We’re continuing on with the last of James Crossley’s arguments from his book DATE OF MARK’S GOSPEL – INSIGHT FROM THE LAW IN EARLIEST CHRISTIANITY (2004):

Crossley’s next focus is on Mark 7:1-23, where the Gospel of Mark talks about the law. But, Crossley tries to differentiate between Mark 7 and Matthew 15, saying that Mark only spoke of hand-washing because there had been no suggestion yet that all food was acceptable to eat, where Matthew had to make it “explicitly clear that Jesus was attacking handwashing and not the biblical food laws” because when he wrote Christians were already “claiming that biblical food laws did not have to be observed.” 

¹⁴When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: ¹⁵There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man…¹⁸So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, ¹⁹because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” ²⁰And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. ²¹For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, ²²thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, and evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. ²³All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”     (Mark 7:14,15,18-23; NASB)

¹⁰When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them “Hear and understand: ¹¹Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”…¹⁶So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? ¹⁷Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? ¹⁸But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. ¹⁹For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. ²⁰These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”     (Matthew 10,11,16-20; NASB)

Hmmm. So, Mark is unaware of any challenge to biblical laws on food, yet Mark says “thus, purifying all foods.” While Matthew is not mentioning food because he is avoiding the subject, knowing that biblical laws on food are a problem, and he does this by saying “but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”  I think Crossley has this quite wrong; I think that Matthew alluded to food in verse 17, so I don’t see him as avoiding the subject. Therefore, both writers had Jesus strongly hinting at what Peter was shown later in his vision. I don’t think either of them were dancing around a knowledge of a problem with biblical food laws.

Crossley attempts the same sleight of hand with the Synoptic Gospels’ writings on divorce. He says that “Mk 10.1-12 does not contradict the biblical allowance of divorce but rather assumes it was acceptable in certain cases such as adultery.” In fact, Mark says no such thing:

²And some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began questioning Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife. ³And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” ⁴They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and send his wife away.” ⁵But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. ⁶But from the beginning of creation, God CREATED THEM MALE AND FEMALE⁷FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER,⁸AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. ⁹Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” ¹⁰And in the house the disciples again began questioning Him about this. ¹¹And He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; ¹²and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”     (Mark 10:2-12; NASB)

Clearly, this passage of Mark doesn’t even hint at an acceptable reason for divorce. We cannot guess at an “assumed” allowance for adultery when there is not even the smallest hint of it.

Crossley then refers to 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, saying that it “qualifies the saying in the light of problems in Corinth.” In other words, the ruling in Mark was too “strict,” so Paul had to loosen it because of Corinth. Well, that sounds good, until you read the passage:

¹⁰But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife is not to leave her husband ¹¹(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband is not to divorce his wife. ¹²But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. ¹³And if any woman has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not divorce her husband. ¹⁴For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. ¹⁵Yet if the unbelieving one is leaving, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us in peace. ¹⁶For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know husband, whether you will save your wife?     (1 Corinthians 7:10-16; NASB)

Paul, not the Lord, said it’s okay if your unbelieving husband or wife leaves because you cannot force them to stay, but he does not give permission to remarry. This in no way contradicts or even loosens up what was said in Mark.

Crossley then moves to Matthew 5:31-32, where he says that Jesus makes it clear that divorce was okay in “the case of porneia, which it was argued means sexual immorality.” He argues that this was “added” to Matthew because of “similar issues” to Corinth. Let’s look at this passage:

³¹”Now it was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY IS TO GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; ³²but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.     (Matthew 5:31,32; NASB)

Ok, so a man can divorce his wife if she has committed sexual immorality, but he is not given permission to remarry. And, if anyone marries a divorced woman, then he is committing adultery. So, the only difference here between Mark, Matthew or 1 Corinthians is that the husband can divorce (and disgrace) an unfaithful wife. We assume, in modern times, that permission to divorce includes permission to remarry. I think they assumed that in the time of Moses as well. Jesus’ words in these passages do not seem to assume that at all.

Matthew 19:3-12 is also brought up by Crossley; this is much like Mark 10:2-12, except for verse 9:

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”     (Matthew 19:9; NKJV)

This is the only passage that seems to allow the man to remarry if the wife is adulterous. The NASB version does not include the last bit: “and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery,” which is interesting. But even with that line, there is no proviso made for a woman divorcing her husband on the same grounds, and certainly none for a divorced woman remarrying.

