What are the reasons Mark's Gospel was the first to be written?

Answer 1

A:

The reason for such a long delay is unclear, but some scholars point out parallels between some of the text in Mark's Gospel and Paul's epistles. The gospel may have been based in part on, or inspired by, the epistles, which are generally thought to have been written in the fifties, give or take a few years. The coincidence of the timing of Mark's Gospel with the end of the First Roman-Jewish War also suggests a possible connection with the events of that time and the imperative to write a gospel.

Answer 2

A:Mark's Gospel was the first New Testament gospel to be written and was used by each of the other evangelists as the principal source for their own gospels. As the original New Testament gospel, if Mark's Gospel is not the word of God, then none of them is.

Answer 3

A:Since the New Testament gospels were all written anonymously, in spite of the eventual attributions to the apostles whose names they now bear, we can not know why Mark's Gospel was written when it was written. What we do know is that the other gospels were clearly based on Mark's Gospel, and therefore must have been later in time.

As long ago as the second century, the Church Fathers realised that there was a literary dependency among, at least, the synoptic gospels. They decided that Matthew's Gospel was written first and that Mark and Luke were copied from it. However, modern scholars have demonstrated that Matthew and Luke were actually copied from Mark. Whenever Matthew and Luke agree with Mark, they do so with unusual consistently, often in exactly the same words in the Greek language.

Copying proves sequence. To show that Mark was first, it is only necessary to prove that Mark must have been the original from which the others were copied, rather than any of the alternative copying scenarios. Evidence in that copying does prove the case, and some of the more straightforward issues can be explained. Matthew could not have been copied from Luke, or vice versa, because the inconsistencies between the two gospels can not be accounted for in this scenario.The 'Missing Block' of Luke demonstrates conclusively that it could only have been copied from Mark and not vice versa. It only remains to show that Matthew was copied from Mark, and not the reverse. Scholars of ancient texts note that whenever copying has occurred, the more elaborate account is almost always the later one. Just as Luke elaborates on Mark (and Johnon Luke) whenever there is a difference in two accounts, so also Matthew consistently elaborates on Mark. Furthermore, Mark's Gospel (chapter 13) has Jesus tell the disciples that the world will end in the lifetimes of some of those then present, and that they will see him return on clouds of glory. Writing some years later, the author of Matthew's Gospel realised that this was no longer credible, as most of those alive at the time of Jesus had already passed away, so altered this passage and had Jesus say that no one knows when the end will be. The sequence of the gospels can also be established with some certainty by the developing anti-Jewish nature of the narrative: Paul was a proud Jew, as he showed in his epistles: Mark keeps most of its invective for the Pharisees and scribes, not for the Jews as a whole; Matthew is mildly anti-Jewish; Luke more so; John is strongly anti-Jewish, as is Acts of the Apostles, written by the same author as Luke, but somewhat later.

Biblical scholars say that Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70 CE. Matthew's Gospel was next, written in the eighties of the first century, although Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament) says that several years should be allowed either side of that decade. Luke's Gospel was written in the nineties of the first century or quite early in the second century. The last New Testament gospel was John, written early in the second century.

Why no one wrote another narrative gospel in the forty years between the time of Jesus and the time of Mark's Gospel is a matter for speculation. It may be that no other potential evangelist even knew of the story of Jesus of Nazareth until Mark's Gospel was circulated.

Answer 4

Most authors accept that the Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark. He was the son of Mary of Jerusalem, who owned a house there which the Christians used as a meeting place.

The external evidence for this is early, strong, and from various parts of the empire. Papias (about a.d. 110) quotes John the Elder (probably the Apostle John, though conceivably another early disciple) as saying that Mark, the associate of Peter, wrote it. Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark all concur.

The internal evidence for Marcan authorship, while not extensive, does tie in with this universal tradition of early Christianity.

It appears the writer knew Palestine well, especially Jerusalem. (The accounts regarding the upper room are more detailed than in the other Gospels-not surprising if it was in his boyhood home!) The Gospel shows some Aramaic background (the language of Palestine), Jewish customs are understood, and the vividness of the narrative suggests close ties with an eyewitness. The outline of the book's contents parallels Peter's sermon in Acts 10.

Tradition is that Mark wrote the gospel while in Rome, there is a greater number of Latin words in his Gospel than the others (such as centurion, census, denarius, legion, and praetorium).