Does Mark date after 70CE? (H.N. Roskam)

Where gMark was written

Galilee as the Gospel’s place of origin has been defended by, e.g., W. Marxsen, Der Evangelist Markus. Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Evangeliums (FRLANT 67), Göttingen, 1956, esp. pp. 41, 89, and 146; idem, Einleitung in das Neue Testament. Eine Einführung in ihre Probleme, Gütersloh, 19784, p. 148; W.H. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark. A New Place and a New Time, Philadelphia, 1974, pp. 64-65 and 129-131; W.R. Telford, Mark (NTG), Sheffield, 1997!, pp. 24-25; cf. idem, The Theology o f the Gospel o f Mark, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 14-15.

Syria as the Gospel’s place of origin has been defended by, e.g., H.C. Kee, Community o f
the New Age. Studies in Mark’s Gospel, Philadelphia, 1977, pp. 100-105; G. Theissen, Lokalkolorit und Zeitgeschichte in den Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (NTOA 8), Göttingen, 1989, pp. 246-270; idem, ‘Evangelienschreibung und Gemeindeleitung. Pragmatische Motive bei der Abfassung des Markusevangeliums,’ in B. Kollmarrn, et al. (edd.), Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum (FS H. Stegemann) (BZNW 97), Berlin/New York, 1999, pp. 389-414, esp. p. 393 and note 10; I. Broer, Einleitung in das Neue
Testament I (NEB), Würzburg, 1998, p. 87; J. Marcus, ‘The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben
of Mark,’ JBL 111 (1992), pp. 441-462, esp. p. 460; idem, Mark 1-8. A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB 27), New York/London, 2000, pp. 33-37. Cf. W.G. Kümmel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg, 1978″, p. 70 and note 63; P. Vielhauer,
Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur. Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Väter, Berlin/New York, 1975, p. 347.

Papias account

This testimony, although it is old, is, in my view, of no use to us in dating or locating Mark’s Gospel. Apart from the fact that the statements of Papias in themselves do not contain any detailed information on when and where the Gospel was written, the information the testimony does contain is of questionable historical value. See also, e.g., K. Niederwimmer, ‘Johannes Markus und die Frage nach dem Verfasser des zweiten Evangeliums,’ ZNW 58 (1967), pp. 172-188, esp. pp. 177 and 185-186; W.G. Kümmel, Einleitung, pp. 27-29 and 67; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, pp. 259-261; W. Marxsen, Einleitung, p. 148; I. Broer, Einleitung, p. 83. Against, e.g., M. Hengel, ‘Probleme des Markusevangeliums,’ in P. Stuhlmacher (ed.), Das Evangelium und die Evangelien. Vorträge vom Tübinger Symposium 1982 (WUNT 28), Tübingen, 1983, pp. 221-265, esp. pp. 246-247; R.H. Gundry, Mark, pp. 1026-1041; A.D. Baum, ‘Der Presbyter des Papias über einen “Hermeneuten” des Petrus. Zu Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3, 39, 15,’ ThZ 56 (2000), pp. 21-35, esp. pp. 34-35.