Crossley says that “[c]ontroversies concerning porneia were present at Corinth in the fifties so it was conjectured that Matthew’s clause would have to be added in the light of similar issues.” I submit that this is a complete misunderstanding of what Matthew was doing. I think Matthew was giving a fuller report of what Jesus said than Mark, or, as we shall see, Luke. Mark and Luke avoided controversy by leaving out the statement about infidelity or immorality, while Matthew included and explained it in more detail.

Luke writes:

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.     (Luke 16:18; NASB)

About Luke Crossley says: “Luke 16.18 avoids such difficulties [regarding immorality] by omitting the suggestion that divorce is not to be practiced and emphasizing that divorce and remarriage equals adultery (cf. 1 Cor. 7.11), which again suggests that Luke was written in the light of the problems that a strict divorce ruling caused.”

Nothing is more clear than Luke 16:18 in saying that divorce is not of God. To me, the simple statement of Luke is stark and uncompromising. How does this cause fewer problems or seem less “strict” than what Mark wrote?

As we leave Crossley, let’s linger a moment on the Hebrew vs Aramaic argument that we looked at earlier. There is a book called HEBREW GOSPEL OF MARK by Justin J. Van Rensburg, published in 2020. This book is a translation of a Hebrew version of Mark that was found in the Vatican Library (Vat. Ebr. 100). Here are some interesting quotes from the introduction:

“…From a linguistic viewpoint, the Gospel of Mark contained in the Vat. Ebr. 100 manuscript cannot originate from the Greek, Aramaic or Latin versions, and contains many interesting proofs that the Gospel of Mark was originally written in Hebrew.

“A good example is found in Mark 15:34. Let’s start with the King James Version, a fairly literal translation of the Greek Textus Receptus:

“‘And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?’

“What is quite obvious from this verse, is that Yeshua did not speak Greek on the cross. The Greek version of Mark first quotes a transliterated Aramaic phrase, and then interprets (or translates) it into Greek. This kind of phenomenon (transliterated Aramaic phrases in the Greek New Testament), together with the so-called ‘fact’ that the Jews no longer spoke Hebrew in the first century, has led to the commonly held (but erroneous) view that Yeshua spoke Aramaic, and not Hebrew. Some have also claimed that the New Testament, including Mark, was originally written in Aramaic.

“So let’s look at Mark 15:34 in the Aramaic version — does it represent the original version of Mark? Here is this verse from the ‘Original Aramaic new Testament in plain English’ translation, based on the Aramaic (Syriac) Peshitta:

“’And in the ninth hour Yeshua cried out in a loud voice, and he said “Eil, Eil, lemana Shabaqtani”, which is, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”’

“Thus, even in the so-called ‘original’ Peshitta version of Mark, we find this phrase repeated twice! Why would Mark in an ‘original’ Aramaic Gospel need to quote an Aramaic phrase, and then translate Aramaic into Aramaic? If the Gospel of Mark was originally written in Aramaic, and if Aramaic was the language that Yeshua spoke on the cross, exactly why should the phrase be repeated twice? This does not appear very ‘original.’

“Now, let us consider the Hebrew Gospel of Mark — does it shed any light on the subject? If Mark was originally written in the language that Yeshua spoke, there would of course be no reason to explain to the reader what Yeshua’s outcry meant, and we would find this phrase only once in verse 34, with no translation or explanation necessary. Here is a transcript of Mark 15:34 as contained in the Vat. Ebr. 100 manuscript:

”’And at the ninth hour Yeshua called out with a loud voice: “Eli, Eli! Why did you forsake me?!”’ 

“If this manuscript of Mark derived from the Greek, or Aramaic Peshitta, what would we find in Mark 15:34? We would first find the Aramaic phrase that Yeshua supposedly spoke, and then a translation into Hebrew, but we don’t. We only find a Hebrew phrase, which Yeshua quoted word for word from Psalm 22, and there is no reason for Mark to translate or explain it! This is one of many clear indications that the Gospel of Mark was first written in Hebrew, and this also shows that Hebrew is the language which Yeshua spoke on the cross!”

I find this pretty compelling. 

Next we’ll look at what some sites are saying about Mark online.

