quick question for the group:
If we assume Mark ( the first gospel written) was written around 65-70CE; it is reasonable to assume that the author of Mark wrote with the understanding or idea that Jesus’ disciples were still alive?
I’ve been focused on the verses in which Jesus speaks of the “imminent” return within the lifetime of the disciples. Mark 13:30 “30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” It does seem that Jesus and later Paul preached about the return of “the son of man” as something that would happen soon.
Would the author of Mark include these verses which obviously suggest Jesus was wrong ( that the return didn’t happen in their lifetime) if he was writing around 65-70CE unless he felt they were still alive? Is it reasonable to assume they would have died by this time?
any feedback would be appreciate. Thanks.
I have been researching this topic for about two years. I now conclude that Mark was written in Rome during the reign of Claudius, as Eusebius indicated.
Mark and Matthew make no mention of Jesus’ circumcision, whereas Luke and John both do.
The Circumcision controversy was settled in 49 AD.
One of the best articles on the subject is here: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
No, I think that’s too early. In this case I think the mainstream scholarly consensus is correct. A Roman provenance reflecting the mid-60s Neronic persecution and the ongoing events of the First Jewish revolt.
If “Mark” wrote the gospel based on the recollections of Peter as the tradition claims why does the gospel have such an unremittingly negative view of the disciples? And more interestingly, why does the soteriology of the gospel more closely resemble that of Paul than the views of the early Jerusalem community?
Mark 13.1-2 suggests Mark knew of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by Rome in 70 CE. However, if Jesus had predicted the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (he was an apocalyptic prophet, after all), like Jeremiah had predicted the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE, Mark’s Gospel could predate 70.
john76 said
Mark 13.1-2 suggests Mark knew of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by Rome in 70 CE. However, if Jesus had predicted the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (he was an apocalyptic prophet, after all), like Jeremiah had predicted the Babylonian destruction of the First Temple in 586 BCE, Mark’s Gospel could predate 70.
Jesus probably prophecied some sort of destruction of the temple, but maybe not the way it actually happened. Although Mark 13 indicates some knowledge of the 60’es, the gospel’s date is mostly derived from its relationship to other Christian writings: it post-dates Paul and is used by Luke and Matthew. The difficult problem is to fix it more precisely within the interval 65-75.
Any criticism by Jesus of the Temple system could have been interpreted by later Christians as a prediction of its destruction. The problem is that both the hypothetical prediction and its “fulfillment” are long past. Prophecies are much more impressive when they predict future events which then come about. Interesting that only seems to happen in the past.
It is an interesting textual question as to whether or not Mark 13 was part of the original gospel, or was it a stand alone that got interpolated? If the latter then maybe the bulk of the work was earlier and the “little Apocalypse” was added after the revolt. But who knows? You have to assume that it took some length of time to compose the gospel. It seems to reflect a dark time when the believers were under some kind of distress. The only time of distress we are aware of before the revolt was the tradition of a persecution under Nero. This would have directly affected a community in Rome rather than the revolt which would have put Jews in Rome in hot water but its’ hard to see why a little sect like the Christians, and gentiles at that, would get blamed for the revolt. So I’m right back where I started. 65ish to 75ish but remember… only the madman is sure.
Jesus clearly seemed to be against the corrupt, Roman loving temple cult (hence the temple tantrum pericope – though this story was probably legendary since there would have been guards in the temple to prevent just such a disturbance), and Jesus may have believed that the very existence of the corrupt temple was actually preventing God bringing about the end of the age that Jesus so dearly desired.
john76 said
Jesus clearly seemed to be against the corrupt, Roman loving temple cult (hence the temple tantrum pericope – though this story was probably legendary since there would have been guards in the temple to prevent just such a disturbance), and Jesus may have believed that the very existence of the corrupt temple was actually preventing God bringing about the end of the age that Jesus so dearly desired.
There was probably some kind of breach of regulations that lead to his execution, later legendary embellished as The Cleansing of the Temple. Or else he would not have been executed. And very likely he had some ideas about a rebuilding of the temple on the final arrival of the Kingdom. There is quite a distance between these ideas and Mark 13.
