(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...Who actually wrote the Gospel of Mark? When? And Why?
In my previous post I laid out the major themes and emphases of Mark’s Gospel, and now I want to turn to some of the key historical issues about it. I begin with the author.
The two most important things to note are (1) every surviving manuscript that preserves a title ascribes the book to Mark, either calling it “The Gospel according to Mark” or “The Holy Gospel according to Mark,” or just “According to Mark” and (2) these manuscripts were produced over three centuries after the book was placed in circulation.
Our oldest two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for you fellow Bible nerds) come from toward the end of the fourth century (around 375 CE), and they have the titles (“According to Mark”). What about manuscripts before then? We just have no information (since these are our two earliest). But it does mean that some 300 years after Mark had been circulating, scribes copying it were entitling it that. And how much earlier than that? Two hundred years? Fifty years? Three years? Take your guess.
It’s no surprise that scribes were giving it this title by this time, since outside the manuscripts, the book was ascribed to Mark much earlier. John Mark is mentioned in the book of Acts as a Jew from Jerusalem; he comes to be associated with both Peter and Paul. Already by the early second century we hear of a story that Mark was Peter’s secretary (interpreter? translator?), who listened to him preach, and then wrote down his (Peter’s) version of what Jesus said and did. The story first comes to us in Papias, a Christian author from around 130 CE.
There are two major problems with thinking that Papias’s statement demonstrates that Mark wrote this book. One is that there is no way of knowing that Papias was referring to the book we have. He mentions a Gospel; he says Mark produced it from Peter’s teachings; but he doesn’t say what is in it or quote it – so there’s no way of knowing for certain that he’s talking about our Mark.
I’m not just being overly skeptical here. As I pointed out in my post on Matthew, the only two things Papias says about the Gospel Matthew allegedly wrote are not true of our Matthew. In that case he either appears to be referring to a different book altogether to shows his own information is not reliable. So too with Mark?
The other problem the quotations of Papias in later sources (we don’t have his writings, only scattered references to them later) recounts traditions about Jesus that almost no one thinks can be accurate. (See this recent post: https://ehrmanblog.org/is-the-gospel-of-mark-papias-refers-to-our-gospel-of-mark/ ). If he’s not trustworthy when we can test his claims then we have to be cautious in trusting ones we cannot test.
It was not for another fifty years or so that anyone definitively called this Gospel “Mark.” In his work Against Heresies, from 180 CE or so, Irenaeus names the book Mark and quotes it, so we know he’s talking about our Mark. [[Earlier authors who appear to quote Mark (e.g., Justin in 150 CE) don’t name its author (oddly)]].
If we look for any evidence in the Gospel itself that it was written by Mark or from provides Peter’s perspective on Jesus, there’s really nothing there. The author never names himself or gives any hints about his identity or indicates that he had any association with Peter or with any of the other characters in the story. He is fully anonymous. Lots of the accounts in the Gospel have nothing to do with Peter and include lots of things that Peter would not have known (e.g., what Jesus prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane when Peter was not near him and was sound asleep! 14:32-42). Peter is not portrayed in a positive light in the Gospel: he cannot understand who Jesus is, he puts his foot in his mouth, he denies him three times, and at one point Jesus calls him Satan. That doesn’t mean Peter could not be the source of the stories, but there’s nothing in the stories to make one suspect he is; just the contrary.
The other thing to point out is that if the historical Mark was from Jerusalem, as Acts indicates, he almost certainly could not have written this kind of subtle and elaborate account in Greek. His native language would have been Aramaic. From the entire first century we have only one Jewish author from Judea-Galilee who has left us any Greek writings, Josephus, a high-level, highly educated, elite aristocrat. Mark would not have been in that league, if he knew any Greek at all (he may have been able to speak some if is his parents had money and he was from Jerusalem, as Acts indicates. But learning to write compositions in antiquity took many years of training for the elite kids, and to do so in a second language was highly unusual.)
Why was it then attributed to Mark? When the Gospels – all of them anonymous – were assigned names, these, the four most popular, were attributed to two of Jesus’ own disciples (Matthew and John) and to intimate companions of his two most important apostles, Luke the companion of Paul and Mark the companion of Peter. Two are by members of the twelve; two are backed by the most important leaders of the early church: these are four names that guarantee the truth of the accounts.
As to when it was written: obviously before Irenaeus (180 CE) cites it and Justin (150 CE) who probably knows it, more important, obviously before Matthew and Luke (80-90 CE) who both used it. There are also good indications that Mark was writing after the Jewish uprising against the Romans (66-70 CE). He indicates that that God brought about the destruction of Jerusalem (by gentiles) because Jews had rejected Jesus their messiah (thus the Parable of the Vineyard, 12:1-11; see especially 12:9), and that the temple itself had been destroyed (13:2).
Usually, then, this Gospel is dated to just after the war, maybe 70-75 CE.
There have been a number of suggestions as to why the author wrote the book. Some have thought that since the entire generation of eyewitnesses and disciples had died out or were soon to do so, he wanted to make a record of what had happened in Jesus’ life. It may be that he was well aware of numerous stories about Jesus in circulation and thought they should be recorded. Possibly he know many of the stories conflicted with one another and wanted a definitive account. There is no solid evidence that he knew of or even used previous written accounts that no longer survive, thought it is certainly possible.
On top of these plausible speculations, one needs to consider the themes of the account as I described them in the previous post. Mark’s ultimate goal is to explain that Jesus was definitely the messiah sent from God even though he is not the one anyone expected. That is why, in Mark’s account, no one – not his family, the Jewish leaders, or even his own disciples – can understand him. Jesus repeatedly declares he has to die for others and not even his closest intimates can get their minds around it.
