Scholars are still trying to determine the nature of the genre of "Gospel." They are not biographies, per se, though a brand new book by Mike Licona ("Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?") gives evidence that they conform to the compositional devices of the era as a type of ancient biography.

I prefer to term them as "theographies." They are giving biographical data about Jesus, but arranged and told in such a way as to show WHO he is: God. Chronology is not important, and there is some flexibility in how stories are told (as is normal in oral tradition). Because what the writers are trying to show is that Jesus is divine. So they assemble the facts of his life in the order that suits their thesis, use OT elements, miracles, teaching, and natural phenomena to bolster their case, and publish as the story of Jesus. So I would say they distinctly and intentionally let theological concerns influence the ordering of their materials, because their point in writing was to make a theological point without sacrificing truthful historiography. In other words, they are very selective with their material, feel free to rearrange it, and include plenty of theological markers along the way.

To me, the truth is that archetypes are what they are because they actually do occur. Bad things DO happen on dark stormy nights; people DO make references to historical sayings when they are doing related activities; there is at least some truth to some omens (people are more weird during full moons). The incorporation of these elements into the Bible stories, to me, doesn't make them fictional. You know as well as I that many people treat Obama as messianic, and they treat Trump as demonic. These archetypes don't detract from the historicity of the persons or their actions, but only serve to help us categorize (whether fairly or not) and process the events of history.

> Similarly, you speak of Mark writing in a way which parallels Exodus. Again, intertextuality with ancient religious texts is a phenomenon I can only regard as worthy of the highest suspicion

See, I see this differently. Jesus specifically came to fulfill prophecy, and particularly to be the Moses that Moses never was, the David that David never was, the Temple that the Temple never was, and the prophet/priest/king that none of them ever were. That's the whole point. So it doesn't surprise me one bit to see many elements of the Exodus and the monarchy in Jesus' life.

> Tyre, Sidon, and Syro-Phoenicia

I know it's not the normal way of expressing a path. I know what you're saying, and agree. But I also know that sometimes when I'm talking with people, it makes a difference for understanding to have actually been there. Jesus was a wandering teacher, so it wouldn't surprise me if he wandered. The path seems weird, but there's so much about Jesus' path that we don't know. Because the Gospels aren't chronological, scholars have been trying to piece together a sequence of Jesus' life, and it's hard to know where he was when, how long he was there, and what he did. I try to keep an open mind.

> Excellent conversation. Thank you. I'm enjoying it thoroughly.

The sentiment is reciprocal :)

>Either Mark is an idiot who copies his own book, or something else is afoot.

I hope I never gave the impression I was suggesting that the former option was the right one. I quite accept that Mark was making intelligent structural/theological/literary points in the way he used his material. However, the extent to which he does so remains an argument against the idea that Mark is an eyewitness writing history, or is writing history based on eyewitness accounts. When you let theological concerns influence your ordering of material... that's not a good a sign.

> Just because there were other legends or myths of darkness at auspicious occasions doesn't necessarily mark this is a literary trope.

This seems a total non-sequitur to me. The fact that there are so many parallels is a very good indication that both the NT and the OT examples of this feature are fictitious. Since you offer me no explanation of the Greco-Roman myths I don't see any alternative to the theory that this is a fixed element in ancient legend.

The situation is basically as follows. We know from external sources that "darkness" is a stock element in ancient myths anyway, that's for sure. So when we come to the Bible, we have two options: either the Bible is like all the other literature of its time, or God (for some reason which you have not so far made clear to me) decided to accompany major events in his plan with humanity with an ominous darkness in a way which exactly paralleled the often childish fictions of the pagans. Given that this is a balance of probabilities argument I find that option far less probable.

(Luke uses the technical term for "eclipse". But that point is less important)

You mention the way Mark uses similar stories to make different points. Again, that only strengthens my argument, to the point where I'm genuinely at a loss as to what your argument actually is. You haven't provided any reason to believe that these similar stories are different events, whereas you've handed me a perfectly good motive for Mark to pretend that they were: the narrative is a theological, literary construction, created by Christians, for Christians, to reinforce the Christian faith. Not to write accurate history and definitely not to reproduce eyewitness accounts.

Similarly, you speak of Mark writing in a way which parallels Exodus. Again, intertextuality with ancient religious texts is a phenomenon I can only regard as worthy of the highest suspicion; it suggests that Mark thinks he is continuing a religious narrative, which is scarcely conducive to a proper examination of actual, sordid historical fact.

I'm sorry if I'm coming across as dense, I just don't understand where this argument is meant to go. On the literary skill of Mark's narrative we are agreed. But if I wrote a history of WWII containing this kind "parallel sequence of events" modern historians would consider me at least very odd, and quite probably totally unreliable, for doing so. In what way is Mark different?

> The two statements taken together show that he means to distinguish between two districts of Syrophoenicia, the one in the vicinity of Tyre, and the other in the vicinity of Sidon.

