Dating the Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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 »

toejam wrote:... 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)
...
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.
...
Thoughts?
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).
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by maryhelena »

Dating manuscripts does not provide dating of the story recorded within the manuscript. The story might well have had many an incarnation prior to any specific manuscript that is being dated. Thus, while interesting, dating does not trump the story itself. It's the story that is primary not the dating of any manuscripts.

The gospel of Mark is generally thought to be the earliest gospel. If that is so then gMark should be able to demonstrate its priority by virtue of its story. gMark, like the rest of the gospels, is not immune to being updated re its storyline. i.e. later ideas can be added, backdated, to an earlier story. Thus making the story appear contradictory. A mix of the old and the new allows the old to gain a new life, as it were.

A simple way to see this in gMark is to consider Bethsaida:

Philip also built up Paneas at the source of the Jordan, calling it Caesarea, and made a city of the village of Bethsaida. Ant. book 18 ch.2

This upgrading and renaming of Bethsaida, to Bethsaida Julius, is considered to have occurred in the 34th year of the Tetrarch Philip. i.e. prior to 30 c.e. Bethsaida was considered a village. Post 30 c.e. Bethsaida became known as a city.

gMark refers to Bethsaida as a village (or a country town re another translation). gJohn and gLuke refer to Bethsaida as a city.

Thus, the time-frame for the gMark Jesus story is pre 30 c.e. How far does the gMark story go back prior to 30 c.e.? It can go back to an earlier crucifixion story set in the 7th year of Tiberius - 19 or 21 c.e. (the Acts of Pilate re Eusebius). As such, the gMark story is an updated version of the wonder-doer story in Slavonic Josephus. (Josephus dating for Pilate being ambiguous - 19 c.e. to 36/37 c.e.)

gJohn, with the reference to Bethsaida as a city, has moved the crucifixion story to post 30 c.e.

Updates, additions, to the gMark Jesus story that make it appear the story setting was later than pre 30 c.e.? The addition of the John the Baptist/Antipas/Herodias/Salome/Philip story - a story with a post 30 c.e. setting and a story that would have been problematic to have been written prior to 70 c.e. (Salome, re Wikipedia, dying somewhere between 62 and 71 c.e.)

The Antipas/Herodias/Philip story is problematic - gMark saying Herodias was married to Philip while Josephus, in Antiquities, has another story to tell...What can be observed with the story is that it reflects the earlier Archelaus/Glaphyra/Alexander story i.e. the taking of a brother's wife. Archelaus rule being dated from 4 b.c. to 6 c.e. A time in which the Slavonic Josephus story has John the Baptist active.

Later, updated, additions to gMark would include the apocalyptic template, handbill, of gMark ch.13 and the late dating of the temple cleansing. Additions likely added post 70 c.e.

Thus, while no direct dating is given in gMark for it's story setting (apart from the ambiguous dating Josephus gives for Pilate...) the reference to Bethsaida being a village places the setting of this gospel story pre 30 c.e. - thus making it's storyline the earliest dated gospel storyline in the NT.

At the end of the day accurate dating of the writing of the story may never be achieved. Thus, its what the story itself says regarding it's own time-frame that can thrown light on the historical situation from which it emerged. And that, if its early christian origins that we are seeking - is where research should be taking one...
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Charles Wilson »

Peter Kirby wrote: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
1. Thanx for the article, PK. Detering is incorrect and makes a number of Categorical Errors - Type, "Existence-is-not-a-Predicate", exploring a mistaken aspect of Markan vs. Matthean Primacy, etc. It might be worthwhile to start a new Thread on this one.

2. I agree with Detering that Mark and Matthew have a "Source" in front of them but from the fact that Matthew and Mark tell stories of "Jesus", it does not follow that the Source Document talked of "Jesus".

3. Bernard states that the SynApoc cannot be about Bar Kochba and he is correct. Let's see why from a different direction:

Josephus, Antiquities..., 13, 14, , as a starting point with a nod to the surrounding texts:

"SO Demetrius came with an army, and took those that invited him, and pitched his camp near the city Shechem..."

This is Demetrius Eucerus who has been invited in to destroy Alexander Jannaeus, a Hasmonean King and High Priest. Eucerus is a Greek General which immediately gives us a lead-in to understanding the cryptic references to the Book of Daniel. He camps near "Shechem". What is near "Shechem"? That would be the Temple at Gerizim.