That’s because it is the opposite of what God’s messiah was expected to do. Mark writes his Gospel to counter the Jewish claims that Jesus could not be the Messiah, showing that they are precisely the ones who don’t understand what God has done to fulfill of his age-old plan.. Note: Jesus ministry begins with the fulfillment of Scriptural prophecy in the coming of John the Baptist and ends with Jesus quoting Psalm 22 on the cross. It is all according to plan.
The idea that Jesus is the messiah who must suffer and die is hugely enigmatic idea just Jesus in his ministry in mark is hugely enigmatic. He intentionally teaches so people will not understand and repent; he who unsuccessfully tries to keep his activities secret; he does not allow those who begin to understand to tell others what they’ve seen and heard; and in the end not even his disciples have figured him out: they never even learn that he has been raised from the dead.
Mark may have written this account the way he did precisely because it was a perspective that nearly everyone had trouble believing: God’s messiah had to suffer, die, and be raised from the dead.
It is very important to understand that the Homeric source is genuine. The term soma (which Mark and Paul use for the body of the Son) first appears in written form in Homer, and in his use of soma it even means the human corpse or the animal carcass (for example, in the Iliad). In the Odyssey, Homer also used this word for the bodies of those living in the underworld, the dead. Soma also appears strongly in the dramas of the most famous Greek playwrights, such as Pindar and Euripides, as an interpretation of the body without vital functions.
Mark is brilliant because if we understand his intention, we realize that on first reading the Son appears as a son sent by God, who “seems” to have a body of flesh. Then, when we reach the end of the story, and at the call of the young man in white who appears at the tomb, we follow the disciples to Galilee and begin reading the gospel from the beginning (then the gospel begins with the Anointed One/Christ), and then the Easter Christ appears as the Anointed One/Christ. Mark created a masterpiece of chiastic editing and “mimesis.”
Are you saying that since soma first occurs in the Odyssey and since Mark uses the word soma, that Homer is therefore the source for Mark? Do you think that every Greek author who uses the word soma uses Homer as his source? Soma, as you probaby know, was an exceedingly common word in all sorts of writings.
Prof, your thoughts on… the mysterious Jesus as the true Messiah despite his enigmatic end seems to favor Mark’s slam dunk ending at Mark 16:1–8? Reminds me of an old who dunnit movie that wrapped up with three flash scenes in the last 20-30 seconds leaving you saying what the heck happened there?
In 1798 Napoleon invaded Egypt and that sparked a fascination with Egyptian culture and history (probably helped Mormonism form a few decades later). Is there a parallel with the Roman-Jewish war sparking widespread curiosity with Jewish culture within the broader empire which would’ve been fertile ground for an early Christian author to write a gospel of an enigmatic Jewish messiah?
I recently read (more accurately, listened to) God’s Ghostwriters by Candida Moss. Would the possibility of using a scribe knowlegeable in Greek affect this conclusion about the author of Mark being from Jerusalem? Also, I heard a podcast (The Ancients) where Prof Jodi Magness talks about the correctness of Mark’s description of burial practices in cut rock tombs in the era before the Jewish Revolt. I’ve also read (unknown where) that the actual location of sites in Jerusalem line up with the Marian Gospel’s account. I don’t know if this is true. Is it a reasonable hypothesis that the author was from Jerusalem and made use of a (slave or freedman) scribe for the better Greek?
Hello, Bart. As the fates would have it, I am just today finishing “The Canon of the New Testament” by Bruce Metzger. I may have missed it, but other than saying he believed canonical Mark was written in Rome, Metzger never refers to the identities of the Gospel writers one way or the other. Wondering if he, like most modern scholars, believed the four Gospels to be anonymous works? Thank you.
He would have agreed they were anonymous (since they are:the authors never tell us their names), but he probably believed the gtraditional ascriptions to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were historically correct.
Wow! That’s really interesting and unexpected! That can’t be based on historical grounds; another instance of faith having the upper hand?
He would have said that it’s based on historical traditoin and that he trusted the tradition. But it may have simply been because that’s what he had always believed.
You frequently make the point that the Gospels could not have been written by the persons to whom they are ascribed. But, they are titled “according to” so the Gospels themselves are not making claims to have been written by eyewitnesses. In that sense, they are not forgeries. It’s quite plausible that someone from the “school” of Matthew, or Peter, put the stories down on papyrus for posterity as the movement grew. The stronger argument for taking what the Gospels have to say with a grain of salt is the one about how stories get embellished over time. When you harp on the forgeries aspect, you run the risk of undermining the remainder of your argument.
I don’t remember Bart ever saying that any of the four gospels were ‘forgeries’
[using Bart’s definition in Forgery and Counterforgery:
‘A forgery is a literary work with a false authorial claim, that is, a writing whose author falsely claims to be a(nother) well-known person.’]
None of the four gospels claimed to of been written by any particular person — by his definition, it would be a challenge to try to make a claim of forgery of an anonymous source. Bart does assign the term ‘forged’ to the Gospels of Peter, Thomas and Philip, the Apostolic Constitutions and other non-canonical ‘gospels’. Maybe you are thinking that ‘corruptions’ in copies of canonical gospels were associated with forgeries??
John Mark went to Antioch and Cyprus and was chosen to go to Galatia. He was likely selected for those missions because of his Greek, because of his education, because of his familiarity with teachings about Jesus (from his time in Jerusalem), and because of the protection that his Roman citizenship gave him (If Roman citizenship was not a requirement, why do the missionaries have Latin names, rather than Greek names, almost without exception?). John Mark may have been a cousin of Barnabas, so he may have been from Cyprus originally. The qualities that he need for his missionary work (especially good Greek, education, and knowledge of Jesus) made him qualified to write a gospel, so he could have written Mk or (more likely) Mt.
We should not assume, as you do, that John Mark was a typical Jerusalemite. Also, there was plenty of Greek spoken in Jerusalem (about 40% of inscriptions in Jerusalem from the first century (before 70CE) are in Greek). We should not assume that most people in the ancient world were monolingual like most Americans.
