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?
Yeah, kinda like that. My favorite recent movie example was “All of Us Strangers.” Fantastic film.
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?
Interesting idea. But my sense is that the Jewish uprisings that ended in 70 and 135 did not create a wave of interest in Jewish culture throughout the Roman world. It was already well-known and talked about. In Napolean’s case it was largely about discovering ancient antiquities, precisely in a period (Enlightenment) when the cultures of antiquity were starting to draw scholarly and popular attention.
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?
I think one problem is that scribes were not necessarily slaves. Candida claims that Mark himself may have been a slave, but I’d say there is no reason to think so and she herself admits that the “evidence” is that Papias indicates that Mark was Peter’s secretary, but she does not thin that is historically reliable.
If the author did use a Greek-speaking scribe, then yes, that would certaily speak against Jerusalem. But so too, if he did not use a scribe but wrote it himself (instead of dictating it), then that too would speak against Jerusalem. So the use of a scribe doesn’t seem to tilt the scale one way or the other. The issue is that it wsa written in Greek (scribe or no scribe).
Also: Jodi’s comments about rock cut tombs applies to *other* regions of the Roman world at the time, and so shoudn’t be taken as evidence of where Mark was writing (i.e. it was not just a Jerusalem affair).
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.
Here is evidence that John Mark was able and willing to preach the gospel in Greek. He was selected for the second missionary journey. Acts 16:3 gives only one explanation for the circumcision of Timothy: “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him”. This tells us that the audience knew that those who accompanied Paul were expected to preach to Jews (and needed to pass as circumcised to gain that audience of Jews). (Timothy had to accept circumcision because he could not pass himself off as circumcised because people already knew that he was uncircumcised because of his Greek father). So, there was no role of non-preaching support person on Paul’s team.
John/Mark, Titus/Timothy, Luke/Lucius, Saul/Paul, and Silas/Silvanus all had Latin names, because they needed the protection of Roman citizenship, for when their preaching caused opposition.
Paul himself was educated. Barnabas was a Levite, a land owner, and the most prominent Christian teacher in Antioch (Acts 13:1). Luke/Lucius, the author of Acts was another member of the team, and wrote a gospel. Mark’s mother hosted the church, and Peter ran to the house for protection.
So Mark was an atypical Jerusalemite, and was likely qualified to write a gospel.
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
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 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.
“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?
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.
Thanks for the feedback 🙂
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?
It’s not the only reason for dating it then. There are a number of considerations. Paul, who was well travelled, shows no knowledge of any written accounts of Jesus’ life. The numbers of Greek speaking converts were quite small in the early decades of the church. The numbers of Greek-speaking converts who were literate were much smaller. The number of Greek-speaking literate converts who could compose extensive narratives was minuscule. If this was one of Paul’s converts, why doesn’t Paul appear to know about the account? If it was some other urban-centered gentile convert who knew a lot but did not know the intricacies of Judaism — where/when would it be The likelihood increases exponentially with the passing of time. Add that to the indications that the author realizes that Jesus has “replaced” the temple and its sacrifices and that the temple is no longer standing, it makes a lot of sense that the book was written after the conclusion of the war. It’s not definitively proved, but if there’s a case to be made that it wsa pre-70, I don’t think I’ve seen a good one. (And yes, I have changed my views from 20 years ago).
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