(7 votes, average: 4.86 out of 5)
Loading...How much historical information about Jesus does the Gospel of Mark present? How do you date an ancient manuscript? Why does Mark have a “messianic secret”?
These are among the very good questions I’ve received recently, and here is how I’ve tried to answer them succinctly.
******************************
QUESTION:
How much of the historical Jesus does Mark capture, either purposefully or accidentally?
RESPONSE:
Well, it’s impossible to put a percentage on it. For one thing, if it’s correct that Jesus’ lived for, say, 30-33 years (who knows?), it’s worth noting that Mark’s Gospel takes roughly two hours to read/recite. Necessarily he would have captured only a tiny fraction of the historical Jesus’ life, even if he is 100% accurate.
He’s clearly not 100% accurate, so the question for most historical scholars is not how much of his life does he capture but how accurate is the information that he does give.
That’s impossible to quantify definitively, in no small measure be because different scholars would give different responses (though none of them in a percentage!).
What most agree on is that of the four surviving primary sources, Mark is the oldest, the basis for two of the others, and on balance somewhat more likely to be providing relatively accurate material than the others. None of them can be used on their own, though; as with all historical sources for anything or anyone, they have to be used in combination and in light of each other.
You like this post? It's free! However, you'll need to be a blog member to read most articles here. Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week. Membership starts at $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
******************************
QUESTION
What is the process of assigning an ancient text to a certain a year? For example, where do you get 375 CE for the earliest text of Matthew? Do the authors write the year? Thanks!
RESPONSE:
I think you’re not asking when the text of Matthew was written (which was 80-85 CE or so) but when the oldest particular manuscript that has a complete copy of Matthew was produced. The two oldest are called Codex Sinaiticus (because it was discovered at St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai) and Codex Vaticanus (because for centuries it had been kept in the Vatican library. Why do we (I) typically say they date from around 375 CE?
There’s a discipline called “palaeography” (literally “ancient writing”) that dates manuscripts, principally on the basis of handwriting analysis. Since everything in antiquity was written by hand (no photocopiers!); and since the styles of writing in ancient languages changed over the course of decades/generations; and since some (not many!) manuscripts in, say, Greek and Latin have dates attached to them, we can know what handwriting generally looked like in this generation and that. Expert Greek palaeographers can date a manuscript within about 50 years. These two were both probably written somewhere between 350 and 400 CE or so, and so we can say 375 CE, plus or minus 25 years. As you can imagine, different palaeographers come up with different dates for various manuscripts, and while there can be broad consensus sometimes, there is rarely any date that is absolutely definitive.
You can also carbon 14 date the writing material — in this case parchment — but that requires using small pieces of it that are destroyed in the analysis, making it a less preferred method. When used, of course, they take small pieces that don’t have any ink on them! In any event, since it is based measuring the half-life of carbon 14, found in all organic material until it dies, this kind of text can certainly tell you (again) a range of dates within which it appears the the animal whose skin is being used (or the plant that is being used, in the case of papyrus) died, but not when the skin (or plan) was processed into a writing material or when, later, it was written on. Its usually thought that if the animal/plant was killed at a relatively determinable time, it was processed into parchment/papyrus and used as a writing material not long after, but that’s not necessarily always the case.
******************************
QUESTION:
Is the “Messianic Secret” indicative of an oral tradition that Jesus never said he was the Messiah and Mark had to come up with a reason why?
(Quick) RESPONSE:
That’s one of the explanations people have. The way to evaluate it is to see if there are any indications that Jesus did call himself the messiah (that is, historically, apart from the fact that in a Gospel such as Mark he tries to keep it secret).
My sense is that he did tell his disciples, and that’s how the authorities found out about it and crucified him for it. But it wasn’t widely talked about in his life, and Mark may be explaining *that*.
We have two goals at Ehrman Blog. One is to increase your knowledge of the New Testament and early Christianity. The other is to raise money for charity! In fact, in 2022, we raised over $360,000 for the charities below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.Over $2 Million Donated to Charity!