Thoughts?
I’m not sure there’s any ancient evidence for any of the claims in your second sentence, though they are interesting speculations.
Do ancient Israelites pay tithe in terms of money or produce? Is paying tithe from money/cash still valid in the context of NT?
The biblical commands for tithing involve herd, flock, and produce to the temple (officials). There were instances in which it could be sold for money, but normally it was consumed. In the second-temple period (up to the time of the NT), it was expected of faithful Jews in the land, but I don’t believe from those in the Diaspora (someone can correct me if I’m wrong). The less faithful (distdainfully called “the people of the land” the Am ha-aretz) as a rule were not overly concerned about following the tithing rules.
But you may be thinking of the “temple tax” that every Jew was to pay annually for the temple? That one was cash, half a shekel.
Dear Bart,
as Brent Nongbri remarks (https://brentnongbri.com/2025/01/26/ehrman-on-titles-of-the-gospels-in-sinaiticus-and-vaticanus-fact-check/), the titles to Mark in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are original, and not added later.
What Brent omits, and what you neglect to mention, is that he is exclusively referring to the typical subscriptio titles at the end of a book, whereas you are referring to what could be called more regular titles, namely those at the beginning of a book. Both are present in each of the Big Five, from Sinaiticus to Bezae
Indeed, the subscriptio titles are in the original hand, most likely (there are slightly different characters used for a rare few), and Sinaiticus has ⲉⲩⲁⲅ’ⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲣⲕⲟⲛ whereas Vaticanus has ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲣⲕⲟⲛ
Yet the title headings at the beginning of the book of Mark are different, and while Alexandrinus there has, in the original hand, ευαγγελιον κατα μαρκον, Sinaiticus as well as Vaticanus have the short κατα μαρκον added later; Ephraemi starts at Mark 1:17 so we can’t tell, and Bezae originally has ευαγγελιον κατ μαρκον – notice the missing alpha
Brent perhaps took advantage of an easy way to make a good SEO blog – you on the other hand invited such by neglecting the existence of two types of title
Martijn Linssen
“Our oldest two manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, for you fellow Bible nerds) come from toward the end of the fourth century (around 375 CE), and they have the shortest titles (“According to Mark”). But in both cases, the titles were added by a later scribe (in a different hand).”
Brent Nongbri disputes this claim at his blog, here: https://brentnongbri.com/2025/01/26/ehrman-on-titles-of-the-gospels-in-sinaiticus-and-vaticanus-fact-check/
Any thoughts in response?
In a post on his blog, Variant Readings, today, Professor Brent Nongbri, a noted papyrologist, challenges your view that
” [the titles of Mark] in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were added by a later scribe (in a different hand). We don’t really know how much later. So it’s impossible to know when the manuscripts began calling it this, except to say that the manuscripts that the authors of both these 4th century manuscripts used apparently didn’t have titles at all (since they lacked them until the later scribe added them).”
His conclusion is this:The titles of the gospels in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were most likely the work of the original producers of these books and attest to the use of both the longer version of the title (ⲉⲩⲁⲅⲅⲉⲗⲓⲟⲛ ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲣⲕⲟⲛ in Codex Sinaiticus) and the shorter version (ⲕⲁⲧⲁ ⲙⲁⲣⲕⲟⲛ in Codex Vaticanus) at the time when these books were produced.
I would be interested in your response to this,
Yes, I’ve talked with Brent about it. 🙂 I was dealing, in any event, with the superscriptions and basing my claims on the Nestle-Aland 28th edition’s clear statements. And yes, I should have talked about the subscriptions but frankly, I had forgotten about them. Oddly they are not mentioned in the Nestle Aland apparatus. Not sure why…. I’ve gone ahead and corrected the post.
Brent Nongbri rebuts your claim that all the titles to Mark’s gospel in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were in a later hand. See his blog post here. https://brentnongbri.com. Please correct your blog post accordingly.
Yes, Brent and I have talked about it. 🙂 I was basing what I said on the NA28, rather than examining the manuscripts. It will teach me to say anything about a manuscript without (a) looking myself or (b) talking to Brent Nongbri…. NA28 — as you’ll see — clearly says what I do, and doesn’t mention the subscriptions! But I”ve corrected it.
Dr. Ehrman, I’ve read that the Gospel of Mark was probably written in Rome to reassure Christians there after the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed. And Jesus’s march to the cross in Mark was a parallel comparison to the Roman emperor’s victory march through Rome celebrating the defeat of the Jews in 70CE to show Jesus was really the son of God and not the emperor. What are your thoughts on this?
It’s a common speculation, but I don’t see much evidence of it. Sometimes strange evidence is cited for it, for example that Mark uses a lot of Latin phrases (like, well “centurion” and “denarius”) and therefore was likely in Rome. I call it strange because about half the Roman empire spoke Latin, not just the people living in Rome. So why Rome in particular? My sense is that it’s usually because people (a) think Peter went to Rome and (b) that Mark was his secretary. I don’t think there’s good evidence for either one. In any event, I don’t see much of a “march to the cross.” All we’re told is that Simon of Cyrene carried his corss that the Roman soldiers “took him to the place.” I don’t see it resembling a Roman Triumph…
OT features several unrecognized messianic figures: (Joseph/David/Moses,etc) demonstrating a recurring theme of God’s chosen leaders being misunderstood/overlooked.
Enoch62:7 suggests the SoM’s identity was intentionally concealed, revealed only to a select group of chosen-ones. 1st-century Jewish expectations include the possibility of a hidden messiah.
Jesus’s miracles/teachings/actions served as hints at his true identity, which would have been recognizable to those *standing watch* (Isaiah 21:6-12, Habakkuk 2:1-4) for the coming Messiah.
