• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Gospel mark. Was it written after 70 AD or before? What's a hefty argument!!!

firedragon

Veteran Member
Nineteenth century scholarship established Markan priority. Mark was the first Gospel to be written. This means it was then used by Matthew and Luke. Combined with the assumption of the existence of Q which is the source behind Matthew and Lukes "Common text" gave birth to the "two-document hypothesis." Later, in the twentieth century, Synoptic studies also spoke of sources of special material from Luke and Matthew, referred to as L and M.

Being named the earliest Gospel to be written and canonised in the New Testament, I think its imperative where this Gospel is placed in time. Thus, it might be a great discussion to proceed.

First I would like to look at some arguments posed for "after 70 AD".

1. The number one argument is that since Mark mentions the destruction of the temple and since it historically happened in 70, the author must have written after that time. This would place Mark being the earliest Gospel to 40 years after Jesus (a little here and there). The thing is, this dating only provides the earliest date which is 70, and does not provide a late date unless manuscript evidence is provided to show there is a manuscript dated to lets say 75 AD, thus this has to be written prior to that. One of the manuscript evidences given by some to show this was dated to 68AD but it is widely regarded as completely unknown. It was just an assumption. Thus, this argument opens a lot of cans of worms.

2. Some bring in a mythicists argument that Mark copied Jesus's story from Josephus and his narrative about another man called Jesus who lived in the era of the war. Jesus the son of Ananaius was making prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem in and around 66 AD and the romans caught him and tortured him. Richard Carrier the famous mythicist ran with this narrative to show that Jesus was a myth. But this kind of rhetoric is invalid because Josephus also mentions James the brother of Jesus (who was called messiah) and places him to the early 1st century history. So proponents of this have to consider this. Parallels are made to certain occurrences in the Gospel narratives, and Josephus's war episodes, but when it comes how the man died they stay silent. Jesus son of ananaius was killed by a stone apparently when the Romans were catapulting, and this was written and published as they say in 78AD. This argument would push Mark to further than 78 AD. This is not Bible scholarship though atheists seem to think it because this is in direct conflict and post dates Matthew to a time that cannot be placed due to form or source criticism and the synoptic problem.

One major weakness of this argument is the mention of James the brother of Jesus, and the conflict between the Roman treatment of those claimed to be Messiah. Everyone was killed by the Romans, but the son of Ananaius was released considering he is just a mad man and poses no threat. No one who would have called himself Messiah would have been released as such. Also, Josephus speaking of another Jesus the brother of James in the past must be considered, not just cherry pick what suits a mythicists argument and ignore everything else Josephus wrote.

The other argument is that the Mark chapter 13 occurrences do not really reflect the destruction of the temple by the Romans. The Gospel of Mark does not show much information or any basic knowledge of the turmoil of a Roman destruction of the city. Also the mythicist who makes the ananaius parallel must understand that Josephus speaks of this other Jesus predicting or/and prophesying the destruction of the city in the year 66, which is prior. Thus, does that negate the whole book of Josephus as "magical and nonsensical"? Or does it make Josephus a proponent of prophecies of a man who was dismissed as a mad man?

One must also note that if Mark was a post 70 or 78 document and they knew about the destruction of the temple, the writer would make it more authentic by saying "a wall or some stones remained", not that "not one stone will be left on another, all will be torn down". See the point?

I understand that some of the arguments for the d ating of Mark placing it prior to the year 70 have been based on tradition and the association with the death of Peter etc. But also one must consider the road to the cross narratives of Mark that signifies Nero's persecution during the revolt placed in and around 65. Mark 13 is said to reflect the situation in Palestine during the Jewish revolt and just before the Roman entrance into the city, and thus it must be dated between 67 and 69.

The post 70 argument rests totally on the destruction of the temple, and the writer mentioning it as a prediction. But this destruction does not correlate. Thus with this single argument broken, there is not much to rest upon. That is why some people use the mythicists parallel with Jesus the son of Ananaius and that Mark was copied from it, though no consideration of Jesus the brother of James is taken in this equation.

