Dating the Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
slevin
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:07 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by slevin »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:
If I noticed it right, then you share more traditonal positions in the understanding of the gospel. Based on this, it seems to me that the name Decapolis is the best indication against an early dating.

There is a growing consensus among modern German historians that the name Decapolis may have originated only from the middle of the 1st century (AD). Until the end of the 1st century, the name Coele-Syria was used in official documents and inscriptions. It seems that the name Decapolis was a creation of the inhabitants of the area, to emphasize their Greek culture and probably also to distance themselves from Judea. Besides GMark the earliest sources for the name Decapolis are Josephus (Bellum III 9,7; Vita 65) and Pliny the Elder (Nat. Hist. 5,16,74).

I read books on the subject by "real" historians (not biblical scholars) whose interest were only the Decapolis and not the Gospels. I was very convinced of the late origin of the name Decapolis. German historian Robert Wenning argued for a date between the death of Herod Agrippa I (44 AD) and the beginning of the Jewish war (to emphasize loyal support of Rome).
Thank you for this Kunigunde!
Can you help me, please. I don't follow your logic, here. the name Decapolis is the best indication against an early dating , no disagreement, but, then, German historian Robert Wenning argued for a date between the death of Herod Agrippa I (44 AD) and the beginning of the Jewish war (to emphasize loyal support of Rome), in other words, if I have understood you, Wenning argues for a date betwen 44 CE, and 70 CE? How is that not an early date?

It seems that the name Decapolis was a creation of the inhabitants of the area, to emphasize their Greek culture and probably also to distance themselves from Judea.
Can you furnish a link to a bit of text to support this claim?

Again, if Pliny Elder had already noted the name Decapolis, would that not reinforce, rather than repudiate, the argument favoring an early date for gMark? I simply do not follow your idea.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

slevin wrote:Can you help me, please. I don't follow your logic, here. the name Decapolis is the best indication against an early dating , no disagreement, but, then, German historian Robert Wenning argued for a date between the death of Herod Agrippa I (44 AD) and the beginning of the Jewish war (to emphasize loyal support of Rome), in other words, if I have understood you, Wenning argues for a date betwen 44 CE, and 70 CE? How is that not an early date?
Well... R. Pesch argues that the passion narrative must have been written before 37 CE because "the high priest," Caiaphas, is mentioned without any name. This is said to be because he was still around, powerful, and dangerous. Some would extend that to the entire Gospel of Mark.

Early, late, etc. are subjective terms. They should really be banished because they cause this very kind of confusion.

(Besides, "German historian Robert Wenning" is dating the origin of the term Decapolis. His interest was "only the Decapolis and not the Gospels.")
slevin wrote:Again, if Pliny Elder had already noted the name Decapolis, would that not reinforce, rather than repudiate, the argument favoring an early date for gMark? I simply do not follow your idea.
Pliny the Elder wrote ca. 77 CE. This fits with the argument that the Decapolis is an expression that "originated only from the middle of the 1st century (AD)." If the purpose was "to emphasize loyal support of Rome," this is because the question of loyalties came to the fore in the middle of the first century.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by DCHindley »

slevin wrote:
Stuart wrote: But the tallest stake in the ground IMO, and most difficult to argue away is the reference to Capernaum as a Polis (Roman City).
ficino wrote: The "polis" argument comes up with regard to Nazareth, too. Defenders of earlier dating just say that the evangelist uses the word loosely, and they point to places where "polis" need not or does not refer to municipalities that had legal polis status.
πόλις corresponds to town, not city, (Liddell and Scott)
...

So, where are you two coming up with this “city” business?
Look it up on Perseus.com, which has Liddell-Scott-Jones, the so-called "Middle Liddell", and two other lexicons, which all agree. The Middle-Liddell definition (sort of cut down, but not omitting any of the definitions as far as I can see):
πόλις city,

πόλις noun sg fem nom
πόλις noun pl fem acc epic doric ionic aeolic

πόλις 1 gen. πόλεως dissyll. in attic Poets ionic and doric πόλιος dissyll. in Il.