“Normal” Jewish messiahs (priests/kings) failed them. Prophetic literature suggests some Jews expected an “ultimate” messiah to be Yahweh himself shepherding his people (Ezekiel34, Isaiah40) and restore creation to when God walked among them (Gen3). Jesus’s miracles/teachings hinted at his identity of “ultimate messiah” recognizable to those standing watch. He walks on water (Gen1), gives the law, and pardons sins. He is the everlasting father/God with us.
John, written later to non-Jews, is more explicit-not due to theological development over time, but a shift in audience/purpose. John doesn’t maintain the motif of Jesus’s secret identity because the Synoptics already made that subtlety unnecessary. Additionally, John’s non-Jewish audience wouldn’t have been anticipated to recognize the subtle hints at Jesus’s divinity that would have been clear to Jews. Therefore, John presents Jesus’s divine nature more explicitly.
Highlighting Jesus’ predictive abilities after the fact would undermine its prophetic significance, since his return didn’t follow as predicted.
Plus any messianic-figure predicting an apocalyptic end would unsurprisingly prophesy the temple’s destruction. The messiah’s purpose was to restore creation to pre-corruption where God walked with us. The temple was a temporary solution to God/humanity’s separation. Restoration would render it obsolete.
Isaiah65 depicts a New Heaven/Earth, followed by God’s declaration, “Heaven is My throne, Earth is my footstool. Where then is a house you could build for Me?” Implying a physical temple will be unnecessary in restored creation.
The concept of a heavenly-temple is present in various texts: Enoch/Temple Scroll/Book of Jubilees/Song of the Sabbath Sacrifice. The announcement that the “kingdom of heaven near” suggests the earthly-temple will become insufficient as heaven/earth converge.
Like Jesus, the Qumran community predicted an apocalyptic war with Rome (War Scroll). The Damascus-Document specifies this event would happen within a generation: “from the day of the gathering in of the Teacher until the end of all men of war who deserted to the Liar there shall pass about 40 years.” These documents were composed before the temple’s destruction, so the Qumran community didn’t fabricate these predictions after the fact.
According to Stephen C. Carlson, only a fragment of Apollinaris’ account of Judas’ death originates from Papias: “Judas walked around as a great example of ungodliness in this world, his flesh becoming so bloated that he couldn’t pass through narrow spaces.”
Papias’ quote about the fantastical abundance of grapes may seem unusual, but it has roots in Jewish apocalyptic literature such as 2 Baruch. Moreover, it aligns with John’s depiction of the millennial kingdom in Revelation 20-22, emphasizing abundance and fertility. The exaggerated descriptions of fertility serve to convey the idea of a future time of unparalleled blessing and bountifulness.
Despite potential questions about Papias’ theology and intelligence, there’s no reason to doubt his ability to accurately transmit a short, theologically unadorned quotation about the origins of certain gospel texts. Irenaeus’ endorsement of Papias carries significant weight, given Irenaeus’ rigorous efforts to debunk heretics/establish orthodox doctrine. If Irenaeus, with his keen eye for theological error, saw fit to cite Papias approvingly, it suggests that Papias’ testimony was considered reliable and untainted by heretical influences.
It’s worth noting that Papias distinguished between Mark’s writing (gegraphen) and Matthew’s compilation (synetaxato) of Hebrew/Aramaic oracles, which others interpreted. He never says Matthew wrote an account.
Dear Dr. Ehrman,
You wrote: “From the entire first century we have only one Jewish author from Judea-Galilee who has left us any Greek writings, Josephus, a high-level, highly educated, elite aristocrat.”
Yes, but only a little distance away we had Philo Judaeus, another great Jewish writer from Alexandria who wrote brilliantly in Greek.
Also, according to William Davies (1943) the first century Synagogues were so Westernized (e.g., Josephus, Philo) that he would call them “Hellenic Synagogues.” Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire.
Also,, saying that Mark was “from Jerusalem” is not to say that Mark was Jewish — he could very well have lived in Jerusalem a long time without being born there — and without even being born Jewish. After all — the name Mark isn’t Jewish, is it?
Mark could have been a semi-educated Roman Centurion, learned in Greek writing, stationed in or near Jerusalem, and captivated by the LXX — and possibly (probably) attended Synagogue services while stationed near Jerusalem. If so, he clearly loved the LXX as he quoted it so often.
The big issue for me is whether someone born and raised in Judea or Galilee (like the figure Mark) oculd receive teh training to write an extended literary narrative in Greek. If so, then we never hear of any other. Philo is in a different world in many ways (location; backgrond; social-class; training; etc).
I have questions about 3 details:
1. You said the oldest manuscripts ascribe authorship to “Mark”. This seems to imply it’s most reasonable to assume it was actually written by someone named Mark, although we can’t know who this guy was. Is that correct?
2. You said there is “no solid evidence” of previously written accounts. But a number of scholars believe Mark utilized a previously existing Passion narrative, based on seams in the narrative, styles, and themes. Is this a minority view? Do you reject it? If so- why?
3. Dating based on the destruction of the temple: I’m sure you’re aware of E. P. Sanders view that the temple was a symbol of the then-current world order, and Mark may have been treating its destruction symbolically – consistent with an earlier writing. What are your thoughts on Sander’s theory? In particular, do you agree this at least justifies expanding the estimated origin to a bit before 70AD?
1. Not necessarily. It meant that when htis manuscript was made, about 300 years after the Gospel as written, it definitely went by that name.
2. Yes, that was the common line back when I was in grad school, but I never saw much evidence for it and my sense is that it’s not commonly held much any more, precisely because of the lack of evidence (and the clear connections between teh passion narrative and the rest of mark’s Gospeel)
3. That’s not exactly Sanders’ view. He argued that the event was something that actually happened in some limited way and that it was a kind of enacted parable — that is a physical action of Jesus meant to convey his broader teaching that the temple would soon be destroyed by God in an apocalyptic act of judgment; Mark, Sanders argued, exaggerated what happened, but the event happened. I don’t believe Sanders dated Mark to the pre-70 period though, if I remember correctly. I used to think it was maybe pre-70 by a bit, but now I agree with the much wider consensus that Mark knows about the destruction..