Matthew 15: 22 - 24 (RSV):

[22] And behold, a Canaanite woman from that region came out and cried, "Have mercy on me, O Lord, Son of David; my daughter is severely possessed by a demon."
[23] But he did not answer her a word. And his disciples came and begged him, saying, "Send her away, for she is crying after us."
[24] He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

This is from, I assert, the Jannaeus Source and it points to a major indirection from Josephus. Eucerus is camped very near the Temple at Gerizim. Jannaeus is not too concerned with what will be Rabbinical discussions on the proper Temple. Jannaeus supports the Hasmonean conquests throughout Galilee and surrounds because he is after the Rulership and reconstitution of ISRAEL. I appreciate the point made in this Thread that The Decapolis took pride in its identity at the end of the 1st Century. It makes sense and is consistent with the Line that runs through Jannaeus.

Please note the description from Josephus that follows. It is ABSURD (as I often say) and a senseless telling of a Tale that cannot be descriptive of what happened:

"...Demetrius trying to bring off the mercenaries that were with Alexander, because they were Greeks, and Alexander trying to bring off the Jews that were with Demetrius. However, when neither of them could persuade them so to do, they came to a battle, and Demetrius was the conqueror; in which all Alexander's mercenaries were killed, when they had given demonstration of their fidelity and courage. A great number of Demetrius's soldiers were slain also.

"Now as Alexander fled to the mountains, six thousand of the Jews hereupon came together [from Demetrius] to him out of pity at the change of his fortune; upon which Demetrius was afraid, and retired out of the country..."

This is beyond laughable. It is lightly commented on because it is about Jannaeus and not some savior/god. Yet, the Source for Josephus should be the source for Mark/Matthew if not a first rewrite. Mark 13 is simply the retreat of Jannaeus into the mountains and his takeover of Jerusalem after near death starvation in the mountains. It is in sequence and the Story is finessed in Josephus and in the Gospels and in Revelation.

It is finessed because Demetrius Eucerus committed the Appalling Abomination at Gerizim. Please see my other Posts on this or try to play Match'em Up yourself. One more time, to repeat myself, again, look at the Anchor Verse and Compare:

Mark 13: 17 (RSV):

[17] And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days!

"...when he had taken the city, and gotten the men into his power, he brought them to Jerusalem, and did one of the most barbarous actions in the world to them; for as he was feasting with his concubines, in the sight of all the city, he ordered about eight hundred of them to be crucified; and while they were living, he ordered the throats of their children and wives to be cut before their eyes.

There may be references to Bar Kochba somewhere. I would welcome the insight. Here, however, is something of immense importance. 2 major pointers are looking directly at Alexander Jannaeus as the Source for Mark 13 and the SynApoc. Markan Priority vs. Matthean Priority may be important here as Detering says - or not. The arguments, however, should not obscure the point - Mark cannot be earlier than around 100 at the extreme earliest. Nothing in Mark 13 leads anywhere else. If Jay Raskin is true in his linkage of John and Mark and we have a dated fragment of John from circa 125, the Construction of Mark and the Gospels is pinpointed to a period of about 10 - 20 years.

CW
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Stuart »

It is unlikely Mark dates from before the reign of Antoninus.

There are arguably references to the events between 115-118 CE and in the mini-Apocalypse. The Wicked Tenants story is missing from Marcion but is in Mark, and might reference the seizing of imperial estates by Bar Kokhba. There are references to Fiscus Iudiacus, specifically the during the last few years of Domitian. And of course there are names and places drawn incorrectly from Josephus. But these can be argued and debated. (I disagree with one of the identifications by Detering, but on the whole I agree with his arguments)

But the tallest stake in the ground IMO, and most difficult to argue away is the reference to Capernaum as a Polis (Roman City). It is an established fact through archaeological evidence that the Roman camp (ironically or not it was a rest camp for legions doing the work - perhaps reflected in its Greek name) at this location did not achieve that status until the late 120s (circa 128-129 CE) under Hadrian, as part of his road building campaign in the east. It's a ridiculous stretch to claim the very small fishing village (maybe 800 residents) whose name is unknown.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by ficino »

Interesting, Stuart. Do you have expansions on your arguments? 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.

I'd like to hear more about the Fiscus Judaicus.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by DCHindley »

ficino wrote:I'd like to hear more about the Fiscus Judaicus.
Hello ficino,

There were some discussions about this on XTalk (Crosstalk2) in 2003 under the subject line The Coin in the Fish.

In one post, I had stated
The story has elements representing reality after 70 CE, and so I would want to interpret it from a post-70 point of view. Scandalizing (fellow?) Jews was not likely to have been high on the list of motivations the author of Matt would have, assuming he wrote after 70, in my opinion.

