Dating the Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by toejam »

When do you date the Gospel of Mark?

I'm about half way through James Crossley's The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (2004). He argues for a circa early-40sCE date.

The first half of the book primarily addresses the standard arguments for a 65-75CE date and attempts to show how many are either ill-conceived or can also be read from the point of view of earlier times (most prominently from the 'Caligula crisis' of c.37CE). I'm about to start the second half which will discuss Mark's references to disputes over Torah observance and how this supposedly favors a 40sCE reading. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

But after reading as far as I have, contrary to Crossley's goal, I think I'm even more convinced already that 65-75CE remains the stronger option. It's not that I think Crossley's alternate interpretations are necessarily wrong - he does do a good job of pointing out potential problems with the standard reading. But at the same time, if we're going to attempt to read something out of the text with the goal of trying to determine a most-plausible date, then surely the most natural reading of verses like 12:9, 13:1-2, and the 'cursing of the fig-tree' pericope sandwiching the incident at the Temple pericope etc. reflect a time post-Temple-fall. His alternative earlier plausibilities don't override this more natural reading IMO.

Couple those verses with some early-ish church father references who state the gospel was composed after the death of Peter (of whom we have no indication of an early death, only traditions of him dying in the 60sCE), plus the fact that we have no definitive allusions to it in Paul or other potentially pre-70CE writings (Didache, James, Hebrews etc. - not to mention the fact that Acts never speaks of a written gospel in the early years) and I think it's a pretty safe bet that it falls somewhere post-65CE, most reasonably 70-75CE.

But maybe I'll be blown away in the upcoming chapters. His evidence+argument is going to have to be pretty darn good. I just can't see it happening given the underwhelming rebuttal of the standard arguments for 65-75CE. Will see...

Thoughts?
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Charles Wilson »

toejam wrote:When do you date the Gospel of Mark?
The use of "Holy Spirit" as a name for Domitian gives a clue. The HS is void of features, a disembodied god. The "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" replaces the "Baptism of John" which was barely out of the suggestion box which further gives information: Domitian underwent Damnatio Memoriae shortly after his death and thus became "Disembodied". No mention of him was allowed, all of his statues were destroyed, etc.

I'm still looking at Vergenius Rufus as a Player in this although to everyone on this site, it's Kook Stuff. That's OK. Still, it pushes the date of Mark one year later to around 97. The Project became Objectified around the Flavians no earlier than this date and that's a stretch.

Make it an even "100 CE" as the absolute earliest. Probably 110.

Best,

CW

EDIT PS:

The Construction ends up as something like this:
1. "The Sign's Gospel": The Glories of Titus are composed around the Flavian Exploits of the Destruction of Judea. If you look at the Sign's Gospel on PK's Early Christian Writings site, you can tease out the Titus stuff from the Alexander Jannaeus material.
2. The Hasmoneans have been given an assignment into Jehoiarib (and "Immer") and the Priestly Courses have been given Settlements in Upper Galilee. These assignments are Idealized and Piyyutim are written in Praise of these Groups and Settlements later. One of these Stories is quite long and bitter, showing that the House of Eleazar has been beaten down twice, once at the death of Herod and 12 years later. It is Hasmonean and gives praises to Jannaeus, the King and High Priest.
3. Sometime between the death of Titus and the reign of Domitian, a Project is begun that combines this Sign's gospel with the Story of Peter with the intention of showing that the Flavians have been given the Promises made to the Priestly Families. It cannot be in finished form since Domitian has not been Damned yet.
4. Jay Raskin, esteemed member of this Forum has a wonderful analysis showing that John and Mark are related by writing from a common Document.
5. Bernard Muller, esteemed member of this Forum, has shown that the Tomb Scene has probably been grafted onto Mark and therefore the Gospels.
6. Joe Atwill has shown that the 4 versions of the Tomb Scene may be ordered in a manner that eliminates Contradictions in the Storyline, with who appeared first and came last, etc. The Tomb Scene thus began as a unified Story.

7. I believe that there are pointers to Pliny the Younger and Tacitus composing the Tomb Scene around the death of Otho (who was the last of the Emperors given a Vote of Confidence by Vespasian and his Legions) and Verginius Rufus, who was offered Imperial Honors at the death of Otho (Indeed, offered on several occasions...). VR bugs out the side door when the soldiers appear to offer him the Throne, giving a reasonable explanation of the "Empty Tomb". Your mileage may vary.

