Editing Gospel of Mark (section)

==={{Anchor|Authorship, date and genre|Authorship and genre|Authorship}}Authorship and date===
An early Christian tradition deriving from [[Papias of Hierapolis]] (c.60–c.130 AD){{sfn|Keith|2016|p=92}} regards the Gospel as being based on the preaching of Saint Peter, as recorded by [[John Mark]], a companion and interpreter of [[Saint Peter|Peter]].{{sfn|Sanders|1995|pp=63–64}}{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=156}}{{sfn|Watts Henderson|2018|p=1431}} Most scholars argue that it was written anonymously,{{sfn|Sanders|1995|pp=63–64}}{{sfn|Watts Henderson|2018|p=1431}}{{efn-la|name="authorship"}} and that the name of Mark was attached to it{{when?|date=January 2025}} to link it to an authoritative figure,{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=156}} according to [[Adela Yarbro Collins]], already early on, and not in a later stage of the early Church history.{{efn-la|[[Adela Yarbro Collins]], a Biblical scholar at [[Yale Divinity School]], notes that Paul's letter to Philemon also mentions a Mark, which may be the same as the Mark from Acts. While it may be possible that the Gospel of Mark was written by this Mark, many scholars argue against this possibility, given the contradictions between Paul and Mark's theology and literary aspects.{{sfn|Collins|2007|p=5-6}}}} [[Helen Bond]] also argues that the name goes back to the earliest period of circulation and claims that the Gospel was written by somebody named Mark.<ref>{{cite book |last= Bond |first= Helen |author-link= Helen Bond |title= The First Biography of Jesus: Genre and Meaning in Mark's Gospel |year= 2020 |publisher= Eerdmans |page= 10-11 |isbn= 978-0802874603}}</ref> [[Gerd Theissen]] also argues for homonimity.<ref name="n307">{{cite book | last=Theissen | first=Gerd | last2=Maloney | first2=Linda M. | title=The New Testament: A Literary History | publisher=Fortress Press | series=G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series | year=2011 | isbn=978-0-8006-9785-3 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AZdAxLt4lVUC&pg=PT109 | access-date=11 February 2025 | page=unpaginated | quote=In the case of Mark and John}}</ref> Scholarship is inconclusive on authorship, with some denying that the gospel was written by anyone named Mark while others accept the view John Mark was the author. Others argue the gospel was written by a Mark not mentioned in the Bible or connected to Peter.<ref>{{Cite book |title=T&T Clark Social Identity Commentary on the New Testament |publisher=T&T Clark |year=2020 |isbn=9780567667861 |pages=70}}</ref> It is usually dated through the [[Eschatology|eschatological]] discourse in Mark 13, which scholars interpret as pointing to the [[First Jewish–Roman War]] (66–74 AD)—a war that led to the [[Siege of Jerusalem (70 CE)|destruction of the Second Temple]] in AD 70. This would place the composition of Mark either immediately after the destruction or during the years immediately prior.{{sfn|Telford|1999|p=12}}{{sfn|Leander|2013|p=167}}{{efn|{{harvnb|Leander|2013|p=167}} refers to {{harvnb|Hengel|1985|pp=7–28}} and {{harvnb|Collins|2007|pp=11–14}} as arguing for a dating immediately before 70 AD, and to {{harvnb|Theissen|1992|pp=258–262}}, {{harvnb|Incigneri|2003|pp=116–155}}, {{harvnb|Head|2004}} and {{harvnb|Kloppenborg|2005}} as arguing for a dating immediately after 70 AD. Leander also refers to the minority position of {{harvnb|Crossley|2004}}, who proposed a much earlier {{circa|35–45}} AD dating, listing reviews that point out the problems with Crossley's argument.}} Most scholars place Mark during the buildup of the [[First Jewish-Roman War]] (65-70 CE), while a plurality date it shortly afterwards (71-75 CE).<ref>{{cite book |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |title= Jesus Darkly: Remembering Jesus with the New Testament |date= 2018 |publisher= Abingdon Press |page= 59 |isbn= 978-1501839115}}</ref> The dating around 70 AD is not dependent on the naturalistic argument that [[Jesus]] could not have made an accurate prophecy; scholars like Michael Barber and Amy-Jill Levine argue the [[Historical Jesus]] predicted the destruction of the Temple.<ref>{{cite journal |first= Matthew |last= Levering |title= The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology, and the Gospel of Matthew by Michael Patrick Barber (review) |journal= The Catholic Biblical Quarterly|volume= 22-3|year= 2024 |issue= 3 |pages= 1053–1059|doi= 10.1353/nov.2024.a934941}}</ref> Whether the Gospels were composed before or after 70 AD, according to Bas van Os, the lifetime of various eyewitnesses that includes Jesus's own family through the end of the [[First Century]] is very likely statistically.<ref>{{cite book |last= van Os |first= Bas |year= 2011 |title= Psychological Analyses and the Historical Jesus: New Ways to Explore Christian Origins |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 57, 83 |isbn= 978-0567269515}}</ref> [[Markus Bockmuehl]] finds this structure of lifetime memory in various early Christian traditions.<ref>{{cite book |last= Bockmuehl |first= Markus |author-link= Markus Bockmuehl |year= 2006 |title= Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study |publisher= Baker Academic |pages= 178–184 |isbn= 978-0801027611}}</ref> The author used a variety of pre-existing sources, such as the conflict stories which appear in Mark 2:1-3:6, [[Apocalyptic literature|apocalyptic]] discourse such as Mark 13:1–37, miracle stories, parables, a passion narrative, and collections of sayings, although not the hypothesized [[Q source]].{{sfn|Burkett|2002|p=156}}{{sfn|Boring|2006|pp=13–14}} Nicholas Elder argues that Mark is an oral work involving both a speaker and a writer who composed the text, based on its oral characteristics and patristic testimony.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Elder |first=Nicholas |title=Gospel Media |publisher=Eerdmans |year=2024 |isbn=9780802879219 |pages=366-68}}</ref>  While [[Werner Kelber]] in his media contrast model argued that the transition from oral sources to the written Gospel of Mark represented a major break in transmission, going as far to claim that the latter tried to stifle the former, [[James Dunn (theologian)|James DG Dunn]] argues that such distinctions are greatly exaggerated and that Mark largely preserved the Jesus tradition back to his lifetime.{{sfn|Dunn|2003|pp=203}}<ref>James D.G. Dunn, "Messianic Ideas and Their Influence on the Jesus of History," in ''The Messiah'', ed. James H. Charlesworth. pp. 371–372. Cf. James D.G. Dunn, ''Jesus Remembered''.</ref> Rafael Rodriguez too is critical of Kelber's divide.<ref>{{cite book |last= Rodriguez |first= Rafael |year= 2010 |title= Structuring Early Christian Memory: Jesus in Tradition, Performance and Text |publisher= T&T Clark |pages= 3–6 |isbn=  978-0567264206}}</ref>