I.doric πολίεσι:—acc. πόλεις, πόλιας:— a city, Hom., Hes., etc.; πόλις ἄκρη and ἀκροτάτη, ῀ ἀκρόπολις, the citadel, Il.: this at Athens was often called simply πόλις, while the rest of the city was called ἄστυ, Thuc., etc.:—the name of the city was often added in gen., Ἰλίου π., Ἄργους π. the city of . . , Aesch., etc.; also in appos., ἡ Μένδη π. Thuc.

2.one's city or country, Od., etc.

II.when πόλις and ἄστυ are joined, the former is the body of citizens, the latter their dwellings, Il.; ὧν πόλις ἀνάριθμος ὄλλυται, where πόλις = a number of citizens, Soph.:—hence,

2.the state (πολιτεία), Hes., Pind., attic: esp. a free state, republic, Soph., Xen., etc.

3.the right of citizenship, like Lat. civitas, Ar., Dem.
Are you thinking of Follet's The Classic Greek Dictionary: Greek-English and English-Greek? If one looks up "Town" in the English-Greek section (page 241) one gets the Greek πόλις as defined above (as Follet used Liddell & Scott = "Middle Liddell" without attribution). The exact same Greek definition is also given for "City." The Greek word πόλις is as defined above (city/citadel/body of citizens) with no mention of "town".

Being published in 1954 as an aid for students of private schools and colleges which still exposed students to the "classics" in the original languages (a similar volume exists for classical Latin), "town" was a US equivalent to "city" (incorporated entity with 5,000+ residents in USA), or "village" (incorporated entity, under 5,000 residents). We call smaller, unincorporated districts "townships" here. In the UK commonwealth, perhaps different standards prevail or prevailed.

If you think about it, including "town" (a defined area of dwellings that is not a formally constituted Greek style city state or Roman colony) in the definition for πόλις by some modern authorities may actually be an accommodation to the fact the NT here used the term for a relatively small fishing village, so as not to make the this NT passage seem to be in "error".

I do concede that there may be at the same time a proper classical use of the term, and a common popular use of it for any collection of dwellings, perhaps surrounded by a fence or wall of some kind.

DCH
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by ficino »

slevin wrote:
πόλις corresponds to town, not city, (Liddell and Scott)
??? I am looking at LSJ now, and their first definiton of πόλις is "city." They also give "one's city or country," "country as dependent on and called after its city," "community or body of citizens" and the like, "rights of citizenship." The only place in their article where I see "town" is a citation of Odyssey 11.14, where they say πόλις "denotes the town [their italics]" as opposed to the δῆμος, the people.
πόλις is not found in gMark, at least, not with respect to passages mentioning Capernaum:
The word πόλις does occur in Mark:
6:56 "And wherever he would enter in his travels, into villages (κώμας) or into πόλεις or into fields/countryside (ἀγρούς)..."

Strong's Corcordance shows seven other instances of πόλις in Mark. It is applied to:
Capernaum 1:33
Jerusalem 11:19, 14:13, 16
other instances are either plural or I can't see at a glance the name of the place

Greek didn't have a linguistic distinction corresponding to our distinction between town and city, when that distinction in English depends on size. Their nomenclature tended to be based more on type of political organization. A κώμη would be a political dependency of a πόλις much of the time.