FWIW, this is what Fabian E. Udoh has to say in _Tribute and Taxes in Early Roman Palestine_ (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Svcs, 2000 [PhD dissertation 1996, microfilm 1997]):
The Gospel of Matthew also disputes the legitimacy of the temple tax (17:24-27). Here the temple tax is linked with the "tolls and tribute [census] (TELH H KHNSOS)" collected by "the kings of the earth" (Mt. 17:25). Therefore, even if one were to accept that Jesus dealt with the problem of payment of tribute (in Judea) [referring to contemporary interpretation of the pericopes in Mt. 22:15-21; Mk. 12:13-17; and Lk. 20:20-25 - dh], one would be faced with the distinct probability that the context of that problem, as it now appears in the Gospels and in Matthew's Gospel in particular, had shifted to a later period [meaning after 70 CE - dh] when Rome demanded a per capita tribute [i.e., the old temple tax - dh] paid in denarii. (pg 13n21)
And (actually a little earlier):
Matthew 17:24 When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the half-shekel tax went up to Peter and said, "Does not your teacher pay the tax?" 25 He said, "Yes." And when he came home, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute [LAMBANOUSIN TELH H KHNSON]? From their sons or from others?" 26 And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. 27 However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook, and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel; take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."
The heart of this saying is not that the tax money comes from a fish's mouth, but that "sons" of a kingdom are free from "toll" [TELH = the end result, or bottom line, e.g., tribute taxes] or "tribute" [actually KHNSON = census based taxes, but here the context tells us it specifically refers to the per-capita (head) tax and not the property tax].
25b From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tribute? From their sons or from others?"
26a And when he said, "From others,"
26b Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free [of obligation]."
This is clearly a reference to Roman tax practice, in which citizens (at least by the time of the empire) were exempt from the per-capita (poll) tax. Unfortunately, I think the usual translations (I used the RSV above) of TELOS and KHNSOS are reversed from what they should be, and perhaps could be more specific. "From whom do kings of the earth grab tribute or (impose) census-based (taxes)?" ... [Answer:] "From others."

NOW the subject of the type of tax being referenced, the annual temple tax (paid by each eligible individual, i.e., a per-capita tax), becomes relevant. What kind of "earthly king(dom)" is collecting the temple-tax? Is it not the temple hierarchy in the name of the "ethnos" of the Jews? The "ethnos" of the Jews (originally ruled by Archelaus but after 6 CE
apparently by the High Priest) was a legal entity officially recognized by the emperors that allowed Diaspora Jews the right to assemble according to their customs, operate their own courts, and send temple-tax and other gift money to Jerusalem unmolested. In Jesus' time the Temple organization served as its operational center.

By PAYING the temple-tax, Jesus was, in effect, saying that he and Peter were NOT sons of that kingdom, that is, they are NOT Jews (as all individual Jews anywhere in the empire were subjects to the "ethnos" of the Jews). This saying then becomes recognizable as one formed as it is at a point after Christians stopped thinking of themselves as Jews. The didrachma in the fish's mouth tells us that to the author of Matthew, the Christian movement (symbolized by the fish) has superseded the ethnos of the Jews (symbolized by the coin). The fish has grasped hold of the coin, subjugating it to itself.

I think I recall one of you who have been involved in this thread suggested that this would only make sense after 70 when the temple tax was paid directly to the Roman government, so that the king of the earth who imposed the temple tax would be the Roman government. This would mean that the author of Matthew was effectively repudiating Roman governance over Jews.

To interpret the king as referring to God, that would mean Jesus is repudiating God's kingdom, which doesn't make sense, unless one gave it a Gnostic twist (e.g., the God of the Jews is different that Jesus' God). As far as I know, Matthew otherwise does not lend itself well to Gnostic interpretations, although the "others" referred to above is really "foreigners," a term often used by later Gnostics.
Then a little later:
The author [of Mat 17:25-27], through an enthymeme, has established a paradox.

The author of Matthew has Jesus make a point through Simon: Earthly kingdoms impose tribute and head taxes on foreigners (those conquered), not on their own citizens. The only glaring example of a kingdom doing this in that period was the case of the Romans and Roman citizens, so this is probably what he wanted the reader/hearer to think of.

On the other hand, in the period in which the author of Matthew sets the story, the temple-tax was "imposed" (it was actually voluntary) by the temple hierarchy, in the name of the God of the Jews, on all Jews regardless of where they lived, that is, on Jewish "citizens" exclusively.

The author of Matthew had Jesus muse about the tax in such a way as to suggest that Jews who pay the temple tax are not really sons of the "king" that imposed the tax.

The imposer must be either God (as in the kingdom of God), the temple hierarchy as God's earthly representatives, or the post 70 Romans:

1) If God imposes the temple tax, then Jews are not actually part of God's kingdom. This would then be a case of "replacement theology."

2) If the temple authority imposes the temple tax in the name of God, then Jesus is being made to oppose the temple hierarchy as legitimate representatives of God and his kingdom.

3) If the Romans are imposing the temple-tax (after 70), then Jesus is being made to oppose the Romans.

I was implying that the author of Matthew was portraying Jesus as making either point A or B.

