Gospel Dates

[patg]

Let’s start with the Gospel of Mark. What date do you put on the Gospel and why?

I will put the date as being before the other gospels, for the following pretty commonly discussed reasons:

1. The “eyewitness” question
This has always been the traditional Christian view. Eusebius, writing in the 4th century, quotes Papias, writing in the 2nd century as saying “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order.” So it seems that the evidence that Mark’s Gospel was based on Peter’s witness is a quote centuries later, of a lost work, by someone who gives no arguments or explanation as to why we should assume that he was correct.

Was the author of Mark’s Gospel a companion of Peter and therefore either an Aramaic-speaking Jew from Palestine, or at least someone who had a good knowledge of Aramaic and Judaism?

To determine that, it is necessary to look very closely at how Luke and especially Matthew used Mark’s Gospel. Time and time again, we see Matthew correcting Mark’s blunders about Judaism. Clearly Matthew was a Jew and Mark, despite Papias’ bold assertion, was not very close to the Jerusalem Church.

As a Roman, Mark directed his writings at a Roman audience. He feels it is required to explain Jewish customs, and does not bother to explain Roman culture to his readers. Yet he did not understand Jewish culture, and his gospel once even misquotes the 10 commandments! He commits other errors that no Jew (no long term friend of Peter) could have committed such as having Jews buy things on the Sabbath, of quoting Moses instead of God, and confusing other things. Mark includes many mistakes about Jewish customs, beliefs and practices and shows without a doubt that he was not a Jew. It seems clear that Mark probably didn’t even have any Jewish friends to read over his writings or correct him. Matthew understood Jewish ways and therefore corrected many of Mark’s mistakes.

2. Based on the text, the grammar in Matthew and Luke is better than in Mark, and if Mark had access to either of the other gospels, it would be pretty strange that Mark would change to a lower quality of grammar.

3. Mark is the shortest of the four gospels. Why didn’t Mark include information on Jesus’ birth, the birth of John the Baptist, and not use either Matthew, John or Luke for a source, because he would be unlikely to leave out so much material that was available to him from the other gospels. All of the material presented in Mark is covered in Matthew and/or the Sermon on the Mount.

4. The parenthetical agreement between the gospels always contains the Gospel of Mark as one of the Gospels being compared. This would indicate that Mark was probably available to the other writers and they in turn copied or used the special emphasis that Mark had shown for the topic.

5. Since all of the topics in Mark’s gospel, some seventy-seven topics, are found in at least one other Gospel and the other Gospels cover the same material and topics in essentially the same order as Mark, one concludes that Mark’s Gospel was available to the other writers. The odds against four authors writing independently would arrive at an order without prior consultation or guiding documents is astronomical.

6. Mark’s gospel is absent many of the later mythological developments found, for example, in Matthew and Luke or the mysticism and elements of Greek philosophy found in John. For example, the Infancy Narratives had yet to be invented as teaching tools.

7. Mark’s gospel is also absent theological concerns that would become of importance in later versions of the gospel (Mark often made statements that would later prove to be downright humiliating for the church, as their theology evolved and left the simplicity of Mark far behind). For example, Christ is simply baptized by John the Baptist in Mark’s gospel, and no more is said.

 

[lak611]

Gnosis,

This will take you through it thoroughly:

** The Gospels are Historical**

Thank you, buffalo, for finding that great link with all of the early Church Fathers about the Gospels.

 

[whowantsumadebo]

Finally the guns come out!

Pat, you are a learned individual and your points deserve a like-minded response.
Since it is late and a Holiday, i ask but a brief question:
Do you feel that Mark’s roman-ness links him to Peter in any way? Obviously, the tradition that Peter and Mark were buddies goes back quite early, earlier than Papias anyhoo, as is evident by the statement at the end of 1 Pet.
Happy Thanksgivin’s!

 

[Maranatha]

I will put the date as being before the other gospels, for the following pretty commonly discussed reasons:

1. The “eyewitness” question…

2. Based on the text, …

3. Mark is the shortest of the four gospels. …

4. The parenthetical agreement between the gospels always contains the Gospel of Mark as one of the Gospels being compared. …

5. Since all of the topics in Mark’s gospel, …

6. Mark’s gospel is absent many of the later mythological developments …

7. Mark’s gospel is also absent theological concerns …

Hi Pat,

I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

I’m not sure the points seriously support a late dating for the Gospel of Mark.