Share Bart’s Post on These Platforms
33 Comments
Leave A Comment
Hey Bart, Have you always held that Jesus saw himself as a Messiah? I strongly agree with this conclusion (it’s hard to explain away its prevalence in all early Pauline creeds and the gospels) but I didn’t know you actually held to it?
Nope. I of course thought that as an evangelical. From about the time of my PhD until probably 25 years ago or so I did not always think so. what ended up (or at least started) convincing me is that there is no other real way to explain his execution for calling himself king of the Jews (= messiah).
Dear Bart,
Whilst I can find where you’ve dated Papias here on your blog (130-140), I can’t find where you have done so in print. Have you, and if so, where, please?
Many thanks in advance.
Everywhere I talk about him. 🙂 (E.g., Jesus INterrupted, ch. 4; Jesus Before the Gsopels, pp 111 ff). But over the years I have fluctuated on precise dates, though always putting him between 110-140 CE.
Aha! That’s very useful – thank you. I’ve just looked up what you’ve written about Papias in Jesus before the gospels, and I also found your introduction to Papias in Loeb.
In both, you provide the range Papias is normally found within, but don’t explain why. Have you ever gone into the reasons why scholars place Papias in the opening decades of the second century?
The reason I ask is that I understand Papias used to be dated around the death of Polycarp (155) due to mistaking Papias for Papylas. Also, under Hadrian (117–138), again for misidentifying Papias, this time with Quadratus of Athens. As both of these have generally been accepted as errors, I’m left wondering why some scholars still place Papias in the 110-140 range – on what basis do they do so now?
I would be grateful for your view on the matter. Is the 110-140 range a hangover of a past, and erroneous dating, and scholars have been slow to update this assessment? Notably Carlson (2021:1), who has guest posted on this blog, places Papias in final years of the 1st C, rather than the opening of the 2nd C. Perhaps Papias’ date deserves reconsideration?
The dating is usually provided based on teh assumption that he is telling the truth that he knows people who were familiar with some of the followers of the disciples of Jesus. If Jesus’ disciples were all decesased by, say, 60-65, then their adult followrs were probably deceased 30 years or so later and …. So I imagine people are just doing the math. I don’t rememer off hand Stephen’s argument. Most people — not him — date Papias early because the think somehow he is living in the same generation of John AND because if he’s “early” then more obviously he must be fairly “accurate.” (It’s a funny argument, or at least assumption. It means people living today are accurate about what they say. What would that even mean??)
Stephen Carlson has this: “Unfortunately, the evidence does not permit us to be more precise than T2 Eusebius, Chronicle 2114, who places Papias in the reign of Trajan (98-117) on the basis of the testimony of T1 Irenaeus, AH 5.33.4, which identifies Papias as a disciple of Jesus’s disciple John, a comrade of Polycarp, and a “man of old.” This characterisation and the lack of any secure knowledge of the Gospel of John on Papias’s part favours an earlier rather than later date in the second century.” (Carlson2021:1 n7)
It seems Carlson is arguing for a late 1st C date, presumably 98-100, rather than a “later date in the second century.” Carlson’s point about Papias living in the same generation of Polycarp and knowing a disciple of Jesus is supported by Papias’ use of the present tense when speaking of two of Jesus’ disciples (John and Aristion) who were alive when he conducted his research – this would also favour a 1st C date. This, and lack of knowledge of GJn, has persuaded Carlson to place it there.
Have you seen the ‘math justification’ (65 + 30 + 30) for Papias’ date published anywhere? I can’t find it myself.
Yes, that appears to be his view. And no, I haven’t seen anyone crunch the numbers. I will say that what matters is not which scholar says what but such as it is, the *evidence* and the *argument*. I clearly remember one time hearing James Charlesworth make a claim to Matthew Black about the date of the Similitudes 1 Enoch and saying that “everyone now agrees” on it, and Black gently but firmly responding, “But Jim, that’s not evidence.” (!)