I don't disagree. Perhaps I'm being stupid, but I can't see what this changes. The natural meaning of the Greek remains the same. Your argument can be made to work, I suppose, but it remains a long shot. "I left Brussels and through Amsterdam to Paris" -- yes, not impossible, but at the very least a misleading turn of phrase. As a native of the area, I'd never say anything of the kind.

> Luke, fairly well recognized as a reliable histori[an]

This seems to me to be the obvious next topic. You've said this more than once now; I'd love to hear some evidence.

I'd suggest that, far from being a reliable historian, Luke isn't even a historian to begin with. It's an error of genre. Luke writes popular literary biography -- of Jesus, of Peter, and then of Paul -- with all the characteristics of that type of writing: direct speech, miracle stories, heavy oral influences and intertextuality, exacerbated by a deliberate attempt to mimic the style of the Septuagint and thus to put Jesus in line with OT expectations.

I'm interested in what you'd adduce as actual, specific evidence for the idea that Luke should be regarded as a historian at all, let alone an accurate one. Geographical accuracy (which is often appealed to in this context) is an argument only the negative sense; the fact that I know where Paris is doesn't mean I'm qualified to write a history of the French revolution. In view of the numerous details where Luke at least appears to contradict secular history (like Quirinius...), I'd say the balance of probabilities isn't in your favour.

Excellent conversation. Thank you. I'm enjoying it thoroughly.

> You think the feeding of the multitude may actually have happened twice?

I do. Mark 8 (the 4000) presents a sequence of events parallel to the arrangement of Mark 6 (the 5000):

- feeding the multitude (Mk. 6.31-33; 8.1-9)
- crossing the sea (6.45-56; 8.10)
- conflict with the Pharisees (7.1-23; 8.11-13)
- conversation about bread (7.24-30; 8.14-21)
- healing (7.31-36; 8.22-26)
- confession of faith (7.37; 8.27-30)

Either Mark is an idiot who copies his own book, or something else is afoot. I go with the latter. He intends the parallel to be recognized because he is making several delicious points.

First of all, the background of Mark 6 is Herod's banquet of Mk. 6.21. Mark juxtaposes Jesus' banquet (the 5000) with Herod's banquet. One is sensual, self-centered, weak, lusty, and murderous—the King of the land. The other is compassionate, powerful, service-oriented, giving life—the King of Kings. Jesus is portrayed as the rightful king against this caricature of worldly excess and pride.

Mark 8 has its background in the exodus story, with distinct parallels between Mark 8 and Exodus 16-17 (was well as some other pieces of the exodus story). So in the two feeding miracles Mark is bringing out two different truths about Jesus: the first is that he is the true king, and the second is that he is the true Moses. Jesus is the new and rightful king for the Gentiles and for the Jews.

> The oral tradition factor

Darkness. You are assuming the stories are embellished, but I wonder why. While darkness is a common archetype, it doesn't mean this piece of the story is fictional. First of all, since there is much in Mark relating back to the Exodus, the darkness fits his schema since it was one of the plagues of Egypt. And, if we are going with the idea that Jesus really was God, and there is a distinct tie-in from OT to NT, from Moses to Jesus, and from the old Israel to the new people of God, literal darkness isn't far-fetched at all. Secondly, there are other times God used commonly recognized omens (such as happened in Joshua 10) to express his truth. Third, there were prophecies in Amos (8.9) and Joel (2.31) about darkness, so, again, if Jesus really were God, I would expect literal darkness at the time of his death. Just because there were other legends or myths of darkness at auspicious occasions doesn't necessarily mark this is a literary trope. (As an aside, I don't see an eclipse in Luke. He says, "the sun stopped shining," which could have happened for any number of reasons. Passover was always at full moon, and there can't be an eclipse of the sun at full moon.)

Simon and Simon. I don't understand the problem here. Simon was a common name. Besides, archaeologists have most likely found the literal Simon of Cyrene's bone box (https://israelpalestineguide.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/alexander-son-of-simon-ossuary-illustrated-2010-edit.pdf)

Barabbas. Luke, fairly well recognized as a reliable historical, mentions that Barabbas was an insurrectionist, and even Luke mentions the irony in it all. The Gospel of Mark itself is widely known to be full of irony, so we would expect Mark to play off of such things. But I know that the story of Barabbas is much debated.

Joseph of Arimathea. I agree that the specific location of Arimathea is unknown, but Ezra Gould (in the International Critical Commentary) says the name is the equivalent of the Hebrew "Ramah," and was the name of several places in Palestine. He (Gould) thinks it's Bethlehem, the birthplace of Samuel (1 Sam. 1.1), but it's impossible to know. Nothing more is known about Arimathea or about Joseph.

The enemy admitting they were wrong at the end. Another slice of Markan irony. Though the disciples, the crowds, and the religious leaders are blind to the significance of Jesus' death, this most unlikely of sources—a Gentile & a Roman—recognizes him. As is typical in Mark, the insiders who should know better are blind, but the outsiders can see.

