When was the Gospel of Mark written?

[@EricHernandez]

You're the man Mike!

[@mikaelium192]

rhymes with "Van Dyke"

[@yakovmatityahu]

Hi Mike I am from India.i love your content....I would request you to please not only focus on critical analysis of Bible... Please do it with geeta mahabarata ramayan quran and with buddha scriptures....lets see where they stand with the Bible...the reason why westeners are so obsessed with criticism of Bible only is because they have no idea comparing with scriptures of other faiths...please do a comparison...greeting in the lord Jesus.

[@yakovmatityahu]

@carlos orozco No Yahweh is the creator God of the Universe, Yahweh is the God of the Bible...The God of Abraham,Issac and Jacob..The God who came down to us in form of Jesus Christ(Yeshua Mashiach, the Yahweh our Salvation)...the Promised seed of Abraham...

[@TheCarpentersDesk]

This was very informative. Thank you!

[@RoarT19]

Mike Sir. The History is Proved by the Gospel. Dont worry About the Mockers called as Debaters such as shabir ally . You are great Mike . You truly are ..

[@RoarT19]

@Nigel Butt Resurrection, death of Apostles, Crucifixion, destruction of temple Apostle John Redemption

[@RoarT19]

@Nigel Butt 🤣🤣 dont Bring Science into God. Science Changes God Never Changes. Science is Based on Predictions. Truth is Based on Existence.. Your perception is terribly wrong

[@RoarT19]

@Nigel Butt Ok Cool .. Read Genesis 19 .. And See this ... kzbin.info/www/bejne/hXjSp4aqpcmZeZI What will you say this ?

[@RoarT19]

@Nigel Butt Hey Listen ... Resurrection is a Historical fact. I showed you your birth place sodom and Gomorrah yet You Deny Lord ?

[@RoarT19]

@Nigel Butt en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_resurrection_of_Jesus en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus Everyone in History Knows Lord Yeshua Was Resurrected. .

[@tgrogan6049]

Love to read his thesis! How do you get it???

[@josecardona839]

very brave of him to take on such a complicated subject, congratulations.

[@openarms2519]

Just think about this........... If Christ Jesus was born on 4BC or 3BC around that time and his life was just 33 years then he died around 29AD or 30AD right? So the gospel authors probably a little bit younger or a little older than him. Let's say they were on the middle 30's around 35ish or 36. If they wrote the gospels after the destruction of the temple on 71AD or 72AD then let's subtract 30AD instead of 29AD When Christ died then are they saying that after 41 to 41 years only after they decided to write this? I don't think so because they will all be above 70 years old. They will be old in those years and surely their visions will play a big factor in their WRITINGS. Not only their visions that will be affected but also their memories. Memory loss is possible and to those Bible historians and scholars with PhD's and DD's or DVD's and all the D's that they have or had thought it was written in the late century like in the 80's the 90'S and plenty of them even said it was written after 100AD and beyond. From time to time let's just use our common sense. Or we can say it this way since most of them have one thing in common that it was written after 70AD then they actually have the common sense between them or the same way of thinking. So therefore their common sense doesn't make sense to me. 😂 Also let's consider this if the gospels were written after 70AD why then they've never mentioned this catastrophic like event of the temple in their books? At least just one of them should have thought of mentioning this. WHY? Because they don't right divide the scriptures or apply the right division approach of 2nd Timothy 2:15. Written by Paul at his prison in Rome. By the way I'm not a scholar or with a lot of D's I'm just a simple student of the Bible.🙏 God speed.

[@patrick8111]

Keep up the good work sir

[@Reginamogapi9520]

Mike you are inspiring.

[@JWCFB]

I love Mike!

[@alfred9916]

Very interesting. Will the thesis be available to the public? And if so, roughly when?

[@greg5023]

Britannia says that Mark includes explanations of Jewish customs and translations of Aramaic expressions thus suggesting that he was writing for Gentile converts, probably converts living in Rome. It seems that Mark was written early but editing continued for decades. The earliest written text fragment is quite small and dates from approximately 200.

