Zeichmann gives some additional compelling arguments for post 70 CE gMark composition:
It may raise suspicions that after first dismissing the relevance of Latinisms, I would now uphold Semiticisms as evidence of Markan provenance. While much about the languages of Palestine remains debated, there is little doubt that Aramaic and Hebrew were uncommon outside of the Levant.80 The parochial use of Aramaic and Hebrew contrasts with the spread of Latin, which was used anywhere Roman functionaries were present. Furthermore, the Aramaic terms and phrases preserved in Mark were not the sort of legal and technical words most likely to be adopted into another language at the time. Mark’s Semitic words are generally mundane and could have easily been translated into Greek instead of transliterated, with the exceptions of words with no Greek equivalent (אמן, שבת, and אפסח), words that were already integrated into Greek (כתנת, נרד, and גמל), or various proper nouns with Hebrew or Aramaic origins
The relevance of Semiticisms is sometimes dismissed on the grounds that the Jesus tradition was replete with oral and written sources originating from Palestine, which would have naturally entailed the preservation of Semiticisms, even if Mark were composed in Rome.81 This objection fails to appreciate that neither Matthew nor Luke display much fidelity to Mark’s transliterations aside from the untranslatable words noted above. Luke disregards the vast majority of Mark’s 36 Semiticisms, but Matthew more conclusively shows the problems with the supposition that Aramaic and Hebrew transliterations were retained as a matter of tradition. Matthew often omits (as with parallels to Mark 3:17, 5:41, 6:39, 7:11, 7:34, 9:43, 9:45, 11:21, 14:36), translates into Greek (as with parallels to Mark 1:13, 4:15, 8:12, 9:5, 10:51), or Hebraicizes Mark’s Aramaic words and phrases (as with the parallel to Mark 15:34).82 If Matthew was composed in Syrian Antioch, a context where Aramaic was common, and the author nevertheless omitted most Semiticisms from the primary written source for his narrative, then it is hardly likely that Mark would have preserved Semiticisms in a document written as far west as Rome, where Semitic words were intelligible to even fewer residents. Moreover, a Roman author of Mark would probably not have retained Semiticisms from the oral traditions he drew upon, as oral traditions are famously insecure methods of preserving wording, let alone across languages.83 The most important difference between Aramaic and Hebrew on the one hand and Latin on the other is that the latter was the language of the Empire, which was spoken and read in all its provinces, whereas Aramaic and Hebrew were much more geographically specific in its use. Consequently, Aramaic and Hebrew are far more likely to indicate provenance in the Levant than Latin is the Apennine peninsula
Mark also knows the exact layout of rock-cut tombs in Jerusalem and knows Simon of Cyrene’s sons (Mark 15:21).
https://youtu.be/hSMKEwYmZr4?t=2190
We may even have archaeological evidence of Simon’s son Alexander on a ossuary in the Kidron Valley.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Constructing_Jesus/IzfuJOf1JLMC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=alexander&pg=PA425&printsec=frontcover
Timothy Wardle also points out in his 2015 NTS article that Mark displays sectarian tendencies in its critique of the Jerusalem Temple and depiction of Jesus as the New Temple to replace the old one. He compares this with other sectarian Jewish literature criticizing the Temple and finds that it parallels documents (such as at Qumran) written in Judea. Since Mark seems to have a large amount of Gentiles in his audience, Wardle suggests the neighboring Decapolis as a place of composition and says that Rome seems too far away for such a strong critique of the Temple.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/mark-the-jerusalem-temple-and-jewish-sectarianism-why-geographical-proximity-matters-in-determining-the-provenance-of-mark/2873FFE77F01B996EEFFC4B6FE9968C3
Jesus casting the demon(s) named ‘Legion’ into a herd of pigs, which then drown in the sea, are details that can be removed fairly easily from an otherwise straightforward exorcism story. (This also solves the geographical problem of the story’s setting being miles away from the sea.) These details allude to the presence of Legio X Fretensis, who were recognized by their boar emblem. This legion was pivotal during the war and remained in the area afterward. In analogy, the argument is that a popular-level book which named a demon ‘Team 6’ and had them cast into a pack of seals would more likely be written after 2011 than before.
Jesus heals a blind man, using spit. This may have been inspired by a similar story told about Vespasian healing a blind man.
The debate over Caesar’s coin specifies that it was a denarius used for a census. This may be an expansion of a simpler story that did not originally specify the coin or its purpose. The denarius was rare in Judea prior to 70 CE, and the situation described fits the Fiscus Iudaicus, a census tax that targeted specifically Jews after the war.
Chapter 13 lists a series of signs which will precede the eschaton. The initial set of signs are vague descriptions of social and ecological disasters, followed by a much more specific set of signs. This formatting of eschatological ‘signs’ is fairly typical in after-the-fact apocalyptic literature. Compare 4 Ezra 9 and 13, or 2 Baruch 70, for a few other examples. (However, there is the possibility Mark 13 has incorporated an earlier apocalyptic tract, theorized to have been written circa 39–40 CE, regarding Caligula’s attempt to install an idol in Jerusalem’s temple. If this is the case, it would render this point moot.)
Jesus’ declaration at the beginning of chapter 13 may be interpreted as an evocation of deity for permission to destroy a holy place. This was a Roman practice during war, to avoid angering local deities. It is anachronistic to do when no war is happening, but fits a setting in which the author writing after-the-fact wants the reader to know the destruction was divinely sanctioned.
The parenthetical ‘let the reader understand’ is a comment from the author of the gospel to his readers, rather than from Jesus to his apostles. It is essentially a wink to the audience, saying ‘you know what event, now past, Jesus is prophesying about here’.
Leave a Reply