“Mark is likely the earliest gospel written, and a date in the late 50s would not be unreasonable. This gospel is anonymous. But early tradition attributes it to John Mark. He was a relative of Barnabas (Col. 4:10) and a one-time companion of Paul (Acts 13:5; 15:36-41). There is a tradition that he listened to the stories of Peter while in Rome and then crafted this account, but that is by no means certain. The curious reference in Mark 14:51-52 could well be Mark saying “I was there”.      [from https://aclayjar.net/2021/06/about-gospels/ ]

The author dates Mark to the late 50’s and Luke to the mid-60’s, so why wouldn’t those books have been written by the named authors? As far as we know, Mark was martyred on Easter day in 68 AD, so he would have been alive when the book of Mark was written according to this author. Likewise, Luke was supposed to have been martyred between 84 and 100 AD, so he also would have been alive when his book was supposed to have been written.

⁵¹A young man was following Him, wearing nothing but a linen sheet over his naked body; and they seized him. ⁵²But pulled free of the linen sheet and escaped naked.     (Mark 14:51,52; NASB)

I can’t recall ever reading that this young man might have been Mark. It’s an interesting idea, but it would seem that if Mark were truly there, he would have laid claim to being an eyewitness elsewhere in the Gospel, so I’m not convinced.  The usual theory for this passage is that the young man was John, who was a teenager at the time.

“Due to the evidence…for the date of Acts (~AD 62) and Markan Priority, we would date Mark in the late 40s or early 50s AD. In addition to that evidence, Papias (AD 130) states that ‘Mark became Peter’s interpreter, [and] he wrote down accurately, although not in order, all that he remembered of what was said or done by the Lord’ (Church History 3.39.15). If Nero executed Peter in AD 67, then Mark’s gospel would pre-date this time. While Irenaeus (AD 180) states that Mark ‘handed down’ his gospel after the martyrdom of Peter (Against Heresies, 3.1.2; cf. Church History 5.8.3), this could simply mean that Mark widely distributed his gospel after their deaths.”     [from evidenceunseen.com/theology/scripture/historicity-of-the-nt/evidence-for-an-early-dating-of-the-four-gospels/]

Some are convinced that Mark was written after Peter’s death on the same evidence given here. Personally, I find it interesting that this source quotes Early Church Fathers for Mark interpreting Peter, but avoid what they say about Matthean priority.

“Furthermore, there are places in the New Testament that imply the books were written long after the purported events, such as when the text reads, ‘In the days of John the Baptist,’ which indicates that the writer is set far ahead in time and is looking back.”   [from stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates/]

I disagree with the implication given here. First of all, I can’t find the line “In the days of John the Baptist” anywhere; just things like “in those days…” and “from the days of John the Baptist…”, etc.  Secondly, how else would one refer to the time when John the Baptist was alive? Even if it was only 5 years earlier, “in those days…” or “in the time of…” would still be appropriate. “Looking back” doesn’t have to be from a great span of time.

“Modern scholarship tends to date Mark’s Gospel around A.D. 70-75, Matthew around 75, Luke around 80-90, and John around 90-100. In part, these dates rest on the assumption that Mark’s Gospel was written first…Marcan priority is based on a number of considerations, including Mark’s being the shortest of the four Gospels, and the fact that its Greek prose is a lot worse than Matthew’s.”

This author apparently does not believe in prophecy, because he is assuming that all the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple. He is also assuming that only one of the Gospels could possibly be original, the other three are copies. It’s interesting how simplistic his reasons for Markan priority look after everything thing else I’ve read.

“If Mark were writing after Matthew, so the argument goes, then why on earth would Mark (a) cut out plenty of important material, and (b) repeat Matthew’s stories but without preserving Matthew’s superior Greek? For these reasons and others, scholars often argue that Mark offered the world the first “rough and ready” Gospel, which was then used later on by Matthew and Luke as one of the sources for their own more polished accounts.”

Again, only one can be acknowledged as original. Mark didn’t “cut out plenty of important material” at all: Mark reported what Peter was teaching. For the same reason, Mark was not preserving, or even paying attention to, Matthew’s “superior Greek.” Additionally, both were writing in Hebrew, the Greek translations came later, obviously by different people.

“All of this has consequences for the question of dating, because most modern scholars assume that Mark wrote around or slightly after A.D. 70, i.e., the year the Romans destroyed the Jerusalem Temple (see Mk 13). If Mark is writing just after the events of 70, then we can assume that it took a few years for his Gospel to circulate the empire. Eventually it ended up in the hands of Matthew, who sat down to write his own narrative using Mark as a source. Luke came a few years after that, and John is dated later still.”

