Some were crucified, others were sent to the amphitheatre to be killed by wild animals, whilst others were dipped in tar, tied to stakes and burnt alive in order to light up Nero's garden parties.
Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't know exactly what that trouble would entail.
Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course.
We have already seen how there is a clear connection between the three synoptic gospels.
We should now endeavor to explain why Mark is usually understood to be written first.
In a cave sealed in 68 CE was a piece of a text which is claimed to be an early version of Mark, thus allowing Mark to be dated before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem.
This fragment, though, is just one inch long and one inch wide.
Supporters of early dating also need to make sufficient room between Mark and the writing of Matthew and Luke, both of which they also date early — as early as 80 or 85 CE.
Conservative scholars who favor an early date often rely heavily upon a fragment of papyrus from Qumran.
Of the 661 verses in Mark, Matthew reproduces 606 of them and Luke reproduces 320 of them.
Of the 55 verses in Mark but not Matthew, 31 are present in Luke.[William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark, pp.
Further information comes from Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (c. He had been at Rome and states that after the deaths of Peter and Paul, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed down in writing the preaching of Peter.