The only justification for the Gospel of Mark to have been written around 70 CE that I, as a layman, know of, is the references in the gospel to the destruction of the temple. Since the temple was destroyed in 70 CE, the gospel cannot have been written before then, it is claimed. But these references are quite vague and could also be expressions of revenge fantasies, either by Jesus himself or by Mark or his sources. Given the tense situation in Palestine during the first century, many may also have guessed that it would end badly, including the destruction of the temple.
Surely there must be more reasons than these references to the destruction of the temple that make scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark could not have been written earlier?
Furthermore, Bart, in certain contexts you have indicated that the gospel was probably written between 65 and 70. But if you believe that the gospel could not have been written until the temple was destroyed, then it could not have been written already in 65, or…? Is it the rebellion that broke out in 66 that meant that the destruction of the temple could then be predicted?
Indeed, there is only circumstantial evidence, while that same evidence points much better to the Temple events around Bar Khokba.
There are no Christian manuscripts that date prior to 200 CE, and all their dating is unscientific, via the very subjective art of paleography – that needs many multitudes of securely dated manuscripts to base its expolations on, and those manuscripts are absent
The manuscripts by the Patristics all date to the Middle Ages, with some “as earlier as 9th CE”, like for instance Tertullian’s Ad Nationes in CE Codex Agobardinus (Ms. Latin 1622).
Then there is the infamous Justin Martyr – Irenaeus timeframe, from roughly 155-175 CE, marked by Justin mentioning not a single text save for e.g. First Apology 66.3:
“For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels”
οἱ γὰρ ἀπόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γενομένοις ὑπ’ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται εὐαγγέλια
Then two decades later there’s Irenaeus naming almost all books of the NT, and it is for very good scientific and academic reasons that Trobisch and Vinzent, and I, date the start of Christianity no earlier than late second century CE
Obviously, there are very strong dogmatic reasons to retrofit those dates to 0-30 CE…
This is mystifying:
“He intentionally teaches so people will not understand and repent”
Jesus teaches the ignorant listeners in parables so that,in their limited understanding,they might still grasp and repent,which was the entire mission,from John the Baptist on:repent because the end is coming.The disciples themselves supposedly understood the ideas without parables.
Where is Occam’s Razor?
1. Jesus is illogical,malicious,deceitful about his love for the people,crafty,like all his disciples. His goal is to confuse his listeners so that they might continue to sin and thus burn in Hell. Whatever little mistake, one amongst very many errors and mistranslations in the NT, some truly laughable like “the mount of Olivet”, may have found its way to this passage – just erase the particle “NOT”- , it is to be magnified ad absurdum at the expense of Jesus’ entire mission and credibility. There is no big picture. Just mistakes, made carelessly and perpetuated by scholars and committees.
2. Jesus longs for the people to repent, as John did, and being a brilliant teacher, literally a Rabbi as understood in his day, crafts parables that are sometimes interactive, to help his simple people understand.
Which is more believable?
Right! I certainly don’t think this is historical (that Jesus wanted to keep his teachings secret). It is indeed unbelievable. But it’s how Mark portrays him! For reasons of his own…
With absolutely no evidence I speculate that the Pharisees and Sadducees who challenged Jesus with questions concerning his claims of having received instructions from heavenly sources to preach with authority, were sent by their superiors based in Jerusalem, and that the these agents reported back extensive written accounts of what Jesus said. At some point these accounts were copied and recopied, and sent to various other officials. Eventually, the anonymous authors of Q and the Gospel of Mark obtained copies, and were among the sources those authors used when composing their documents.
It is equally speculative to believe the authors relied exclusively on orally transferred accounts, passing through a long sequence of person-to-person oral-only transfers.
Bill Steigelmann
I seriously doubt why members of the Sanhedrin would bother with a neighborhood hack preacher
Was the author a Jew or a Gentile?
A gentile, I think.
Dear Dr. Erhman,
There is something that really confuses me about Mark and its 70AD dating.
Isn’t the author having Jesus predict the metaphorical destruction in 13? After Jesus dies, the Temple is “destroyed” spiritually. Isn’t that the prediction? Are scholars saying Jesus is predicting both the metaphorical and literal destruction? Also, if the author is a Gentile, would the Temple and/or Jerusalem have mattered to him? Or not so much?
My sense is that most scholars think he is predicting a literal destruction. I’m not sure what a metaphorical destruction would be/mean, but I don’t see any indication that he is speaking in metaphors. The destruciton of the temple was a big deal for lots of gentile Christians, since they took it to show that the Jewish sacrificial system was not literally outdated and many of them used it to show that God had rendered judgment on “the Jews” for their treatment of Jesus.
I think my confusion came from the accusation that Jesus claimed he would destroy the temple then rebuild it in three days, without hands. I thought the idea was that that accusation was actually true. Jesus died (which tore the veil) then resurrected on the third day. So I thought the veil tearing represented a metaphorical destruction of the temple, and Jesus’ resurrection was this new temple built without hands.
From what location do you believe Mark was written? I’ve heard Rome and Antioch of Syria as possibilities. thanks.
I’m afraid we simply don’t know. The traditoin of Rome was based in part on the view that he was Peter’s interpreter near the end of Peter’s life, which I don’t think has any convincing evidence beeind, and in part by the fact that the book uses a Latin terms in some places. Why that means “Rome” has always been a mystery to me. Latin was spoken throughout the entire Western part of the empire, by millions.
Forgive the late comment on a past post. Two questions I’d like to see you address. I have some ideas, but curious as to your thoughts.