More major assumptions: Prophecy is impossible; it took years for written documents to “circulate” in Roman times; Matthew, Luke and John were copycats; all the Gospels are based on a non-eyewitness account.

“Not all scholars agree with these assessments. In the past especially, it was generally assumed that Matthew’s Gospel was written first; hence the traditional ordering of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was deemed not just canonical but also chronological. Furthermore, a number of the Church Fathers, such as Augustine and Origen, attest to Matthean priority, and there remain various counter-arguments to the contemporary assumption that Mark must have been written first.”

The Early Church Fathers weren’t assuming, they were reporting, or “attesting to” as the author says. But this author doesn’t seem to think that the Early Church Fathers would have any special knowledge that should be taken into account, like the fact that some of them actually knew one or more of the Apostles, or, knew people who knew them. No big deal. Our modern assumptions are far more likely to be true.

Then, there are the “various counter-arguments” for Matthean priority:

“For example, Mark may have abridged Matthew’s Gospel on account of the needs and wants of the particular audience for which he was writing. And it could be that Mark’s Greek is inferior due to basing his Gospel on a prior Hebrew version of Matthew’s Gospel, rather than the final Greek edition of Matthew which we possess today. Finally, the fact that Mark includes many little but important details (e.g. describing the story of the sower as the most important of all the parables; seeMk 4:13) which are unique to him is suggestive that he might be writing after Matthew, since it is unlikely that Matthew would have chosen to leave those details out.“         [From stpaulcenter.com/when-the-gospels-written/]

Well, if Mark wasn’t the first and original Gospel, then it must have been Matthew: One of them must have been the original Gospel after all. I find it odd that he can’t even consider that Mark and Matthew could have been written independently. But, if you can’t believe in prophecy, then it’s probably too big a leap to think that Matthew and Peter (written down by Mark) would be teaching the same things for the most part, and that both would be influenced by the Holy Spirit. If the Bible isn’t seen as God’s Word, then of course they must have been all copying whichever came first.

Then there’s the Greek: How would basing his Gospel on a Hebrew version of Matthew lead Mark to write in terrible Greek? And, how often do we refer to a translation of something as the “final edition” of it? If that’s the case, then I would have to say that we actually possess the “final English edition” today.

The last argument is the most specious. To suggest that Mark has things that Matthew doesn’t but not vice versa completely exposes this author as a non-Bible reader. Let’s look at his suggestion that Mark 4:13 uniquely says that the sower parable is the “most important” one:

And He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? How will you understand all the parables?     (Mark 4:13; NASB)

I don’t really see this as Jesus saying the parable of the sower is the “most important of all the parables.” To me, He was saying that this parable was the easiest one to understand; as if He was saying, “How will you understand all the parables if you don’t understand this one?” It’s a mild rebuke. He doesn’t rebuke them in Matthew and Luke, but it may be that Peter felt this rebuke more strongly than the others did.

The next source, carm.org/about-the-bible/when-were-the-gospels-written-and-by-whom/, acknowledges that Mark is known as the “interpreter” of Peter, and actually uses Papias as a reference for that information. The author reports that “Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.” He reviews several of the more well-known arguments regarding priority, but also falling into the idea that one Gospel must be the original that was then copied.

The last source we’ll look at provides some interesting details:

“Mark was likely the first written Gospel, penned by John Mark, cousin of Barnabas (Colossians 4:3), [with inconsistent testimony from church history that states it was completed before or after the death of Peter in Rome in the mid 60s. The traditional African chronology (Coptic Church) teaches Mark was written in approximately 62 AD and was brought to North Africa by Mark where he was the leader of the church.] According to tradition Mark died in or near Alexandria in 68 AD. Though uncertain, there is no strong reason why this could not have been the case.  [from compellingtruth.org/when-gospels-written.html ]

An interesting side-note, I copied the above paragraph from the named website about 2 or 3 months ago. Just now I went to the same website and it had been edited. I changed the first line to match the current edition, though it didn’t change the meaning at all. The part in the brackets had been completely removed. I have seen this information in other sources, so I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t removed for accuracy. This is the big problem with using online sources: they are always changing.

That’s it for the evidence of the Gospel of Mark. Our next set of arguments will come from the Gospel of Luke.