When was Mark written?

It was not only Paul who was very close to Mark but also Peter. According to very old traditions Mark is supposed to have written his gospel based on sermons and communications which Peter gave in Rome for the believers there. Up to the very day this thesis is partially based on the usage of divers Latin words, the habit to explain Jewish terms, the rare references to Old Testament passages and the poignant and lively style. To rightly divide this gospel, however, it is not necessary to know these traditions. Instead, the profound occupation with the contents and structure of this Bible book - inspired by the Holy Spirit - is essential.

It is not possible to determine precisely the time of writing of this gospel. The scientists' views vary between 55 and 70 AC.

From these notices we learn, that he was neither an apostle nor one of the seventy — that he had not companied with the blessed Lord during His public ministry. But we may suppose he was anxious to work for Christ, and so joined Barnabas and Saul, though it afterwards appeared that his faith was not equal to the hardships of a missionary life. "Now when Paul and his company loosed from Paphos, they came to Perga in Pamphylia: and John departing from them returned to Jerusalem." (Acts 13:13) Mark is supposed to have written his Gospel about A.D. 63.

From the time of Herder (1780), however, the notion arose that Mark's, the shortest and simplest of the three, was the earliest of the Gospels written. Lachmann (1835) gave formal expression to this belief (see Burkitt, p. 37). For a time, in the hands of the dominant Tübingen school (Baur, Hilgenfeld, etc.), Matthew's priority held its ground, and as late as the year 1885 H. J. Holtzmann could describe this as a "burning question." It is still an open one, although the suffrages of most experts, including Westcott in England (p. 190), are for Mark (see below under "Synoptic Problem"). Some of these, nevertheless, allow that passages such as Matt. 5:17, Matt. 10:6, Matt. 15:24, tell against their opinion. Certain modern writers have held that Mark was last of the three, whilst some Germans in the middle of the last century have assigned to Luke priority over both Matthew and Mark. Such was already Beza's opinion at the time of the Reformation: he could not believe that Matthew and Mark wrote before Luke, because of the third Evangelist's apparent criticism, in his Preface, of all predecessors. But it has not been generally supposed that Luke included Matthew and Mark in what he there says. Matthew, at any rate, was an "eye-witness," an "attendant on the Word" (Greswell, p. 75), whilst Mark's Gospel is in close relation to the Apostle Peter's ministry (note 2).

Dean Robinson adopts Professor Harnack's earliest date for Mark, which is A.D. 65; Professor B. Weiss's date is A.D. 67. The corresponding date for Matthew is A.D. 70 (the Epistle of Barnabas, quoting Matthew's Gospel, refers to the destruction of Jerusalem as quite recent); and for Luke, A.D. 80. Zahn's dates are, for Mark, A.D. 67; for Luke, A.D. 75; for Matthew, A.D. 85.

The chief result of assigning the earliest date of all to Mark has been that the critics' view of the development of Christian doctrine has been shaped by their interpretation of this Gospel in particular, which is regarded as exhibiting the teaching of the "historical" in distinction from the "Pauline" Christ. Mr. F. W. Newman, in his last book, "Hebrew Jesus," remarked (p. 57): "No one can reasonably doubt that the whole essence of the faith and religion of Jesus of Nazareth finds its expression in the Lord's Prayer." Strange to say, the prayer is not contained in the Gospel of Mark! For reply to the same writer's remarks in "Phases of Faith," p. 173, on the Synoptists in relation to the Deity of Christ, see J. N. Darby, "Irrationalism of Infidelity," p. 287.

Many have based their belief that this Gospel was composed for the special benefit of Christians at Rome on the presence of numerous Latin expressions in it, but these were current coin throughout the Empire. The reference to Alexander and Rufus (Mark 15:21) is suggestive, because of mention of a Rufus in the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. 16:13). But there is something to be said for Birks' view (p. 227 ff.; cf. Bernard, p. 43) that Mark's Gospel had Palestinian Roman readers in view from the fact that no geographical explanation is offered, such as Italians would require, where some (as Wellhausen, Wernle) find vagueness in his statements, so as to attribute to the Evangelist himself imperfect knowledge of the country. As to this, however, see Greswell (p. 98 f.).