Points 2 - 5 and 7 are arguments based on textual criticism. There is no historical evidence supporting these arguments. None of these arguments were not made prior to the 19th Century. As a prior link showed these arguments can be seen as 1. supporting Mark’s Gospel coming first or 2. Mark’s Gospel coming after Matthew and Luke in order to reaffirm and reconcile them. A strong argument in favor of option #2 is it’s consistency with the Historical evidence.

Points 6 has an unspoken assumption that the miracles included in the Gospels are myth became miracles can’t happen. This goes back to our earlier discussion. It is a philosophical question and not an historical question.

Point 1 presupposed Mark gospel has mistakes that need to be corrected. These discrepancies are easily accounted for. If you’d like to pick your best example, I’m sure we can discuss further.

 

[buffalo]

I will put the date as being before the other gospels, for the following pretty commonly discussed reasons:

1. The “eyewitness” question
This has always been the traditional Christian view. Eusebius, writing in the 4th century, quotes Papias, writing in the 2nd century as saying “Mark, having become Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately whatever he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord, however not in order.” So it seems that the evidence that Mark’s Gospel was based on Peter’s witness is a quote centuries later, of a lost work, by someone who gives no arguments or explanation as to why we should assume that he was correct.

Was the author of Mark’s Gospel a companion of Peter and therefore either an Aramaic-speaking Jew from Palestine, or at least someone who had a good knowledge of Aramaic and Judaism?

To determine that, it is necessary to look very closely at how Luke and especially Matthew used Mark’s Gospel. Time and time again, we see Matthew correcting Mark’s blunders about Judaism. Clearly Matthew was a Jew and Mark, despite Papias’ bold assertion, was not very close to the Jerusalem Church.

As a Roman, Mark directed his writings at a Roman audience. He feels it is required to explain Jewish customs, and does not bother to explain Roman culture to his readers. Yet he did not understand Jewish culture, and his gospel once even misquotes the 10 commandments! He commits other errors that no Jew (no long term friend of Peter) could have committed such as having Jews buy things on the Sabbath, of quoting Moses instead of God, and confusing other things. Mark includes many mistakes about Jewish customs, beliefs and practices and shows without a doubt that he was not a Jew. It seems clear that Mark probably didn’t even have any Jewish friends to read over his writings or correct him. Matthew understood Jewish ways and therefore corrected many of Mark’s mistakes.

2. Based on the text, the grammar in Matthew and Luke is better than in Mark, and if Mark had access to either of the other gospels, it would be pretty strange that Mark would change to a lower quality of grammar.

3. Mark is the shortest of the four gospels. Why didn’t Mark include information on Jesus’ birth, the birth of John the Baptist, and not use either Matthew, John or Luke for a source, because he would be unlikely to leave out so much material that was available to him from the other gospels. All of the material presented in Mark is covered in Matthew and/or the Sermon on the Mount.

4. The parenthetical agreement between the gospels always contains the Gospel of Mark as one of the Gospels being compared. This would indicate that Mark was probably available to the other writers and they in turn copied or used the special emphasis that Mark had shown for the topic.

5. Since all of the topics in Mark’s gospel, some seventy-seven topics, are found in at least one other Gospel and the other Gospels cover the same material and topics in essentially the same order as Mark, one concludes that Mark’s Gospel was available to the other writers. The odds against four authors writing independently would arrive at an order without prior consultation or guiding documents is astronomical.

6. Mark’s gospel is absent many of the later mythological developments found, for example, in Matthew and Luke or the mysticism and elements of Greek philosophy found in John. For example, the Infancy Narratives had yet to be invented as teaching tools.

7. Mark’s gospel is also absent theological concerns that would become of importance in later versions of the gospel (Mark often made statements that would later prove to be downright humiliating for the church, as their theology evolved and left the simplicity of Mark far behind). For example, Christ is simply baptized by John the Baptist in Mark’s gospel, and no more is said.

All of these points are soundly taken care of here.

Have you read it?

 

[patg]

All of these points are soundly taken care of here.

Have you read it?

