Intro to My Markan Research

I wanted to take some time and share with you something that I have been working on this year: Markan research. In the spring semester of 2019, I was taking a course at Houston Baptist University under Dr Michael Licona.  During the course, Dr Licona had offered the opportunity to supervise a master’s thesis on the topics of the Gospel of Mark’s dating, authorship, and connection with Peter.  From what I understand, Dr Licona became interested in those topics because a Facebook conversation prompted his curiosity after he was asked what the majority of scholars believed Mark’s dating to be. Dr Licona had his son-in-law go to the library at Emory Divinity School and research all the commentaries written by scholars.  By scholars, Dr Licona meant someone who holds a PhD in New Testament studies or a degree similar or relevant to Markan studies.  Also, these scholars had to publish their works between 1965 and present.  So, the research entails a sample of modern-day scholarly opinions on the aforementioned topics of Mark. During the course, Dr Licona asked the class who would be interested in continuing the research.  I believe at that time he had a sample of about 75 scholars.  By the end of the course, I was blessed to be given the opportunity to continue the research on those topics.  So, in May 2019 I began my research the Gospel of Mark’s dating, authorship, and Mark’s connection with Peter.  I quickly realized that scholars regularly debated Mark’s provenance, which has implications on the other topics.  So, I decided to research that topic, too. As of October 27, 2019, I have sampled 205 scholars.  By the time I complete my thesis in December, I will probably have a couple more scholars sampled.  My thesis under Dr Licona will be on the dating of Mark.  Eventually, Lord willing, the thesis and the results of the other three categories will be published in 2021/22.  Also, I will probably continue to research these topics as my hopes are to be a scholar, continue ministry, and defend truth. At this time, I am not going to be providing the statistical data.  This is partial because I have to still fine-tune some of the numbers; however, I wanted to share a few things from each category:

Authorship:

A decent size of scholars hold to John Mark or a Mark (unknown or biblical) as being the author of the Gospel of Mark.  The earliest manuscripts are anonymous; however, these scholars generally agree with patristic evidence and make various connections with the biblical evidence for John Mark authorship. A few scholars questioned the gender of the author.  However, there is no other author suggested in the earliest church traditions.

Dating:

Scholars date Mark anywhere between A.D. 33 through the third century.  Yes, as early as A.D. 33 and as late as the third century.  The majority of the debate among scholars seems to be Mark 13 and its relationship to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in A.D. 70:  Does Mark 13 predict or presuppose the destruction of the temple?  Can a date be narrowed down before or after? Is Mark 13 relevant to dating the Gospel?  And many more questions.

Peter:

As I was tracking the Gospel of Mark’s connection with Peter, I noticed scholars argued for other sources that may represent the Markan text.  I tracked those, too.  A large sample size of scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark is connected with Peter.  Most of the arguments in support of Peter being Mark’s source are in acceptance to the patristic data—the long line of church writers who associated the Gospel of Mark with Peter.  There are some scholars who also believed that Peter was not Mark’s only or even primary source.  There are also some scholars who deny Petrine influence and think Mark’s Gospel came from elsewhere. Some scholars hold to different versions of the synoptic problem (e.g., Matthean priority, Proto-Luke) and are either silent or deny Petrine influence in the text.  One scholar believed that Marcion’s Gospel was Mark’s source.  A few others seem to think that the Homeric Epics were transvalued by Mark in creating his ‘fiction.’  Also, at least one scholar believed that Mark’s source was the

Secret Gospel of Mark

.  There was also defenses that Paul was a source for Mark.  These were some of the highly defended topics. It is important to note that I have not found a single scholar, who has argued that Mark’s Gospel (or any Gospel) is a product of the evangelist using dying and rising god mythology (e.g., Osiris, Horus).  There are some people who wrote books and argued such a position, but they do not hold an advanced degree.  Additionally, it does not seem to me that scholarship would ever take them seriously.

Provenance:

The patristic data has a bit of disagreement on the origin of the Gospel of Mark: Rome, Italy, and Alexandria are the locations suggested.  Scholars have also suggested other areas (e.g., Galilee, Antioch, Syria).  Because of the differences in provenance, some scholars wonder if some (or all) of the patristic data concerning the Gospels can be trusted.  Additionally, if it can be shown that the Gospel of Mark was not written in Rome (or that the author was not in Rome), then connecting the Gospel of Mark with Peter becomes even more difficult. This is because, as scholars allege, if the patristic writer was wrong in one reporting, how can we know if he is correct elsewhere.  In the end, there seems to be far more scholars who hold to Rome than its alternative.  With another decent size of scholars remaining silent on provenance. I hope you have enjoyed and I look forward to sharing more with you.