This post uses three pieces of internal evidence to date the Gospel of Mark. There is special attention paid to the terminus ad quem of a dating range for Mark. The widely-accepted evidence that the Gospel of Mark is dated in 70 CE or later, in relation to the Jewish war and the destruction of the Temple, as a terminus a quo, is assumed to be conclusive a fortiori, for the purpose of setting the upper bound or terminus ad quem. The well-known evidence here, discussed here, is the first of the three pieces of evidence considered.
This is the second piece of internal evidence used to date the Gospel of Mark:
If this were accepted as sound also, then the terminus ad quem is 74 CE, and the range of dating for the Gospel of Mark is 70-74 CE. And indeed it could be considered approximately as good as the evidence that Mark dates post-70 CE, which is widely accepted already. However, it might be contended that this interpretation is not secure enough to set the terminus ad quem of Mark. For that reason, we will consider one more piece of internal evidence.
Mark 9:1 has Jesus say to his disciples and some people assembled with them:
The kingdom of God coming with power is an eschatological reference. The author of the Gospel of Mark would be able to see that this had been proven false, if it had, and would have edited it out (as Luke did) or even corrected the tradition (as John 21 does), instead of passing it along or making it up. This implies that the saying had not yet been proven false and that there were still some living, who were previously alive at the time when Jesus is said to have lived, at the time that Mark wrote.
The time that Jesus is said to have died was when Pilate was prefect of Judea (26-36 CE). As a simplifying assumption, with a reasonably low (but not unreasonably low) age for the followers of Jesus granted a fortiori, the listeners of Jesus are taken to have been about 20 years old in 30 CE.
This table regarding life expectancy:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/lifetbl.html
Allows the construction of a table for the chance of a 20 year old in 30 CE still being alive.
The saying in Mark implies that multiple people are still alive at the time that Mark writes. This will be taken to be possibly as low as two people, a fortiori.
The crowd size is not stated. It could be fifty, a hundred, several hundred, or more. Again reasoning a fortiori, we'll do the computation for a crowd size of 1000, but also keep track of sizes 50 and 100. This is the chance that all of them have died, or all but one have died, by a certain year CE and age.
This is the chance that the event, the death of the last standing here (possibly excepting one), occurs in the five years before each of these dates.
Assuming for each of the possible dates for this event (the death of all those standing there, save one) that there is a uniform distribution of probability of the writing of Mark between 70 CE and the date of that event, the chance of the writing of Mark in each time period is given as follows.
At the 99.7% confidence level, it turns out not to have mattered what we selected as a population size, up to a starting population of 1000 twenty year olds. Given the parameters we've used, this looks like a solid terminus ad quem of 95 CE.
Still, it would be possible to criticize this date of 95 CE a little bit. If the date that Jesus was active is 35 CE, then all the computations are shifted later by five years, and the terminus ad quem is instead 100 CE. If there are also 15 year olds in the crowd instead of 20 year olds, the terminus ad quem is instead 105 CE. A better approach at modeling would include a range of ages for those standing nearby, instead of a single age.
It would be inappropriate to speak of such a high level of confidence without taking these factors into account, so we can say that we have a solid terminus ad quem of 105 CE, reasoning a fortiori. This means that Mark could be stated to date in the wide range of 70 CE to 105 CE.
So, from the first and third piece of evidence, we know that the Gospel of Mark is dated in a 35-year span of 70 CE to 105 CE. That leaves a few considerations that are useful in estimating the most probable date of Mark, namely: the slackening of the level of confidence stated, the tightening of the assumptions used above (such as crowd size), and the incorporation of the second piece of evidence.
In terms of slackening the level of confidence stated and tightening the assumptions used, a 90% level of confidence, combined with crowd size of 100, results in a terminus of 90 CE. Using a 95% level of confidence, combined with a crowd size of 50, results in a terminus of 90 CE. This is a reduction of only five years from the 95 CE we first stated, based on a 99.7% level of confidence and a crowd size of 1000. It seems that level of confidence (above 90%), like crowd size (within 1000), has a limited effect on the result. Still, it seems reasonable to say that the probable date range is closer to 70 CE - 90 CE than to 70 CE - 105 CE, if willing to discard the less probable part of the wider date range, 90 CE - 105 CE, that depends on granting more generous a fortiori assumptions.
