Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

What are the main arguments for why the Gospel of Mark must have been written after c. 65 AD?

toejam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:28 am But after reading as far as I have, contrary to Crossley's goal, I think I'm even more convinced already that 65-75CE remains the stronger option. It's not that I think Crossley's alternate interpretations are necessarily wrong - he does do a good job of pointing out potential problems with the standard reading. But at the same time, if we're going to attempt to read something out of the text with the goal of trying to determine a most-plausible date, then surely the most natural reading of verses like 12:9, 13:1-2, and the 'cursing of the fig-tree' pericope sandwiching the incident at the Temple pericope etc. reflect a time post-Temple-fall.

I understand that Mark includes predictions about the destruction of the Temple, but so does the Book of Daniel, and probably even the book of Ezekiel, since that prophet speaks of a third temple. Those references don't mean that those books came after 65 AD. Likewise, Mark also predicts the destruction of the world, the general resurrection, and the Second Coming, but that doesn't mean that the book was written after those events occurred.

Jesus can reasonably talk about the cursing of the fig tree even before the fall of the Temple. I am reading Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews at the moment and see how Jerusalem and the temple had been captured numerous times in history, sometimes ruined, as with the Babylonians. It's only natural that with references to this in Daniel (eg. to the coming Roman empire / kingdom of "iron" and in Dan 9. to the ruining of the temple) that Jesus and dissident Galileans could make similar predictions. Also, there were numerous major dissident religious factions, like John the Baptist's followers, Onias' in Egypt, the Christians themselves, and the Essenes, so it's not so unrealistic for a dissident group to make a prediction like the one in the withering of the fig tree.

toejam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:28 am Couple those verses with some early-ish church father references who state the gospel was composed after the death of Peter (of whom we have no indication of an early death, only traditions of him dying in the 60sCE),

Can you please refer me to the references in patristics?

toejam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:28 am plus the fact that we have no definitive allusions to it in Paul or other potentially pre-70CE writings (Didache, James, Hebrews etc. - not to mention the fact that Acts never speaks of a written gospel in the early years) and I think it's a pretty safe bet that it falls somewhere post-65CE, most reasonably 70-75CE.

From the epistles and Acts, it sounds like Paul was preaching a "gospel" about Jesus, explaining why he believed Jesus' life matched the Messiah's. It makes sense that there were major elements in it very similar to what we find in Mark. The gospel story I expect was written down at some point, even if in fragments, to assist Paul or other apostles in spreading their gospel story.

I understand that Mark includes predictions about the destruction of the Temple, but so does the Book of Daniel

All critical scholars say that the parts of 'Daniel' where "Daniel" predicts the looting of the temple and killing of Jews by Antiochus IV, were written after these events. And "Mark" used the same device by having Jesus predict future events which happened before the gospel was written.

Likewise, Mark also predicts the destruction of the world, the general resurrection, and the Second Coming, but that doesn't mean that the book was written after those events occurred.

Correct. But that does not mean "Mark" did not have Jesus predict the events of 70 (correctly, because he wrote the gospel after these events).

From the epistles and Acts, it sounds like Paul was preaching a "gospel" about Jesus, explaining why he believed Jesus' life matched the Messiah's

I certainly do not see in Paul's epistles and Acts, Paul was preaching a "gospel" about Jesus' life on earth.

Cordially, Bernard

All critical scholars say that the parts of 'Daniel' where "Daniel" predicts the looting of the temple and killing of Jews by Antiochus IV, were written after these events. And "Mark" used the same device by having Jesus predict future events which happened before the gospel was written.

hello Bernard

2 different questions

1. is mark predicting the future and putting things in jesus' mouth?

2. would the author of mark know that had he have the outcome of the prophecy come true and added it in his account, he would know that his future readers would know that he was writing long time after jesus?

1. is mark predicting the future and putting things in jesus' mouth?

YES. But the end to come soon is more for keeping the flock in his community than a prediction. Just like saying: if you wait a short while, I'll give you what you want. That can be more an incentive to have the guy waiting than a prediction.

2. would the author of mark know that had he have the outcome of the prophecy come true and added it in his account, he would know that his future readers would know that he was writing long time after jesus?

Of course, they would suspect that the (anonymous) author of the gospel wrote after the narrated events of 70, more so if the gospel was 'discovered" and first known after the same events.

Cordially, Bernard

rakovsky wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:46 am

toejam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:28 am Couple those verses with some early-ish church father references who state the gospel was composed after the death of Peter (of whom we have no indication of an early death, only traditions of him dying in the 60sCE),

Can you please refer me to the references in patristics?

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) claimed that Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was still alive:
“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”

and you believe that?

rakovsky wrote: ↑Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:20 pm

rakovsky wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2018 9:46 am

toejam wrote: ↑Fri Feb 20, 2015 4:28 am Couple those verses with some early-ish church father references who state the gospel was composed after the death of Peter (of whom we have no indication of an early death, only traditions of him dying in the 60sCE),

Can you please refer me to the references in patristics?

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) claimed that Mark wrote his gospel while Peter was still alive:
“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”

Against Heresies attributed to Irenaeus claims that gMark was written after Peter and Paul were dead.
Against Heresies 3.1

It says it was handed down, not written, after their deaths.