www.thetextofthegospels.com
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6346409181794331060&postID=1667395118155815678
Demian said...
The venerable Bede in his commentary on 1 Peter 5:13, seems to suggest that Mark wrote his gospel during the time of the emperor Claudius and after that was sent to Egypt. If that is correct, then his gospel would have been written no later than 54. Here’s what he says:
“Peter and Mark both came to Rome during the time of the emperor Claudius and Mark himself, having written his Gospel at Rome, was sent to Alexandria. Hence it is gathered that when it is asked where and when Peter wrote this Letter (the 1st letter of Peter), the place was Rome, the time that of Claudius Caesar”
Theophylact is also of the same mind. Here’s what he says in the preface of his commentary to the gospel of Mark:
“The Gospel According to St. Mark was written ten years after the Ascension of Christ. This Mark was a disciple of Peter, whom Peter calls his son, that is, his spiritual son. He was also called John,' and the nephew of Barnabas, and the companion of Paul. But eventually he accompanied Peter the most, and was with him in Rome. The believers in Rome begged Mark not only to preach orally, but also to give them a written account of Christ’s life. He agreed, and composed it immediately. God revealed to Peter that Mark had written this Gospel, and when he saw it, Peter confirmed its truth, and sent Mark as bishop to Egypt. There Mark preached and established the Church in Alexandria, enlightening all those in that sunny land to the south”
PS: Both fathers commented on the gospel of Mark and had in their bibles the long ending of Mark, by the way.
====
Steven Avery
Theophylact is interesting. And I see Theophylact as missing the high priest Theophilus, which makes Luke c. AD 41 rather than late 40s.
Theophylact gives a date in the 60s for John, which feels late, but is possible, it would need its own study.
Plus, Luke preceded Mark, as explained by Ben C. Smith, and I tweaked from a more evangelical perspective.
Mark's dependence on Luke - the end of Markan priority - plus support for the traditional ending
http://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/marks-dependence-on-luke-the-end-of-markan-priority-plus-support-for-the-traditional-ending.1308/
As for what most scholars think, that is totally irrelevant. Only a handful will even contemplate the New Testament completed before AD 70. Those early daters are the only scholars really worth considering on this question, imho. (You might allow them to have a late Revelation date, and still consider their writings.) Even writers like eyewitnesses Richard Bauckham are irrelevant on NT dating.