It’s interesting the argument used to date Papias isn’t published. I suppose the date that “everyone agrees” upon rests on common consent, rather than evidence or argument (the Charlesworth position).
Conversely, Carlson’s date isn’t the commonly agreed one (he places it in the late 1st C, rather than early 2nd), and he uses external evidence (Irenaeus and Eusebius) and internal evidence (lack of awareness of GJn) to justify this (the Black position).
I suspect the date of Papias owes more to when it was dated in the modern era (mistaking Papias for Papylas, and then later, Quadratus of Athens) and very few have been brave enough to follow the evidence for an alternative date – it’s much safer to stick to the date “everyone agrees” upon.
I don’t know if it’s published or not (and why would that be interesting? are you suggesting that it’s somehow mysterious or “telling”? I’m not following.) Not everyone does agree on the date, btw, but those who do so tend to do so not because everyone else says so but because when they look at the evidence this seems (to most of them) the best way to understand it.
We don’t know, by the way, that Papias was unaware of John. How could we possibly know that? (And I certainly don’t think Eusebius is helpful “evidence” for the date. Think of Eusebius’s own investments in the issue). The bigger question is how to make sense of what Papias actually says about himself in relation to the traditions he cites. Those are the best grounds for making a judgment about the date.
“Have you seen the ‘math justification’ (65 + 30 + 30) for Papias’ date published anywhere?”
Papias (via Eusebius):
“If, then, any one who had attended on the elders came,
I asked minutely after their sayings – what Andrew or Peter SAID,
or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas,
or by James, or by John, or by Matthew.”
So we have:
The Twelve (Philip, Thomas, etc.) → The elders → Those who attended the elders → Papias
As Bart says:
“If Jesus’ disciples were all decesased by, say, 60-65, then their adult followers were probably deceased 30 years or so later and …”
I think the math is 30 for ‘The elders’ plus 30 for ‘Those who attended the elders’
I think Papias did live in the same generation of John (the prebyster), early 2 century.
He knew our canonical Mark, a proto Matthew (just some Jesus sayings,Q?), but nothing about our Luke or John.
Hi charrua,
Yes, I understand the logic, but no scholar has published this reasoning. I suspect it’s because there is an internal flaw, as two of Jesus’ disciples were said to be still active when Papias conducted his research. If we opt for a 65+30+30=125 date for Papias’ research, then this would only be possible if one of two options were correct:
a) Both Aristion and John were born as late as the year 10, followed Jesus in their late teens and were active in the year 125, meaning they would have lived to at least 115 years old.
b) Papias conducted his research in the closing decades of the 1st C when both Aristion and John were active and then waited 30 to 40 years before composing his work.
The first of these options is absurd – the second is only slightly less so. Whilst we could imagine an author composing their memoirs toward the end of their life, recalling events from three or four decades earlier, I have yet to find anyone in antiquity who conducted research for a work of this genre, and then left an interval of so many decades before composing it.
Hi Lev!
The Twelve (Philip, Thomas, etc.) → The elders → Those who attended the elders → Papias
Aristion and the presbyter John → Papias
Interestingly, while the Twelve and the elders were already dead,
and “those who attended the elders” were arguably older than Papias,
Aristion and the presbyter John were still alive and spoke directly to him .
Mmmmmmm, I think Aristion and John were just deceivers.
Supernaturally extended lives for people living in Jesus’s time was something early Christians believed in.
Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. IV.3) reproduced this passage from a letter by Quadratus to Emperor Hadrian (117-138):
“But the works of our Saviour were always present … those that were healed, and were raised from the dead… were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to OUR DAY.”
were alive FOR QUITE A WHILE …apperently they finnaly died.
Then we have John 21:23-24.
It seems that this passage was written AFTER the “disciple who is bearing witness” had finally died,even though there was an expectation that he “was not to die.”