The range 70 CE - 90 CE is closer to what you would expect to be stated as a result by a historian given the non-exact nature of history. This is approximately the range given by Doherty in his book, The Jesus Puzzle. It includes ten years more than the terminus ad quem given by the Early Christian Writings website, which could be updated to give a range of dating accepted by more scholars (excepting, for example, Markus Vincent).
There's just one wrinkle here. The second piece of evidence points towards a tighter range of dating, 70 CE - 75 CE. This evidence can be taken in one of two ways:
(a) As establishing the 70 CE - 74 CE dating range, within the previously established wider dating ranges of 70 CE - 90 CE or 70 CE - 105 CE. If so, the range of dating for Mark could be stated as 70 CE - 74 CE.
(b) As interacting with the previous probability distribution (established by points one and three) to lower the terminus ad quem at a certain level of confidence. This assumes that the second piece of evidence is non-conclusive but still probative.
(a) would change the terminus ad quem, while (b) would change the probable date but not the terminus. For example, suppose as much as 50% to 70% of the probability distribution is assigned to this pre-74 interpretation of Mark, leaving the rest of the 30% to 50% of the probability distribution to be allocated as previously calculated. This would make the 70-75 CE date range probable at approximately a 60% to 75% probability. But the terminus would still be around 90 CE, when stating a result that implies a higher level of confidence (90% or higher).
So, based on the first and third pieces of evidence, the probable date range is 70 CE - 90 CE, and the entire date range that is plausible is 70 CE - 105 CE.
If the second piece of evidence is taken as probative but inconclusive, the probable date range is 70 CE - 75 CE, and the entire date range that is plausible is 70 CE - 90 CE.
If the second piece of evidence is taken as conclusive, the entire plausible date range is 70 CE - 74 CE.
The consensus dating previously stated was a terminus of 80 CE, but this terminus dating could be updated to 90 CE to reflect more securely the state of evidence (not just opinion). This brings the dating offered by Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle within the statement of the consensus dating. Individual interpreters may still reasonably use the range 70 CE - 74 CE within this wider range based on the second piece of internal evidence.
This is the second piece of internal evidence used to date the Gospel of Mark:
Verse 14 says: "When you see the 'Abomination of Desecration' standing where it should not be - let the reader take note! - those in Judea must flee to the mountains." The parenthetical comment to "let the reader take note" underscores the fact that this speech was written for the Christians of Mark's time. The contemporary audience of Mark would understand very well what he was talking about, although the 'Abomination of Desecration' is a cryptic reference to us. The phrase is borrowed from Dn 9:27, where it refers to Antiochus profaning the Temple of Jerusalem c. 165 BCE (probably with an image of Zeus), although it has been adapted to the evangelist's times. In the context of the First Jewish Revolt, this probably refers to the profanation of the Temple by the Romans. Josephus tells us that the victorious soldiers raised their imperial standards and worshiped them in the holy place (Wars of the Jews 6.6.1).
Randel Helms comments on the reference to Daniel in the Gospel of Mark (Gospel Fictions, p. 8):
Helms goes on to argue that the reference to the messianic pretenders in 13:21-22 suggests that the author of Mark wrote shortly after 70 rather than a few years before. Josephus tells us about Menahem, the son of Judas, as well as Simon, the son of Gioras, "both of whom were striking messianic pretenders." Helms states, "As far as Mark was concerned the Jewish War was over; there remained only the cosmic disorder and the Second Coming."