• Papias’ main objective seems to be to defend Mark’s Gospel against possible doubts concerning the reliability of its contents (See also W.G. Kümmel, Einleitung, pp. 28-29; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, pp. 259-260; I. Broer, Einleitung, p. 83; R. Pesch, Das Markusevangelium (HTKNT 2) I, Freiburg/Basel/Wien, 1976, pp. 5-7; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus (EKK 2) I, Zürich/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1978, p. 32; K. Niederwimmer, ‘Johannes Markus,’ pp. 177 and 186; U.H.J. Kortner, ‘Markus der Mitarbeiter des Petrus,’ ZNW 71 (1980), pp. 160-173, esp. pp. 161 and 172-173; E.P. Sanders, M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels, London/Philadelphia, 1989, p. 11. Cf. R.A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26 (WBC 34a), Dallas, 1989, p. xxvii; J. Marcus, Mark 1-8, pp. 22-24. Against M. Hengel, ‘Entstehungszeit und Situation des Markusevangeliums, ’ in H. Cancik (ed.), Markus-Philologie. Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium (WUNT 33), Tübingen, 1984, pp. 1-45, esp. p. 6).
• Such doubts could easily have arisen from the fact that Mark, unlike John or Matthew, was not known to have been a direct disciple of Jesus. Moreover, Mark’s Gospel is quite a bit shorter and less ‘complete’ than, for instance, Luke’s.
• It is important to note that Papias seems to have been the first to make a connection between the author of Mark’s Gospel and the apostle Peter. It is true that Papias claims to have borrowed his information about Mark’s Gospel from an older tradition, but the trustworthiness of this claim is questionable.
• Papias’ description of how he obtained the information does not carry conviction. It rather raises the strong suspicion that he wished to enhance the credibility and authority of his information on, and exegesis of, the teaching of Jesus by appealing to earlier spokesmen, thus pretending that his knowledge was based on what he had learned from them.

• The connection between Mark and the apostle Peter is more likely to be due to the apologetic motives of Papias himself who hoped to guarantee the authority of Mark’s Gospel by linking it to a direct disciple of Jesus.
• 1 Peter 5.13 cannot serve, however, as an argument for the reliability of Papias’ statement that the evangelist Mark was Peter’s interpreter.
• First of all, 1 Pet 5:13 is not a second witness besides Papias, for, in connecting the evangelist Mark and the apostle Peter, Papias may have been inspired by 1 Pet 5:13. See also K. Niederwimmer, ‘Johannes Markus,’ p. 186; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, pp. 260-261; U.H.J. Kortner, ‘Markus,’ pp. 161 and 172; R. Pesch, Markusevangelium I, pp. 3-10, esp. pp. 9-10; W.R. Telford, Mark, p. 24; idem, Theology, p. 11; U. Schnelle, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (UTB 1830), Göttingen, 1994, p. 236; E.P. Sanders, M. Davies, Studying, p. 11. Cf. J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus I, p. 33; J. Marcus, Mark 1-8, p. 23; idem, ‘Jewish War,’ pp. 442-443. Against, e.g., M. Hengel, ‘Probleme,’ p. 246; D. Lührmann, Markusevangelium, pp. 4-5. Hengel and Lührmann suppose that there existed an early tradition about a link between Peter and Mark, and that this tradition was used independently by Papias in his testimony on Mark’s Gospel and the author of 1 Peter in 1 Pet 5:13. There is, however, no reason to assume that Papias is independent of 1 Pet 5:13 since Papias knew 1 Peter. The hypothesis of an older common tradition is therefore superfluous. According to Eusebius, Papias knew 1 Peter (5 Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica III 39,17).

• The allusion to a connection between Peter and someone called Mark in 1 Pet 5:13, then, may have induced Papias to think that this Mark was identical with the author of the second Gospel and, thus, that the author of the Gospel was a companion of Peter’s. Moreover, it is quite possible that the connection between Peter and the Mark mentioned in 1 Pet 5:13 was invented by the author of the pseudepigraphic letter 1 Peter. It is not unlikely that the author of 1 Peter wanted to include greetings from someone else as well as Peter himself because he regarded this as suitable at the end of a letter. There are also greetings from other persons than the authors at the end of the Pauline and deutero-Pauline epistles; see, e.g., 1 Cor 16:19, Rom 16:21-23, Philem 23-24, and Col 4:10-14.

Finally, even if one accepts that the author of 1 Peter knew a tradition in which Peter had a companion called Mark, there is still no evidence that this Mark was the author of the second Gospel. Other scholars have maintained that the author of 1 Peter had in mind the John Mark who figures in Acts as a follower of Paul; see, e.g., P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, p. 260. However, the John Mark in Acts is not in the first instance a companion of Peter but of Paul. He is connected with Peter only in Acts 12:12. See also W.R. Telford, Theology, p. 11. Cf. U.H.J. Körtner, ‘Mariais,’ p. 171; K. Niederwimmer, ‘Johannes Maricus,’ p. 177; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, p. 261.
It should be noted that this widespread tradition depends ultimately entirely on Papias. It has been argued above that the link between the second evangelist and the apostle Peter was probably invented by Papias. As a result, the early tradition concerning the origin of Mark’s Gospel, which is based on this link, does not provide us with a solid basis for establishing the place and date of the Gospel’s origin.