I believe the BD was some Christian leader in the early first century who claimed to be a direct ‘disciple’ of Jesus.
Maybe the same John Papias listened to ….
Hi churrua,
You seem to be starting with a conclusion (Papias wrote c125), and trying to make it work by having Aristion and John as ‘decievers’ (what’s the evidence they were? Careful not to make a circular argument in response).
A better approach is to start with the evidence and draw a theory from that.
A natural reading of Papias’ prologue is that he was conducting his research at a time when most of Jesus’ disciples had passed on (so after the 60s and 70s), yet two of Jesus’ disciples were plausibly alive and active (80s or early 90s). At this time, there were also people who “attended the elders” (disciples of the disciples of Jesus – people like Polycarp, Clement of Rome, etc.) who were also circulating and could be interviewed.
This also aligns with what we know from external sources, such as Irenaeus, who indicates Papias was of the same generation as Polycarp, and therefore someone whose life overlapped with some disciples of Jesus. We can conclude that Papias probably conducted his research in the closing decades of the 1st C.
By following the internal and external evidence, we can create a reasonable and credible theory of the date of Papias.
Hi Lev ! (again 🙂 )
“You seem to be starting with a conclusion (Papias wrote c. 125).”
I just explained the math for those who think he wrote around 125, based on 60–65 + 30 + 30.
You may not agree with that, but you can’t speak about “starting with a conclusion” when I was just explaining the math behind that conclusion!
“What’s the evidence they were?”
In Papias’ time (no matter when), two “Christian generations” had already passed away (Jesus’ followers and the Elders),
and the third (those who attended the Elders) were arguably older than Papias himself,
since he did not attend the Elders directly.
But “Aristion and John” claimed to be of the same generation as Jesus’ followers and yet…
they somehow ended up roaming around tiny Hierapolis—quite a distance from Galilee, certainly.
Of course, I have no evidence they were deceivers; I just do not trust their claims.
“We know from external sources, such as Irenaeus…”
You know Irenaeus was eager to establish an apostolic link with Jesus, and Polycarp’s John was very useful for that!
I do believe in the “two tombs in Ephesus” story, but I think neither of them belonged to a direct disciple of Jesus.
Hi charrua,
Yes, the 65+30+30 math only works if we assume that:
1. The elders and the disciples are not compatible – that is, you cannot be a disciple and an elder. This would mean the elders are 2nd generation, and the attenders of the elders are 3rd generation.
2. The disciples, the elders, and their attenders could not be alive at the same time. This means the first two generations died before the 3rd generation spoke with Papias.
These are bold and radical assumptions that are not historically proven – the apostles appointed elders and had attenders, such as Mark, Luke, Timothy, Silas, Clement, and Polycarp, whose lives overlapped with one another. I propose these assumptions are designed to make the evidence fit a theory, rather than make a theory fit the evidence.
A historically plausible theory (that flows from the evidence) is that the disciples appointed elders, and some of the disciples became elders (John is described as both by Papias). These disciples and elders also had attenders whose lives overlapped with one another, and they shared what they heard with Papias in the late 1st C.
‘The elders and the disciples are not compatible – that is, you cannot be a disciple and an elder.’
Indeed, calling the disciples (Thomas, Matthew, etc.) Elders would be a bold and radical assumption, not the other way around.
Andrew, Peter, Philip, and the rest of the Twelve were referred to as apostles or disciples of the Lord, but never as elders.
The case of John the Elder demonstrates that Papias distinguished between John the Apostle and another John, the Elder. This means that elder was not an adjective that could be applied to one of the Twelve.
‘The disciples, the elders, and their attenders could not be alive at the same time.’
On the contrary, they were alive at the same time—otherwise, how could the attendants have learned from the elders?
The same logic applies to the disciples and the Elders.
I think there is some confusion about the numbers. The +30 does not mean they died at 30 years old!
