Dating the Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by andrewcriddle »

I suspect Mark 1:33 uses polis rather than kwmh partly because polis can mean the people dwelling in a town more easily than can kwmh
The whole town gathered at the door,
Andrew Criddle
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by outhouse »

toejam wrote:When do you date the Gospel of Mark?


Thoughts?

Mark is a compilation. So really your question should be what parts of mark date earlier then the final compilation date.

Some parts obviously do date earlier then 70CE.


The best evidence I have to posit a right after the fall of temple date. Is that when the war started in 66CE the Hellenist in the Diaspora could no longer share and advance their theology at Passover.

This created a need to compile traditions before they were lost. So we see mark a half hearted attempt by a semi skilled scribe to get the basics down in his piece, based on the preexisting written traditions and the oral traditions known to the community that produced this rhetorical piece.


As this piece began to circulate through the Diaspora, it caused a reaction and more educated authors decided to build upon it, viewing it as incomplete to the traditions their theology wanted and needed.

I think there was a habit of Hellenist going to Passover and sharing ideas, and with the fall, it changed the scope of how information was shared. The gospels are a byproduct of the fall of the temple IMHO.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Charles Wilson »

outhouse wrote:I think there was a habit of Hellenist going to Passover and sharing ideas, and with the fall, it changed the scope of how information was shared. The gospels are a byproduct of the fall of the temple IMHO.
Josephus, Wars..., 5, 1, 3:

"...for those darts that were thrown by the engines came with that force, that they went over all the buildings, and reached as far as the altar, and the temple itself, and fell upon the priests, and those that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth, to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and Barbarians, with their own blood; till the dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves..."
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote:
outhouse wrote:I think there was a habit of Hellenist going to Passover and sharing ideas, and with the fall, it changed the scope of how information was shared. The gospels are a byproduct of the fall of the temple IMHO.
Josephus, Wars..., 5, 1, 3:

"...for those darts that were thrown by the engines came with that force, that they went over all the buildings, and reached as far as the altar, and the temple itself, and fell upon the priests, and those that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth, to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and Barbarians, with their own blood; till the dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves..."
Just curious, what is your point here?
User avatar
toejam
Posts: 754
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by toejam »

outhouse wrote:Mark is a compilation. So really your question should be what parts of mark date earlier then the final compilation date.
Yeah. As I've been reading Crossley's book, this has been in the back of my mind. Crossley makes an interesting argument for a few pericopes to pre-date Paul's letters. But then is that enough to say the form we know it today was completed then? Does a hypothetical proto-Mark count as "Mark"? Mark 13 still screams out to me as post-War.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2901
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by maryhelena »

toejam wrote:
outhouse wrote:Mark is a compilation. So really your question should be what parts of mark date earlier then the final compilation date.
Yeah. As I've been reading Crossley's book, this has been in the back of my mind. Crossley makes an interesting argument for a few pericopes to pre-date Paul's letters. But then is that enough to say the form we know it today was completed then? Does a hypothetical proto-Mark count as "Mark"? Mark 13 still screams out to me as post-War.
Why not take the view that both perspectives have value. Why should a later perspective trump an earlier perspective? It's the material, the story, that should be primary - not when the final words of that story were penned. It's how the story developed that is interesting - and one would loose any insight that could be discerned from the story development if all one reads are the final words on the final page of the book. The question is not when did the final words, the update, happen - the far more interesting question is how far back does the gMark story go.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by neilgodfrey »

toejam wrote:
outhouse wrote:Mark is a compilation. So really your question should be what parts of mark date earlier then the final compilation date.
Yeah. As I've been reading Crossley's book, this has been in the back of my mind. Crossley makes an interesting argument for a few pericopes to pre-date Paul's letters. But then is that enough to say the form we know it today was completed then? Does a hypothetical proto-Mark count as "Mark"? Mark 13 still screams out to me as post-War.
Crossley unfortunately pays no attention to any studies arguing for the literary unity of the Gospel of Mark. He is trapped in the old "Mark is a stitching together of traditions" model and ignores the studies of its literary structure. This is the same methodological error of traditional biblical studies that he elsewhere protests against. He needs the Gospel of Mark to be unliterary to justify using it as a record of memories and traditions of historical events.
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by Charles Wilson »

outhouse wrote:
Charles Wilson wrote:
outhouse wrote:I think there was a habit of Hellenist going to Passover and sharing ideas, and with the fall, it changed the scope of how information was shared. The gospels are a byproduct of the fall of the temple IMHO.
Josephus, Wars..., 5, 1, 3:

"...for those darts that were thrown by the engines came with that force, that they went over all the buildings, and reached as far as the altar, and the temple itself, and fell upon the priests, and those that were about the sacred offices; insomuch that many persons who came thither with great zeal from the ends of the earth, to offer sacrifices at this celebrated place, which was esteemed holy by all mankind, fell down before their own sacrifices themselves, and sprinkled that altar which was venerable among all men, both Greeks and Barbarians, with their own blood; till the dead bodies of strangers were mingled together with those of their own country, and those of profane persons with those of the priests, and the blood of all sorts of dead carcasses stood in lakes in the holy courts themselves..."
Just curious, what is your point here?
I was agreeing with you. I think you have a fair point here with Josephus stating that the Temple was celebrated by many, including the Greeks. You come under criticism for "always" emphasizing the Hellenism aspect of the Judea-Roman conflict and, while I don't go as far as you do, there is evidence of tension. There are Greeks at the Temple as Titus approaches and they are killed by the faction that holds the area above the Temple.

Jannaeus fought against the Greeks and appears to be polarizing the Judeans. He and the Hasmoneans are accused of having Greek parentage and therefore being not of sufficient "Purity and Piety" to be High Priests. I believe that the Story of "The Lunatic" is on point as a Jannaeus Story. "Go to the Decapolis and tell them how the Lord took pity on you...".

There is no Book of Plato in the Bible. There was an undercurrent of Cultural Warfare, however, that can be read into what we have.
outhouse wrote:I think there was a habit of Hellenist going to Passover and sharing ideas, and with the fall, it changed the scope of how information was shared. The gospels are a byproduct of the fall of the temple IMHO.


Well, yeah...

CW
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote: I was agreeing with you. I think you have a fair point here with Josephus stating that the Temple was celebrated by many, including the Greeks


CW

Thank you, I suspected based on the content, but did not want to assume.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark

Post by outhouse »

Charles Wilson wrote: You come under criticism for "always" emphasizing the Hellenism aspect of the Judea-Roman conflict and, while I don't go as far as you do, there is evidence of tension.



CW
Yes I do get warranted criticism for my views on Hellenism, even Anthony Le Donne told me this. I understand it used to viewed as such and for a long while now we are supposed to look at a permeating effect of Hellenism all through the cultures.

My prospect is that both are right, Hellenism did permeate Israelite culture and Judaism, yet we also had separations and divisions.

I see nothing wrong with viewing Christianity as the divorce of Hellenistic Judaism from cultural Judaism of Israelites.

As far as Aramaic Galilean peasants, I think there was a stronger degree of division between the Aramaic peasant class, and the Hellenist who ran and built Sepphoris and Tiberius.
Post Reply