The clues for more precise dating is usually taken to be 13:7 and 13:14. 13:7 indicates that something horrible has happened, but that Jesus still did not return, and 13:14 hints at a desecration of the temple. So, shortly after the uprising had ended maybe CE 71-72.
gavriel said
There was probably some kind of breach of regulations that lead to his execution, later legendary embellished as The Cleansing of the Temple. Or else he would not have been executed. And very likely he had some ideas about a rebuilding of the temple on the final arrival of the Kingdom. There is quite a distance between these ideas and Mark 13.
The clues for more precise dating is usually taken to be 13:7 and 13:14. 13:7 indicates that something horrible has happened, but that Jesus still did not return, and 13:14 hints at a desecration of the temple. So, shortly after the uprising had ended maybe CE 71-72.
Maybe the destruction of the temple provided a spark for the emerging Christian tradition because Jesus’ apocalyptic prediction was seen as beginning to come to pass, and this inspired Mark to collect stories about Jesus and write his gospel over the next couple of years.
I always thought there must be a relationship between the “incident” in the Temple and Jesus’ arrest but all the traditions separate the two.. Got to get Judas in there I suppose. But if there was any kind of orchestrated disturbance how does Jesus get off the Temple grounds without being arrested? Surely in such an apocalyptically crazy culture these kind of incidents must have happened fairly regularly. Especially at Passover. So the temple guard just let Jesus and his friends slip away?
If it didn’t do anything else the destruction of Jerusalem severed any connection the gentile churches had, however tenuous, with the “home” church.
Stephen said
I always thought there must be a relationship between the “incident” in the Temple and Jesus’ arrest but all the traditions separate the two.. Got to get Judas in there I suppose. But if there was any kind of orchestrated disturbance how does Jesus get off the Temple grounds without being arrested? Surely in such an apocalyptically crazy culture these kind of incidents must have happened fairly regularly. Especially at Passover. So the temple guard just let Jesus and his friends slip away?
If it didn’t do anything else the destruction of Jerusalem severed any connection the gentile churches had, however tenuous, with the “home” church.
I think Mark’s exposition of Pilate’s actions and intentions is less likely if seen as produced against the backdrop of Nero’s persecutions. Mark’s Pilate is too friendly and negotiating. The end of the revolt fits better, because it can be seen as the result of an erroneous Jewish social direction, and the logical outcome of the former rejection of Jesus.
It may be that the cleansing incident was a very minor incident, may be a heated discussion ending with the kicking down of a table or two. And really only one in a long row of incidences, may be hours of daily preaching on the temple ground, considered to be annoying, sectarian and possibly insulting. There would have been no single-event that could lead to arrest on the spot. This can explain a build-up of hostility, and the final acceptance of Judas’s offer.
The final nail in the coffin of an early dating of Mark is probably the Barabbas story. It looks suspiciously like an allegory of the choice between a God-guided road to the restoration of the Kingdom and the way of an armed uprising. If so, Mark is written after 66 and more likely after it had failed or when failure was inevitable.
Just to clarify my own personal opinion (assuming I’m actually qualified to have an opinion of course), I’m fully satisfied with the mainstream scholarly view that the composition of the gospel of Mark reflects the situation of the first revolt. However my perception is that this composition was not a matter of months but of years. I would want to argue that the fallout from the the Neronic persecution was part of the impetus for the composition. I don’t think this is a particularly radical position. Sure the gospel knows the revolt but the aftershocks of the Neronic persecution are there (as it is are in other parts of the NT).
gavriel said
I think Mark’s exposition of Pilate’s actions and intentions is less likely if seen as produced against the backdrop of Nero’s persecutions. Mark’s Pilate is too friendly and negotiating. The end of the revolt fits better, because it can be seen as the result of an erroneous Jewish social direction, and the logical outcome of the former rejection of Jesus.
It may be that the cleansing incident was a very minor incident, may be a heated discussion ending with the kicking down of a table or two. And really only one in a long row of incidences, may be hours of daily preaching on the temple ground, considered to be annoying, sectarian and possibly insulting. There would have been no single-event that could lead to arrest on the spot. This can explain a build-up of hostility, and the final acceptance of Judas’s offer.