Yet there is also the story associated with this paradox in which the temple-tax is paid by means of a miraculous find of a stater in the mouth of a fish. I doubt that anyone ever *actually* caught a fish with a coin in its mouth (although J. Allegro seems to have found some parallels from this general period about odd things being where they shouldn't). So, the fish likely symbolizes something as does the coin, and the coin being in the fishes mouth symbolizes something as well.

To me, the link between the two stories appears to be in the words LAMBANOUSI (take, grasp, grab) in vs 25 and LABWN in vs 27. In a way similar to the way kings of the earth grasp hold of foreigners to exact tribute and taxes, "take [LABWN] that [stater] and give it to them [i.e., the tax collectors] for me and for yourself" (EKEINON LABWN DOS AUTOIS ANTI EMOU KAI SOU).

I took this to mean that either the kingdom of God, or the temple hierarchy as God's representatives, represented by the stater, had been swallowed up by the Christian movement as its replacement. That the stater is taken from the mouth of the fish may be an acknowledgement that in the time of the author the tax was paid to the Romans directly. "Just as you Romans have grasped the Jewish state from its people, we have grasped the kingdom of God from them as well."

If it doesn't mean something like this, what else makes sense? Whatever you come up with, it has to jibe with the implication that those who pay the temple tax are not sons of the kingdom that imposed the tax.
Sorry to self-quote so heavily.

There is also Marius Heemstra, Fiscus Judaicus & the Parting of the Ways (2010), especially chapter 7, "The issue of Jewish identity."

DCH
Garon
Posts: 64
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2013 8:33 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Garon »

LOL.
Tax collector to Peter, Hey you guys gonna pay the tax? Peter, we don't have any money. Jesus, hey Peter you are a fisherman, go fishing catch a fish, sell it, and pay the tax. Peter, But Jesus, isn't this story about some children of a Kingdom or some Christian movement somewhere? Jesus, nope, just catch a fish and sell it to pay the tax.
ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by ficino »

Very interesting. I hadn't encountered this issue before.
slevin
Posts: 45
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 1:07 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by slevin »

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)

πόλις is not found in gMark, at least, not with respect to passages mentioning Capernaum:

There are three places in the text where Mark refers to that ancient fishing village on the north end of Lake Galilee, site of inflow of fresh water:
1. Mark 1:21 http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1 ... f96b94bfc7

This text from Codex Vaticanus, digital edition recently made available online, is located in the upper third of the middle column, adjacent to a red Epsilon with a superscript: here is the same passage in more easily read, lower case script:

Καὶ εἰσπορεύονται εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ ---Westcott and Hort, transliterate Kafar Naum
wikipedia wrote:
כְּפַר נַחוּם, Kfar Nahum, "Nahum's village") was a fishing village in the time of the Hasmoneans.
2. Mark 2:1 Codex Sinaiticus, upper third of the second column, conveniently placed red kappa with superscore, in the margin to the left.
Και ειϲελθων παλι ειϲ καφαρναουμ ---- palin is missing the “n”, perhaps insufficient space?

Both Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus write καφαρναουμ, with a phi, not pi.

3. Mark 9:33---Sinaiticus retains καφαρναουμ
Καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Καπερναούμ Byzantine version—now we see Pi replacing the Phi=”F” phoneme, from ancient times, diluting the correspondence to the Hebrew, perhaps a reflection of strife between Christians and Jews?

So, where are you two coming up with this “city” business?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by maryhelena »

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)

πόλις is not found in gMark, at least, not with respect to passages mentioning Capernaum:

There are three places in the text where Mark refers to that ancient fishing village on the north end of Lake Galilee, site of inflow of fresh water:
1. Mark 1:21 http://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1 ... f96b94bfc7

This text from Codex Vaticanus, digital edition recently made available online, is located in the upper third of the middle column, adjacent to a red Epsilon with a superscript: here is the same passage in more easily read, lower case script:

Καὶ εἰσπορεύονται εἰς Καφαρναοὺμ ---Westcott and Hort, transliterate Kafar Naum
wikipedia wrote:
כְּפַר נַחוּם, Kfar Nahum, "Nahum's village") was a fishing village in the time of the Hasmoneans.
2. Mark 2:1 Codex Sinaiticus, upper third of the second column, conveniently placed red kappa with superscore, in the margin to the left.
Και ειϲελθων παλι ειϲ καφαρναουμ ---- palin is missing the “n”, perhaps insufficient space?

Both Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus write καφαρναουμ, with a phi, not pi.

3. Mark 9:33---Sinaiticus retains καφαρναουμ
Καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς Καπερναούμ Byzantine version—now we see Pi replacing the Phi=”F” phoneme, from ancient times, diluting the correspondence to the Hebrew, perhaps a reflection of strife between Christians and Jews?

So, where are you two coming up with this “city” business?
Thanks for the info on Capernaum... ;)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Post Reply