If Mark was in fact reiterating a post hoc ergo propter hoc of the destruction of the temple, maybe that part was a post 70's addition to the text. I highly doubt it because philologists would notice the difference in writing, but lets say some major expert wrote the same way to make it look like a prophecy of Jesus, then the only possible argument could be Mark had two peoples writings in it, and one was a redactor. If so, I dont know of any redaction criticism that seeks this path. Of course, please cite if there are any.

What say you? :)
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Nineteenth century scholarship established Markan priority. Mark was the first Gospel to be written. This means it was then used by Matthew and Luke. Combined with the assumption of the existence of Q which is the source behind Matthew and Lukes "Common text" gave birth to the "two-document hypothesis." Later, in the twentieth century, Synoptic studies also spoke of sources of special material from Luke and Matthew, referred to as L and M.

Being named the earliest Gospel to be written and canonised in the New Testament, I think its imperative where this Gospel is placed in time. Thus, it might be a great discussion to proceed.

First I would like to look at some arguments posed for "after 70 AD".

1. The number one argument is that since Mark mentions the destruction of the temple and since it historically happened in 70, the author must have written after that time. This would place Mark being the earliest Gospel to 40 years after Jesus (a little here and there). The thing is, this dating only provides the earliest date which is 70, and does not provide a late date unless manuscript evidence is provided to show there is a manuscript dated to lets say 75 AD, thus this has to be written prior to that. One of the manuscript evidences given by some to show this was dated to 68AD but it is widely regarded as completely unknown. It was just an assumption. Thus, this argument opens a lot of cans of worms.

2. Some bring in a mythicists argument that Mark copied Jesus's story from Josephus and his narrative about another man called Jesus who lived in the era of the war. Jesus the son of Ananaius was making prophecies about the destruction of Jerusalem in and around 66 AD and the romans caught him and tortured him. Richard Carrier the famous mythicist ran with this narrative to show that Jesus was a myth. But this kind of rhetoric is invalid because Josephus also mentions James the brother of Jesus (who was called messiah) and places him to the early 1st century history. So proponents of this have to consider this. Parallels are made to certain occurrences in the Gospel narratives, and Josephus's war episodes, but when it comes how the man died they stay silent. Jesus son of ananaius was killed by a stone apparently when the Romans were catapulting, and this was written and published as they say in 78AD. This argument would push Mark to further than 78 AD. This is not Bible scholarship though atheists seem to think it because this is in direct conflict and post dates Matthew to a time that cannot be placed due to form or source criticism and the synoptic problem.

One major weakness of this argument is the mention of James the brother of Jesus, and the conflict between the Roman treatment of those claimed to be Messiah. Everyone was killed by the Romans, but the son of Ananaius was released considering he is just a mad man and poses no threat. No one who would have called himself Messiah would have been released as such. Also, Josephus speaking of another Jesus the brother of James in the past must be considered, not just cherry pick what suits a mythicists argument and ignore everything else Josephus wrote.

The other argument is that the Mark chapter 13 occurrences do not really reflect the destruction of the temple by the Romans. The Gospel of Mark does not show much information or any basic knowledge of the turmoil of a Roman destruction of the city. Also the mythicist who makes the ananaius parallel must understand that Josephus speaks of this other Jesus predicting or/and prophesying the destruction of the city in the year 66, which is prior. Thus, does that negate the whole book of Josephus as "magical and nonsensical"? Or does it make Josephus a proponent of prophecies of a man who was dismissed as a mad man?

One must also note that if Mark was a post 70 or 78 document and they knew about the destruction of the temple, the writer would make it more authentic by saying "a wall or some stones remained", not that "not one stone will be left on another, all will be torn down". See the point?

