ChuckE99

I got into an argument with a friend of mine Saturday night, but realized I didn't have specific evidence or analysis to cite to back up my opinion. (Not really necessary when arguing with friends, but, you know.)

He was saying that the established date for the origin of GMark was around 70 AD (going by the mention of the destruction of the temple), but my contention was that that was an EARLY LIMIT for the creation of the gospel, not an actual date of creation.

In other words, because the destruction of the temple is mentioned, scholars believe GMark could not have been written before that date. But what are the actual thoughts around the probable date of authorship?

The more we argued, it became clear to me that all of the dates regarding the gospels (and Acts and the letters of Paul) build their estimates, ultimately, from the birth stories and their mention of the reign of King Herod. Since Herod died in 4 or 6 BC, that's when Jesus was born. He was about 30 when he was crucified, so that means he died around 26 - 30 AD. Paul had his vision 17 years after that, so his letters were written circa 50 AD, etc. etc. GMark is considered first, so it gets the 70 AD date. GMatt and GLuke come in during the 80s and 90s, and everyone sticks GJohn out at 90+. (Forgive my estimates of these dates, I'm working from memory.)

Is there other evidence scholars point to to date the NT books? Or is the birth story it? If it all hinges on the birth story, then it all falls apart, doesn't it?

Toto

The last thread where this was hashed out is here.

Basically, there is a "consensus" that Mark was written about 70 CE, but when you look at the reasoning behind the consensus, it appears that 70 is the earliest date, the latest being about 150 CE. Some evangelical Christians try to argue for an earlier date so they can argue that the gospels go back to eyewitness testimony, but their arguments are not convincing. Detering has argued for a date after the Bar Kochba rebellion, which would be after 132 CE.

The dating of Paul's letters is a separate can of worms, but has no relationship to dating the gospels.

ChuckE99

Thanks. That was an interesting read, to say the least.

Elfman

I found this:

"For example, we know the Apostle Paul died during the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so that writing came some time before A.D. 64. Acts was a continuation of Luke's Gospel, which must have been written earlier still. The book of Mark predates Luke, even by the Jesus Seminar's reckoning. This pushes Mark's Gospel into the 50s, just over twenty years after the crucifixion.

It is undisputed that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s, yet he proclaims Jesus as the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that epistle. Galatians, another uncontested Pauline epistle of the mid-50s, records Paul's interaction with the principle disciples (Peter and James) at least 14 years earlier (Gal 1:18, cf. 2:1). "

Source STR.org...search "Dating Mark"

Toto

We have no such knowledge. It is church tradition, but we don't know.

The scholarly consensus on this is that Acts was written closer to 110 CE. The author does not depict the death of Paul for his own literary reasons.

This fails to account for numerous details that fit the late first or second century better than the first.

Nothing is undisputed.

What does this have to do with dating Mark?

If Paul wrote that early, there are numerous problems in reconciling what he wrote with Mark. Why is James an important pillar of the church, but the only James's in Mark are the clueless brother and the almost equally clueless apostle?

STR is an apologetic site. The authors there start out with the conclusion and massage the facts to fit.

Ben C Smith

That Mark sure is a lucky fellow. Seems everybody wants to date him.

Ben.

aa5874

Except those who are going with Faith.

aa5874

In theory, gMark could have been written as early as the time of Pilate, whether or not the Jesus stories of gMark are true.

It is not really known for sure when gMark was written, the author is not identified in the writing and the author did not state where and when he wrote.

Personally, I consider gMark to have been written after the writings of Josephus, and this is based on the inclusion of the John the Baptist story, the story of the marriage of Herod and Herodias, and the peculiarity of the "beheading" of John the Baptist since these events appear to be embellished accounts of Antiquities of the Jews 18.5.1 written very late in the 1st century.

And the name Mark appears to have been added after the writings of Justin Martyr, since Justin seemed not to be aware of a person called Mark who wrote a gospel.

Justin only referred to writings called "Memoirs of the Apostles" and Mark was not listed as an apostle in the Gospels.

So to recap, as of now, my position is that I consider the Jesus stories in gMark were written no earlier than the end of the 1st century and the name Mark was applied as the author sometime after Justin, or no earlier than the mid 2nd century.

Malachi151

The first thing I want to make clear is that there is no reason to TRY and push the dating of the Gospel of Mark back. Mark being written in 70 CE does nothing to add to its "historical accuracy", and indeed in my case against the historical existence of Jesus the dating of Mark to ~70 CE, right after the destruction of Jerusalem, is critical to proving that the work is completely fictional.

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...ospel_mark.htm

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/ar...th_history.htm

There seems to be some inherent tendency in people who dispute the historical validity of the Gospels of trying to date them as late as possible, but this makes no sense at all. When a work was written has ZERO to do with establishing the credibility of the work, and if Jesus never existed then there is no such thing as the work being "close" to when he lived anyway.

We should let the evidence determine the dating, there is no need to TRY and date the work in any particular way. How "soon" or "late" it was written does not have one single thing to do AT ALL with the historical reliability or fictional nature of the work, that is all determined by the content, not when it was written.

aa5874

Actually, the dating of a writing can be extremely helpful in determining its credibilty.

This is basic stuff.

If I were to write a book today anonimously, and claimed I saw Jesus on the cross during the days of Pilate or that I spoke to people who saw and followed Jesus, once it could be found that the book was written today, then all my eyewitness accounts can be discredited and classified as bogus.

In theory the credibility of an account is inversely proportional to the difference in the time between the event and when it is reported.