the way it had been sooner or latter Rome was bound to loose it's temper. Those who date Mark late on the basis of the prediction are making exactly the same mistake as those who declare the prediction to be a sign of divinity.

 

[TimRout]

I think you are right and wrong. Jesus did predict the fall of the temple, but that required a little bit of intelligent, clearthinking, forsight not divine omniscence - if Israel carried on the way it had been sooner or latter Rome was bound to loose it's temper. Those who date Mark late on the basis of the prediction are making exactly the same mistake as those who declare the prediction to be a sign of divinity.

I would be thrilled to debate the divinity of Christ with you in some other context, but the topic of this thread is specific and I prefer to focus my attentions there.

 

[TimRout]

Woah, While I agree that the Jesus Seminar is full of primarily of Pseudo-Intellectuals, why such an early date? Even under the more traditionalist viewpoints, the writing of this Gospel still would not have been before the death of Peter sometime in the mid to late 60s AD.

Ryrie argues that Papias supports a date as early as 50AD, though as you suggest, he indicates a range between 50 and 60. I decided to throw out "50" to see if a liberal might jump on me for it.

If Peter (Mark's source) died as early as 64AD (Nero's fire), and Matthew and Luke used Mark as an established source, it seems unlikely Mark was written later than 60AD.

Also, given the potential connection between Mark and Galatians (if one is a "southern Galatianist), this would provide further evidence that Mark could have been written as early as 50AD. Steve Thomson (Professor of NT at Tyndale) suggests that Galatians may have been written as early as 48AD, which would place Mark in the early to mid 40s. I'm not sure I buy his argument, but it's interesting nonetheless. Of course, there's a possibility that [FONT=Arial, sans-serif][FONT=Symbol, serif]proegrafh [/FONT][/FONT]in Galatians 3:1 is a veiled reference to "Q", though I have always been wary of putting my eggs into a hypothetical basket.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

hmmm... interesting. I think I am familiar with the papias in question. Is this the one that is found in Qumran that a few scholars think is a fragment of Mark?

You are right to say that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source but I do not see why that would necessitate such an early date of Mark. The theology of Luke and Matthew, especially Luke seems to come from a later date (don't worry, I am not crazy. When I say 'later date' I don't mean anything beyond 100). See especially the universality of the message in Luke. As such, I see no problem dating Mark at, say the late 60s, and Luke and Matthew using it sometime between 70-100 for their respective Gospels.

What are your thoughts?

 

[ebia]

I would be thrilled to debate the divinity of Christ with you in some other context, but the topic of this thread is specific and I prefer to focus my attentions there.

That's fair enough, and I don't want to derail the thread, but just to clarify - I wasn't disputing the divinity of Christ, just pointing out that a successful prediction of the fall of the temple doesn't require it, and is therefore a bad reason for dating Mark late whatever one's theological position.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

That's fair enough, and I don't want to derail the thread, but just to clarify - I wasn't disputing the divinity of Christ, just pointing out that a successful prediction of the fall of the temple doesn't require it, and is therefore a bad reason for dating Mark late whatever one's theological position.

Agreed, I have the same basic argument about Jesus predicting his crucifixion. I believe he was/is divine but I don't believe he had omniscience while on earth. However, he was a messianic figure running around Palestine doing things like disrupting the Temple during a festival when there were a ton of extra Jews in Jerusalem and the Romans were already a little antsy. It wouldn't have taken omniscience, or even moderate intelligence, to know what was coming.

 

[TimRout]

hmmm... interesting. I think I am familiar with the papias in question. Is this the one that is found in Qumran that a few scholars think is a fragment of Mark?

You are right to say that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source but I do not see why that would necessitate such an early date of Mark. The theology of Luke and Matthew, especially Luke seems to come from a later date (don't worry, I am not crazy. When I say 'later date' I don't mean anything beyond 100). See especially the universality of the message in Luke. As such, I see no problem dating Mark at, say the late 60s, and Luke and Matthew using it sometime between 70-100 for their respective Gospels.

What are your thoughts?

Ryrie doesn't specify which Papias he is referring to, but his conclusions are similar to those who Wenham who does specify 7Q5 (Qumran). Of course, Wenham also hypothesizes that Matthew was written first in the early 40s and was likely written in Aramaic. I have yet to read his book on the subject so I cannot comment further on his position, but I'll get back to you.