Dating Mark’s Gospel

See also A. Jülicher, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (GTW 3) I, Tübingen, 1913®, pp. 282-283; R. Pesch, Naherwartungen. Tradition und Redaktion in Mk 13, Düsseldorf, 1968, pp. 93-94; idem, Markusevangelium I, p. 14; S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots. A Study o f the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity, Manchester, 1967, pp. 222-242; U. Schnelle, Einleitung, pp. 238-239; W.R. Telford, Mark, pp. 22-23; idem, Theology, p. 13. There seems to be a near consensus among Markan scholars that the Gospel was written around 70 AD. There is no agreement, however, as to whether Mark wrote before or after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. A date after this event has been defended also by, e.g., J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus I, p. 34, and Π, pp. 185 and 195; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, p. 347; G. Theissen, Lokalkolorit, pp. 270-284; I. Broer, Einleitung, pp. 85-86.

• In the first century AD, after Jesus’ death, there was in fact only one major change in the political administration of Palestine. This change took place after the Jewish Revolt and was an immediate result of its outcome. Until 70 AD Judea, together with Galilee and Samaria, was administered by Roman governors {praefecti, later procuratores) who were subordinate to the legate (legatus) of the province Syria. After the end of the Jewish War, Judea became a separate Roman province on the same footing as the province Syria.
• Precisely this event is reflected in Mk 12:9. Mark has Jesus tell the ‘chief priests, scribes, and elders’ (Mk 11:27), that is to say, the members of the Sanhédrin, that God will deprive them of their authority over Israel and give it to others. Mk 12:1-12, then, refers to the fact that after the fall of Jerusalem the Sanhédrin lost its role in the administration of the country, and the Romans brought the Judaean province directly under their rule. Mk 12:1-12 is evidence, therefore, that Mark’s Gospel was written after the end of the Jewish War, that is, after 70 AD. See also A. Jülicher, Einleitung, pp. 282-283; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, p. 347; U. Schnelle, Einleitung, p. 239; W.R. Telford, Mark, pp. 22-23; idem, Theology, p. 13

• In other words, Mk 13:2 is a Markan composition, which enables one to use this verse as an argument in the discussion on the date of the final redaction of Mark’s Gospel (Against U. Schnelle, Einleitung, p. 239).
• Mk 13:2 is to be regarded as a vaticinium ex eventu, and, therefore, as an indication that the Gospel was written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. See also, e.g. R. Pesch, Markusevangelium I, p. 14 and Π, p. 272; idem, Naherwartungen, pp. 93-96; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus I, p. 34 and Π, pp. 185 and 195; W.R Telford, Mark, pp. 22-23; G. Theissen, Lokalkolorit, p. 271; idem, ‘Evangelienschreibung,’ pp. 394-395. Against this position, see, e.g., R.A. Guelich, Mark 1-8:26, pp. xxxi-xxxii; G.R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Last Days. The Interpretation o f the Olivet Discourse, Peabody, 1993, pp. 363-364. Against the theory that Mk 13:2 is a vaticinium ex eventu, some scholars have adduced the argument that Mark’s description of the temple’s destruction is inadequate and lacks detail (e.g., E.P. Sanders, M. Davies, Studying, p. 18; I. Broer, Einleitung, p.85; A. Yarbro Collins, ‘Mark 13,’ p. 1127; H.C. Kee, Community o f the New Age, pp. 100-101). However, whether Mark’s knowledge about the temple’s ruin was detailed or superficial is of no relevance here; the fact that Marie mentions it at all indicates that he wrote his Gospel after this event. See also J. Marcus, Mark 1-8, p. 38; Marcus notes that also Josephus, who is generally considered an eyewitness to the fall of Jerusalem, ‘inaccurately asserts that the temple was razed to the ground by Titus’ (B .J V II1-4).