There is no reason to think Jesus was betrayed by Judas, because this could quite clearly be legendary embellishment.
It’s interesting to question the historicity of the various elements of Mark’s crucifixion narrative. Regarding this, the 2nd edition of “The Jewish Annotated New Testament (text box, pg. 99) ” points out:
<blockquote> “Mark highlights a number of events in such a way as to fulfill passages from Psalms and Isaiah:
<strong> Mark </strong>
14.1 Kill by stealth, Ps 10.7-8
14.10-11 Betray him (Judas), Isa 53.6, 12
14.18 The one eating with me, Ps 41.9
14.24 Blood poured out for many, Isa 53.12
14.57 False testimony, Ps 27.12; 35.11
14.61;15.5 Silence before accusers, Ps 38.13-14? Isa 53.7?
14.65 Spit, slap, Isa 50.6
15.5, 39 Amazement of nations and kings, Isa 52.15
15.6-15 Criminal saved, righteous killed, Isa 53.6, 12
15.24 Divided his clothes, Ps 22.18
15.29 Derided him and shook their, Ps 22.7; 109.25
15.30-31 Save yourself!, Ps 22.8
15.32 Taunted him, Ps 22.6
15.34 Why have you forsaken me, Ps 22.1
15.36 Gave him sour wine to drink, Ps 69.21
These connections call into question whether the events Mark depicts actually occurred or whether they were introduced into the narrative to establish that Jesus died in “accordance with the scriptures (1 Cor 15.3-4). </blockquote>
To these passage identified in the 2nd edition of the “Jewish Annotated New Testament,” I would add that some think the actual act of the crucifixion of Jesus itself may be unhistorical, and ultimately derived from scripture:
(1) The implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24) may derive from Psalm 22:16b. The Septuagint Greek reading “dug” in Psalm 22:16b, which The New Testament writers would have been familiar with, might be thought to prefigure the piercing of Jesus’ hands and feet in Mark 24.
(2) Paul understanding of the crucifixion as Christ dying “according to the scriptures” is one of Jesus being “hung on a tree” in the sense explained in the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul writes: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree (Galatians 3:13).” This is Paul’s interpretation and application of Deuteronomy, which says “His corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:23).”
It seems reasonable to admit skepticism about the historicity of any or all of these elements. On the other hand, none of this is relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus himself, since legendary embellishment is just as much expected on the historical Jesus theory as it is the mythical Jesus theory. And, of course, Paul met Jesus’ brother (Galatians 1:19), which on its own invalidates Jesus mythicism.
john76 said
There is no reason to think Jesus was betrayed by Judas, because this could quite clearly be legendary embellishment.
It’s interesting to question the historicity of the various elements of Mark’s crucifixion narrative. Regarding this, the 2nd edition of “The Jewish Annotated New Testament (text box, pg. 99) ” points out:
“Mark highlights a number of events in such a way as to fulfill passages from Psalms and Isaiah:
Mark
14.1 Kill by stealth, Ps 10.7-8
14.10-11 Betray him (Judas), Isa 53.6, 12
14.18 The one eating with me, Ps 41.9
14.24 Blood poured out for many, Isa 53.12
14.57 False testimony, Ps 27.12; 35.11
14.61;15.5 Silence before accusers, Ps 38.13-14? Isa 53.7?
14.65 Spit, slap, Isa 50.6
15.5, 39 Amazement of nations and kings, Isa 52.15
15.6-15 Criminal saved, righteous killed, Isa 53.6, 12
15.24 Divided his clothes, Ps 22.18
15.29 Derided him and shook their, Ps 22.7; 109.25
15.30-31 Save yourself!, Ps 22.8
15.32 Taunted him, Ps 22.6
15.34 Why have you forsaken me, Ps 22.1
15.36 Gave him sour wine to drink, Ps 69.21
These connections call into question whether the events Mark depicts actually occurred or whether they were introduced into the narrative to establish that Jesus died in “accordance with the scriptures (1 Cor 15.3-4).