[@kamilgregor]

Hi, would it be possible to get an electronic copy of Josh Pelletier's thesis?

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

Thanks for your interest in it, Kamil. But not at this time, because Joshua will be publishing his research in the future.

[@kamilgregor]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial I understand he probably wants to rework the thesis into a journal article or an academic book and pursue the same topic during his doctoral research, but the MA thesis which he has written and defended now is nevertheless publically accessible, right? As in, there's a copy of it in the university library?

[@simonodowd2119]

@@kamilgregor Did you end up getting your hands on it?

[@kamilgregor]

@@simonodowd2119 No. The latest info (2 years old) is that Joshua is working on a PhD thesis on this and will publish his results there. I don't know if this is still true but if he doesn't write it or writes on a different topic then the unpublished results of his MA thesis are going to circulate online without any academic transparency. I don't understand how something like this is even possible in an US university.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

I've seen a lot of cases of a "US university" turning out to be a statement-of-faith-bound effective church, diploma mill, or plain ol' stack of lies...

[@hopefaith7076]

Mike when will the thesis be made available.

[@piano9433]

Studying the the second temple judaism, i discovered that key doctrines in the N.T. were born with the writings of this period. How do you see this, Mike? Why aren't the belief in demons, afterlife, final judgement and messianism just a natural product of the thought of the period?

[@randomperson2078]

Studying the Enlightenment and modernity, I discovered that key ideas of naturalism were born with the writings of this period. How do you see this, Nata? Why aren’t the beliefs in evolution, no afterlife, and physicalism just a natural product of the thought of the period?

[@utubevideo1ful]

Question: should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible?

[@RaymondTT]

It seems most scholars dont think Mark wrote it in his original. I am not sure whether or not it goes back to reliable sources and how early it goes back.

[@texaslocoman1]

It been said the boy who ran naked from the Garden was Mark. If this is true it is improbable Mark wrote a gospel when he was 14. About 41AD is more plausible because Mark was rich and had a lot of resources to even at 21 write a draft of the life of Jesus.

[@philologus6577]

Why do scholars make the presumption that Matthew based his gospel on Mark? Perhaps the opposite is true? Maybe Mark used Matthew to make a more concise book of what he considered the most important things to circulate.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

That seems unlikely, Philogus. The reasons supporting Markan priority are quite strong and compelling. Markan priority is also the position of the vast majority of Gospels scholars. See here for reasons for thinking Mark wrote first: kzbin.info/www/bejne/boq4goKYedihd9E See here for answers to Matthean priority: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d4WTYYilodWpl8k

[@Iamwrongbut]

Here’s another good resource on Markan priority: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bne5Y3aofttprrc

[@PC-vg8vn]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial Mark Goodacre disagrees with that view. Do you think his arguments against Markan priority are weak?

[@internetenjoyer1044]

@@MikeLiconaOfficial merry Christmas. Before watching those videos, I wondered at your opinion on the idea (that i just came up with) that Mark could've based his gospel on Mathew because Mark is so redactive stylistically? I can't help but read Mark as redacting parts of a known story to his audience to rhetorically make certain points; like the sudden ending asking the audience if they're going to keep Jesus' commandments or if they're going to run off in fear when things get hard to do, or hard to keep the faith, like the women did, or like peter did etc.

[@str.77]

@@PC-vg8vn Mark Goodacre actually upholds Markan priority. What he opposes is the 2-sources hypothesis in which Matthew and Luke both used Mark and the hypothetical source Q. Goodacre says that there was no Q and that Matthew used Mark and Luke used Matthew.

[@tgrogan6049]

Robert Price doesn’t not say that Mark was from the 3rd Century! He is wrong!

[@joelbiju510]

Then everyone deserted him and fled. A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, Mark 14:50‭-‬51 NIV @mike , isn't this scripture referring to the disciple mark?