–This means that, judging from the ‘temple saying’ in Mk 13:2, it is likely that the evangelist knew that the temple had been destroyed, that is, that he wrote his Gospel after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. A date after 70 AD is likely also on the basis of the evidence of Mk 13:14.

• The fact that in Daniel the phrase βδέλυγμα της έρημώσεως refers to the desecration of the temple in 167 BC occasioned expositors of Mk 13:14 to assume that this passage, too, refers to a desecration of the Jerusalem temple. Many scholars, therefore, considered Mk 13:14 to reflect the attempt of the Roman emperor Caligula to erect a statue of himself in the temple in Jerusalem in 40 AD. They supposed the alleged apocalyptic document to be the result of Jewish reflection upon this event. Consequently, they dated that document to 40 AD or shortly after.

• A more plausible solution is, therefore, to regard v. 14 as referring to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. See also R. Pesch, Markusevangelium Π, pp. 291-292; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus II, p. 195; L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, The Antecedents o f Antichrist. A Traditio-Historical Study o f the Earliest Christian Views on Eschatological Opponents (Supplements to JSJ 49), Leiden/New York/Köln, 1996, pp. 36-37.
• In view of our conclusion that v. 14 most probably refers to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, Lührmann’s explanation of the remarkable masculine form is, in my view, the most likely.

1. 
   The ‘now’ in v. 19 seems to reflect Mark’s time rather than Jesus’. Apparently, the θλίψεις depicted in w . 14-23 reflect the actual situation at the time when the Gospel was written

• One may conclude, therefore, that Mk 15:38 corroborates the conclusion that the Gospel was written after the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, that is, after 70 AD (Cf. A. Jülicher, Einleitung, p. 282; P. Vielhauer, Geschichte, p. 347; J. Gnilka, Das Evangelium nach Markus I, p. 34; U. Schnelle, Einleitung, p. 239).

1. In sum, Mk 13:2 and 15:38 indicate that at the time of writing Mark knew that the Jerusalem temple had been destroyed by the Romans. This justifies the conclusion that Mark’s Gospel was written after the temple’s destruction in August of the year 70 AD. This conclusion is reinforced by the observation that Mk 12:9 reflects the administrative situation of Palestine after the end of the Jewish Revolt. Finally, Mk 13:14-23, and especially Mk 13:19, indicates that the evangelist considers the aftermath of that war to be his own times.
2. Mark being written in Palestine rather than Rome
3. (1) Geographical errors in Mark’s gospel indicating he doesn’t know Palestine is a weak argument

There are other writers such as Josephus who have tons of geographical errors.

The arguments in favour of the Roman origin of Mark appear to be weak. As has already been argued above, when it comes to literary-historical issues regarding Mark’s Gospel, the early Christian tradition, founded as it is on Papias’ apologetical statements, is far from reliable. Nor is the great number of Latinisms a valid argument. Several scholars have noted that the Latinisms in Mark’s Gospel are mainly military, administrative, or commercial terms. These terms could easily spread throughout the Roman world and become loan words wherever in the Empire Greek was spoken. Their use was certainly not restricted to Rome. J. Marcus argues convincingly, however, that in these verses ‘Mark is not substituting western terms for eastern equivalents, but explaining imprecise Greek words by means of precise Latin ones.’ Similarly, Marcus argues that the designation of the woman in Mk 7:26 as ‘Syrophoenician’ may not be meant for a Roman audience to specify that she is a particular kind of Phoenician, as some scholars suggest (e.g., M. Hengel, ‘Entstehungszeit,’ p. 45); it may rather be meant for a Syrian audience to specify that she is a particular kind of Syrian. See J. Marcus, Mark 1-8, p. 32; idem, ‘Jewish War,’ pp. 443-446; see also G. Theissen, Lokalkolorit, pp. 256-260.

Arguments for the geography of Galilee being accurate: