SSIA.
Thanks,
Rob
No. Paul was likely dead by the time of the writing of the Gospel of Mark.
What about the Apocryphal Gospels?
Thanks,
Rob
None of the apocryphal gospels predate the Gospel of Mark. They’re all second or third century works. In fact, none of the apocryphal gospels, with the possible exception of parts of the Gospel of Thomas even predate the canonical Gospel of John-there’s a big dispute over the dating of Thomas.
Which, by the way, is actually why they are considered apocryphal. The basic Gospels we all know and love, loathe, or ignore (depending on religious conviction) were set down in writing fairly soon after the original Apostles passed on. The Apocryphals sources were written down two centuries or so after that, and mostly by people with rather… personal opinions and views. Most Christian theologians pay relatively little attention to them, though they have been considered now and then.
Did Paul have anything to do with the Gospels? IOW, is it known if the authors were Paul’s intellectual descendants?
Thank,
Rob
So what’s the earliest written thing about Jesus? Are Paul’s epistles in chronological order?
Luke, who is also presumed to have written the Acts of the Apostles, accompianied Paul on many of his travels, and much of Acts is about Paul and his doings.
It’s true that the Christian apocrypha have been ignored by theologians, but ancient historians (though these have been ignoring them for too long) have been using them for evidence of a lot of early Christian diversity as well as looking into the development of Christian communities and practices.
I also think theologians have mostly ignored the apocrypha due to much of it being declared ‘heretical’, long before firm ideas about the dating were set.
No one cited Dex and Eutychus’s staff report yet?
In answer to the title question, probably not, but we’ll never know for sure. Paul was executed by the Romans at some point in the mid 60’s–this was recorded by Clement of Rome–so his writings must have come before then. We don’t have exact dates, but scholarly consensus puts his first writings at 10-15 years after the death of Jesus, which is most commonly dated at 33 A. D. (1st Corinthians is most commonly believed to be his earliest letter.) Many scholars also believe that some sections of Paul’s letters are actually copied from earlier writings by the first Christians, possibly dating to within five years of Christ’s death.
As for the Gospels, we don’t have precise dating for them either. Archaeology definitely puts Mark, Matthew, and Luke into the first century, with Mark probably not coming later than 70 A. D. Of course we cannot rule out the possibility that they were written earlier, but the earliest copies just didn’t survive. Some scholars have argued that the Gospels must have been written earlier. One argument I’ve heard is that Luke must have been written before Paul’s death, along with the Book of Acts, because Acts does not mention Paul’s death, which would have been a logical ending point if it had happened.
There is again the possibility that the Gospels drew on earlier works, which have now been lost. There are a number of different theories along these lines, but all of them necessarily speculative.
Dr. Craig Blomberg’s The Historical Reliability of the Gospels is the best treatment of the various issues surrounding the Gospels that I’ve found.
Not quite what you were expecting, I think. The earliest known written mention of Jesus is on his brothers’ ossuary.
Although amusing, it’s one of those “Very Common Names.” Heck, there are still lots of people named Jesus. I think one of them served me a fajita today.
Also, as the Staff Report ftg linked to mentions, “Mark, not an apostle himself, was an associate of the apostle Paul for a short time, but the gospel bearing his name is (to some minds) based on the preaching of Peter.” More specifically, there’s nothing in the Gospel of Mark itself identifying its author, and as far as I know no evidence (beyond tradition) linking the gospel in any way with the “Mark” who appears elsewhere in the New Testament.
It is worth pointing out that there is more than a bit of controversy over whether the ossuary is authentic or a forgery (the Israeli Antiquities Authority claims forgery, more than a few reputable experts claim authentic). And even if it is authentic there is no proof at all that it refers to that James, brother of that Jesus. As **smiling bandit **points out neither were exactly rare names for the time.
Sure, but for all we know the writings that came to be the Bible could be references to multiple Jesuses. Jesi. Jesae. People named Jesus. 
Jesodes
Yeshuim?
There is always ‘Q’ of course, the postulated source for the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) or the so-called ‘sayings tradition’, which pops up also in a lot of early apocryphal material.
Interestingly (or not), the first person to advocate the usage of the four gospels as we have them as ‘the gospels’ was Irenaeus, in the late 2nd century.
Q wasn’t a source for Mark; Q and Mark together were sources for the other two. Q is invoked to explain the various elements which show up in both Matthew and Luke but not in Mark.
There’s the (controversial) 7Q5 fragment. Papirologists tend to accept it more than bible scholars. If true that would put Mark before A.D. 50, maybe even to early-40’s.