I understand that some of the arguments for the d ating of Mark placing it prior to the year 70 have been based on tradition and the association with the death of Peter etc. But also one must consider the road to the cross narratives of Mark that signifies Nero's persecution during the revolt placed in and around 65. Mark 13 is said to reflect the situation in Palestine during the Jewish revolt and just before the Roman entrance into the city, and thus it must be dated between 67 and 69.

The post 70 argument rests totally on the destruction of the temple, and the writer mentioning it as a prediction. But this destruction does not correlate. Thus with this single argument broken, there is not much to rest upon. That is why some people use the mythicists parallel with Jesus the son of Ananaius and that Mark was copied from it, though no consideration of Jesus the brother of James is taken in this equation.

If Mark was in fact reiterating a post hoc ergo propter hoc of the destruction of the temple, maybe that part was a post 70's addition to the text. I highly doubt it because philologists would notice the difference in writing, but lets say some major expert wrote the same way to make it look like a prophecy of Jesus, then the only possible argument could be Mark had two peoples writings in it, and one was a redactor. If so, I dont know of any redaction criticism that seeks this path. Of course, please cite if there are any.

What say you? :)

Mark was written before 70AD because Luke was written before 70AD and Luke probably got material from Mark.
 

Altfish

Veteran Member
The problrecordings, there may be a few em with all the gospels is the lateness of them being written.
Imagine if you were writing about the 2nd World War but didn't start until 50-years after the event. But unlike in current times there are no films or radio there may be a few written records and of course you could talk to the 70-years olds who were around at the time and are still alive.

Would your document be accurate, relevant, with no errors?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The problrecordings, there may be a few em with all the gospels is the lateness of them being written.
Imagine if you were writing about the 2nd World War but didn't start until 50-years after the event. But unlike in current times there are no films or radio there may be a few written records and of course you could talk to the 70-years olds who were around at the time and are still alive.

Would your document be accurate, relevant, with no errors?

I doubt this topic is about relevance, accuracy or being error free.

But you must understand that these scholars who date these writings dont really go on maybe's. They actually go on probabilities.

Anyway, based on scholarship of the New Testament, John was the last recorded canonical Gospel and is dated to have been written by the late 1st century or earliest 2nd century. 70 years approximately after Jesus. Also, there is a manuscript that is dated to the early second century called P52. Dated to 125. Thus Mark has to be written about years prior to that. At least, even as a complete skeptic one has to accept scientific dating of a manuscript. So this could never have been written as late as you are speculating.

Anyway, again, this is not about the accuracy. Thats whole different topic altogether and there is a lot of scholarship on that subject as well. For a different thread.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Dating Luke to before 70 AD would be another thread I suppose.

Maybe, but it relates to the dating of Mark.
It is not just Mark but is Matthew and Luke also that are dated after 70AD for the same reason, the temple destruction.
That sort of history just shows the attitude of the historians instead of showing the date.
It might be a different matter if there was no other evidence for the dating which had to be ignored for the late date to stick.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Maybe, but it relates to the dating of Mark.

Thats true, but then Luke would have to be first established as prior to 70 CE, but I think there are other points to be established and only a few have been mentioned on the OP. If you get into Luke, again the mythicist and the others who argue based on Josephus and the temple destruction thing will have to debate Luke also.

I hope you understand.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Thats true, but then Luke would have to be first established as prior to 70 CE, but I think there are other points to be established and only a few have been mentioned on the OP. If you get into Luke, again the mythicist and the others who argue based on Josephus and the temple destruction thing will have to debate Luke also.

I hope you understand.

The fragment of Mark that was found in a cave that was sealed in 68AD seems to seal the issue that the gospel was written before 70AD and that the prophecy was a correct prophecy and that there is no good reason to place the other synoptics after 70AD either.
But we will see who has what to say.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The fragment of Mark that was found in a cave that was sealed in 68AD seems to seal the issue that the gospel was written before 70AD and that the prophecy was a correct prophecy and that there is no good reason to place the other synoptics after 70AD either.
But we will see who has what to say.