Scholars likely estimated the timeline something like this:
a) The disciples – died around 60-65 CE
b) The elders – born around 40 CE, died around 95 CE (+30 years)
c) The attendants of the elders – born around 70 CE, died around 125 CE (+30 years)
Hi Lev !
Even if we date Papias’ testimony to the 80s or early 90s, the story of Aristion and John remains strange.
As you know, Jesus’ followers in the early 30s were mostly low-ranking rural peasants,
meaning their life expectancy was quite low.
The idea that, 50 or 60 years later, some of them were visiting (or living in) Hierapolis seems implausible to me.
Papias’ account of Judas’ fate shows that he was quick to believe anything—someone evidently fabricated a bizarre tale, and he repeated it in his book without realizing it was obviously made up.
Perhaps Eusebius was not so wrong in calling Papias “a man of very limited understanding,” even though he himself repeated other extravagant tales from Papias, such as the story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas, who supposedly drank a deadly poison and, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.
Interestingly, in this same passage (Ecclesiastical History 3.39.9), Eusebius reports that
“Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters.”
So, not only did Aristion and John supposedly end up in Hierapolis, but Philip and his daughters settled there as well…
Apparently, the almost unknown city of Hierapolis became a gathering point for many ‘disciples of the Lord’!
Hi charrua,
On the disciples = elders question. I think it’s possible that Papias’ John was a disciple of Jesus who wasn’t the apostle John (as Bauckham argues). That is, he was a follower of Jesus outside the twelve.
Moreover, we have early texts that were said to have been composed by apostles who claim to be elders (cf: 1Peter5:1, 2John1:1, 3John1:1) – whether these epistles were composed by apostles or not doesn’t matter for our purpose – that they were thought to be is more important as it means it was considered plausible.
Even if these epistles were pseudographical, it means in the late 1st C (when the majority date these epistles, and when I date Papias), it was thought that apostles could be elders. This means these two offices were not believed to be incompatible in the late 1st C.
On the question of lifespans, yes! I agree with you. The disciples, the elders, and the attendees’ lifespans did overlap—that’s the point I’m making. If we accept this and that Papias’ Elder John was a disciple of Jesus whose life ended around 100, that means Papias was probably conducting his research in the 80s or 90s.
Hi charrua,
On the question of Hierapolis. Papias says he interviewed those who had memory of the disciples who had already died, or who had heard living disciples who had recently spoken. Papias doesn’t claim to have met with living disciples themselves, so it’s doubtful any disciples lived in Hierapolis. He claims to have met the daughters of Philip in Hierapolis, but not Philip himself.
Ephesus wasn’t that far from Hierapolis, and was the major regional city. That senior Christians such as Priscilla and Aquilla, Paul, John, etc. ministered there is no surprise. Aristion is thought to have served as Bishop in nearby Smyrna, so Papias seems to have interviewed travellers who had passed through Ephesus and Smyrna, and who told him what John and Aristion were saying.
You’re correct to say that people who lived in rural settings tended to die early in ancient times. Life was backbreaking hard in the countryside, and if you didn’t continue to engage in hard manual labour you could easily find an early grave. However, the disciples of Jesus who pursued an active ministry after the first easter tended to work in urban settings ministering to the churches, rather than engage in punishingly hard manual labour.
Dear Bart,
Thanks for your response. I find it interesting that we cannot detect any published justification for the date of Papias as this strikes me as one of those texts that was dated to a certain era (early to mid 2nd C) on other grounds (misidentifying Papias for Papylas or Quadratus of Athens) – but since those grounds have been rejected as flawed, no critical reassessment seems to have taken place leaving the “common view” suspended in mid-air without any support.
Carlson has (very briefly) taken his own swing at Papias and has dated it significantly earlier (almost 50 years earlier than the upper limit of 140) and within the lifespan of one disciple, so even with the most modest of reassessments, we’ve seen a dramatic shift in date.