[@dustinellerbe4125]

That's Jesus' lover boy. King James attested to that.

[@str.77]

@@dustinellerbe4125 And King James could have known that how?

[@str.77]

@Joel There is no definite proof of who it was and what that meant. But Mark inserting an event that concerned him personally would make sense.

[@dustinellerbe4125]

@@str.77 that was his interpretation of such. King James is quoted saying so. I can find the quote if you’d like

[@dustinellerbe4125]

@@str.77 I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here, assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.

[@tgrogan6049]

So if Mark’s gospel is spurious 16:9- and following is a forgery how many other forgeries are there in the New Testament that you don’t know about???

[@Greyz174]

you dont do history by speculating about hypothetical forgeries that are so good that you can't tell the difference

[@mcgragor1]

Before 70, Jesus predicted the temple destruction.

[@Greyz174]

supernatural bias

[@mcgragor1]

@@Greyz174 Not really, He predicted it long before it happened, the bias is quite the opposite, which maybe you are saying.

[@Greyz174]

@@mcgragor1 no, i'm saying that if you see a prophecy in an ancient text, unless the ancient text is _clearly_ dated to before, you need to have a supernatural bias to believe that this is not just another case of the known and widely attested phenomenon people writing prophecies of things that just happened into their narratives

[@mcgragor1]

@@Greyz174 Well, it was dated before, Jesus clearly prophesied what would happen and it did, but He was only giving the approx time "this generation", because the prophecy of their destruction goes all the way back to Daniel and other passages and even a late date of Daniel puts it several hundred years prior. Same with Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 concerning Christ's crucifixion.

[@Greyz174]

@@mcgragor1 daniel was written to address the events of the 160s bc, there was an annointed one killed and a major spiritual destruction of the temple with antiochus epiphanes. And everything else in daniel is also cealry written to fit those events. then people spent the next almost two hundred years reinterpreting it and coming up with new ways to look at the numbers in chapter 9 until they came up with this one Psalm 22 doesnt even say it's predicting future events, by the way. If you have a book with a whole lot of prose and you can find "future predictions" in stuff that doesnt even claim to be making a novel future prediction then i mean yeah over the hundreds of years events will happen that are kinda similar to stuff that was written about before and you can be like "wow look god predicted this" Its a way of writing prophecy after...the words were written before but you get to decide that it was actually a prophecy _after_ you find something that could be a fulfillment With isaiah 53 a good exercise is to make a list of the things in it that you confirmed happened in history and a list of "invisible" things that you cant verify. Ie you can verify that the servant is supposed to die, but you can verify that he was carrying our sins. Then you see that the "being despised rejected and killed" stuff is a lot more broad than what happened to just Jesus, and then the stuff that makes it specifically about Jesus are the things that people assumed God meant his death for...and they probably came up with the fact that these unverifiable things must apply to Jesus by reading Isaiah 53 Isiah 53 also doesnt claim to be a messiany prophecy anyways, so same "drawing the lines around what counts as a future prediction after you have a candidate event to match" thing as Psalm 22, and in context it's about the righteous people in Israel that got dragged into the Babylonian exile because of the sins of the nation. This passage was supposed to edify them and tell them that all the suffeeing theyre going through is OK even though they dont deserve it, they can still be righteous and hold up God's good graces for Israel and also help lead their sinful bretheren to forgiveness by being a light to the world

[@sunnyjohnson992]

The Bible book of Mark was written in Rome, and it was completed between 60-65 C.E.

[@simonodowd2119]

Why do you believe this is true?