2 The treatment of incidents in which Peter is prominent strikes all readers: that which would be honourable to the Apostle is passed over, whilst anything discreditable to him is emphasized. If this be not seen, some support might attach to the Tübingen "tendency theory." Peter's connection with this Gospel acquired, however, a legendary character, more and more as the actual circumstances receded. Papias (A.D. 125) and Irenaeus (A.D. 180) having represented the Gospel as finished after the death of Peter, Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200) spoke of it as written in his lifetime; Eusebius as with the Apostle's sanction; whilst Jerome (A.D. 420) makes out that Peter dictated it (Pfleiderer, i. 398f.).

As to the extent of the circulation of Mark's Gospel in the early Church, see Burkitt, p. 260 f. The earliest Greek commentary upon it which is extant was that of Victor and others of Antioch (about A.D. 400); the earliest Latin that of our venerable Bede. See, further, note 168.

3 Since the middle of the second century of our era (with the exception of a statement by Clement of Alexandria, that the two Gospels with genealogies were the first written), the Gospel of Mark has taken the second place, intermediate between those of Matthew and Luke, of the Gospels called "Synoptic" by Griesbach (1790). So in typical authorities such as Muratori's fragment in the West, Athanasius's list of books in the East, neither Mark nor Luke is placed first in a single document. The traditional idea, followed by Origen (third century), has been that Matthew's was the Gospel first of all written, then Mark's; and this belief was accepted by post-Reformation writers of repute, such as Grotius and Bengel. In the nineteenth century Greswell (i., p. 16) adhered to the old view, and it underlies Bernard's esteemed Bampton Lectures on "Progress of Doctrine," where (p. 143 f.) Matthew's close link with the Old Testament and his treatment of the Gospel preached first to "the circumcision" (Rom. 15:8), have been emphasized. Archbishop Thomson, in his introduction to the first volume of the "Speaker's Commentary" (p. xxxvii. 1.), did not depart from it. Roman Catholic opinion, represented by Hug (1808) and Schanz, maintains the precedence, of Mark over Luke. That W. Kelly's conviction was the same as that of these various writers appears in his "Lectures on Matthew" (p. 376. f.).

1877 375 Mark 16:20, I think, plainly shows that it was not written till all the gospel history which we have in the Acts, etc. (the Revelation only excepted), was over. God has given His history of the foundation of Christianity, and would allow, at the utmost, but this brief notice of the general dispersion of the doctrine of Christ. That it is a summary of the facts we have in John and Luke, the Galilee account ending with verse 8, we have already seen.

Mark 16:20, I think, plainly shews that it was not written till all the gospel history which we have in the Acts, etc. (the Revelation only excepted), was over. God has given His history of the foundation of Christianity, and would allow, at the utmost, but this brief notice of the general dispersion of the doctrine of Christ. That it is a summary of the facts we have in John and Luke, the Galilee account ending with verse 8, we have already seen.

127 Mark 13:2. — From the vicious standpoint of critics explained in the last preceding note Wernle would date the publication of this Gospel after the year 70 (see note 3), because of the destruction of the Temple being placed in the forefront of the discourse — that is, anything like veritable prediction is denied to our Lord as to mere men like Isaiah; simply human foresight at its best (that in His case likewise faulty!) is allowed.

“Then we have the Syriac translation, so old that no one knows its age. Eusebius, in his history (b. iii. c. 39), tells us that Mark wrote his Gospel from the instruction of Peter, who was probably put to death about the tenth year of Nero, A.D. 65. But Peter mentions Paul’s Epistles, classing them with the “other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:15-16). Paul wrote fourteen epistles before he was put to death by Nero, who killed himself, A.D. 68. Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was living, for he leaves Paul “in his own hired house” (Acts 28:30-31). But Luke had written his Gospel before he wrote the Acts (Acts 1:1; Luke 1:1-5). And Paul quotes Luke’s Gospel (Luke 10:7) as “Scripture” along with Deuteronomy 25:4, in 1 Timothy 5:17-18. And Luke tells us that others had written of the life of Christ before he did (Luke 1:1-4).

Codex Forojuliensis (for). This is a very good copy of the Gospels of the sixth century. It is stated that Mark's Gospel was removed from this copy and taken to Venice and there passed off as the actual copy of Mark's Gospel. written by himself! Of course it only imposed upon those who did not know that Mark wrote his gospel in Greek instead of Latin.