8. Domitian dies and is Damned.
9. The Project of the Deification of the Flavians is undertaken in earnest. Previous emperors all had Signs - owls, seats being turned backwards, etc. (See Dio, esp.) - to announce the gods' intentions towards each emperor. With the material at hand, an entire Religious Construction can be made. The Tomb Scene is divided into 4 parts as the insufficiencies of Mark become apparent and John has to be padded with lotsa' material to take advantage of the new philosophical movements.
10. Some group has to be intimately connected with the Priestly Groups in order to write what is there. Michael Weitzman may point the way here.
11. Even Acts is a Flavian Construction around Mucianus and the 12th Legion.

It's why I say that 100 CE is the absolute earliest with 110 being "Just about right".
slevin
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:07 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by slevin »

Charles Wilson wrote: I'm still looking at Vergenius Rufus as a Player in this although to everyone on this site, it's Kook Stuff. That's OK. Still, it pushes the date of Mark one year later to around 97. The Project became Objectified around the Flavians no earlier than this date and that's a stretch.
Make it an even "100 CE" as the absolute earliest. Probably 110.
Stephan Huller wrote: This always becomes the problem WITHOUT any citation of actual ancient Christian witnesses - it's all subjectively interpreted.
So, then, who is the earliest "actual ancient Christian witness" to ANY of the books of the canon?

I claim, based on reading the archives, provided by Peter Kirby, and reading on this forum as well, that the earliest "legitimate", relatively uncontested, "actual ancient Christian witness" for the texts of the New Testament, is found in the writings of Justin Martyr, who called the texts in his possession, "Memoirs of the Apostles", but the quotes he gives, appear to correspond most closely to the gospel of Matthew. I find it interesting, perusing the archives, that no one mentions the epistles of Paul, the "thirteenth apostle", until the Bishop of Lugdunum, in the late 2nd century CE. Should we not, then, regard the dates of Paul's epistles as having been "subjectively interpreted", or is there another, reliable witness, before Justin Martyr, someone perhaps overlooked, in reading the archives?

If true, no witness before 150CE, then that would suggest that the gospels of Mark and Matthew "sat around" for four decades (if Charles Wilson is correct about the date of 110 CE) until Justin Martyr wrote about them, or does this silence of "actual ancient Christian witnesses" indicate, instead, perhaps, that the gospel of Mark and therefore, gMatthew, had not been created until Justin Martyr's time?

What is there about General Rufus that leads you to imagine that he may have authored gMark? Why not Tacitus, or Pliny the younger, Rufus' adopted son, if you imagine a Roman author, rather than an Alexandrian Greek? General Rufus seems to have been an uber patriot, with a military background in upper Germany, rather than an orientation to northern Egypt. If he were going to elaborate a fictional tale, like gMark, why not base it on the legends of the north Germanic peoples? Yes, he composed some poetry, now lost. Did he write in Latin, or Greek?
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Charles Wilson »

slevin wrote:What is there about General Rufus that leads you to imagine that he may have authored gMark? Why not Tacitus, or Pliny the younger, Rufus' adopted son...
Thank you, Slevin. I'm not asserting that V Rufus wrote Mark. Tacitus and Pliny the Younger gave the funeral oration for VR and Pliny the Younger in other letters asks Tacitus to "Immortalize" Pliny the Elder in his writings. Tacitus is everywhere in Acts, especially. I'm still tracking some of the sea and land descriptions in Acts to see how far Tacitus' work went.

Verginius Rufus and Otho just "fell out of the sky" for me a few months ago so I'm still working on the Thesis. Nonetheless, the bare skeleton (no pun intended) matches up nicely. At the death of Otho, people immediately look for someone to replace the "hastily buried" emperor Otho. The awkwardness of "Hastily buried..." and the simple memorial to Otho at Brixillum is apparent. It supports the idea that the "Empty Tomb" is a construction. The people immediately look for Verginius Rufus and they find an empty house. Vitellius is absolutely despised by the Flavians and in no way is worthy of being considered an emperor.

I might be wrong with this one but the work of Jay Raskin and Bernard Muller here is very good, if pointing to different ends than I do. With the Priestly Courses List (Uzi Leibner, Settlements...), the basic Construct is VERY good. It is almost complete, it is falsifiable, it is consistent.

Thanx again and more later if it would be helpful.