Personally, I still believe the bulk of evidence suggests Matthew and Luke follow Mark and are dated similarly. One might note, for example, the glaring absence of Peter's and Paul's martyrdom in Acts, suggesting a date no later than 68AD for Matthew and Luke/Acts. While late-dater Timothy Johnson argues this can be explained by Luke's highly focused theological agenda, it seems unlikely that such extraordinarily significant events would receive no direct mention. Again, given Mark's source in Peter, it is unlikely that he wrote later than 64AD, allowing time for circulation and acceptance of his document by the Apostles.

In the end, however, my primary concern is theological rather than chronological. Liberals (and I'm not saying you are one) love later dates because such assertions provide them with greater opportunity to challenge authorship, preservation, authenticity, etc. Parking the Synoptic Gospels in the late first century brings them ever closer to early pseudoepigraphal works and thus opens questions about canonicity.

That said, I am interested in hearing the arguments of a conservative late-dater (if you can be so described). Just so I understand...what is your take on kenosis?

Let's talk again.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Ryrie doesn't specify which Papias he is referring to, but his conclusions are similar to those who Wenham who does specify 7Q5 (Qumran).

Yeah, the only thing I know about 7Q5 is that it is very small and many scholars dispute that it contains the words that Wenham claims it does. As far as Ryrie is concerned, I don't even know that I have ever heard of him/her.

Personally, I still believe the bulk of evidence suggests Matthew and Luke follow Mark and are dated similarly. One might note, for example, the glaring absence of Peter's and Paul's martyrdom in Acts, suggesting a date no later than 68AD for Matthew and Luke/Acts.

I completely agree that Matthew and Luke follow and depend on Mark but I still do not see the need for them to be so close to Mark in date. For instance, Matthew would have no reason to include either the martyrdom of Paul or Peter because Paul doesn't even make an appearance and the story in Matthew ends well before the martyrdom of Peter.

The lack of these in Luke-Acts is, admittedly, more difficult to explain. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that Luke would ignore Peter's death because the main focus of Luke-Acts is on Paul and the evangelization of the Gentiles.

As far as Paul goes, it is quite possible, in similarity to Timothy Johnson's argument, that Luke would have wanted to end on a happy note. There was probably not that much theological significance to the death of Paul and as such he may have wanted to just gloss over it. In addition, seeing as Luke's main theme in Acts is that the faith was moving from Jerusalem to the Gentiles and eventually to Rome it fits his main point to end by saying...

28"Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"[b]
30For two whole years Paul stayed there in his own rented house and welcomed all who came to see him. 31Boldly and without hindrance he preached the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ.

I am not saying that Luke lied about Paul's death, news of that would have surely been known among his readers, especially if the book was written at a later date as I suggest. But, if the main point of the story is that the faith makes it out to Rome then his ending seems to be much more fitting than, "and then Paul died".

In the end, however, my primary concern is theological rather than chronological. Liberals (and I'm not saying you are one) love later dates because such assertions provide them with greater opportunity to challenge authorship, preservation, authenticity, etc. Parking the Synoptic Gospels in the late first century brings them ever closer to early pseudoepigraphal works and thus opens questions about canonicity.

That said, I am interested in hearing the arguments of a conservative late-dater (if you can be so described).

Well, I do hate to break it to you, but I very much value honesty, so here goes. I do consider myself to be a liberal student of Biblical scholarship. However, my emphasis is on the Old Testament, especially the prophets and the Torah so I am a little over my head in this discussion. It should be noted though, that I am not a liberal just for the fun of it. For instance, I think the Jesus Seminar was disgraceful. One of their requirements to be a member was that you couldn't believe that Jesus was eschatalogical at all... Hello! Even if he wasn't the Son of God (as I am sure many of them would say) he was a first century Jewish leader. It is not that big of a stretch to think he would speak about eschatology.

Now, all that being said, I do believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he rose etc.

what is your take on kenosis?

Phew... again, I am a student of the Old Testament so forgive me if this explanation is a little weak...

I believe that in becoming incarnate Jesus gave up his omnipotence and omniscience in the same way that he gave up his omnipresence and if you are of the persuasion that God is outside time as I probably am, his omnitemporality as well.

