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.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.
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.
Can you please refer me to the references in patristics?
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.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.