Yes, but “soundly” is a very subjective term in these matters and while I respect the opinions and analysis, I respectfully disagree with many of the conclusions. As I’ve said before, the serious student should consider all sides of the scholarly debate - and it is an ongoing and wide ranging debate. Your reference does a great job of supporting the traditional church positions but without a broader analysis of the issues, you are missing other valid and significant ideas.

 

[TOME]

Patg,
I think you present your point very well in the space that post like these allow. And as you might guess, I do believe that with all the different reasons provided by scholars who hold Mark to have beeen written first. However, I am sure that having read the works of some very creditable scripture scholars you would agree with them that we are dealing with text 2000 years old and traditions almost as old so other theories can and do offer reasonable alternatives to the marcan priority, namely, Matthew was written first.

I would like to add one other point to your presentation (I guess you could use it as # 8) and that is Jesus dealings with his mother, family his disciples and non-jews. Through out Mark we find tentions and saying that seem to be, if not watered down in Matthew and Luke, then soften. In Mark we find Jesus’ family, Mary included, thinking he is “besides himself” an expression we would easily understand as saying “he’s out of his mind” and the harsh reaction Jesus has towards them because of this. In Mark Jesus is highly critical of the lack of faith he finds in his home town, he cannot perform any mircles there because of their lack of faith and decides to leave by saying something, rather condemning, to the effect that a prophet is never accepted in his own home. Unlike Matthew and Luke, Jesus’ negative comments about his disciples and not soften but are very harsh, He almost accuses them of being “Hard of Heart” when they continue to failure to realize the meaning of His actions and teachings. Peter seems to come off in particular bad light.
(which if the tradition that Mark took his gospel from the teachings of Peter, says a lot about Peter and his great humility!). And Jesus when dealing with the Syrophoenician women cures her daughter but does not praise publicly her faith as He does in Matthew.

There are more examples of a Jesus somewhat different than the one protrayed in Matthew and Luke what has lead to some scholars to conclude that Mark came first because why if his gospel was a later gospel would he protray Jesus the way he did?

One last point, I think it is important that we remember we are dealing with reasonable theories. However, sometimes, I sense that there is an underlying criticism of those Catholic Biblical scholars who hold Marcan Priority. What I infer by some is that these scholars are in some sort of conspiracy to undermind the teaching authority of the Church and the Church in general. I see at times that many of our better Catholic Scholars have been painted with a very broad brush that colors them in the same category as the protestant scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries and the “Jesus Seminar People”. I think this is unjust (therefore) unchristian and would strongly urge all to read the works of a Rev.Raymond Brown or a Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, as opposed to some commentary on their works, and more not to group scholars such as these with the likes of J D Crossan or Mark Borg.

 

[patg]

Hi Pat,

I hope you had a nice Thanksgiving.

Yes, thank you.

I’m not sure the points seriously support a late dating for the Gospel of Mark.

It is hard to do that in the confines of such a forum! Of course whole books have been written debating this subject and far greater minds than mine have wrestled with the tenuous evidence.

Points 2 - 5 and 7 are arguments based on textual criticism. There is no historical evidence supporting these arguments. None of these arguments were not made prior to the 19th Century.

I don’t think that diminishes their significance. If the text itself has trouble supporting a theory, that should at least be considered.

Points 6 has an unspoken assumption that the miracles included in the Gospels are myth became miracles can’t happen. This goes back to our earlier discussion. It is a philosophical question and not an historical question.

Well yes, it is a matter of faith and as discussed before, there are many reasons as to why miracles were inserted into this and other ancient writings.

Point 1 presupposed Mark gospel has mistakes that need to be corrected. These discrepancies are easily accounted for. If you’d like to pick your best example, I’m sure we can discuss further.

There are dozens of examples…I’ll have to review them and get back when I have more time. Meanwhile, here is a statement from Raymond Brown that I find compelling:

(pages 164-165 of AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT (Anchor/Doubleday, 1997):

As explained in Chapter 6, This INTRODUCTION works with the thesis that Matt and Luke used Mark. Yet for many centuries the dominant view was Augustine’s thesis that Mark was little more than an epitome of Matt; and recently attention has been given to the (modified) Griesbach hypothesis wherein Mark drew on Matt (p. 113 above). It is instructive to test the theological consequences of positing Marcan dependence on the other Synoptics.