 

[TimRout]

It seems we are in general agreement as to the order of authorship among the Synoptics. We agree in some respects on kenosis, in that we both assert Jesus maintained His divinity while setting aside certain divine attributes – though it seems you would go a bit further than me concerning the extent of His abandonment.


Clearly, as God the Son incarnate, Jesus retained certain abilities beyond the scope of a supernaturally enhanced OT prophet. For example, He could forgive sins [Matthew 9:2] and read minds [Matthew 9:4] and even threw a little of His omnipotence around from time to time [Luke 7:10]. While I realize we must not attempt to establish dating on theological grounds, I thought it might be wise to point out that a person's predisposition toward late dating could possibly have a theological hiccup at the core. This is by no means an imputation of your argument (or you, for that matter), but merely a thought --- since you have indicated a certain predilection toward liberal modes of study. That said, I take this caution upon myself also, since conservatives are by no means free from bias. Therefore, I am going to dispense with theological argumentation in this discussion.


Aside from Luke's exceedingly “gentle” allusion to Paul's martyrdom (if that is indeed the case), there are a few other indicators that make me wonder if perhaps an earlier date for Mark might be called for.


There is extracanonical evidence in the writings of Eusebius, who suggested that Mark not only used Peter's testimony, but wrote it down during the Apostle's lifetime, and (in the opinion of some scholars) in the Apostle's presence. Given that Mark was not in Rome immediately preceding Paul's (and presumably Peter's) execution [2 Timothy 4:11] we would need to allow for a reasonable interval between the completion of Mark's work and the arrest of Peter. If Peter died in 66AD as most NT scholars approximate, this would place Mark no later than early 66.


As mentioned previously, [FONT=Symbol, serif]proegrafh [/FONT]in Galatians 3:1 strongly suggests a written source. Unless one wishes to assume “Q” -- and given the hypothetical nature of this “document”, it can be nothing more than an assumption – the only logical alternative is an early Mark. Even if you're a northern Galatianist and date the epistle as late as 60AD, that still places Mark pre-60. Personally, I would argue that Paul wrote Galatians prior to the Jerusalem Council of 50AD, given that its exceptionally apt determinations are conspicuously absent from his epistle.


And lastly (for today), if one factors in 7Q5 as a relevant consideration – and a significant number of NT scholars do – it becomes difficult to make a case for a late Mark. If we can park Mark pre-66, then there is no reason we can't park Matthew and Luke pre-70, unless one brings a JS variety of liberal bias to the table – and I know you don't.


Regarding your inquiry: Charles Caldwell Ryrie is a “double doctorate” systematic theologian who served for many years as Dean of Doctoral Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. While not everyone buys his dispensational eschatology, he is a noted expert on NT dating.

 

[Suomipoika]

Hey, thanks for the input for everyone so far! I'll try to read through the posts with a scrutiny and learn...

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

That said, I take this caution upon myself also, since conservatives are by no means free from bias.

I am so glad that you included that part.

There is extracanonical evidence in the writings of Eusebius, who suggested that Mark not only used Peter's testimony, but wrote it down during the Apostle's lifetime, and (in the opinion of some scholars) in the Apostle's presence.

I am usually fairly quick to jump to the Church Fathers as background information but I don't know that they are the most trustworthy on dating. Eusebius is a little late to rely on him so heavily. Besides, the Fathers themselves had a huge motivating factor in regards to dating. It was necessary in their minds that the Gospels be written by authentic writers and though I am not disputing Marken authorship, they certainly had a really good reason to want to push the date back as early as possible. Does that disprove your use of Eusebius? Of course not, but I do think that it calls it into question.

If Peter died in 66AD as most NT scholars approximate, this would place Mark no later than early 66.

Again, only if we are relying on the tradition that Mark wrote it in the presence of Peter, something I am still not convinced on.

As mentioned previously, [FONT=Symbol, serif]proegrafh [/FONT]in Galatians 3:1 strongly suggests a written source. Unless one wishes to assume “Q” -- and given the hypothetical nature of this “document”, it can be nothing more than an assumption – the only logical alternative is an early Mark.

Like I said, I am more of an OT person and as such am more into Hebrew than Greek but I have studied a bit of Greek.

