Luke denies an early (pre-70) date for the Gospel of Mark

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

The gospel of Mark is said by some to have been written soon after the time of Jesus, possibly as early as the 50’s or even 40’s c.e. A significant part of this argument asserts that the events sequenced in the Little Apocalypse in each (Mark 13; Matthew 24) can be found in the historical events facing the church as early as that time. Luke’s gospel re-words this prophetic speech by Jesus in a way that informs readers that its author did not believe any of the events prophesied had happened so early. Firstly, a look at the sequence of events as found in the gospels of Mark and Matthew. . . .

Mark 13:6-8; Matthew 24:5-8 (all text references are hyperlinked)

The first prophetic event attributed to Jesus is that many deceivers would come in His name claiming “I am (Him).

Arguments for an early date for the recording of this in Mark’s gospel (the earliest written) say that this could have been fulfilled by Christian leaders boasting that Christ was speaking through them (Theissen). The Samaritan prophet who led a group up Mount Gerazim in search of Temple vessels according to Josephus, and the self-promoting claims of Simon Magus, are also tossed in as possible referents. This despite the fact that there is no evidence that either of these latter two made the sort of potentially deceitful claim touted by Jesus. The earliest evidence for what Simon Magus did say, Acts 8, in fact denies absolutely that he presented himself making his proclamations in the name of Jesus.

The next event are the wars, among both “kingdoms and nations (peoples/races)”

Early daters of Mark refer here to the Antipas-Nabatean war of 36-37 c.e. and rumours of war or at least intrigues involving more distant Parthians and Armenians. Greek-Jewish riots in Alexandria led to the Roman emperor Caligula sending legions to enforce the placement of his statue in the Jerusalem temple around 40 c.e. The only actual war then affecting Judea in any way at all was the Antipas-Nabatean war, but the other events can be talked up to create the impression of a more objective state of “wars and rumours of wars among kingdoms and nations” than everyone will feel comfortable accepting.

Next, earthquakes, famines, etc.

There was a major earthquake in Antioch/Syria in 37 c.e. Some have seen agrarian tax alleviation policies as signs of famines, although there could be other reasons for these. Occupying Roman legions, for example. Besides, does one earthquake to the north of Judea and several years old justify a claim that earthquakes (plural) point to Judea being under apocalyptic threat?

All of these are the beginning of sorrows; don’t fret; the end is not yet

Both gospels of Mark and Matthew make it clear that all of these things must first happen, but that readers should take them in their stride. They will be daily news when they happen and will not themselves be signs of the end.

Luke 21:8-11 follows the same sequence as found in Mark and Matthew above.

Luke changes direction

Comparing Luke 21:12 ; Mark 13:9-13; Matthew 24:9-13

Both Mark’s and Matthew’s gospels structure the sequence of events, along with notices of what must first happen, etc, to lead readers to understand that after the above events, persecution will fall upon the church. Not only persecution, but betrayals from within.

Don’t worry, what you see is not the sign you want to see, just be careful you are not deceived. Next: persecution follows. Now it gets serious for believers. More than simply be alert to avoid deception, they must now consider whether they can endure to the very end. That’s the message of the first two gospels.

But not Luke’s gospel. Luke changes the words of Jesus to say something else, to throw the whole sequence up into the air. And there would appear this author had a good reason for this change which I will come to.

Luke 21:12

But before all these things, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you . . . (The English translation accurately enough reflects the Greek here.)

In other posts I have argued (or will argue) that our gospel of Luke was a redaction of an earlier gospel, redacted by the same who authored Acts (Tyson). However that may be, many accept some form of unity of authorship or redaction of Luke-Acts. The final author of Luke worked with Acts in mind. And Acts establishes a foundational history of the church that begins, first and foremost, with persecutions. Persecutions had to come first in the words of Jesus in the gospel of Luke.

So how does this impact on the dating of the gospel of Mark?

It establishes that the author of our gospel of Luke (and Acts) either did not know of, or rejected, the so-called historical fulfilments of the sequential events in the Little Apocalypse as found in the gospels of Mark and Matthew.

To the author of our Luke-Acts, the threat of mass deception of the faithful was still an event waiting to happen in the future, specifically after Paul departed Miletus and Ephesus for the final time (Acts 20:28-30).

In other words, the very first event Jesus warned about in the Little Apocalypse is still a future event as far as the author of Luke-Acts is concerned. It was an event that the author warned would begin from the time that the events in the Book of Acts draw to a close.