For instance, Mark would have omitted the Lord’s Prayer and the four beatitudes that Matt and Luke agree upon.

As for christology, if Mark was written after Matt and drew on it, at a period when the title “God” for Jesus was becoming more common, Mark 10:17-18 would have complicated Matt 19:16-17 by gratuitously introducing an objection to giving Jesus a title that belonged to God alone. Mark 6:5 would have introduced the idea that Jesus could not do miracles at Nazareth, changing the statement of Matt 13:58 that he did none.

Some claim that Matthean priority and Marcan dependence support traditional Roman Catholic positions, but Mark’s presentation of Mary and Peter becomes all the more difficult if the evangelist knew Matt and/or Luke. Mark would have deliberately omitted the infancy narratives of Matt and Luke, even the details in which they both agree, including the conception of Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Mark would have consciously added two items lacking in Matt and Luke pertinent to Mary, namely, that Jesus’ own family thought he was “beside himself” (3:19b-21) and that he received no honor from his own relatives (6:4). As for the Marcan view of Peter and the apostles, Mark would have deliberately omitted both Matt 16:16-19 that makes Peter the rock on which the church was built, and Luke 22:31-34 that has Peter strengthening his brothers after his own failure. (Even though those are not passages shared by both Matt and Luke, Mark can scarcely not have noticed the impact of omitting such positive passages.) Mark would have deliberately omitted the promise of Jesus to the disciples in Matt 19:28 and Luke 22:29-30 whereby they would sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Mark 4:38 would have made the disciples more rude to Jesus than they were in Matt 8:25. Using a book with the Gospels in parallel columns, readers are invited to test other examples of Marcan thought and procedure in the Griesbach hypothesis."

 

[patg]

Patg,
I think you present your point very well in the space that post like these allow. And as you might guess, I do believe that with all the different reasons provided by scholars who hold Mark to have beeen written first. However, I am sure that having read the works of some very creditable scripture scholars you would agree with them that we are dealing with text 2000 years old and traditions almost as old so other theories can and do offer reasonable alternatives to the marcan priority, namely, Matthew was written first.

I agree - it is and will continue to be a cloudy and hotly debated issue.

I would like to add one other point to your presentation (I guess you could use it as # 8) and that is Jesus dealings with his mother, family his disciples and non-jews…Peter seems to come off in particular bad light…

Yes, those are other great points I should have included. I especially think the issue of Peter should be considered because so much of the church’s claim to power and authority is vested in gospel references related to Peter. Putting Matthew first (and thus “degrading” Mark) obviously puts these claims in a stronger light. With Matthew second, it is a lot easier to argue that the statements were added later to bolster the power and authority of the Petrine supporters.

There are more examples of a Jesus somewhat different than the one portrayed in Matthew and Luke what has lead to some scholars to conclude that Mark came first because why if his gospel was a later gospel would he protray Jesus the way he did?

Yes - see my statement from Raymond Brown in the previous post.

One last point, I think it is important that we remember we are dealing with reasonable theories. However, sometimes, I sense that there is an underlying criticism of those Catholic Biblical scholars who hold Marcan Priority. What I infer by some is that these scholars are in some sort of conspiracy to undermind the teaching authority of the Church and the Church in general. I see at times that many of our better Catholic Scholars have been painted with a very broad brush that colors them in the same category as the protestant scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries and the “Jesus Seminar People”. I think this is unjust (therefore) unchristian and would strongly urge all to read the works of a Rev.Raymond Brown or a Rev. Joseph Fitzmyer, as opposed to some commentary on their works, and more not to group scholars such as these with the likes of J D Crossan or Mark Borg.

I agree

 

[buffalo]

patg,

Markan priority is a recent Protestant idea. It has not been part of Catholic Tradition.

Currently Catholic scholars are holding to Catholic Tradition and abandoning Markan.

 

[patg]

Markan priority is a recent Protestant idea. It has not been part of Catholic Tradition.

You may not like Raymond Brown but I haven’t noticed he was protestant…

Currently Catholic scholars are holding to Catholic Tradition and abandoning Markan.

I’m sure some are but I hadn’t noticed that the debate has been closed and there is no magesterial ruling I am aware of (so don’t accuse me of heresy again). I do wish you would explain why it is so important to you - I think it is a very interesting and fun thing to discuss but it hardly affects my relationship with God.