But Mark is making a case. What the centurion said was, "Surely this man was a son of god," meaning he felt like Jesus was probably executed unfairly. But Mark takes his statement and plays on a common theme through his book: Jesus was an innocent sufferer. Mark has also used a lot of Isaiah's prophecies, so Isaiah 53 fits well here, too. If we picture the Roman centurion as a typical pagan, with polytheistic beliefs, we may interpret his confession as little more than a confused statement that Jesus has something godlike about him. But possibly the centurion saw something more, later became a believer, and that's how we know about his story: he told the Christians what he felt and said that day.

It's also true that this little snippet provides Mark with an excellent inclusio. He started his book by claiming that Jesus was the son of God, and the crucifixion ends with it being obvious to even a pagan and an outsider that that's who He was. It's a good piece of literary bookending, but that doesn't require that it's fictional.

> I don’t know which translation you got this from but that comma after Sidon is disingenuous.

All the commas are inserted. The original manuscripts use no punctuation. But notice the context. Mark 7.24 says Jesus was in the the district or region of Tyre, in general. We don't really know where in the vicinity he was. Syrophoenicia was also a region. Mark 7.24 says he left that place (wherever he was in Syrophoenicia) and went to the region of Tyre (again, very general)But then he left that region, in general, and went through Sidon (as you said, δια). Gould says, "The two statements taken together show that he means to distinguish between two districts of Syrophoenicia, the one in the vicinity of Tyre, and the other in the vicinity of Sidon." The real question is: Where did Jesus go? What route did he take? It's quite unclear; Mark is unspecific. I don't know how you can conclude Jesus didn't head north before returning to the region of Galilee.

> Herod Antipas

Antipas's territory was west and north of the Sea of Galilee. We don't know Jesus' exact route, but Antipas had killed John the Baptist, and Jesus had also spoken out about divorce. In Mark 9 we see Jesus at Mt. Hermon (probably), in the region of Caesarea Philippi, so Jesus seems to be cutting a wide swath around Antipas's state. We can only speculate.

> The 90s...My own researches don’t bear this out.

There is no end to the debate until more evidence surfaces, if it ever does. We could discuss this one until the moon turns into cheese.

> Because modern journalism, as we all know, doesn’t suffer under even the slightest tendency to sensationalise.

Oh, I agree. But it is true that some discoveries revolutionize our understandings, and that's all I was saying. It's not common, but it's not unheard of.

> The other alternative is that Jesus did these things more than once.

You think the feeding of the multitude may actually have happened twice? I sometimes think we’ve heard these stories so often we no longer realise how improbable their premises are (even given the possibility of miraculous powers). Even if one only looks at the fact that of thousands of people, only one person (and one person each time) brings food. Combined with all the other similarities, including the identical structure of the story both times, I can’t exclude it but it’s very improbable, IMHO.

> Differences prove nothing. Under the hypothesis of oral tradition we’d expect such differences.

The “oral tradition” factor is present everywhere, however. Mark displays lots of elements which are typical clichés in embellished stories. The passion story is one which particularly interests me in this regard, so I’ll go into more detail here.

1. A darkness accompanying the death of an important figure. A trope used absolutely ad nauseum in antiquity. This problem becomes virtually insuperable if one accepts Luke's claim that it was an eclipse, as an ominous event like this would almost certainly have been recorded by secular historians. (Thallus is thought to refer to the eclipse in Bythinia, by the way, so he doesn't count as a secular record)

2. Simon the disciple denying Jesus of his own choice three times (a symbolic number) placed against Simon the non-disciple helping Jesus against his will.

3. Similarly, Barabbas “the son of the father” placed against Jesus “the son of the Father” in a way oddly reminiscent of the scapegoat ritual in the Old Testament. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Romans were paranoid rules who would never have made a custom of setting free dangerous revolutionaries. Luke, apparently, thought the idea so silly he left that reference out of his Gospel altogether.

4. Names which are also puns. Like Joseph of “Good Disciple Town” Arimathea.

5. The enemy admitting they were wrong at the end (“surely this was the Son of God”).

There are other suspect elements, too. The consistent use of direct speech is particularly concerning, as the best historians in Antiquity use indirect speech. Again, that suggests a certain poetic licence. In the other Gospels this embellishment becomes even more obvious, for various other reasons.

(I’ve never understood the theory that Mark used Q. If we reconstruct Q on the basis of Matthew and Luke’s agreements against Mark, what possible basis can we have for reconstructing Mark’s use of it? Still, it’s not very important I suppose.)

> “Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis”

I find this rather amusing. I don’t know which translation you got this from but that comma after Sidon is disingenuous. The Greek says “he left the vicinity of Tyre and went through (δια) Sidon to (εις) the Sea of Galilee”. The interpretation you offer is strained and not in line with the natural sense of the Greek; at the very least we can say that Mark’s choice of words is highly misleading.