To these passage identified in the 2nd edition of the “Jewish Annotated New Testament,” I would add that some think the actual act of the crucifixion of Jesus itself may be unhistorical, and ultimately derived from scripture:
(1) The implicit piercing of hands and feet (Mark 24) may derive from Psalm 22:16b. The Septuagint Greek reading “dug” in Psalm 22:16b, which The New Testament writers would have been familiar with, might be thought to prefigure the piercing of Jesus’ hands and feet in Mark 24.
(2) Paul understanding of the crucifixion as Christ dying “according to the scriptures” is one of Jesus being “hung on a tree” in the sense explained in the Hebrew Scriptures. Paul writes: “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. For it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree (Galatians 3:13).” This is Paul’s interpretation and application of Deuteronomy, which says “His corpse shall not hang all night on the tree, but you shall surely bury him on the same day (for he who is hanged is accursed of God), so that you do not defile your land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:23).”
It seems reasonable to admit skepticism about the historicity of any or all of these elements. On the other hand, none of this is relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus himself, since legendary embellishment is just as much expected on the historical Jesus theory as it is the mythical Jesus theory. And, of course, Paul met Jesus’ brother (Galatians 1:19), which on its own invalidates Jesus mythicism.
One last thought. There is no question, like the impaled, just man of Plato’s Republic (Plat. Rep. 2.362a), Jesus was a good man who died by impaling crucifixion. However, because this very crucifixion was (very early) interpreted theologically in terms of Psalm 22:16b (Mark’s use of the Septuagint in Mark 24) and Deuteronomy 21:23 (Paul’s “Hung on a tree in Galatians 3:13), it is possible that Jesus himself felt it was his theological mission to die of crucifixion to fulfill such scriptures as Deuteronomy and Psalms, just as he probably felt it was his mission to fulfill Zechariah 9:9 with the way he entered into Jerusalem.
john76 said
One last thought. There is no question, like the impaled, just man of Plato’s Republic (Plat. Rep. 2.362a), Jesus was a good man who died by impaling crucifixion. However, because this very crucifixion was (very early) interpreted theologically in terms of Psalm 22:16b (Mark’s use of the Septuagint in Mark 24) and Deuteronomy 21:23 (Paul’s “Hung on a tree in Galatians 3:13), it is possible that Jesus himself felt it was his theological mission to die of crucifixion to fulfill such scriptures as Deuteronomy and Psalms, just as he probably felt it was his mission to fulfill Zechariah 9:9 with the way he entered into Jerusalem.
I had another thought. As I said, Jesus may have thought it was his theological mission from God to die by crucifixion because he had the same interpretation of Deuteronomy 21:23 that Paul had in Galatians 3:13. Jesus may have acted in his life to try to bring about his own crucifixion to fulfill God’s mission for him, even though the outcome terrified him (as evidenced by the Gethsemane episode). And, the Septuagint rendering of Psalm 22:16b may have further inspired Jesus along this way (Jesus would not have read the Greek Septuagint, but its rendering rendering of “dug” may have been noted around Jesus’ time because of the similarity to the Roman act of hand/feet piercing crucifixion).
john76 said
One last thought. There is no question, like the impaled, just man of Plato’s Republic (Plat. Rep. 2.362a), Jesus was a good man who died by impaling crucifixion. However, because this very crucifixion was (very early) interpreted theologically in terms of Psalm 22:16b (Mark’s use of the Septuagint in Mark 24) and Deuteronomy 21:23 (Paul’s “Hung on a tree in Galatians 3:13), it is possible that Jesus himself felt it was his theological mission to die of crucifixion to fulfill such scriptures as Deuteronomy and Psalms, just as he probably felt it was his mission to fulfill Zechariah 9:9 with the way he entered into Jerusalem.
I think that early Christianity mined these explanations from Scripture after the event. They went looking for some kind of explanation of a shocking event. You will have to search ancient Jewish history prior to the crucifixion for a Messiah figure based on these “predictions”.
gavriel said
If one or more gospels started circulating as early as let’s say the mid 40’ies, one would have expected some reflections in the letters of Paul, which are all most likely post 48-50 CE.
This is “Argumentum ex silentio”
Why should we expect Paul to have openly reflected on written Gospel accounts? If he was smart, he would not have made open references to them. 
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert