Steven Avery
Administrator
BCHF
Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark
Post by Mrvegas » Sun Aug 24, 2025
Still, leaving the prediction of the destruction of the temple aside, I think the prediction of the fates of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, in Mark 10:39 provides some potential information of an earliest possible date.
“You will drink the cup that I drink,” Jesus said, “and you will be baptized with the baptism that I undergo.”
This indicates that the author has some knowledge of what happens to James and John, and I think an indication that the author has knowledge of their martyrdom (or at least stories thereof). The tradition for the martrydom of James (see Acts) seems relatively noncontroversial and set in the reign of Herod Agrippa, so before about 44 C.E.
The statement about John is more interesting. If the author believed the tradition that this was the same John that allegedly survived to the reign of Trajan, then that would place composition at 98 CE at the earliest. If the author had knowledge of the tradition of John being poisoned and/or boiled during the reign of Domitian (though surviving in those stories), then that would place composition around 81 CE at the earliest. Some have suggested that John was martyred in Jerusalem in the 60s. (See, e.g., F.P. Badham, American Journal of Theology, 1899 and 1904.)
Galatians would arguably indicate that John was still alive at the “council” of Jerusalem, maybe around 50 CE.
So, if Mark is looking back to the martyrdom of James and John, then the earliest dating might, in part, depend on when the author believed that John died. That is subject to debate, of course, but I think it is consistent with a possible mid-late 60s date. If there is any truth to the connection between Mark and Peter in Rome during the reign of Nero and Peter being aware of Mark's gospel, then that would further support a date in the 60s.
I think a date for Mark just before 70 and the destruction of the temple is reasonable. A persecution in Rome and Roman armies marching off to war in Judea might have given new momentum to the religion and inspired the writing of the gospel and a prediction of the destruction of the temple (or including a remembrance of Jesus predicting the destruction, if that actually ever happened.) Also, Mark does not have the more obvious of what to me, seem to be “look back” components of Matthew 23:37-38 and Luke 21:20-23. The destruction of the temple prophecy in Mark seems a little more generic.
There is also the material in Mark 16:18 stating “ . . . they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them . . . “ This could maybe refer to material in Acts about Paul and the snake on his voyage to Rome (60 CE?) and the stories of John drinking poison (reign of Domitian). Most believe this end material was added to Mark later, though, so possibly it is not that useful for determining an earliest date.
I don't think it is possible to get more precise than within a few decades, though.
With regard to Luke and Theophilus, why that specific Theophilus? Although probably too late, there was also Theophilus of Antioch (mid-late 2nd century) who converted from paganism. How uncommon was the name?
Re: Dating the Gospel of Mark
Post by Mrvegas » Sun Aug 24, 2025
I hope this meets the Academic Discussion criteria. If not, let me know. I think the original post was trying to determine a latest possible date, rather than earliest date.
Still, leaving the prediction of the destruction of the temple aside, I think the prediction of the fates of James and John, the sons of Zebedee, in Mark 10:39 provides some potential information of an earliest possible date.
“You will drink the cup that I drink,” Jesus said, “and you will be baptized with the baptism that I undergo.”
This indicates that the author has some knowledge of what happens to James and John, and I think an indication that the author has knowledge of their martyrdom (or at least stories thereof). The tradition for the martrydom of James (see Acts) seems relatively noncontroversial and set in the reign of Herod Agrippa, so before about 44 C.E.
The statement about John is more interesting. If the author believed the tradition that this was the same John that allegedly survived to the reign of Trajan, then that would place composition at 98 CE at the earliest. If the author had knowledge of the tradition of John being poisoned and/or boiled during the reign of Domitian (though surviving in those stories), then that would place composition around 81 CE at the earliest. Some have suggested that John was martyred in Jerusalem in the 60s. (See, e.g., F.P. Badham, American Journal of Theology, 1899 and 1904.)
Galatians would arguably indicate that John was still alive at the “council” of Jerusalem, maybe around 50 CE.
So, if Mark is looking back to the martyrdom of James and John, then the earliest dating might, in part, depend on when the author believed that John died. That is subject to debate, of course, but I think it is consistent with a possible mid-late 60s date. If there is any truth to the connection between Mark and Peter in Rome during the reign of Nero and Peter being aware of Mark's gospel, then that would further support a date in the 60s.
I think a date for Mark just before 70 and the destruction of the temple is reasonable. A persecution in Rome and Roman armies marching off to war in Judea might have given new momentum to the religion and inspired the writing of the gospel and a prediction of the destruction of the temple (or including a remembrance of Jesus predicting the destruction, if that actually ever happened.) Also, Mark does not have the more obvious of what to me, seem to be “look back” components of Matthew 23:37-38 and Luke 21:20-23. The destruction of the temple prophecy in Mark seems a little more generic.
There is also the material in Mark 16:18 stating “ . . . they will pick up snakes with their hands, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them . . . “ This could maybe refer to material in Acts about Paul and the snake on his voyage to Rome (60 CE?) and the stories of John drinking poison (reign of Domitian). Most believe this end material was added to Mark later, though, so possibly it is not that useful for determining an earliest date.
I don't think it is possible to get more precise than within a few decades, though.
With regard to Luke and Theophilus, why that specific Theophilus? Although probably too late, there was also Theophilus of Antioch (mid-late 2nd century) who converted from paganism. How uncommon was the name?