Nazareth called a polis (here I transl as "city" for convenience): Luke 1:26 (to a 'city' of Galilee to which the name was Nazareth), 2:4 (from Galilee from the city Nazareth to Judaea to the city of David), 2:39, Luke 4:29 (says it was built on a hill that had a cliff), Matt.2:23 took residence in a city called Nazareth

Mogens Hansen in Polis: An Introduction to the Greek City-State, says that in addition to this loose usage of polis for what we call either a town or a city, in the Roman period there was still a legal distinction between a polis and a village, a κώμη. He says that in Hellenistic and Roman times, a community could achieve "polis" status by royal or imperial decree, and it could lose that status in the same way (52-54). He gives the example of Pallantion in Arcadia, called a polis in classical writers, a "kome" in Roman period, but in second cent. CE recovered "polis" status by imperial decree.
Hansen also talks about the sense of "polis" as built-up centre as opposed to the "chora," the farming area outside, which consisted of villages, komai, or farmsteads (69). Most city states had as territory the polis and the chora, except for a few, like Sparta, that were described as inhabited "by komas," i.e. various villages and no single centre.

Hansen says that in the Roman period, there were far more villages, komai, outside cities than during the classical period, because of increased safety and no need for walls (133). In the Hellenistic and Roman periods, there were many more settlements explicitly classified as "komai" than earlier, esp. in the eastern part of the Greek world (72).

He does cite a few references where "polis" refers to "territory" or "country/region" (131 n. 23).
slevin
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:07 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by slevin »

ficino wrote:Strong's Corcordance shows seven other instances of πόλις in Mark. It is applied to:
Capernaum 1:33
Thank you, ficino. Well done.

In my defense, I would have to admit to a predisposition to spending too much time with codex Sinaiticus, which, at Mark 1:33, does not have πόλις.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

I don't know why that particular phrase had been omitted in Sinaiticus' Mark 1:33. One possibility, I suppose, is that the "polis" introduction/modification, came LATER, after Sinaiticus had already gone to press. I have no idea why someone would add that sentence, but my inclination is to believe that it was not scribal error, nor carelessness, which led to its omission in Mark 1:33 of Codex Sinaiticus.

I did not consult, as yet, Vaticanus, but my supposition is that polis would be present in Mark 1:33, at the Vatican's copy of Mark's gospel. I write that because of Mark 1:1, in which, for Sinaiticus, "son of god" is omitted. There is much not found in Sinaiticus. I view it as the gold standard.

I certainly would be loathe to date Mark's gospel on the presence of a single word which is absent in our oldest extant copy of Mark. The absence of "polis" in Mark 1:33, Codex Sinaiticus, rebuffs the notion, that the date of authorship of Mark's gospel is mid first century, presumptive date for Pliny the Elder's use of the term, Decapolis. If I write kerosene lantern, or horse and buggy, does that mean that I am writing in the nineteenth century?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8042
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

slevin wrote:I certainly would be loathe to date Mark's gospel on the presence of a single word which is absent in our oldest extant copy of Mark. The absence of "polis" in Mark 1:33, Codex Sinaiticus, rebuffs the notion, that the date of authorship of Mark's gospel is mid first century, presumptive date for Pliny the Elder's use of the term, Decapolis. If I write kerosene lantern, or horse and buggy, does that mean that I am writing in the nineteenth century?
Nobody's making that argument.

Again, quoting Kunigunde, "German historian Robert Wenning" is dating the origin of the term Decapolis. His interest was "only the Decapolis and not the Gospels." The range of dates given had nothing to do with the dating of the Gospel of Mark, directly. It regarded the origin of the term Decapolis, which is itself only one possible piece of evidence in dating Mark's gospel, and speaking (as you note) only to the terminus a quo, not the terminus ad quem.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
slevin
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:07 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by slevin »

DCHindley wrote:If you think about it, including "town" (a defined area of dwellings that is not a formally constituted Greek style city state or Roman colony) in the definition for πόλις by some modern authorities may actually be an accommodation to the fact the NT here used the term for a relatively small fishing village, so as not to make the this NT passage seem to be in "error".

I do concede that there may be at the same time a proper classical use of the term, and a common popular use of it for any collection of dwellings, perhaps surrounded by a fence or wall of some kind.
Thank you DCHindley, well written, very insightful, thanks.