[@counteringchristianity]

Empty tombs and "missing body" stories were an established literary theme in antiquity. It was a marker used to convey apotheosis/translation of a hero or divine intervention by God/gods. Since there is no actual independent witness of the empty tomb (all gospels follow the same basic burial sequence and discovery that derives from Mark), it's just as likely that the gospels would be employing the theme as it is that they are reporting a historical fact. Thus, the story by itself cannot serve as evidence for its own historicity. An extremely interesting example is the Greek novel Callirhoe by Chariton which may date to before 62 CE (before Mark's gospel) due to a possible mention by Persius - "To them I recommend the morning's play-bill and after lunch Callirhoe" - (1,134). According to Jan Bremmer, just as in the gospels, in Chariton's story, there is the "sequence of dawn, visit to the grave, finding the stone removed, fear, inspection of the empty grave, disbelief, and again visit to the grave." A Jewish "missing body" story followed by heavenly translation occurs in the Testament of Job 39:11-12 - "And they want to bury them, but I prevented them saying, do not labor in vain, for you will not find my children, because they have been taken up to heaven by their creator king." Since there are other famous Jewish prophets who "go missing" then we can expect the storytellers of Jesus would want to convey something similar. Compare Mk. 16:6 - "He is not here. See the place where they laid him" and Lk. 24:3 - "but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus." Gen. 5:24 LXX "And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him." Hebrews 11:5 "By faith Enoch was taken so that he did not experience death; and “he was not found, because God had taken him.” Philo Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.86 'What is the meaning of the expression, "He was not found because God translated him?" (Gen. 5:24). In the first place, the end of virtuous and holy men is not death but a translation and migration, and an approach to some other place of abode.' A search party is sent for Elijah in 2 Kings 2:16-17 but they do not find him."And they sent fifty men, who searched for three days but did not find him." Josephus Antiquities 9.28 "Now at this time it was that Elijah disappeared from among men, and no one knows of his death to this very day; but he left behind him his disciple Elisha, as we have formerly declared. And indeed, as to Elijah, and as to Enoch, who was before the deluge, it is written in the sacred books that they disappeared, but so that nobody knew that they died." On the disappearance of Moses - Josephus Antiquities 4.326 "and as he was going to embrace Eleazar and Joshua, and was still discoursing with them, a cloud stood over him on the sudden, and he disappeared in a certain valley, although he wrote in the holy books that he died, which was done out of fear, lest they should venture to say that, because of his extraordinary virtue, he went to God." www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/ajftnd/empty_tombs_and_missing_body_stories_were_an/ "The theme of empty tombs was a familiar one in the ancient world. Aristeas disappeared from his temporary place of entombment (the fuller's shop) and later appeared as a raven and as a phantom in Herodotus's version. He received the honor due the gods and sacrifices in other accounts. Cleomedes, presumably still alive, disappeared from the chest he had hidden in and was honored as a hero with sacrifices. Many years after his death, Numa's body had disappeared, although there is no evidence he underwent an apotheosis. Alcmene's body disappeared from her bier. Zalmoxis, by the artifice of living underground, appeared three years after people thought he had died. He promised his followers some kind of immortal life resembling either resurrection or metemsomatosis.....Although Romulus was not buried (in most traditions) his body disappeared, and he was honored as the god Quirinus after appearing to Julius Proculus. Callirhoe apparently died and her lover Chaereas discovered her empty tomb with the stones moved away from the entrance. Inside he found no corpse. He assumed she had been translated to the gods.....Philinnion disappeared from her tomb, walked the earth as a revenant, and her corpse was later found in her lover's bedroom. Lucian's Antigonus (in his Lover of Lies) asserts: 'For I know someone who rose twenty days after he was buried.' Proclus included three stories of Naumachius of Epirus who described three individuals that returned to life after various periods in their tombs (none months, fifteen days, and three days). They appeared either lying on their tombs or standing up. Polyidus raised Minos's son Glaucus from the dead after being placed in the son's tomb. The Ptolemaic-Roman temple in Dendera vividly depicts the bodily resurrection of Osiris in his tomb. There are numerous translation accounts of heroes in which their bodies disappear when they were either alive or dead, including: Achilles (in the Aethiopis), Aeneas, Amphiaraus (under the earth), Apollonius of Tyana, Basileia, Belus, Branchus, Bormus, Ganymede, Hamilcar, and Semiramus." - John Granger Cook, Empty Tomb, Resurrection, Apotheosis p. 598-599.