I don't believe that that necessarily implies a written source. You are right, proegrafh is based off of the word grafh which has to do with writing. However, I think that with the addition of the prefix proe coming, I believe from pros it changes the meaning. I think in this instance it means something more like presented or shown to. The NRSV for instance translates it as, "publicly exhibited" and the NIV says, "clearly portrayed". Furthermore, in the next verse Paul asks whether they had received "the Spirit by doing works of the law or by believing what you heard?" This implies that whatever they were presented it was not a written document that many of them would probably not have been able to read but a living testimony. I.e. someone visited them and told them verbally what had happened with this whole Jesus fellow.

And lastly (for today), if one factors in 7Q5 as a relevant consideration – and a significant number of NT scholars do – it becomes difficult to make a case for a late Mark.

My main question about 7Q5 is not whether the reading of it is correct (well, ok that is one of my main questions ) but why a Christian document would have been found in Qumran. The Qumran sect was fanatical. The Gospels portray the Pharisees as being weird, well, they were nothing to the sect in Qumran. They were obsessed with separating themselves out and obsessed with being Jewish. The even went so far as to build their own temple complex because they thought that the Temple was still defiled from when a pig was offered to Zeus in it years and years before. They did everything to remain purely Jewish. Why would they have a copy of Mark. If the Pharisees had trouble with Jesus' interpretations of the Law then the Qumran sect would have hated it.

While not everyone buys his dispensational eschatology, he is a noted expert on NT dating.

Well, I have to admit, I am not by any means a dispensationalist, but I can accept that even though I have a disagreement with him he can still offer something here.

 

[TimRout]

BTF, do you believe Matthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name?

To OP: This is relevant to our discussion of Mark.

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Sorry it has been so long.

BTF, do you believe Matthew wrote the Gospel that bears his name?

To OP: This is relevant to our discussion of Mark.

The short answer is no, I don't tend to think that Matthew was that actual writer of the Gospel. This mainly has to do with the fact that it seems that Matthew is trying to refute, at least to some degree, Rabbinic Judaism. David L. Barr points out that in passages such as Matthew 23:5-10...

5"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries[a] wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'
8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

Matthew is rejecting the title of Rabbi because Rabbinic Judaism was becoming prominent and because of his disagreements with the Pharisaic/Rabbinic school of Yavneh.

Furthermore, he points out that Matthew speaks of "their synagogues" (4:23, 9:35, 10:17) which seems to be a way of separating his Messianic community from the Jewish community at large.

It should be pointed out that it certainly seems that Matthew would have been written before 85 AD because that is when Javneh came up witht he infamous anti-Christian prayer which certainly would have made Matthew more hostile to the Pharisees.

All of this along with his strong endorsement of Gentiles while remaining Jewish in language (c.f. his usage of Kingdom of Heaven, not Kingdom of God) and the fact that the text itself does not ever claim to be written by Matthew, suggests that he was a Jew in the diaspora writing around 85 AD which would suggest that it is not authentically Matthean.

However, all that being said, on the forums I tend to assume traditional authorship because I know that my views on some of the writings are a little unpopular and would prohibit dialogue.

I am still very willing to buy that Mark was written by Mark though. That Gospel has the most going for the traditional authorship.

 

[TimRout]

Dear BTF:

You present an interesting assessment of Matthew. Are you suggesting that Matthew 23:5-10 should therefore be attributed to the author's bias, and not to the Lord Jesus? The same is reflected in your citation of Matthew 10:17, where again you attribute a thought to the author, even though the words are presumably being spoken by the Lord. While NT scholars generally agree that the Gospel writers were selective in formulating their documents, your argument seems to suggest some sort of defraudation, in that Jesus' words aren't really Jesus' words at all. Is this so? And if yes, how does your position differ from that of the Jesus Seminars?


I would suggest that the vast bulk of early testimony and tradition points to Matthew Levi as the author of the Gospel that bears his name. I would further argue that the Gospel should be dated well before 70AD, given its exceedingly Jewish flavor – a flavor best explained by a target audience who were, at the time, living in Judea. This could not have been the case following Titus' campaign.


Some might suggest that Matthew was targeting diasporic Hellenized Jews, but this seems highly unlikely given his frequent Jewishisms. Consequently, I would suggest a time line that looks something like this:


Mark 50ish AD
Matthew 60ish AD
Luke 60ish AD
John 90ish AD


I am careful to balance my reading of your position, given that you are my brother in Christ, yet have identified yourself as a liberal. So let me ask you forthrightly:

1. Do you believe the words attributed to Jesus in the NT Gospels were in fact spoken by Him?

If yes...