I should have written, but did not, that I saw two issues:
a. Whether or not Καφαρναοὺμ, in the second century (when I believe Mark's gospel was created), was a village, or a city.
b. Whether or not Mark defined Καφαρναοὺμ as a city, πόλις.

I deny the latter, notwithstanding Hort Westcott's version, based on my reading of Codex Sinaiticus' Mark 1:33, which contains no reference to πόλις.

Logically, in that era, a town (sitting on the fence between village and city) without walls, had been clearly small, insignificant, and not particularly wealthy. Since excavations in the last century, have confirmed absence of any wall, I conclude that it had been, in the mid second century, a mere fishing village. To the best of my knowledge, Καφαρναοὺμ was not included in the region called Decapolis, a territory, which, in my opinion, extended southeast, starting from the southeastern shore of Lake Galilee, not the northern shore where the fresh water source of the lake was located.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by John T »

IMHO,
The Nabataean (Aramaic off-shoot) version of Mark was written in the mid 30's.
The more popular Greek version was written very shortly after the suicide of Nero around 68 A.D.
Of course the oral Aramaic/Essene tradition of Mark started in 30 A.D.
Be as that may, when it was written is not as important as why it was written.

V/R
John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by ficino »

slevin wrote:
I did not consult, as yet, Vaticanus, but my supposition is that polis would be present in Mark 1:33, at the Vatican's copy of Mark's gospel. I write that because of Mark 1:1, in which, for Sinaiticus, "son of god" is omitted. There is much not found in Sinaiticus. I view it as the gold standard.
Yes, πόλις is present in Mark 1:33 in the Vaticanus.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

slevin wrote:Thank you for this Kunigunde!
Can you help me, please. I don't follow your logic, here. the name Decapolis is the best indication against an early dating , no disagreement, but, then, German historian Robert Wenning argued for a date between the death of Herod Agrippa I (44 AD) and the beginning of the Jewish war (to emphasize loyal support of Rome), in other words, if I have understood you, Wenning argues for a date betwen 44 CE, and 70 CE? How is that not an early date?
answer: ;)
Peter Kirby wrote:Again, quoting Kunigunde, "German historian Robert Wenning" is dating the origin of the term Decapolis. His interest was "only the Decapolis and not the Gospels." The range of dates given had nothing to do with the dating of the Gospel of Mark, directly. It regarded the origin of the term Decapolis, which is itself only one possible piece of evidence in dating Mark's gospel, and speaking (as you note) only to the terminus a quo, not the terminus ad quem.
slevin wrote:It seems that the name Decapolis was a creation of the inhabitants of the area, to emphasize their Greek culture and probably also to distance themselves from Judea. Can you furnish a link to a bit of text to support this claim?
Sorry, but I have only that German text: Robert Wenning, "Die Dekapolis und die Nabatäer. He has an article at Brill in English. The preview is here:
The thesis of a Decapolis founded by Pompey in 63 bce as a Hellenistic bastion against the Arabs in the East is outmoded. A self-concept as Decapolis (Gk “ten cities”) arose only in the middle of the 1st century ce when a few cities of Coelesyria attempted to escape new Herodian sovereignty by proclaiming their autonomy in the Provincia Syria (cf. the beginning of minting municipal coins with the city Tyche: Canatha 38/39, Skythopolis 39/40 [Beth-Shean], Gerasa and Hippos 67/68 ce; only Gadara, rebuilt by Pompey, minted coins from 63 bce on). In the resumption of Seleucid administration im…
slevin wrote:Again, if Pliny Elder had already noted the name Decapolis, would that not reinforce, rather than repudiate, the argument favoring an early date for gMark? I simply do not follow your idea.
The case of Wenning is in short:
The word "Decapolis" is not named in Strabo's "Geography", but he mentioned many cities of the Decapolis. The term is not found in inscriptions or on coins, but the cities of the Decapolis had their own coinage in the middle of the first century. In all official documents or inscriptions the region of the Decapolis is named in the first century as part of the wider region Coele Syria.
Post Reply