Randel Helms comments on the reference to Daniel in the Gospel of Mark (Gospel Fictions, p. 8):
So Daniel's "time, times, and half a time" is three and a half years, or twelve hundred and ninety days. The author of Daniel was referring, with the "abomination of desolation," to the altar to Zeus that Antiochus IV established in the Jerusalem temple in December, 167 B.C.E., as I Maccabees 1:54 tells us. But in Mark's eyes, Daniel really was speaking of Mark's own time, the "time of the end," when another "abomination of desolation" was set up in the Jerusalem temple. For according to Josephus, the regular offering ceased in the temple in July, 70, the temple was burnt in August, and later that month the imperial Roman eagle was set up in the temple precincts and sacrifice was offered to it; then in September the temple was razed to the ground (Josphus, The Jewish War, Chapters 6, 7). Three and a half years thereafter would be early in the year 74. It should not be surprising that a first-century author might apply the Book of Daniel to the Jewish War; Josephus himself did so, he tells us, in the summer of the year 70, at the height of the seige (Josephus, 309).
Helms goes on to argue that the reference to the messianic pretenders in 13:21-22 suggests that the author of Mark wrote shortly after 70 rather than a few years before. Josephus tells us about Menahem, the son of Judas, as well as Simon, the son of Gioras, "both of whom were striking messianic pretenders." Helms states, "As far as Mark was concerned the Jewish War was over; there remained only the cosmic disorder and the Second Coming."
If this were accepted as sound also, then the terminus ad quem is 74 CE, and the range of dating for the Gospel of Mark is 70-74 CE. And indeed it could be considered approximately as good as the evidence that Mark dates post-70 CE, which is widely accepted already. However, it might be contended that this interpretation is not secure enough to set the terminus ad quem of Mark. For that reason, we will consider one more piece of internal evidence.
Mark 9:1 has Jesus say to his disciples and some people assembled with them:
And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.”
The kingdom of God coming with power is an eschatological reference. The author of the Gospel of Mark would be able to see that this had been proven false, if it had, and would have edited it out (as Luke did) or even corrected the tradition (as John 21 does), instead of passing it along or making it up. This implies that the saying had not yet been proven false and that there were still some living, who were previously alive at the time when Jesus is said to have lived, at the time that Mark wrote.
The time that Jesus is said to have died was when Pilate was prefect of Judea (26-36 CE). As a simplifying assumption, with a reasonably low (but not unreasonably low) age for the followers of Jesus granted a fortiori, the listeners of Jesus are taken to have been about 20 years old in 30 CE.
This table regarding life expectancy:
https://www.richardcarrier.info/lifetbl.html
Allows the construction of a table for the chance of a 20 year old in 30 CE still being alive.
30 CE / 20100.0000%35 CE / 2592.0000%40 CE / 3083.7200%45 CE / 3574.5108%50 CE / 4065.5695%55 CE / 4556.3898%60 CE / 5046.8035%65 CE / 5536.9748%70 CE / 6027.7311%75 CE / 6518.5798%80 CE / 7010.9621%85 CE / 755.1522%90 CE / 801.6487%95 CE / 850.0165%100 CE / 900.0002%
The saying in Mark implies that multiple people are still alive at the time that Mark writes. This will be taken to be possibly as low as two people, a fortiori.
The crowd size is not stated. It could be fifty, a hundred, several hundred, or more. Again reasoning a fortiori, we'll do the computation for a crowd size of 1000, but also keep track of sizes 50 and 100. This is the chance that all of them have died, or all but one have died, by a certain year CE and age.
5010010000.04%0.00%0.00%75 CE / 652.15%0.01%0.00%80 CE / 7026.39%3.24%0.00%85 CE / 7580.06%50.76%0.00%90 CE / 80100.00%99.99%98.78%95 CE / 85100.00%100.00%100.00%100 CE / 90
This is the chance that the event, the death of the last standing here (possibly excepting one), occurs in the five years before each of these dates.
5010010000.04%0.00%0.00%75 CE / 652.11%0.01%0.00%80 CE / 7024.24%3.23%0.00%85 CE / 7553.67%47.52%0.00%90 CE / 8019.94%49.22%98.78%95 CE / 850.00%0.01%1.22%100 CE / 90
Assuming for each of the possible dates for this event (the death of all those standing there, save one) that there is a uniform distribution of probability of the writing of Mark between 70 CE and the date of that event, the chance of the writing of Mark in each time period is given as follows.