 

[buffalo]

You may not like Raymond Brown but I haven’t noticed he was protestant…

I’m sure some are but I hadn’t noticed that the debate has been closed and there is no magesterial ruling I am aware of (so don’t accuse me of heresy again). I do wish you would explain why it is so important to you - I think it is a very interesting and fun thing to discuss but it hardly affects my relationship with God.

He wrote like one is some areas. He is a recent writer. The Protestants were thinking this way 200 years ago.

 

[buffalo]

I’m sure some are but I hadn’t noticed that the debate has been closed and there is no magesterial ruling I am aware of (so don’t accuse me of heresy again). I do wish you would explain why it is so important to you - I think it is a very interesting and fun thing to discuss but it hardly affects my relationship with God.

It is important to me that we hold to the truth.

 

[patg]

It is important to me that we hold to the truth.

I understand that but I also see that there are so many things we don’t know the “truth” of that I was wondering why *that *one is so important (whether it was written before Matthew or after).

We don’t even have anything close to an original manuscript, we don’t know the “truth” of where it was written, how the weather was that day, how long it took to write, how the copyists modified it, and on and on. I think we also have to be honest and admit that we will probably never know those things and that there are very good arguments on both sides. And the magesterium does not require us to believe either viewpoint.

The only reason I can think of for making a big deal out of this is that the church wants the power and authority issues stated as early as possible by having Matthew first. That way they don’t look like they were added in later to bolster the Petrine faction’s claim to fame. Mark has a pretty negative view of Peter and presents Jesus’s family and friends as pretty consistently thinking he was a nut case so it is better to have that seen as an addtition rather than as the earliest presentation.

 

[TOME]

As I wrote earlier, there are those, who from their post, I infer hold that the work of some modern Catholic scripture scholars attack the Church and Her teaching authority much as the protestant scripture scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries did or are part of the “Jesus Seminar” establishment. I also pointed out two gentlemen who are also attack this way and recent post have not changed my view.

However, I think if anyone really study their works along with the works of some modern protestant scholars he or she would find that they are not attacking the Church with their “Marcan Priority” theories but what they are offering is actually a richer understanding of the gospels for what they are. Namely, the gospels are faith documents written by and for Christian communities in faith response to resurrected Christ Jesus and in a particular life situation. If you read their works, as I have, as opposed to mere commentaries, there is one thread that runs through out. That thread is each gospel is a portrait of Christ, not a picture in the sense of a photo nor are they biographies in the modern sense. If you asked four artist to paint a portrait of the the same person, in all probability you would get four distinct paintings. And this is how we should approach the Gospels as well. And this thought is in keeping with the teachings of the Church - just read Dei Verbum and its section on the New Testament. The gospels are faith documents that reveal the gospel “Truth” as understood in their own faith response to the Risen Christ.

Therefore, if you read the works of such men as Raymond Brown you should find in them the appreciation of the uniqueness of each gospel in revealing the one gospel truth and approaching the uniqueness of each gospel while also showing, through reasonable theories, how each gospel developed is not an attack on the Church and just the opposite. These men and women are working under the guidelines and directives of the Church Magisterium through such documents as “Providentissimus Deo”, “Divino Afflante Spititu”, “Dei Verbum”, the “Instructions on the Historical Truth of the Gospels”, all these were written either prior to or during Vatican II (which, of coarse Dei Verbum being a Dogmatic Constitution from Vat. II).

 

[TOME]

(continued) Since Vat II there have been ample guideline and directives isuued by the teaching authority of the Church directing the work of Catholic biblical scholars. Such directives can be found in Paul VI’s “Sedula Cura” or John Paul’s “Apostolic Constitution: Scripturarum Thesaurus” or his address to the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1979 and 1991 and there are many more as well. As far as I know, the scholars I have mentioned in other post as well as many others have always worked within these guidelines therefore, I think it would be unjust to imply or state out right that there works are not Catholic.
Again, I urge all to study these documents and other revelant documents from the Church Magisterium as well as the actual works of the scholars themselves before negative judgements are passed. Patg, did include in a post Raymond Brown’s work,“Introduction to the New Testament”. I think that would be a good starting point for all who participate in these discussions to get a good sense where modern Catholic scriptural scholarship stands.