[@lionhound2506]

Irrelevant. Name your Literary Genre. Gospel Writers both conformed to and subverted the know literary genres to tell their own stories in their own way. You sited some examples but again, Enoch, Elijah are not "empty tomb" or "missing body" stories. I liked how you cherry picked Luke 24: 3 but didn't add what the angel said. "He is not here; he has risen! Remember how HE told you, while he was still with you in Galilee." The Angel reminds them of Jesus' own words. There is good evidence Jesus predicted his death and would rise after 3 days.

[@counteringchristianity]

@@lionhound2506 Enoch, Elijah, Moses and Jesus' bodies all go missing. They were all important Jewish figures who disappear. That's enough for the parallel since Jesus was seen as an important Jewish figure, it makes sense that storytellers would have his body disappear just like all the others. This was just a common way to depict a hero or important person. Most scholars do not see Jesus' predictions of his own resurrection as historical.

[@lionhound2506]

@@counteringchristianity Again parallel's and genre likeness is irrelevant. I'm not sure why you go this route. Parallel's and demythologizing Jesus is dead for over 100 years. Citing parallels and "scholars' doesn't prove your point. 2 things: Your sadly confusing "assumption into heaven" and "resurrection". If the disciples believed Jesus was "assumed" into heaven like the holy Jewish men you rightly say. They would remember him as such. A holy man or prophet. In no way did that happen. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is the earliest creed in the New Testament and goes back to the Jerusalem apostles. "RESURRECTION" is ONLY one thing. Across the board in centuries of literature before and after Jesus. Resurrection is the raising of the dead..at the end of the world. But it looks like we have someone who IS raised to life. THAT is why no one argues like you do Countering Christianity. Maybe Price, Carrier. You say "Most scholars do not see Jesus' predictions of his own resurrection as historical." Of course they don't because most scholars don't touch the resurrection. But they do believe that the earliest followers believed that they saw him alive. That is what most scholars DO agree upon. They just refuse or won't pronounce do to methodology or a bias. Which is fine we all have bias, we are human. Also you say the "storytellers would have his body disappear?" Why would it to you? Again genre and parallel is irrelevant and doesn't discount the empty tomb narratives "because" there were (even granted as you say) there was literary awareness of such a genre. There is ghost stories, dying and rising divine men etc. Gospel writers and basically USING the genre to say "Hey we will do are best to tell you about this Jesus, but nothing can quite compare to what has happened."

[@flamingswordapologetics]

@@lionhound2506 Plus, anything biblical like Moses, Elijah, Enoch, could be types. However, its still reaching as I see no parallel to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Good points!

[@counteringchristianity]

@@lionhound2506 I never said they thought Jesus was assumed into heaven. The point is that his body goes missing just like all those other famous Jewish figures. This would make sense to Mark's readers. It says "hey this person was special and a divine miracle occurred." Makes perfect sense without the story actually being historical.

[@paulgeorge1144]

As the gospel of Mark was written by a Christian and the religion of Christianity arose as an unintended consequence of the destruction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem in AD70 then the gospel of Mark and in fact all of the early Christian literature must have been written after this date.

[@MrSeedi76]

Tell me you know zero about the actual scholarship without telling me:

[@paulgeorge1144]

@@MrSeedi76 what "actual scholarship" are you referring to?

[@krzysztofciuba271]

Your argument has no sense as e.g. Act does not mention such event; also Hebrew does not mention such an Event!

[@paulgeorge1144]

@@krzysztofciuba271 Acts is not history. Check out Galatians 4:25.

[@krzysztofciuba271]

@@paulgeorge1144 you are still in a cave! All the Bible is not a history,it is an interpretation of history,Mr.Moron!