CW
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8033
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Peter Kirby »

In this article, Detering argues for a date ca. 130 from the evidence of the Little Apocalypse (Mark 13):

http://www.radikalkritik.de/Mk13%20JHC.pdf
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by perseusomega9 »

With more scholars dating Luke-Acts to somewhere around mid-second century, how long before the inertia is overcome and we start seeing serious re-appraisals of the consensus dating of the other two synoptics?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Bernard Muller »

I argued winter of 70-71 here: http://historical-jesus.info/41.html
At the very end of that blog post, I wrote:
There is no evidence that Jerusalem was besieged by Roman armies in 135. Also, the rebel Jews were unlikely to make a stand at Jerusalem, then an unwalled fully destroyed city with no natural defence on the northern side. Besides, the "desolation is near", that is not inflicted yet (in 135, it would be 65 years old!).
See also Lk 21:21b & 24.

I claim, based on reading the archives, provided by Peter Kirby, and reading on this forum as well, that the earliest "legitimate", relatively uncontested, "actual ancient Christian witness" for the texts of the New Testament, is found in the writings of Justin Martyr, who called the texts in his possession, "Memoirs of the Apostles", but the quotes he gives, appear to correspond most closely to the gospel of Matthew.
And also gLuke, and gMark:
Trypho CVI "He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder [only in GMark (3:17)];"
Trypho CV "For when Christ was giving up His spirit on the cross, He said, 'Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit,' [only in Lk23:46] as I have learned also from the memoirs."
Trypho CIII "For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them,
[as for Mark and the author of GLuke (according to Lk1:1-2)]
[it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, [only in Lk22:44]"
I find it interesting, perusing the archives, that no one mentions the epistles of Paul, the "thirteenth apostle", until the Bishop of Lugdunum, in the late 2nd century CE. Should we not, then, regard the dates of Paul's epistles as having been "subjectively interpreted", or is there another, reliable witness, before Justin Martyr, someone perhaps overlooked, in reading the archives?
Paul was never considered the "thirteenth apostle".
"apostles" does not mean only eyewitnesses of Jesus or the alleged 12 in the Christian literature of antiquity, starting by Paul's own epistles.
Mentions of Pauline epistles before Irenaeus:
1 Clement: 80-81, Ignatian epistle 'to the Ephesians': 130, Polycarp's epistle: 140-160.
From http://historical-jesus.info/64.html:
outside the writings of gnostic Marcion, Naassenes, Basilides & Ptolemy, Paul is mentioned in '1 Clement', 'Colossians', 'Acts of Apostles', 'Ephesians', '2 Thessalonians', '1 Timothy', '2 Timothy', 'Titus', '2 Peter', Ignatian 'to the Ephesians', Polycarp's epistle and 'Epistola Apostolorum'. All these texts are dated before 160 by most critical scholars. Also, these writings, with the exception of 'Acts' and the 'Epistola', are either pseudo-Pauline letters or mention Paul wrote letter(s).
There is evidence in gMark that "Mark" knew about some of Paul's epistles (or Paul's preaching):
http://historical-jesus.info/66.html
If true, no witness before 150CE, then that would suggest that the gospels of Mark and Matthew "sat around" for four decades (if Charles Wilson is correct about the date of 110 CE) until Justin Martyr wrote about them, or does this silence of "actual ancient Christian witnesses" indicate, instead, perhaps, that the gospel of Mark and therefore, gMatthew, had not been created until Justin Martyr's time?

Dating of gMatthew: http://historical-jesus.info/57.html (around 85-90)
Elements from gMatthew appear in writings from 93 to 98: Didache, Revelation, epistle of Barnabas: http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html
Elements from gMark appear in Q (http://historical-jesus.info/q.html) & gMatthew.
There are more external evidence about the gospels: see http://historical-jesus.info/gospels.html

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by outhouse »

perseusomega9 wrote:With more scholars dating Luke-Acts to somewhere around mid-second century, how long before the inertia is overcome and we start seeing serious re-appraisals of the consensus dating of the other two synoptics?
When you can show a connection, between the two others.

There is no connection, other then it being plagiarized
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by outhouse »

Bernard Muller wrote:I argued winter of 70-71 here:


Cordially, Bernard

Which is a safe bet for compilation.

People get lost in this dating due to this piece being compiled. Those who claim earlier dates have great points, as some of the material may have existed in written and or oral traditions from very early on.