1. Do you believe the Gospel writers accurately conveyed the context in which Jesus spoke the words attributed to Him?

 

[BeforeTheFoundation]

Are you suggesting that Matthew 23:5-10 should therefore be attributed to the author's bias, and not to the Lord Jesus? The same is reflected in your citation of Matthew 10:17, where again you attribute a thought to the author, even though the words are presumably being spoken by the Lord.

No, that is not at all what I am saying. I am saying that these sentences were written down, even by the most conservative estimates, years after they were spoken by Jesus. As such, it is not hard to imagine, nor would it be surprising that in a culture with a vast difference of understanding as to what constitutes an historical account, would apply Jesus' message in such a way as to have a direct application to his context.

So, did Jesus' speak these words? That is a very loaded question. On the one hand, no, I think that it would be irresponsible to say that Jesus said these exact words. However, did Jesus say this message? Yes, I do believe that he did. As such, when I speak of an author reacting against a movement in his time period, I do not mean that he is making up things that he is attributing to Jesus, I mean simply that he is using phraseology to apply Jesus message to his context. As such, he might supply the word 'their' when Jesus is talking about the synagogues because he knows that Jesus would have rejected the synagogues of his time and he does not want his readers to get confused and think that Jesus is endorsing what he sees (and rightfully so) as theology in the synagogues which threatens Christianity.

your argument seems to suggest some sort of defraudation, in that Jesus' words aren't really Jesus' words at all. Is this so? And if yes, how does your position differ from that of the Jesus Seminars?

Defraudation is perhaps too strong of a word. I am not suggesting that the authors of the Bible were lying. As stated above, I believe that the authors were applying Jesus' words to a new context. By looking at their application, we can sometimes get glimpses of that said context and then hope to figure out where and when they were writing. Obviously this is not an exact science and has its problems and must be balanced against other factors, but it does go a long way.

As for how it differs from the Jesus Seminar. I would ally myself more with N. T. Wright. Yes, I do believe that the authors of the Gospels got creative at some points (see above) but the difference is I try to keep Jesus in his historical Jewish context. The Jesus Seminar would have you believe that Jesus was a Greek wisdom sage hippie that never talked about eschatology. It is impossible to completely get rid of our biases when looking a Scripture, but the blatant use of bias including a post-modern and practically deist bias that the Jesus Seminar exhibits is a perversion to both religion and scholarship.

I would further argue that the Gospel should be dated well before 70AD, given its exceedingly Jewish flavor – a flavor best explained by a target audience who were, at the time, living in Judea. This could not have been the case following Titus' campaign.


Some might suggest that Matthew was targeting diasporic Hellenized Jews, but this seems highly unlikely given his frequent Jewishisms.

I think that you might be underestimating the Jewishness of the diaspora. Remember, if I am right and Matthew was written after 70AD then the majority of Jewish thought would have been in the diaspora. With the fall of Jerusalem, places like Alexandria which had been a place of great Jewish thought for hundreds of years began to take on great prominence. As such, after the fall of Jerusalem one should not be surprised at a Jewish Gospel coming from the diaspora.

I am careful to balance my reading of your position, given that you are my brother in Christ, yet have identified yourself as a liberal.

Please, let us avoid a patronizing tone. We may disagree but I am quite enjoying this little discussion and you have proven yourself to be very knowledgeable. I may be a liberal, but I still believe in the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

1. Do you believe the words attributed to Jesus in the NT Gospels were in fact spoken by Him?

I think I have answered this question above.

Do you believe the Gospel writers accurately conveyed the context in which Jesus spoke the words attributed to Him?

Again, it depends on what you mean by accurate. Are all of the sayings of Jesus placed in the exact context in which Jesus spoke them? No, I don't thin so, as can easily be demonstrated by the fact that the Gospels differ in the context in which they place the same stories. However, the writers applied the sayings as best they could to the situations that they were living in, much like a pastor or priest would do today in a sermon. They take what Jesus said and in a sense take it out of context but put it in a context relevant today that is similar enough to its original context so that we can attempt to figure out what Jesus would say about our present context. I think that the Gospel writers did a similar thing.