The data available for the determination of the time of composition are limited and uncertain. The Paschal Chronicle places the Gospel at A.D. 40, and Eusebius in his Chronicon puts it in the third year of Claudius (A.D. 43). Irenzeus and Clement Alex. both represent it as written after Peter’s arrival in Rome, which might be early in A.D. 63. But they differ in that Clement speaks of it as composed while Peter was alive, whereas Treneus describes it as published after the death of Peter and Paul.
Of the various historical testimonies, that of Ireneus appears to be both the most definite and the most credible. Doubt has been cast upon it. Some allow it to be nothing more than an inference from the statement made by the author of the Second Epistle of Peter (1°) regarding his purpose to ‘have these things in remembrance’ after his decease (Fritzsche, Hug, Eichhorn). Others sus- pect it as if it were more doctrina! than historical (Weizsiicker). But these objections are not of serious weight, and the difference between Irenzeus and Clement on the one point is neither sufficient to discredit the whole tradition, nor large enough to affect by more than a few years the indication of date which we get from tradition.
The internal evidence points on the whole to the same approximate period. There are things indeed in the Gospel which are thought to point to a later date than that suggested by Irenzus. The references to the coming of the Son of Man, and the final tribulation in 9! 13°4, are said, when compared with their parallels in the first Gospel, to betray the disposition to put these events further forward than is the case in Mt. But it is precari- ous, to say the least, to build much upon the phrase ‘till they see the kingdom of God coming with power,’ as if it meant that the mighty effects of that kingdom must first be seen at large on earth. Nor can much be made of the change from ‘immediately after the affliction of those days’ in Mt 3459 to ‘in those days after that affliction’ in Mk 134%. ‘The use of the word εὐσγγέλιον in 11 is taken to be another sign of a late date, the term being supposed to mean there ‘gospel history.’ But it may mean simply the ‘glad tidings’ or announcement of the promised Messiah, Internal considerations of this kind are altogether uncertain and inadequate. Nor do they gain much when it is urged in addition that it is antecedently improb- able that any Gospel in the form of a regular, finished, written record could have been produced before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Much turns upon the view taken of the eschato- logical passages. The parable of the fruit-bearing earth (4%) has been placed alongside these, and | has been strangely regarded (by Weizsiicker) as an
MARKET-PLACE
262
— οΟ᾿------
MARRIAGE
indication that the Gospel was composed after the | AV by the more general term ‘market.’ Its primary
destruction of Jerusalem. But the impression | produced by the words on the end in ch. 13 (espe- cially vv.!% 4. 24.92.33) js different. They naturally suggest that the end as yet was only in prospect, and there is no passage which clearly means or certainly suggests that the fall of Jerusalem and the temple was an accomplished event. It is reasonable to suppose that, if so great a catastrophe in Jewish history had taken place within a recent or a comparatively recent period, there would have been indications of it in less obscure forms in the earliest of the Gospels. There are also occasional expressions, such as the reference to the presenta- tion of the shewbread as if it were an existing custom (226), which imply rather that the city and temple were still standing. And there are others which are difficult to harmonize with a late date. It is admitted, e.g., that ‘the recollection implied in the notice that Simon was the father of Alex- ander and Rufus prevents the Gospel from being put too late into the 2nd cent.’ (S. Davidson, Int. to the NT, i. p. 508).
The period which seems to be made most prob- able, both by historical testimony and by internal considerations, is that between Irenzus’ date and the year A.D. 70. Weiss proposes the close of the seventh decade, or about A.D. 67. A date only a little before the destruction of Jerusalem, perhaps early in A.D. 70, is as near as we can get. But where facts are so scanty and the indications given in the writing itself are of such uncertain inter- pretation, it remains a question only of greater or | less probability.
Lrrerature.—Of the Comm. those especially by Victor, Theo- st, Maldonatus, Cornelius a Lapide, Bengel, Wetstein, Morison, Schanz, Knabenbauer, Lange, Alford, Michelsen, Meyer, Cook (Speaker's Commentary), Holtazmann (Hand-Commentar),Plumptre (Cassell’s Commentary), Riddle (Schaff's Popular Commentary), Maclear (Cambr. Series), Bruce (ρου. Gr. Test.), Gould Untern. Orit. Com.), Swete. Of the treatises on NT Introduction, those espe by B. Weiss, Th. Zahn, Hilgenfeld, Bleek, Reuss, Holtzmann, G. Salmon. 8, Davidson, Jilicher,Godet. Also the following: Weiss, Das Marcusevangelium ; Kiostermann, Das Marcusevange- tium:; A.B. Bruce, The Synoptic Gospels ; Charteris, Canon- icity; Westcott, Canon of the NT, and Introduction to the Study of the Four Gospels; Kenrick, Biblical Essays ; Ptleid- erer, Hibbert Lectures, and Urchristenthum ; Harnack, Ge- achichte der altchristl. Literatur; Grau, Entwickelungsge- achichte des NT Schriftthums; F.C. Baur, Das Marcusevange- lium nach seinem Ursprung u. Charakter ; Ἐς. C. Baur, Krit- ische Untersuchungen tiber die Kan. Evang., and Christen- thum u. Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte ; Schwegler, Nachapost. Zeitalter ; Hilgenfeld, Die Erangelien nach ihrer Entstehung u. ges. Bedeutung, Kanon u. Tradition, and Das Marcusevangelium: Weisse, Die Evang. Geschichte krit. u. phil. bearbeitet ; Holtzmann, Die Synopt. Ev., thr Ur- sprung u. gesch. Charakter; Weizsicker, Untersuchungen uber die Evang, Geschichte; Credner, Einleitung in das NT; ! Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons; Griesbach, Opuscula ; Ewald, Die drei ersten Evangelien ; Hofmann, Die heilige Schrift NT zusammenhdngend untersucht ; Reinhard, Obser- vationes phil. et exeg. ἀν. Evangel. Marci; Scholten, Het oudste Evangelie, ete.; Hitzig, Veber Johannes Markus u. seine Schriften; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt.; Delitzsch, Neue Untersuchungen wb. die Entsteh. wu. Anl. ἃ. Kanon. Evangel. ; Weitffenbach, Die Papias-Fragmente tiber Marcus und Matthdus; Ritsehl, Theol. Jahrb. 1851; Huidekoper, Jn- direct Testimony of History to the Genwineness of the Gos- pels; Volkmar, Die Evangelien, oder Marcus u. die Synop- six: Holsten, Die drei ersten noch ungeschr. Evangel, ; Giese- , Historisch-krit. Versuch, ete.; Keim, History of Jesus of Nazara ; Wilke, Der Urerangelist, oder exeg. Unters. fiber das Verwandschaftsverhdltnis der drei ersten Evang. ; Koppe, Marcus non Epitomator Matthei; Girike, De fonti- bus Ev. Marci; Knobel, De Er. Marci Origine; Schultze, Der schrifistellerische Charakter u. Werth des Ev. Mare Schenkel, Charakterbild Jesu; B. Bauer, Aritik der Ev. Geschichte ; Kienlen in SK, 1843 ; Biumlein, ἐδ. 1863 ; Badbam, St. Mark's Indebtedness to St. Matthev ; Titius, Das Verhait- nis der Herrnworte in Markusevangelium zu den Logia des Matthdius; Hadorn, Die Entstehung des Markus-ecangelium ; Wright, Some New Testament Problems ; Blass, Philology of the Gospels; Chajes, Markus Studien; du Buisson, Origin, ete., of Gospel of St. Mark; Hawkins, Horw Synoptic.