Also, I don’t understand your reference to Herod Antipas. How would he have avoided Antipas’ territory by going straight up north?

Your responses to my other objections are comparatively more plausible. But given that we know the author of Mark had a Roman background, his assumption that Roman divorce laws applied in Palestine is just the sort of thing we’d have expected him to say. In both cases your interpretations are possible, just (in my view) a good deal less probable.

> The 90s is only the extreme and radical fringe.

My own researches don’t bear this out. If I remember correctly Raymond Brown places him in the nineties and Brown is (was) rather the epitome of the “boring,” orthodox view.

>With some regularity I read things like "The discovery of this skull is motivating paleontologists to rewrite the entire human evolutionary tree.”

Because modern journalism, as we all know, doesn’t suffer under even the slightest tendency to sensationalise. “Evolutionary trees” don’t exist to begin with. Similarly, classical physics is definitely not the correct overarching model, but that doesn’t make it “wrong” – it explains all our observations in the area where it’s supposed to be applicable, it’s just inadequate in areas where it’s not.

> Mark looks like a collection of oral traditions

This is certainly one of the arguments against Markan authorship. You must know there are several guesses about Mark's source of material: (1) from Peter, as some of the Church Fathers claim, (2) from "Q", as those who believe in "Q" claim (though no evidence for or manuscripts of Q have ever been found or referred to in reference by another), and (3) Mark travelled with Jesus on occasion, was from Jerusalem, knew the apostles, his family was active in the early church, and Mark actually wrote it himself. That it looks like a collection of oral traditions is an interpretation by scholars. It's tough to know how much weight to give that perspective, honestly. The rock bottom truth is they're all just theories, and we really don't know. It's tough to take a firm stand when the ground is so squishy.

> from the fact that it includes a number of “doublets” (like the two stories of the feeding of the multitude)

The other alternative is that Jesus did these things more than once. There is enough difference between the two stories (of the multiplying of bread, for instance), that it could have happened twice, as Mark describes. These are events that are, at least for the time being, impossible for us to get a better handle on.

> Mark makes potentially misleading, if not outright incorrect, statements on Palestinian geography and customs which a local would have been unlikely to make.

I know that this is a widespread accusation against Mark. But I have at least a little counter to it.

"Sidon is not on the way from Tyre to Galilee." Mark never says it is. He says Jesus left Sidon, went to Tyre, and then to Galilee. Mark 7.31 says, "Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis." So what's to say that Jesus didn't walk northward before turning southeast toward Galilee, and then continuing on further southeast to Decapolis? For one, there is no particular reason to think that Jesus didn't travel around in the area of Syrophoenicia and the Decapolis as he did throughout Galilee. For two, Jesus may have been avoiding the territory of Herod Antipas. We can't just jump to a conclusion that Mark had it wrong.

"Divorce." I'm guessing you're talking about Mk. 10.12. There are other choices here. You know how John the Baptist spoke against the immoralities and infidelities of Herod? Maybe Jesus was doing that same thing. Herodias divorced her husband before she married Herod Antipas, and also Salome, Herod's sister, divorced her husband. Jesus may be confronting the immoralities of the ruling class, as did John.

"The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders." Mark 7.3. Sure, this is a bit of hyperbole common in language. "It was a great party. Everyone was there!" "Blood was everywhere!" Mark seems to be explaining a Jewish ritual to Gentile readers, explaining that "this is what Jews do."

> The fragment from 110-150... "Hang on, we seem to be straying from the point." You were saying that the manuscripts with the "According to Mark" attribution were late; I was merely tracing through some of the manuscript evidence for the book at large.

> What's the papyrus number of this fragment, btw?

It was discovered in 2012 but hasn't been published yet. Supposedly it will be published some time this year. So we can both consider this reference to be worthless until publication either confirms or refutes the claim.

> Latin wasn't spoken to any significant degree in Palestine.

You're right, though there was obviously some Latin there, since the sign on Jesus' cross was written partially in Latin. But remember that the claims of some are that Mark was written in Rome. I wasn't making a major point about the Latinisms, however.

> If Luke was written in the 90s, as is often thought

I would contend that this is not often thought, at all, except by the most far-out-there scholars. Luke is mostly thought to have been written in the 60s by conservative dating and the 80s by the most liberal. The 90s is only the extreme and radical fringe.

> I don't see how you possibly have construed my argument that way

Because I thought you said Paul died in Acts 20: "I think it very arguable that Acts 20:25, 37 is a reference to Paul's death." Sorry if I misunderstood.

> Scholarly consensus gets overturned, but not on this scale.

With some regularity I read things like "The discovery of this skull is motivating paleontologists to rewrite the entire human evolutionary tree." Quantum mechanics is assuredly making scientists wonder if classical physics (general relativity) is not the correct overarching model to understand the universe. The debate has been ongoing and the end is not in sight. As research in QM progresses, the scholarly consensus could be overturned on a major scale.

