Doug Shaver

On that point, I have no opinion that I would try to defend in a serious debate. My guess is that the stories on which Mark based his tale came from a community that had some connection with John the Baptist, and so the central character had to have a connection with him, which was most easily done by making Jesus a contemporary of John.

gstafleu

The JtB idea, also put forth by Doug, seems like a good one. It also ties in with something Jay Raskin says in his book, to wit that good old Eusebius changed scenes in the gospel (I forget which Gospel, I don't have the book here) that were originally assigned to Jtb so that they now are assigned to Jesus.

Gerard

Didymus

The JtB involvement seems very plausible. But why couldn't the crucifixion have been said to occur under one of Pilate's successors? Surely Pilate's reputation as a temporizer didn't necessitate the 33 CE dating.

One theory: If it was placed under Pilate, any eyewitnesses would have been either dead or very old in 70, when Mark was writing his gospel in the Diaspora. The long interval and the geographical distance would have made it hard for Mark and his readers to verify the story. But if it had happened more recently, there would have been an impetus to seek out and interview living eyewitnesses.

Of course, that notion assumes that Mark, or those he heard, were involved in a deliberate deception. Could there be other, better, reasons for ca 33?

For example, is there any reason why there couldn't have been an actual, notorious crucifixion in that year?

Didymus

Malachi151

I think that this makes sense too, and I had thought of that earlier as well, but a little differently.

I think that "Mark" was writing allegory, and thus choosing someone who was dead and gone made more sense, otherwise it would be a little too close to current events and stand out as not quite making sense.

"Mark" copied almost everything he wrote from the Hebrew Bible, almost everything Jesus says, what he does, the details of every scene, etc., comes from the Hebrew Bible, so he was obviously aware of the fact that he was building the story this way. He couldn't think he was writing history by copying from old books.

But yeah, I think that setting the story outside the time of current living people was a major part of it, so he wanted to set it beyond living memory, in a time from which there were no real survivors to speak of, and also as close as possible to present day within that limitation, so as to be able to connect the story of Jesus to the destruction of Judea.

About 50 years would be that sweet spot in those days.

jakejonesiv

The evagelists got Pilate from the same place they got most of their psuedo historical characters and events: Josephus. It is based on a garbled account of Antiquities 18:4. Specifically, the Samaritans sending a bad report of Pilate to Rome is replicated in the gospel threat of the Jews to tattle Pilate out if he didn't crucify Jesus.


Of course, Antiquities 18:3 didn't come into existence until much later.

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

I have considered this, but I see a few problems. #1 I don't think Mark was written that late. #2 wouldn't Mark's treatment of Herod and JtB more in line with what Josephus wrote?

Chris Weimer

Abbreviating terminus ante quem can get it confused with terminus a quo or terminus ad quem...

jakejonesiv

I am pleasantly suprised that you have considered it!

According to Zindler, JBAP in Josephus is an interpolation also.

I have a qusetion for you. What in GMark recommends a first century date to you?

Jake Jones IV

Malachi151

Well, a few things. 1) What I believe is the relevance to the destruction of 70. 2) The fact that Matthew and Luke were copied from it in some fashion, and we seem to have a final date of Luke of no later than mid/early 2nd century, so there has to be time to be transmitted and copied and morphed into two new gospels, etc. 3) As I said, Mark doesn't seem, from what I know, to be in line with Josephus.

I'd like to hear more of an argument as to why Mark may have read Josephus.

Didymus

I agree, as far as the story lines are concerned. But he also used actual history as context for those stories - a bit distorted perhaps, but certainly "fact-based." There was a King Herod, there was a John the Baptist, there was a Pilate, a Caiphas, etc.

The stories about Jesus were, as you say, allegorical, i.e., the story lines were in most cases derived from the Old Testament and were intended to illuminate the messianic theology that became Christianity. But many of the details, as well as the context and major historical figures, weren't allegorical or copied from old books; they were pure 1st century Judea.

Mark didn't omit real historical events entirely; the Temple really was destroyed by the Romans, Pilate really was an asshole, and Jewish troublemakers really were crucified. As far as I can tell, there's nothing to rule out the possibility that the fictional crucifixion of Jesus was based on an actual crucifixion that took place during Pilate's administration. That's probably the most parsimonious explanation one can imagine for Mark's decision to place it in that period.

Seems like JtB's ministry and (somebody's) crucifixion could be historical bookends to Mark's allegorical story of Jesus' earthly ministry.

Didymus