What are the best guesses on WHERE the gospels come from?

[Malachi151]

What is the best info on what part of the globe the gospels were written in?

I would assume that none of them were written anywhere near Judea, but are there ideas as to what cities, or regions they were written in?

[Ruhan]

I know that it has been suggested that the author of Mark lived in the Roman world, if not Rome itself. He certainly was not familiar with the Judean geography and if Papias was to be believed, he was a young Hellenic Jewish disciple of Peter.

[aa5874]

What is the best info on what part of the globe the gospels were written in?

I would assume that none of them were written anywhere near Judea, but are there ideas as to what cities, or regions they were written in?

It may be possible to have originated in Judea, but was re-worked possibly in Rome. The major factor for me is the destruction of the Temple, perhaps some Jew developed the concept of a God-sacrifice, which was rejected and then the Romans adopted the new God-man.

[Toto]

Early Christian Writings (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html)Nineham states the following on the provenance of the Gospel of Mark (Saint Mark, pp. 42-43): "of all the places suggested Rome has been by far the most popular, and, so far as the evidence permits of any conclusion, it is perhaps the most likely. The Gospel of Mark was clearly intended for a church consisting largely of Gentile members (see e.g. 7:3f., 11:13, 12:42), and one which had known, or was expecting, persecution for faith (cf. 8:34-38, 10:38f., 13:9-13); all this is compatible with Roman origin, and if the Gospel circulated from the beginning with the authority of the Roman church it is easier to explain how it so soon won an authoritative position."

Reginald Fuller states the following on the provenance of Mark (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, p. 107): "Irenaeus' statement (see above) that Mk was written in Rome has been widely accepted by modern scholars (e.g. Streeter). Attempts have been made to support it by internal evidence (e.g. Latinisms like 'denarius', 'legion'). Such Latinisms, however, are the vocabulary of military occupation and speak as much for Palestinian provenance as for Rome. The connection Mark-Peter-Rome looks like second-century guessword based on 1 Pet 5:13. Remove the Petrine connection, and the question of provenance becomes wide open. Mk is a Hellenistic gospel. Its language is Gk, and, as we shall see, its traditions, especially in their christology, contain Hellenistic elements, which Mk qualifies in a Pauline direction. Yet its traditions are also in close touch with Palestinian tradition, not only with earlier tradition as in the miracle stories (Jesus as the eschatological prophet), but in such recent material as parts of the Little Apocalypse. We are drawn to suggest Antioch as the most likely place of origin."

[Clivedurdle]

It's all Seneca's fault!! He wrote a passion play in Rome!

[spin]

Toto cites:
Reginald Fuller states the following on the provenance of Mark (A Critical Introduction to the New Testament, p. 107): "Irenaeus' statement (see above) that Mk was written in Rome has been widely accepted by modern scholars (e.g. Streeter). Attempts have been made to support it by internal evidence (e.g. Latinisms like 'denarius', 'legion'). Such Latinisms, however, are the vocabulary of military occupation and speak as much for Palestinian provenance as for Rome.
Roman forces were usually stationed at Caesarea on the coast. They went up to Jerusalem for important occasions, but generally the Roman presence wasn't felt by many in Israel. The Judean governor had cohorts made up not of Roman soldiers but of various barbarians whose first language was probably not Latin. Roman minted coins in Judea were prutahs, not denarii. Pilate's prutahs bore Greek inscriptions and had no heads on them.

The fact that there were a number of Latin idioms translated into Greek indicates that we are dealing with someone well aware of Latin, rather than a camp groupie. Mk 15:15 "Pilate willing to content the people" should read "Pilate willing to do/make many/sufficient the people" and doesn't make sense in Greek, but knowing that the Latin "satis facere" lies behind the Greek you can suddenly understand the text. Similarly in 2:23 the disciples "did/made way" another Latin based idiom "iter facere". Also a number of explanations are given in Mk prefixed by o estin, a literal translation of the Latin hoc est, "that is", for example 12:42, "two leptas, that is a kodrantes (a Roman coin)", and the explanation is for the benefit of a Roman, not a Judean. Denarii are the coins of reference for the food needed for the feeding of the 5000. The explanation for the palace in 15:16 is o estin praitwrion, "that is praetorium", an explanation again for the benefit of a Roman, not a Judean.

Blaming the Latinisms in Mark on the Roman occupation simply doesn't account for the evidence. We need an audience oriented towards Latin. That strongly supports the Rome thesis.


spin

[gurugeorge]

It's all Seneca's fault!! He wrote a passion play in Rome!

Hehe, actually, coincidentally, I just read in passing somewhere that "Simon Magus" is supposed to have written some letters to Seneca. I wonder ...

[darstec]

oNe down and three to go.

[NatSciNarg]

What is the best info on what part of the globe the gospels were written in?


From Vorkosigan's very interesting website on GMark

http://users2.ev1.net/~turton/GMark/GMark_intro.html#place

Place of Composition

The place of composition is unknown. Due to Papias, who had the disciple John Mark composing the Gospel of Mark in Rome, for many years exegetes located the Gospel in Rome. Other traditions point to Alexandria. A number of modern scholars, such as Ched Myers, Ted Weeden, and Burton Mack, locate the Gospel in northern Palestine or southern Syria. The fact is that the Gospel of Mark could have been composed anywhere in the Roman Empire that the writer could have had access to a primary education, which is more or less the entire Empire.

[Doug Shaver]

if Papias was to be believed, he was a young Hellenic Jewish disciple of Peter.
I don't think Papias should be considered a good source for anything. We don't have his word for anything. We have what is alleged to be a quotation from his work, along with zero information that would tell us whether we should trust anything he said.

[yalla]

I've got a way-out theory on the origin of the gospel of "John".
Somewhere [ found it...4.35] he says that from seeding to harvest is but 4 months.
Or something like that, you can probably find it if you want.
So one day I read a bit about agricultural practice in the Palestine region and how long between sewing/harvesting for various crops.
Usually in the vicinity of 6 months, maybe more.
So I thought that was strange and discovered that only with the aid of irrigation is a crop likely to grow within 4 months.
So I thought maybe "John" was a "towny" type only familiar with irrigated agriculture.
As in the Nile region.
That is, Egypt.
Same place they found the oldest extant bit of g"John" [p52].
The stronghold of logos type theology.
Bingo!

Told you it was wayout.
But in my defence its probably no worse than some other speculations I've read around this sort of thing [who wrote what when and where].
cheers
yalla

[Malachi151]

I've got a way-out theory on the origin of the gospel of "John".
Somewhere [ found it...4.35] he says that from seeding to harvest is but 4 months.
Or something like that, you can probably find it if you want.
So one day I read a bit about agricultural practice in the Palestine region and how long between sewing/harvesting for various crops.
Usually in the vicinity of 6 months, maybe more.
So I thought that was strange and discovered that only with the aid of irrigation is a crop likely to grow within 4 months.
So I thought maybe "John" was a "towny" type only familiar with irrigated agriculture.
As in the Nile region.
That is, Egypt.
Same place they found the oldest extant bit of g"John" [p52].
The stronghold of logos type theology.
Bingo!

Told you it was wayout.
But in my defence its probably no worse than some other speculations I've read around this sort of thing [who wrote what when and where].
cheers
yalla

Sounds reasonable to me, but of course we need more info, but that alone looks okay, we just need more info to see if anything else contradicts this conclusion.