(1) The gospels such as Mark are anonymous. How do you think the book was introduced for the very first time? People would wonder from where it originated. Do you think someone fabricated a backstory to explain its origins? It’s not like some congregation was waiting for months for “Mark” to finish writing this. I also look forward to what Hugo might say about this in his new books on John.
(2) What do you make of the time of the death of John the Baptist. Kirsopp Lake had an influential article about this back in 1912, but this topic doesn’t come up too much. But it impacts the chronology for Jesus. Based on Antiquities 18 and Mark 6, it sounds like John was executed after the marriage of Herodias and Antipas, but that was probably in 34/35 CE. Do you think Jesus died in 36 (Lake, Kokkinos)? Or Jesus preceded John, and the gospels flipped it so John would be the fore-runner and Jesus the successor (Tromp, Visi)? Or another solution?
1. I’m pretty sure that hte community Mark (whatever his name was) wrote for knew perfectly well who wrote it. But once it disseminated more broadly, most people had no idea.
2. Ah, Lake was one of my heros back in my textual criticism days. And he too wrote an article claiming Peter was not Cephas! But I haven’t really studied this one and can’t say…
1. I’m not so sure about that. Chap 13 seems to be an eschatological update that would be new and unknown. Also the vacated tomb story in chap 16 would seem to be unknown. So I wonder, how did this book first appear?
2. The gist: Aretas must’ve defeated Antipas’ army in 36 CE. Aretas probably didn’t wait years to vindicate the injustice Antipas did to his daughter. It sounds like Antipas married Herodias about the same time Herod Philip 1 died (34 CE, 20th yr of Tiberius acc to Antiquities). Many connected Antipas’ defeat to JBapt’s execution. So it sounds like John would’ve died ca 35 CE. But if so, then either John died *after* Jesus, despite all JBapt refs in the gospels indicating the opposite… or Jesus possibly died at Passover 36 (Lake’s view), but that seems very late. Fwiw, Lake (1912) conjectures 4 for 14 in Gal 2:1 to get the Pauline chronology to fit for Jesus dying in 36. We’re almost forced to decide, did Jesus die before John… or after John in 36 CE. And Mark’s chronology of Nisan 14 being a Thursday during Passover doesn’t help since that only happened in 27 CE under Pilate.
1. I don’t know how we would be able to decide that a story was new and unknown to the original readers; if it was, I’m not sure why that would mean the readers didn’t know who wrote it. (I tell my students information all the time they haven’t heard before)
Mark 13 is an eschatological update. Jesus would’ve preached the end is now (i.e, 30 CE). Apocalyptic preachers don’t preach, The end is coming in 40 years! That’s not too urgent. Jesus followers would’ve grown disappointed that decades passed and the end didn’t come. Mark issues an eschatological update saying, Jesus only said the kingdom had “neared” (Mk 1:15). And there would be a gap between his death and the end (Mk 2:20). And only some (not all) standing here would see it (Mk 9:1). And Mark 13:1-23 predicts things leading up to 70 CE, and then the end would come (Mk 13:24-27). So Mark says, the Temple had to be destroyed first, and now the end can come! I doubt that’s what had been circulating orally. It sounds like it would’ve been Mark’s new and to-this-point unknown material about Jesus that he wrote.
And in Mark 16, Mark literally says the women said nothing about the vacated tomb. So it wouldn’t have been circulating orally prior to Mark writing it down.
YOu lost me on the last point. Are you saying that there would not have been stories of the empty tomb before Mark, or that the bit about the women not telling anyone was not circulating before then. I certainly agree with the latter; it’s all part of Mark’s emphasis that the disciples never did get it.
But I don’t think Jesus was preaching the end is “now.” He was preaching it was “near.” And of course the passage of time has never stopped some of his followers from agreeing that it really is near (now!).
You are absolutely right J.J., that’s very astute
Mark 16:8: the women told nobody about the resurrection of Jesus
The immediate and direct response to that is Luke 24:9. To emphasise, Luke 24:10 names all the women (though leaving out what certainly wouldn’t be acceptable). Luke 24:11 elaborates on why the disciples wouldn’t have accepted the women’s story, shifting the blame to the disciples.
Yet in order to uphold Mark’s resurrection story, Luke 24:12 gets added: even though the disciples didn’t believe the women, Peter checked the tomb for himself! Yet, unfortunately, ἀπῆλθεν πρὸς αὐτὸν – and also never told anybody
Then Matthew, tired of it all at the very end of his text, haphazardly composes his very careless version of that combined story: Matthew 28:8-9
Mark invents the resurrection, that is his main point: resuscitate Jesus in order to change the outcome of the story. The so-called Messianic Secret doesn’t provide us with a Messiah at all: it hands us the story that Jesus will resurrect in 3 days (and is the son of God, something that Mark likely thought to be a requirement for people to resurrect, Hellenic style)
Just read those verses: Mark 1:23-25, 3:11, 4:41, 8:29-31, 9:31, 10:47, 14:61-62
We don’t have other tomb stories than Mark’s. Even though there are differences in Matt, Luke, and John, they seem to be differences made to Mark’s story. Yes, Paul says Jesus was buried, but we have no other vacated tomb story.
My point was simply that there would be new things in Mark’s Gospel (and we can debate how much and what parts) that would be unknown to readers/hearers. Doesn’t matter if we use Mark 16 or 13 as examples, GMark was more than orally-circulating stories about Jesus that were already known. Matt, Luke, and John also increasingly include new (or at least unique) material, 20%, 35%, 90%, respectively. (Well, Matt is more like 50% if we recognize the double trad as simply the parts that Matthew added and Luke liked.)
My original question one above is that it seems like the very first readers/hearers of Mark (or Matt or Luke or John, for that matter) would wonder, Wait, I’ve never heard that before? Where did this come from? Why didn’t we know this before?
And I also wonder, were these anonymous authors known to the earliest readers/headers?