I think this is important as Papias is almost always discussed when assessing the provenance of GMk, our earliest gospel. If Papias was conducting his research at a time when living disciples were active, then this increases the chances that he preserved accurate accounts. If he were conducting his research 40 or 50 years later, relying on accounts from elderly eyewitnesses of those disciples, then that decreases the chances their accounts are accurate.
Papias doesn’t claim to have met with living disciples themselves.”
Yet, Eusebius states:
“And Papias… says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John.” (H.E. 3.39.7)
“He claims to have met the daughters of Philip in Hierapolis, but not Philip himself.”
I never said that Papias met Philip, but let’s read the passage from Eusebius:
“That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated.
But it must be noted here that Papias, THEIR CONTEMPORARY, relates that in his time one rose from the dead.” (H.E. 3.39.9)
It is unclear whether Papias was a contemporary of both Philip and his daughters or just the daughters.
However, it seems that Philip not only lived in Hierapolis but also died there (H.E. 3.31.3).
I believe that all the information regarding Philip and his daughters (one that rose from the dead!) originated from the same source—Papias.
I trust that he was sincere, but I also think he was gullible, ready to believe anyone—whether it was the four prophetesses from Hierapolis, Aristion, or John.
There’s no need to argue about Jesus’ disciples drastically changing their ways of life just to end up in Hierapolis, speaking with Papias 50, 60, or more years after Jesus’ death.
Where are you on the idea of a Pauline influence on Mark?
Thanks!
I don’t think there’s anything to suggest Mark had read any of the letters of Paul we now have; manyof his views are like those of Paul, but they are like those of lots of other folks as well. So I guess I see similarities but no compelling evidence of direct influence.
I had a wild thought. What if the author of Mark (“Mark”) privately was skeptical of the resurrection? Perhaps the abrupt ending with only women as witnesses – (who may have been seen as less reliable in that time and place) was a deliberate way to “telegraph” to the readers who could read between the lines that maybe this is all a bit too much to believe.
Interesting idea. You’ll be interested in my upcoming lectures on Other Doubting Thomases. (I’ll be announcing them soon)
Hey Bart, I thought I’d ask this question here (let me know if another forum is appropriate). In “Jesus Interupted”, you say “best attested sayings of Jesus found in a number of our independent sources is a prediction that at the coming onslaught, at the end of the age, the Temple itself would be destroyed (Mark 13:2; 14:58; 15:29). The Temple? The center of the worship of the God of Israel? Isn’t that a blasphemous thought?
Some Jews evidently thought so. This is what ended up getting Jesus into trouble.”
Interesting, but isn’t the fact that Jesus predicts the destruction of the Temple in Mark that we can date Mark after CE 70?
I’d say that the fact of a prediction is not compelling evidence that Mark must be after 70 CE, since we have hard evidence from other Jews definitely living before the destruction who predicted it as well. It’s the *way* Jesus predicts it (i.e., the details of what he says) and the fact that later writers so insistently indicated he predicted it that show *these texts* were written after 70 — a very different matter!
I see, that’s an important detail I missed. Thanks Bart.
The dating of Mark and other gospels is such a fascinating topic. Definitely a controversial one. I am sure many have written extensively about it. I’ve only come across what appear to be summaries of the discussions. Who are some people who deal with the subject matter in greater depth? Thanks, love your work, big fan.
Any decent commentary on Mark will discuss the date. Two of the best are the ones by Joel Marcus (in my view, the best) in the Anchor Bible and Adela Yarbro Collins.
“2oldest are called Codex Sinaiticus: ”
“somewhere between 350 & 400 CE or so, ”
HOW does carbon dating agree or not with these copies of Matthew?
BeagoAi: “… primarily because carbon dating is a destructive process, and these manuscripts are too valuable to risk damaging. Instead, scholars rely on paleography (the study of ancient handwriting) & other historical methods to date these manuscripts.”
They haven’t been carbon dated. If they were, it would still entail a range of dates and in any event would date when the animal was killed whose skin was later processed into a writing material (not when the material was processed and not when it was written upon)