It's not an everyday thing that scholarly consensus gets overturned, but it sure happens with enough regularity, and sometimes on a major scale, like when Georges Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang Theory in 1927.

Before I respond to the above, let me briefly review the further reasons why I would be sceptical of the traditional attribution of the Gospel of Mark. The first in particular can be expanded on quite extensively, but I’ll be brief here.

1. Mark looks like a collection of oral traditions, from its loose structure, and from the fact that it includes a number of “doublets” (like the two stories of the feeding of the multitude). This casts doubt both on the traditional association with Peter and on the early dating you propose, as some time needs to be allowed for the development of the characteristics of oral tradition.

2. Mark makes potentially misleading, if not outright incorrect, statements on Palestinian geography and customs which a local would have been unlikely to make. Sidon is not on the way from Tyre to Galilee. Jewish women could not divorce their husbands. Not “all the Jews” wash their hands before eating. These are errors a Roman might well have made.

> There is a fragment of it, however, from some time between 110-150.

Hang on, we seem to be straying from the point. I'm not saying Mark was written that late, I'm talking about the title. Unless this fragment says κατα μαρκον or whatever it's not relevant to this point. (What's the papyrus number of this fragment, btw?)

Yes, they've been promising us that first century papyrus of Mark for years now. I wish they'd show some signs of activity. I'm rapidly growing cynical about the whole discovery.

> Latinisms of his later travels.

I'm not sure this is an adequate explanation of these Latinisms. Finding idiomatic Latin expressions in Mark point to someone fluent enough in the language that it influenced his Greek. You need to be past the eskez-vous-avez stage for that kind of thing to happen, and Latin wasn't spoken to any significant degree in Palestine.

It's not impossible, but on the balance of probabilities I wouldn't say it was written by someone who had just been in Rome for a few years.

Also, you could get around in Rome with Greek.

> That doesn't sound like a situation of aggressive Christian persecution in Rome to me.

Does that matter? If Luke was written in the 90s, as is often thought, Nero would have been a distant memory.

> if he died in Acts 20, then the rest of the book is just fiction?

I don't see how you possibly have construed my argument that way. I'm saying that the way that Luke retells the story in the relevant verses implies he had knowledge of the future events (i.e. that took place after Acts 28). It would have been very pessimistic to say Paul would never returned to Asia Minor if he was still active as a missionary (as the Spain tradition implies he was).

> We don't know this is wrong

That's a rather pedantic observation, IMHO. Scholarly consensus gets overturned, but not on this scale. We're certain of this to the point where it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

> Consequently, unless the manuscripts in question are very early indeed this is more of an argument for my view since they prove the attribution was relatively late; I don’t know off by heart but I’m guessing the relevant manuscripts are late second century?

The oldest extant manuscript dates from about AD 250. There is a fragment of it, however, from some time between 110-150. I had mentioned in my post 7Q5, 6, & 7 that may be from the 50s, but as of yet unconfirmed. Another discovery: A team of researchers were examining a papyrus-wrapped mummy mask and discovered what seems to be a fragment of Mark that dates back to AD 90. Work is being done on it at present.

Besides those physical evidences, Papias (AD 125) speaks of the existence of Mark's Gospel. Justin Martyr, in about 150, never quotes from Mark, but he calls James and John the "sons of thunder," a designation that appears only in Mark. He also said Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's memoirs. Then others quote from Mark: Irenaeus in 185, and Clement of Alexandria. Therefore the attribution may not be as late as the earliest manuscripts we possess, and that fact may be changing as we speak.

> It’s the Latinisms in Mark which are really surprising.

It doesn't make my case backfire, though. Mark was a Palestinian Jew who had travelled with Paul on his Gentile missions trips and (possibly) was with Peter in Rome for a few years, and he wrote his Gospel early (according to my contentions, probably in the late 50s). It wouldn't surprise me at all that his Gospel contains Aramaic phrases of a Palestinian Jew as well as Latinisms of his later travels.

> For Nero’s persecution and the Jewish war I can see no immediate reason why Luke should have mentioned either.

Except that Luke, in the book of Acts, is giving a history of the early church, particularly of Peter and Paul, and it would seem so odd for him not to mention the death of Peter (in AD 65), and to end Acts with Paul proclaiming the message of the Gospel with boldness in Rome! That doesn't sound like a situation of aggressive Christian persecution in Rome to me.

> For Nero’s persecution and the Jewish war I can see no immediate reason why Luke should have mentioned either. Peter disappears from the narrative altogether at a certain point. As for Paul, if Luke wrote after Paul’s death it’s understandable he wanted to avoid ending with a depressing decapitation story.

These are arguments from silence, also. Luke didn't seem to mind writing about the persecution of the church in Acts 8.1 and 11.19, or James's martyrdom in Acts 12.2. I can't imagine he would have shied away from reporting Peter's death. Martyrdoms were strengthening the Church.

