Diogenes the Cynic

What's weak about the Markan dependancy argument?

S.C.Carlson

Dating Mark?

Diogenes the Cynic

What's so hard about that? Either Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple or the book contains a magical prophecy. Which is more plausible?

hatsoff

The problem is that Mark does not specifically mention the destruction of the temple. In Mark 13, Jesus says that the buildings will not last forever. Now, that is certainly a strong indication that the Gospel was written after the temple's real destruction, but it is also plausible Mark was just dealing with the inevitable. After all, buildings are not eternal, which was the point of Jesus alleged statements. Moreover, if the Jewish war had already begun, it would certainly be natural for a contemporary to exploit such a predictable end for fear.

Diogenes the Cynic

He says more than that they will not last forever. he says they will be kataluthe --"destroyed," "torn apart." Succeeding verses also strongly imply knowledge of the first war (and possible the second).

Mark's implicit knowledge that the Temple Mount would be completely razed ("not one stone upon a stone") is also a pretty specific piece of information.

S.C.Carlson

Magical prophecy? Like Jesus ben Ananias who started predicting the destruction of the temple in 62 (according to Josephus, BJ 6.5.3)?

Stephen

Peter Kirby

Seriously Stephen. Do you think if the proof were incontrovertible that a text were written before AD 70, and that text contained a 'prediction' of the destruction of the Temple, that the ball game would be over and we'd all believe in magical prophecy? Of course not; if push came to shove, Mark 13 wouldn't be viewed as magical prophecy any more than Nostradamus, or indeed the Jesus of Josephus' Wars.

--
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson

I am being serious. Diogenes the Cynic, not I, was the one who brought up the false dichotomy with "magical prophecy" in it. Your last sentence shows a third possibility excluded by DtC's dilemma.

Stephen

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm familiar with the passage. This particular prophet's prediction was not very specific and not remarkably prescient either a mere two years before the revolt.

While I agree that a generic prediction that the Temple would be destroyed was palusible before the fact (and may have even been commonplace), Mark's predictions are far more specific.

I do wonder if the Josephus passage might be evidence that Mark knew Jewish Wars, though.

Diogenes the Cynic

I assumed you were being facetious. I take your meaning, I just think that Mark is too specific for him to have been writing before 70.