Diogenes the Cynic

I'm starting a new thread to continue a discussion in this thread which has disgressed somewhat into a debate about the dating of the Gospel of Mark. Since the debate is more than worthy of it's own thread, I'm starting one here and my question for discussion is this:

Is there any reason to date Mark before 70 CE?

Layman has suggested that there is, so I'd particularly like to hear from him but anyone is welcome to join on either side.

I want to hear the best case anyone can make for dating Mark's Gospel before 70 CE.

Ready....set.....GO!

Marxist

It makes Christians feel better about their silly beliefs.

But on a serious note, Geisler and Turek in their book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, make the argument that since Mark doesn't mention the destruction of Jerusalem, it must have been written prior to the destruction. They use this analogy:

The problem, of course, is that Mark actually does mention the destruction by putting a prophecy in Jesus' mouth. One could easily turn their analogy against them by asking what people would think of a book where a former tenant of the WTC predicted its destruction by Muslim terrorists. They would probably conclude the guy is a liar trying to make a quick buck off the tragedy.

Rick Sumner

The temple prophecy is incorrect (13.2). Stones were left standing. Still are, in fact. If Mark was writing after the fact, we might expect him to be aware of that.

My own opinions aside (I'd tend to date shortly after 70CE), 65-70 CE is pretty standard.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Peter Kirby

Okay guys, maybe you should take Layman's name off the thread title.

I have a book from the Liturgical Press by Karel Hanhart titled The Open Tomb: A New Approach, Mark's Passover Haggadah (+/- 72 C.E.). I've been meaning to read it, if only to see what support there is for the date in the subtitle.

Along with Randel Helms, I have argued for a similar date on my web page:

Gospel of Mark

Oh, and just to balance the claims made around here:

"What evidence is there for dating Mark after 80 CE? There is none." That is, unless someone wants to produce it!

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

Not from the Temple they aren't. The Western Wall was not part of the Temple complex but was part of a retaining wall around the Temple Mount.

Toto

The Open Tomb: A New Approach, Mark's Passover Haggadah (+/- 72 C.E.).

The one review available doesn't give any indication that this discusses the dating of Mark.

Toto

The evidence for dating Mark after 80 CE is being discussed in this thread on Detering.

Vorkosigan

There is no "evidence" for any date of Mark. Rather, the dating question asks: what reading grid should we use to understand the text of Mark? What reading grid produces the most reasonable dating of the text in light of what the text itself says? I would argue that the best grid is one that assigns the gospel to sometime in second Jewish war, c. 135.

Vorkosigan

Killer Mike

The general concensus within mainstream Bible scholarship dates Mark to around 70CE, just after the failure of the first Jewish revolt. See "Introduction to the New Testament" by Howard Clark Kee. Also "From Jesus to Christ" by Paula Freidrickson. Friedrickson is at Boston College in MA.

Toto

We all know what the general consensus is. The question here is what evidence supports it, or what rationale supports it.