> I think it very arguable that Acts 20:25, 37 is a reference to Paul’s death, which would invalidate this argument in its entirety.

Certainly Paul was wondering if his trip to Jerusalem would end in death. But if he died in Acts 20, then the rest of the book is just fiction???

> Clement of Alexandria also explicitly says Mark wrote after both Matthew and Luke, which we know is wrong.

We don't *know* this is wrong; it's just the current academic "consensus," but we know such do get overturned from time to time. But in addition to that, as I've admitted, we don't claim that the Church Fathers were inerrant in their writings.

> One very common word + two errors is quite an underwhelming evidence base, in my view.

I agree it's underwhelming, and may be totally specious. It was just an addition to the possibilities of the argument, and not (for the time being) a very important one. Hopefully I was clear that I wasn't putting any weight or warrant on that piece of evidence.

> Consequently, unless the manuscripts in question are very early indeed this is more of an argument for my view since they prove the attribution was relatively late; I don’t know off by heart but I’m guessing the relevant manuscripts are late second century?

The oldest extant manuscript dates from about AD 250. There is a fragment of it, however, from some time between 110-150. I had mentioned in my post 7Q5, 6, & 7 that may be from the 50s, but as of yet unconfirmed. Another discovery: A team of researchers were examining a papyrus-wrapped mummy mask and discovered what seems to be a fragment of Mark that dates back to AD 90. Work is being done on it at present.

Besides those physical evidences, Papias (AD 125) speaks of the existence of Mark's Gospel. Justin Martyr, in about 150, never quotes from Mark, but he calls James and John the "sons of thunder," a designation that appears only in Mark. He also said Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's memoirs. Then others quote from Mark: Irenaeus in 185, and Clement of Alexandria. Therefore the attribution may not be as late as the earliest manuscripts we possess, and that fact may be changing as we speak.

> It’s the Latinisms in Mark which are really surprising.

It doesn't make my case backfire, though. Mark was a Palestinian Jew who had travelled with Paul on his Gentile missions trips and (possibly) was with Peter in Rome for a few years, and he wrote his Gospel early (according to my contentions, probably in the late 50s). It wouldn't surprise me at all that his Gospel contains Aramaic phrases of a Palestinian Jew as well as Latinisms of his later travels.

> For Nero’s persecution and the Jewish war I can see no immediate reason why Luke should have mentioned either.

Except that Luke, in the book of Acts, is giving a history of the early church, particularly of Peter and Paul, and it would seem so odd for him not to mention the death of Peter (in AD 65), and to end Acts with Paul proclaiming the message of the Gospel with boldness in Rome! That doesn't sound like a situation of aggressive Christian persecution in Rome to me.

> For Nero’s persecution and the Jewish war I can see no immediate reason why Luke should have mentioned either. Peter disappears from the narrative altogether at a certain point. As for Paul, if Luke wrote after Paul’s death it’s understandable he wanted to avoid ending with a depressing decapitation story.

These are arguments from silence, also. Luke didn't seem to mind writing about the persecution of the church in Acts 8.1 and 11.19, or James's martyrdom in Acts 12.2. I can't imagine he would have shied away from reporting Peter's death. Martyrdoms were strengthening the Church.

> I think it very arguable that Acts 20:25, 37 is a reference to Paul’s death, which would invalidate this argument in its entirety.

Certainly Paul was wondering if his trip to Jerusalem would end in death. But if he died in Acts 20, then the rest of the book is just fiction???

> Clement of Alexandria also explicitly says Mark wrote after both Matthew and Luke, which we know is wrong.

We don't *know* this is wrong; it's just the current academic "consensus," but we know such do get overturned from time to time. But in addition to that, as I've admitted, we don't claim that the Church Fathers were inerrant in their writings.

> One very common word + two errors is quite an underwhelming evidence base, in my view.

I agree it's underwhelming, and may be totally specious. It was just an addition to the possibilities of the argument, and not (for the time being) a very important one. Hopefully I was clear that I wasn't putting any weight or warrant on that piece of evidence.

In general I can say that I find the argument on Mark as you’ve presented it considerably more persuasive than the argument for Matthew. I'll review the points you make now.

> It doesn't make a shred of sense that anyone would attach Mark's name as a pseudonym.

I can think of at least one theory: it was an attempt to link the Gospel to Peter without directly attributing it to him, based on the way Peter is linked to Mark in 1 Peter 5: “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.” This might have been the result of Mark’s (alleged) focus on Peter.

> The oldest traditions (with no external evidence to the contrary) uniformly associate Mark with the Gospel.

Yes. As with Matthew, that does help your case.

> The additions to the manuscripts ("According to Mark") are on different locations in different manuscripts, suggesting they were added from numerous sources, and yet all in agreement as to the source of the information and the identity of the author.

This seems to me to prove only that the autograph was anonymous. Consequently, unless the manuscripts in question are very early indeed this is more of an argument for my view since they prove the attribution was relatively late; I don’t know off by heart but I’m guessing the relevant manuscripts are late second century?