That manuscript was not ever proven to be Mark. Initially it was unidentified, then some scholars like Galagher said based on a letter to letter substitution that it was from Mark. But substitution of a letter does not conform with other scholars. A substitution of a movable nu is a whole different matter, but almost universally no one accepts the assertion based on a substitution of letters which makes it disputed letters. This was part of the DSR.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Good topic!

For what its worth, in my particular pursuit the Urantia Book revelation, it has an explanation of all 4 gospels. It says this about Mark:

The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew, briefest, and most simple record of Jesus' life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter's death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter's memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew's and Matthew's notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus." UB 1955
 

Dave Watchman

Active Member
What say you?:)

In my view, Mark 13 isn't speaking about the DofJ.

The temple, and the buildings of he temple, are really just used as an example of ALL buildings, ALL these things.

Jesus was talking about the end of the world when every wall would be thrown down, and every mountain and island would be moved out of place..

And when it dawned on them, when they got across the Kidron Valley and up to the Mount called Olivet, four disciples came to Him privately and asked when will this be?

Luke 21 was talking about the DofJ.

But my understanding can't be used as radiometric carbon dating evidence, so I'd go with the dating of Acts in 62AD. Mark was written before that.

"And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. - Acts 28​

Acts was written while Paul was still alive.

Paul died in the Neronian persecution about 67AD.

Acts can be dated approximately 62AD

"Paul stayed two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who were coming to him.​

That would have been fun.

You could knock on Paul's door anytime.

I bet he was busy.

Peaceful Sabbath.
 

Dave Watchman

Active Member
The problrecordings, there may be a few em with all the gospels is the lateness of them being written.
Imagine if you were writing about the 2nd World War but didn't start until 50-years after the event. But unlike in current times there are no films or radio there may be a few written records and of course you could talk to the 70-years olds who were around at the time and are still alive.

Would your document be accurate, relevant, with no errors?

It would be if the Holy Spirit was bringing into recollection the events that the author was writing of.

But I think that your point is a good one.

I can date Christ's crucifixion to 30AD based on the Passover count that year, and the Daniel 9 time being fulfilled since 457BC.

Would the author of Mark wait another 40 years of procrastinating putting pen to papyrus?

I'd worry about getting thrown over the Walls of Jerusalem by a Pharisee before having the chance to finish the Book.

A Book of such great importance.

Peaceful Sabbath.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Good topic!

For what its worth, in my particular pursuit the Urantia Book revelation, it has an explanation of all 4 gospels. It says this about Mark:

The Gospel by Mark. John Mark wrote the earliest (excepting the notes of Andrew, briefest, and most simple record of Jesus' life. He presented the Master as a minister, as man among men. Although Mark was a lad lingering about many of the scenes which he depicts, his record is in reality the Gospel according to Simon Peter. He was early associated with Peter; later with Paul. Mark wrote this record at the instigation of Peter and on the earnest petition of the church at Rome. Knowing how consistently the Master refused to write out his teachings when on earth and in the flesh, Mark, like the apostles and other leading disciples, was hesitant to put them in writing. But Peter felt the church at Rome required the assistance of such a written narrative, and Mark consented to undertake its preparation. He made many notes before Peter died in A.D. 67, and in accordance with the outline approved by Peter and for the church at Rome, he began his writing soon after Peter's death. The Gospel was completed near the end of A.D. 68. Mark wrote entirely from his own memory and Peter's memory. The record has since been considerably changed, numerous passages having been taken out and some later matter added at the end to replace the latter one fifth of the original Gospel, which was lost from the first manuscript before it was ever copied. This record by Mark, in conjunction with Andrew's and Matthew's notes, was the written basis of all subsequent Gospel narratives which sought to portray the life and teachings of Jesus." UB 1955

Thats very early scholarship. It has moved on immensely since then. Also, its wrong about all the subsequent gospel narratives were on the basis of Mark, Matthew and this so called "Andrews" writings. Very poor scholarship. Maybe someone who had some basic readings of a little bit of biblical literature of the early 20th century.