I don’t know if there’s any way to know who the first readers/hearers were (for any of the Gospels) and what they already knew, how much the Gospel writers were putting down what was commonly talked about in their communities and what was innovation. So there’s no way to tell if they “never heard it before.” My GUESS is that the first readers knew who in their community produced this written account, and it seems like a solid suppositoin, unless the authors circulated them in some other ways — as forgers did, trying to keep their identity secret — but that seems unlikley to me.
That Justin cited a passage that we later find in Mark does not mean that he knew the “Gospel of Mark.” It is therefore not odd at all that he does not mention the supposed author, but utterly normal.
Also, as any average Jew in pre-Palestine, Mark spoke Hebrew. Why do people still believe this Aramaic fairy tale? (see for instance Buth, R. «Hebraisti in Ancient Texts: Does Ἑβραϊστί ever mean “Aramaic”», in The Language Environment of First Century Judaea, 66–109 (2014).
According to Papias, Mark had not arranged his notes into an orderly account, hence we can be certain that our “Gospel of Mark” is NOT what Papias was talking about. Neither did he talk about our “Gospel of Matthew” (unless each reader translated the alleged narrative gospel as he was able). Moreover, Papias did not know the “Gospel of Luke”, let alone the “Gospel of John”, and that was in 130 CE!! An intelligent question would be: “Why not”? How about the reply: “Because the four gospels did not exist in Papias’ day.”
Has it never occurred to our experts that the tetrad was produced in some Alexandrian scriptorium AFTER the Jerusalem assembly had been de-Judaized in 135 CE?
Eusebius had Papias’ 5-volume work, and since the historian’s pledge was to show «what the ecclesiastical writers said about the canonical and accepted Scriptures» (Hist. eccl. 3.3.3), we know that Papias didn’t know the tetrad.
While the BAG, the NIV, Wikipedia, and the Pope might differ, the Aramaic mainstream bias is certainly outdated. Today’s consensus view among scholars is that the primary language in 1st century Israel was Mishnaic Hebrew. For instance, Jerome writes:
“Matthew first composed the Gospel of Christ in Judea, in HEBREW [Hebraeis] LETTERS AND WORDS, on whose account those of the circumcision believed.” (Vir. ill. 3)
In the very next sentence, he then employs the Latin term Hebraicum (“Hebrew”) for both Matthew’s Gospel and the Tanakh, and he doesn’t mean the Aramaic bits in Daniel & Jeremiah, but the Tanakh in general. Hence, we know that “Hebraeis,” “Hebraicum,” “Hebraicam,” etc. does NOT mean Aramaic but HEBREW.
Rabbis may also have spoken some Aramaic, but the default language for the common man was Hebrew. Anyway, there is sufficient evidence out there and I won’t go further into it.
Now, if Mark was not Jewish, how could he communicate with Peter who spoke Hebrew?
I don’t see how we can think that Eusebius mentions every book that Papias considered authjoritative. He never says anything about the letters of Paul, the other epistles, Acts, or Revelation; so that would mean Papias had a canon of two books.
I don’t think Mark was a secretary of Peter, but in any event, Peter spoke Aramaic, not Hebrew; if a Christian at the time who did not know Aramaic did speak with Peter, they would have had to had a translator.
Papias knew 1. John, Peter’s Letter (presumably the first), and the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Besides, he refers to the millennium, so he likely knew Revelation too.
The four gospels are the primary source for the Lord’s sayings, Papias had therefore no reason to mention Paul’s letters. The natural conclusion is that within those five volumes, Papias never mentioned Matthew’s, Mark’s, Luke’s or John’s gospel, otherwise Eusebius would have quoted these references. Anonymity was not the issue, however, since he knew what Matthew and Mark had put down in writing. Due to Papias’ witness, Eusebius even invented another non-apostolic John, because he didn’t want the Apocalypse in the canon.
Do you agree with Papias’ witness that Mark accompanied Peter?
Parables (Yeshu’s favorite teaching method) are always given in Hebrew. Out of 5,000 parables, 2 are in Aramaic, the rest is in Hebrew. And the fact that 51 Hebrew coins were minted under Bar Kokhba, shows that Hebrew was indeed a living language. The Greek word for Aramaic is Συριστί (Ant. 10.1.2), not Ἑβραϊστί which means Hebrew and is attested in the NT.
What is your evidence for claiming that Aramaic was the lingua franca in first-century Israel?
Our ancient sources all indicate Aramaic was the lingua franca of the region in the first-century. I don’t know that this is a debated issue?
We don’t know what books that later became the NT Papias knew, since we have only a handful of quotations from him from authors living much later, often centuries later. And no, I see no evidence that the author of Mark was a companion of Peter.
Some anonymous folks on Quora wrote that tradespeople, such as fishermen had in Capernum had to know Koine Greek as that was the language.
What sect is that of USA Christianity that spews this?
GPT4.1mini
Viewpoint that tradespeople in Capernaum know Koine Greek because it was the common language is often associated with certain Bible literalist, fundamentalist, or “Hebrew Roots” groups, common among some fundamentalist or conservative evangelical circles in the USA that emphasize the original languages of the Bible (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) & stress the importance of Greek as the everyday language of the NT era.
Background:
Koine Greek indeed the lingua franca Eastern Mediterranean during 1stCentury, used in commerce, administration, &daily life across RomanEmpire.
However, the majority of ordinary Jewish people in Galilee, including fishermen in Capernaum, likely spoke Aramaic primarily, with some knowledge of Hebrew (for religious purposes) &possibly some Greek for trade or dealing with outsiders.
Statement: fishermen “had to know Koine Greek” is overgeneralization or elevate Greek’s role in everyday life.
Which sects or groups promote this?
FundamentalistEvangelicals:
HebrewRootsMovement:
CertainMessianicJewishgroups:
Summary:
Claim you mentioned is not universally accepted by scholars or historians.