…Have checked with Raymond Brown and yes. In fact, in some mss the title is apparently added into the margin, making it all the more likely that this standardisation was late.

> The number of Aramaic words and phrases lend credence that the author was from Jerusalem

This argument, too, backfires. It’s the Latinisms in Mark which are really surprising. Expressions like το ικανον ποιειν (“satisfacere”) and οδον ποιειν (“iter facere”) are more suggestive of someone with a Roman background. Semitic influence can be explained as a result of the Septuagintal Jewish Koine he was using. Latinisms like those cannot really be explained unless from someone who regularly used Latin.

> The Gospel has similarities to things emphasized in the writings of Paul, commensurate with someone who had traveled with Paul.

Also with someone who lived in a community in Rome after Paul had been martyred there. Not sure what this is supposed to prove.

> Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem, Nero's persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (AD 61), Paul (possibly 64), or Peter (probably 65), or the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on.

This is an argument from silence. It’s not without merit, and again I readily agree that it doesn’t help my case, but there are parallels for ancient histories not being continued until the moment they are written.

For Nero’s persecution and the Jewish war I can see no immediate reason why Luke should have mentioned either. Peter disappears from the narrative altogether at a certain point. As for Paul, if Luke wrote after Paul’s death it’s understandable he wanted to avoid ending with a depressing decapitation story. The much more positive ending Acts provides is not illogical in this context. I think Luke’s failure to reference Paul’s journey to Spain, recorded by Clement, is a much bigger problem for my view, although I can think of some plausible alternative explanations.

More saliently, however, I think it very arguable that Acts 20:25, 37 is a reference to Paul’s death, which would invalidate this argument in its entirety.

> Acts deals with issues that were especially important before Jerusalem's fall (Gentile inclusion, Judaizer persecution, etc.)

This argument really did get me thinking, particularly for Mark. For Luke-Acts I find it less persuasive, in the first place because Luke is writing a historical account and there was no reason to edit this debate out if it really happened; and in the second because Luke presents the debate as more peaceful and friendly than Paul’s rather acerbic tone suggests it was, which fits with the idea that he’s looking back at it from a later point in time. When both parties were dead there was no reason to continue the polemical tone.

For Mark it works better, but even then I’d say that since the author appears to have been a Jew these are issues he would have been important to him whether he wrote before or after the 70s. (I’m referring particularly to the way Mark discusses whether or not the minutiae of Jewish law need to be followed.)

> Mark preserved Aramaic expressions where Matthew and Luke don't.

I assume you’re refering to “Talitha koum” and similar. This is not a bad argument, and certainly goes on the credit side.

> Clement of Alexandria says Mark was written while Peter was still alive. Papias said Mark wrote what Peter taught him

Clement of Alexandria also explicitly says Mark wrote after both Matthew and Luke, which we know is wrong. Papias says Mark wrote what “he remembered,” which suggests Mark wrote after Paul’s death. Consequently I’d take both claims with a pinch of salt.

> There has been an intriguing discovery, but yet to be completely verified.

This idea has since been unequivocally rejected by the scientific community. 7Q5 is the only one which I’ve ever seen given serious consideration; it only has a single word (και) in common with Mark, and it depends on assuming two errors in the text. One very common word + two errors is quite an underwhelming evidence base, in my view.

> By the way, Mark's repeated and consistent technique for sandwiching narratives is called intercalation.

According to wikipedia I’m right too [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusio[/url]. But thanks for the English term :)

> A little more refined than just temple = fig tree

Your point is very well taken. I find myself inclined to modify my view on this matter; there’s no conclusive reason to believe Mark wrote after the destruction of the temple. I’d say a date in the second half of the sixties is perhaps more plausible.

Placing the cataclysmic events of his time (earthquakes, wars with the Parthians, persecutions under Nero, the succession of emperors after Nero’s death, etc) in the context of his Christian eschatology isn’t “preaching to choir.” I agree that the destruction of the temple isn’t itself necessary, but the language Mark uses suggests something more physically cataclysmic than covenant jeopardy.

I'll edit to respond more fully to the last point and add my own arguments against the view that Mark was written by Mark when I can but I don't have the time at this precise moment :)

So, you want to talk about Mark. Sure.

Authorship?

1\. It doesn't make a shred of sense that anyone would attach Mark's name as a pseudonym. He was known as a deserter of Paul and Barnabas. he was not viewed as a significant character in 1st-c. Christianity.
2\. The oldest traditions (with no external evidence to the contrary) uniformly associate Mark with the Gospel. The additions to the manuscripts ("According to Mark") are on different locations in different manuscripts, suggesting they were added from numerous sources, and yet all in agreement as to the source of the information and the identity of the author.
3\. The number of Aramaic words and phrases lend credence that the author was from Jerusalem, and his numerous biblical quotations and allusions suggest he is Jewish. And the quality of Greek is not terribly high, consistent with Palestinian Jews.
4\. The Gospel has similarities to things emphasized in the writings of Paul, commensurate with someone who had traveled with Paul.