Nevertheless, all of that maybe good for another thread.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
The earliest known fragment of any Gospels written is a fragment from Mark which is dated from the late 2nd century AD. Another, even smaller fragment that is heavily contested due to how damaged and small it is has been attributed by a minority of scholars to around 50 AD. Note that none of those fragments concerned the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.


It's probable that what we call the Gospel of Mark was written in its current form around the 2nd and 3rd century AD by an unknown author who collected a large amount of stories and accounts assembling and composing them in a cohesive narrative. Other Gospels did the same using Mark as the prototypes and other oral traditions stories to compose their own version. It would be an error to assume that the Gospels were written in their current form in a single stroke by a single author each and from a limited number of high quality sources. Early Christianity was characterised by a wide diaspora of sects and cults often with radically different messages and sometime in conflict with one another.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
In my view, Mark 13 isn't speaking about the DofJ.

The temple, and the buildings of he temple, are really just used as an example of ALL buildings, ALL these things.

Jesus was talking about the end of the world when every wall would be thrown down, and every mountain and island would be moved out of place..

And when it dawned on them, when they got across the Kidron Valley and up to the Mount called Olivet, four disciples came to Him privately and asked when will this be?

Luke 21 was talking about the DofJ.

But my understanding can't be used as radiometric carbon dating evidence, so I'd go with the dating of Acts in 62AD. Mark was written before that.

"And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him, Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him. - Acts 28​

Acts was written while Paul was still alive.

Paul died in the Neronian persecution about 67AD.

Acts can be dated approximately 62AD

"Paul stayed two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who were coming to him.​

That would have been fun.

You could knock on Paul's door anytime.

I bet he was busy.

Peaceful Sabbath.

So before 70.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The earliest known fragment of any Gospels written is a fragment from Mark which is dated from the late 2nd century AD.

Never heard of this. Its not catalogued anywhere. This would be the discovery of any history of the world and you would gather too many followers around the world.

Please quote this manuscript.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Never heard of this. Its not catalogued anywhere. This would be the discovery of any history of the world and you would gather too many followers around the world.

Please quote this manuscript.

Sorry I was actually mistaken. The eldest known for sure fragment of the Gospels is from John and not Mark. And it covers John 18: 31-33. Though it is damaged and only the end of the verses are visible.

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

The contentious fragment of Mark dated from around 50 AD is a thought by some to be a fragment of 6: 52-53 thouh only a few leters and words are still visible making identification difficult for sure and they are more or less in the middle of the text making it even harder.

7Q5 - Wikipedia.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Thats very early scholarship. It has moved on immensely since then. Also, its wrong about all the subsequent gospel narratives were on the basis of Mark, Matthew and this so called "Andrews" writings. Very poor scholarship. Maybe someone who had some basic readings of a little bit of biblical literature of the early 20th century.

Nevertheless, all of that maybe good for another thread.
Scholarship today wasn't there 2,000 years ago, at best they are speculating. They have no way of knowing what writings existed immediately after Jesus left or the people involved in the Jesus movement or what may have been added or subtracted from the Gospels when they were in the custody of men.
 

Colt

Well-Known Member
Luke relied on eye witness accounts and existing records by his own admission. Luke got things wrong such as the timing of the birth of Jesus.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Sorry I was actually mistaken. The eldest known for sure fragment of the Gospels is from John and not Mark. And it covers John 18: 31-33. Though it is damaged and only the end of the verses are visible.

Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia

The contentious fragment of Mark dated from around 50 AD is a thought by some to be a fragment of 6: 52-53 thouh only a few leters and words are still visible making identification difficult for sure and they are more or less in the middle of the text making it even harder.

7Q5 - Wikipedia.

You are talking about P52. Oldest manuscript of the NT.

7Q5 has no established confirmation to be part of any of the NT books. Not yet. Also you should note it was found in Qumran, not nag hamadhi. Hope you know the difference.
 
Top