50100100026.58%22.81%19.96%75 CE / 6526.54%22.81%19.96%80 CE / 7025.48%22.80%19.96%85 CE / 7517.41%21.73%19.96%90 CE / 803.99%9.85%19.96%95 CE / 850.00%0.00%0.20%100 CE / 90
At the 99.7% confidence level, it turns out not to have mattered what we selected as a population size, up to a starting population of 1000 twenty year olds. Given the parameters we've used, this looks like a solid terminus ad quem of 95 CE.
Still, it would be possible to criticize this date of 95 CE a little bit. If the date that Jesus was active is 35 CE, then all the computations are shifted later by five years, and the terminus ad quem is instead 100 CE. If there are also 15 year olds in the crowd instead of 20 year olds, the terminus ad quem is instead 105 CE. A better approach at modeling would include a range of ages for those standing nearby, instead of a single age.
It would be inappropriate to speak of such a high level of confidence without taking these factors into account, so we can say that we have a solid terminus ad quem of 105 CE, reasoning a fortiori. This means that Mark could be stated to date in the wide range of 70 CE to 105 CE.
So, from the first and third piece of evidence, we know that the Gospel of Mark is dated in a 35-year span of 70 CE to 105 CE. That leaves a few considerations that are useful in estimating the most probable date of Mark, namely: the slackening of the level of confidence stated, the tightening of the assumptions used above (such as crowd size), and the incorporation of the second piece of evidence.
In terms of slackening the level of confidence stated and tightening the assumptions used, a 90% level of confidence, combined with crowd size of 100, results in a terminus of 90 CE. Using a 95% level of confidence, combined with a crowd size of 50, results in a terminus of 90 CE. This is a reduction of only five years from the 95 CE we first stated, based on a 99.7% level of confidence and a crowd size of 1000. It seems that level of confidence (above 90%), like crowd size (within 1000), has a limited effect on the result. Still, it seems reasonable to say that the probable date range is closer to 70 CE - 90 CE than to 70 CE - 105 CE, if willing to discard the less probable part of the wider date range, 90 CE - 105 CE, that depends on granting more generous a fortiori assumptions.
The range 70 CE - 90 CE is closer to what you would expect to be stated as a result by a historian given the non-exact nature of history. This is approximately the range given by Doherty in his book, The Jesus Puzzle. It includes ten years more than the terminus ad quem given by the Early Christian Writings website, which could be updated to give a range of dating accepted by more scholars (excepting, for example, Markus Vincent).
There's just one wrinkle here. The second piece of evidence points towards a tighter range of dating, 70 CE - 75 CE. This evidence can be taken in one of two ways:
(a) As establishing the 70 CE - 74 CE dating range, within the previously established wider dating ranges of 70 CE - 90 CE or 70 CE - 105 CE. If so, the range of dating for Mark could be stated as 70 CE - 74 CE.
(b) As interacting with the previous probability distribution (established by points one and three) to lower the terminus ad quem at a certain level of confidence. This assumes that the second piece of evidence is non-conclusive but still probative.
(a) would change the terminus ad quem, while (b) would change the probable date but not the terminus. For example, suppose as much as 50% to 70% of the probability distribution is assigned to this pre-74 interpretation of Mark, leaving the rest of the 30% to 50% of the probability distribution to be allocated as previously calculated. This would make the 70-75 CE date range probable at approximately a 60% to 75% probability. But the terminus would still be around 90 CE, when stating a result that implies a higher level of confidence (90% or higher).
So, based on the first and third pieces of evidence, the probable date range is 70 CE - 90 CE, and the entire date range that is plausible is 70 CE - 105 CE.
If the second piece of evidence is taken as probative but inconclusive, the probable date range is 70 CE - 75 CE, and the entire date range that is plausible is 70 CE - 90 CE.
If the second piece of evidence is taken as conclusive, the entire plausible date range is 70 CE - 74 CE.
The consensus dating previously stated was a terminus of 80 CE, but this terminus dating could be updated to 90 CE to reflect more securely the state of evidence (not just opinion). This brings the dating offered by Earl Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle within the statement of the consensus dating. Individual interpreters may still reasonably use the range 70 CE - 74 CE within this wider range based on the second piece of internal evidence.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:25 am