Date of writing?

1\. My first evidence comes from Acts, actually. Acts doesn't mention the fall of Jerusalem, Nero's persecutions (mid-60s), the martyrdoms of James (AD 61), Paul (possibly 64), or Peter (probably 65), or the Jewish war against Rome from 66 on.
2\. My second evidence is also from Acts. Many of the expressions in Acts are signs of an early writing during the primitive years of Christianity.
3\. Acts deals with issues that were especially important before Jerusalem's fall (Gentile inclusion, Judaizer persecution, etc.) Mark deals with subject matter even more elemental: Jesus at war with Satan. Some of Mark's material seems to be about the controversy over the status of Gentiles (common in Paul's writings), which was a completely dead issue after the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in AD 70.
4\. And since Acts is the second part of Luke's record, mostly likely Luke's Gospel was written before the early 60s. And since Luke got some of his material from Mark, that puts Mark in the 50s.
5\. Mark preserved Aramaic expressions where Matthew and Luke don't.
6\. Clement of Alexandria says Mark was written while Peter was still alive. Papias said Mark wrote what Peter taught him, Justin Martyr and Eusebius suggest Peter was in Rome from AD 54-65. (Irenaeus says Mark wrote after Peter's death.)

There has been an intriguing discovery, but yet to be completely verified. It at least gives us pause. I'll just quote it here, because it's more efficient to cut and paste: "Papyrologist José O’Callaghan has identified 7Q5 as a fragment of Mk. 6.52-53; 7Q6, 1 as 4.28; 7Q7 as 12.17, and 7Q15 as possibly 6.48, and says that they date to AD 50. The claim is based on a study of infrared and normal photographs of fragments of papyrus from Cave 7 at Qumran." It has yet to be substantiated by peer review.

Now, while Mark hints at the idea of the destruction of the temple, we have to understand that one of Jesus' themes in Mark is the failure of Judaism, so I would expect Mark's Jesus to emphasize it. Mark also emphasizes the dreadful failure of the disciples to comprehend anything. As a matter of fact, the only thing the disciples do right in the entire Gospel of Mark is the declaration by Peter that Jesus is the Christ. Other than that, it's a consistent two thumbs down.

By the way, Mark's repeated and consistent technique for sandwiching narratives is called *intercalation*. And I certainly agree that intercalates the destruction of the temple with the fig tree object lesson. The moral of the story is the failure of Judaism, as symbolized by the temple and Jerusalem, and its judgment by God (a little more refined than just temple = fig tree). "Those who have not, even what they have will be taken away," as Jesus says in another parable. Judaism was dead, as Jesus had been manifesting all along the way of his ministry but was particularly poignant in his trip to the temple the day before. The whole institution, symbolized by its spiritually bankrupt leaders) was incurable and called for judgment.

You say he's providing an explanation for why the temple had to be destroyed, but that's preaching to the choir when Christianity was flourishing (after 70 AD) and Palestine and Judaism were in complete disarray. He wouldn't have to tell the Christians why it was destroyed, and his Gospel wasn't written for Jews. So again, we disagree.

How do I otherwise explain this recurrent literary motif? Because Jesus was showing not just a new way, but the proper way from the beginning. Mark emphasizes Jesus' compliance with the Mosaic law, but it takes Jesus to a very different place and direction than Judaism and the Jewish leadership. Mark's point is that the covenant has been falsely construed, and that only by putting the wine in new wineskins will the covenant be adequately fulfilled. Resurrection is also a common theme throughout all of Mark, because Jesus is here to show that just because Judaism has failed doesn't mean true religion is dead. He has come to bring life out of death, symbolically, "cultically," physically and spiritually.

I think Mark is a story of covenant jeopardy, just like Genesis. Satan is determined to disrupt the plan of salvation, just like Genesis. Opposition is relentless (like in Genesis), the disciples are relentlessly dim (creating one obstacle after another, sort of like Adam and Eve, somewhat like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), but the authority of the Savior, in providential power, plays the plan of salvation through to its appointed end (just like Genesis). God reveals himself as he is, despite all the distortions. Jesus addresses the Babel Problem (deity falsely construed) as well as the Eden Problem (sin). Jesus represents God’s initiative to reconcile the world to himself.

That's where the temple story fits in: In Genesis 1 God orders a temple for himself that is adequate to display his majesty: the cosmos. Sin causes it to fall, but God is devoted to redeeming it. His presence on earth (similar to his presence in the Garden) in the person of Jesus is the true Temple, and the earthly temple (Herod's) is a sinful parody of what God intended. Therefore the whole book points to its destruction and Jesus' replacement of the physical temple with the Church (1 Cor. 3.16-17; 2 Cor. 6.16; Eph. 2.21).