It is mostly heard in conservative evangelical or fundamentalist circles in the USA that stress the importance of original biblical languages.
We are only talking about the quotations from Eusebius the church historian.
So, if he quotes Papias who in turn quotes the apostle John, saying, “Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ”, then you simply dismiss this? By which criteria? Because Eusebius lived 200 years later? According to that rationale we can dump half of the “Ecclesiastical History” or more.
The issue is not to establish which “canonical” books Papias knew, but to establish which ones he certainly did NOT know. The point is that Papias wrote 5 volumes interpreting Dominical sayings, 5 volumes which Eusebius possessed, and yet the latter could not show that Papias knew the canonical gospels.
That Aramaic was the default language may still be the majority position, but that doesn’t prove the claim’s veracity. Could you please be a bit more specific? Which ancient sources show that Aramaic was the lingua franca of pre-Palestine in the first-century? The NT is pretty ancient but only attests Hebrew as the lingua franca.
We don’t which books he did not know, as I’ve said a couple of times. Eusebius does not tell us, and either does anyone else. And we obviously do not have his five volumes to read to find out.
While we cannot be 100% sure, the patristic data shows that Papias did not know our canonical gospels, it’s the most natural inference. Only bias refuses to deduce the obvious. Btw., Papias is backed by the authors of 2 Clem, the Didache, the Didascalia, the Letter of the Apostles, the Book of Steps, the Doctrine of Addai, as well as Paul, Ignatius, Aristides, Marcion, Justin, Trypho, Aphrahat, and the early rabbis, all of which were ignorant of the tetrad, yet instead always referred to «the Gospel», and they meant a written text (a pointless habit if there were four of them, whether anonymous or not).
Is it too difficult to adduce some evidence for Aramaic being the primary tongue in 1st-century Israel?
You also haven’t replied regarding the Papian fragment, – why the elusiveness?
Well, he may have had a particular preference for the Gospel of Thomas. Or Q. Or he may have thought 1 Timothy was a forgery. Or that Paul wrote the letter ot the Laodiceans. We could propose many thousands of things and say he knew them or rejected them, but since there’s no evidence I don’t see how we can consider it ever a matter or pobability.
Aramaic: literary sources, inscriptions. Think, Dead Sea Scrolls, as a starter, and what Josephus says for another. Not sure how far you’ve read on the topic, but the lengthy discussions of Mark Chancey or the more comple ones of Herzser would be could places to start.
“why the elusiveness”
Bart upholds dogma in its core: a historical Jesus, canonical priority, and so on.
Whenever one poses a critical question that doesn’t fit that bill, Bart creates a straw man only to forever dance with it:
https://ehrman-original.test/the-most-famous-non-canonical-gospel-the-gospel-of-thomas/
Search for ‘Zlatko Plese’
Who addresses facts and stats? Academics, researchers.
Who appeals to authority? Religious people, those in service of others
https://www.academia.edu/143236968/Cognitive_Dissonance_The_Bart_Ehrman_Frank_Zindler_Correspondence
In Eccl. Hist. 3.3.3, Eusebius pledges to show what Papias had said in regard to the canonical gospels, and although the latter was a coeval of John and even knew what Matthew and Mark had written, Eusebius did not find anything in the 5-tome work which would have supported Papias’ use of the tetrad, otherwise he would recorded it (in loyalty to his pledge).
There are some 200 Jewish coins, minted between the late Persian period and the end of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt in 135 CE: 99 of them are in Hebrew, 1 is in Aramaic (the rest Greek). Also, no Aramaic inscriptions from the Roman period have yet been found; they’re all in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin (surprise, surprise – Jn 19:20).
1 of the 10 Qumran community scrolls is in Aramaic, the rest is in Hebrew.
Josephus says nothing about Aramaic being the lingua franca. As said, he uses Συριστί when referring to Aramaic, and Ἑβραϊστί for Hebrew (Ant. 10.1.2).
The NIV is such a good Bible that it renders Ἑβραϊστί in Rev 16:16 as “Hebrew” while everywhere else it translates Ἑβραϊστί as Aramaic 🙂
The Western academic establishment has always been anti-Judaic, which is of course the reason for the Aramaic tale.
Well, in that case… as far as NT text critics and Bible scholars are concerned, the Western academic establishment is largely anti-Judaic (and you are the exception which confirms the rule :-).
There was a highly significant shift in NT scholarship away from anti-Judaic views after WWII; as you may know there is a huge amount of scholarship on ancient Jewish Christian relations, going back to the late 40s and still being produced today, by biblical scholars and theologians opposing and attacking earlier anti-Judaic views. Some classics in the field still are by John Gager, Rosemary Ruether, and … well, it’s a very long list. I think anti-Jewish attitudes are very rare among critical scholars of the NT, though among non-critical, devotional, writers you still find it with alarming frequency. Thank God for critical scholarship!
It’s not so much about overt or intentional anti-Semitism, but about the “inherent” one.
The Western academia is a derivative of medieval Catholic schools, and this legacy pervades the ivory towers (after all, the Papacy is the most anti-Semitic power on earth). Oxford, Cambridge, etc. – it’s all Catholic.
The canonical gospels themselves are anti-Jewish, and one may wonder why followers of a Jew wrote against Jews (the answer is of course: they did not write the gospels).
If there was such a thing as critical NT scholarship, the tetrad would have been long exposed as a forgery, created by fragmenting and adulterating Matthew’s original Hebrew text aka the Gospel according to the Hebrews. The 500-page monograph “The Early Text of the New Testament” (ed. Charles E. Hill; 2012) does not even have an index entry for the term “Hebrew”, but assures the reader that Justin used our gospels. It seems books about the Hebrew Gospel or the Diatessaron are commonly written by Anglican Chaplains, Sisters of Mercy, and Jesuits, and the bias oozes out of every page. I would like to see the day when a Jew writes about the Hebrew gospel, but it’s unlikely to happen.