But it doesn't change the date of compilation. I see a need for written documents after the temple fell, as oral traditions were no longer being shared at Passover. Preservation now became important.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by neilgodfrey »

toejam wrote:When do you date the Gospel of Mark?

I'm about half way through James Crossley's The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (2004). He argues for a circa early-40sCE date.. . . .

Thoughts?
I was blown away by those following chapters but not for the reasons Crossley might have hoped. I wrote a fairly detailed criticism of his argument at Dating Mark Early. I'd like to repost it here but it is quite lengthy and there would be a lot of editing involved.

In another post I address some of his points more briefly and I copy with some redaction the main part of that one here. I wrote this 5 years ago so I don't know if I would have the same thoughts if I re-read Crossley now.
Crossley presents three specific arguments to date Mark before 40 ce:
  1. the way he wrote about the disciples plucking corn on the sabbath could be interpreted by the unwary to mean that Jesus was abolishing the sabbath; but since other arguments “establish” this was not the case, the ambiguity in Mark’s narrative “demonstrates” that he wrote at a time when all Christians would have understood that Jesus plainly did not abolish the sabbath — and therefore at a time when all Christians were taking sabbath keeping for granted — i.e. before 40 ce.
  2. the way he worded Jesus’ saying in the divorce controversy appears on the face of it to mean that divorce is not allowed under any circumstances; but since it can be argued that Mark’s Jesus was always a stickler for the biblical law, and the biblical law did allow for divorce, it is “clear” that Mark did not mean his audience to read his words literally, but to assume that Jesus “meant” to allow for divorce for “the obvious reasons” anyway — and this also “proves” that Mark wrote very early before any divorce discussions arose in the church — i.e. before 40 ce.
  3. the way Mark chose his words in describing the handwashing controversy left it open for later readers to think that Jesus was declaring all foods clean, thus abolishing the biblical food laws; but since on other grounds it can be argued that Mark’s Jesus always observed biblical laws on principle, we can infer that Mark was writing at a time when his audience took this for granted and understood Jesus was not abolishing the food laws at all. — i.e. even earlier before 40 ce.
Any one of these arguments, Crossley admits, may not be persuasive for all readers, but together they become an argument of “cumulative weight” and therefore much stronger. The maths proves it: 0+0+0=3. [Okay, was that maths comment overdoing it?]

In one place in his book, The Date of Mark’s Gospel, he says that the first two arguments are the strongest case; but elsewhere he says the third is the strongest. I’ve dealt with one part of #1 here, and will deal with #3 in this post.

Crossley belabours the point that Mark was actually addressing the tradition of handwashing, and not Levitical food laws, in Mark 7:1-23. . . . I have no problem agreeing with his argument that Mark may indeed have been addressing handwashing throughout, and not necessarily levitical food laws. I once belonged to a church that argued exactly that and even Crossley says on his blog that he has no problem using fundamentalist arguments sometimes since statistically they have to be right occasionally.

Anyway, to get to the point of how this dates Mark so early, Crossley can only say that Mark’s Jesus utters words that leave the question ambiguous — is he talking about declaring all foods clean really, or is he taking it for granted that he means only those foods that are kosher?

This ambiguity supposedly makes some sort of case for believing Mark wrote at a time when all Christians would have understood perfectly well that Mark meant that Jesus was only speaking of kosher foods — since all Christians at the time he wrote ate only kosher. Therefore it was before 40 ce that he wrote.

Crossley does not address what is addressed by other scholars — that it is unclear if the phrase “thus declaring all foods clean” is an editorial comment, a later redaction, or even a plausible translation for the context.

Crossley also shuns anything approaching literary analysis of the text (this can be labelled “overinterpreting” it) and so does not address the many ambiguities throughout Mark. Hence Crossley lifts the ambiguity of this passage in question from its broader literary context to make his point.

As for the logic of the argument — the author must have meant either X or Y and nothing else is conceivable -- I don’t think I need to belabor the obvious.
Am I being overcritical? I thought a PhD thesis (and Crossley's book is a publication of his thesis) was meant to address the full range of arguments related to a thesis but Crossley's approach seemed to me to bew very narrow and one-sided and forced with a host of thinly supported assumptions. Maurice Casey -- the one who argued that some of the twelve disciples walked around with Jesus, wax tablets in hand, jotting down things he said for later reference but that unfortunately some of these wax tablets were difficult to read later -- was his thesis advisor.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Post Reply