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?
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?