The author of the gospel of Luke, by changing the sequence of the prophetic events spoken by Jesus, in fact denied that any such events had been fulfilled until much closer to the time of the fall of Jerusalem, certainly after 60 c.e. He denied that Mark’s gospel was grounded in social and political events of the late 30’s and early 40’s c.e.

Other issues arising

This post has only touched on one sliver of one facet in relation to the whole question of the dating the gospels, and of questions arising from the various redactions of the Little Apocalypse. Perhaps I’ll touch on a few more in future post discussions — one sliver at a time.

The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

0 thoughts on “Luke denies an early (pre-70) date for the Gospel of Mark”

  1. “The author of the gospel of Luke, by changing the sequence of the prophetic events spoken by Jesus, in fact denied that any such events had been fulfilled until much closer to the time of the fall of Jerusalem, certainly after 60 c.e. He denied that Mark’s gospel was grounded in social and political events of the late 30’s and early 40’s c.e.”

    I agree with the first sentence; the author of Luke is quite clear in his modifications (imho of Matthew and Mark) that the Roman siege of Jerusalem lies foremost in his mind in the eschatological discourse, which in his intertextuality he sees as a parallel to the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BC (similar to what is found in 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra), and there is no hint of any connection with events a generation earlier.

    And v. 12-19 are definitely to be seen in light of the persecutions and testifying borne by the Christian mission as related in Acts. One thing that supports this is Acts 27:34, which utilizes the language of Luke 21:18 which is part of a Lukan redaction of the discourse.

    However I don’t think I would agree with the wording in the second sentence and the title of the post that implies that Luke was necessarily making a statement about Mark per se, whether on the date of the book or what Mark construed as the fulfillment of its predictions. As suggested earlier in the post, Luke probably was unaware of a connection with the events of the late 30s or early 40s.

    My own opinion, btw, is that it is quite plausible that the Markan discourse derives from a non-Christian (Jewish) apocalypse from the time of Claudius (e.g. between 40-45 if not later), which in its original form was an exegetical reworking of Daniel (which later became a source for 4 Ezra), but which came to be attributed to Jesus in Christian circles. I also reject the attempts to relate the various apocalyptic features to actual wars, earthquakes, etc. of the period — these are typical apocalyptic motifs and most are motivated by the OT (and Daniel in particular). Rather, it the occasion afforded by the controversy of AD 40 that led to a renewed interest in the Gentile “coming ruler” of Daniel 9 (as an Antiochus redivivus) and his “abomination of desolation”. This updated earlier speculations from the time of the Herodians (a comparison of Mark 13 with the Testament of Moses 5-10 is instructive).

  2. By “Luke” in this context I’m thinking of the final redactor who produced our canonical Luke and who, let’s say, also authored Acts. I agree to the extent he may not necessarily have been making a statement about Mark per se, since he was adapting the material in Mark to establish his own agenda, of which Acts was at the very least a major part.

    I have frequently seen it argued (more correctly “asserted”) that Mark 13 originated as a Jewish apocalypse but don’t recall seeing strongly connecting evidence for this. But I’m always open to new ideas and viewpoints, so shoot if you will.

    My favoured literary perspective on Mark does lead me to see this discourse as very tightly integrated structurally, thematically and verbally into the gospel. Hence as quite plausibly a Markan invention after all. . . .

    . . . The idea of a prophetic discourse warning a hero’s followers of trials ahead just prior to that hero descending to hell and back or reaching some final denouement appears to be standard fare in Greek and Latin epics as well as popular “novels”.
    . . . The gospel opens with prophetic proclamations preceding baptism of the hero, while its concluding section opens with this prophetic discussion preceding the last supper and what it symbolized. (Thinking here of Pauline/Markan connections between baptism and death, and the 2 apparent “sacraments” among the earliest churches.)
    . . . Then there are the allusions to watching, sleeping, coming, being dragged before rulers, fig trees, etc. that are echoed in the ensuing/surrounding narrative as “subtly” as motifs in the earlier chapters are similarly echoed in the “Passion Narrative”.

    I’m still at sixes and sevens over the final place of this “Little Apocalypse” within the overall trajectories of gospel origins. Was it known independently to Matthew? Was it composed or adapted in relation to Hadrian rather than Claudius or Titus?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading