Late dating of Mark: How far would you go? And what are your arguments?

[rgprice]

Well yeah, I'm being honest that you can't really tie it down. People claiming that Mark was written in 70 or 73 CE are trying to just use a very literal reading of Mark 13 and Daniel and presume that the writer was using the exact calculations in Daniel. I don't think anything quite so precise was intended. For one thing, Mark 13 is based largely on Paul:

Mark 13:
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping.

All of this comes directly from Paul.

1 Thessalonians 4:
15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
1 Thessalonians 5:
1 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you do not need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! 4 But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; 5 for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. 6 So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober; What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”

Obviously Paul said this was going to happen in his lifetime, but it didn't. The writer of Mark knew that. But he's just putting Paul's words into Jesus' mouth anyway.

Besides, I am confident that the "desolating sacrilege" refers to the statue described by Pilate in his account of the "Caligula Crisis", which occurred in 40 CE. So the writer already knew that that didn't really happen. This wasn't an attempt to make some real prophecy.

By the time the writer was writing, the Caligula Crisis was long over and Paul was long dead. The writer knew that and the writer knew that the predicted Parousia never occurred.

I don't know exactly when the Gospel of Mark was written, but I know that Mark 13 wasn't a real prophecy nor an attempt at a real prophecy.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't know exactly when the Gospel of Mark was written, but I know that Mark 13 wasn't a real prophecy nor an attempt at a real prophecy.

So what was it? What was the point of putting so many concrete predictions into what was not supposed to be a prediction?

[Charles Wilson]

I don't know exactly when the Gospel of Mark was written, but I know that Mark 13 wasn't a real prophecy nor an attempt at a real prophecy.

So what was it? What was the point of putting so many concrete predictions into what was not supposed to be a prediction?

It was a story of Jannaeus losing to Demetrius Eucerus and escaping to the "mountains". Eucerus, standing where he ought not, commits the Abomination of Desolation at Gerizim, near Shechem where they were camped. This was so offensive to the Jewish Mercs that they left Eucerus and threw in with Jannaeis. Eucerus then left and Jannaeus regrouped.

Jannaeus and his troops survive and march on Jerusalem.
He crucifies his opponents and cuts the throats of their wives and children in front of them.

[hakeem]

Well yeah, I'm being honest that you can't really tie it down. People claiming that Mark was written in 70 or 73 CE are trying to just use a very literal reading of Mark 13 and Daniel and presume that the writer was using the exact calculations in Daniel. I don't think anything quite so precise was intended. For one thing, Mark 13 is based largely on Paul:

Mark 13:
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.
28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
32 “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come. 34 It’s like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with their assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch.
35 “Therefore keep watch because you do not know when the owner of the house will come back—whether in the evening, or at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or at dawn. 36 If he comes suddenly, do not let him find you sleeping.

All of this comes directly from Paul.

1 Thessalonians 4:
15 For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.
1 Thessalonians 5:
1 Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you do not need to have anything written to you. 2 For you yourselves know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. 3 When they say, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them, as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and there will be no escape! 4 But you, beloved, are not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief; 5 for you are all children of light and children of the day; we are not of the night or of darkness. 6 So then let us not fall asleep as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober; What I say to you, I say to everyone: ‘Watch!’”

Obviously Paul said this was going to happen in his lifetime, but it didn't. The writer of Mark knew that. But he's just putting Paul's words into Jesus' mouth anyway.

Besides, I am confident that the "desolating sacrilege" refers to the statue described by Pilate in his account of the "Caligula Crisis", which occurred in 40 CE. So the writer already knew that that didn't really happen. This wasn't an attempt to make some real prophecy.

By the time the writer was writing, the Caligula Crisis was long over and Paul was long dead. The writer knew that and the writer knew that the predicted Parousia never occurred.

I don't know exactly when the Gospel of Mark was written, but I know that Mark 13 wasn't a real prophecy nor an attempt at a real prophecy.

The author of gMark got nothing at all from the Epistles.

Nowhere in gMark is it claimed the dead in Christ shall meet Jesus in the air.

There were no Jesus cult Christians when gMark was composed.

GMark's Gospel is that the kingdom of God was at hand and that JEWS should repent.

It is the so-called Pauline writers who used stories of Jesus in the Gospels under the false pretense that he received information from his dead Lord Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

It is the so-called Pauline writers who used stories of Jesus in the Gospels under the false pretense that he received information from his dead Lord Jesus.

FIFY -

'It could be the so-called Pauline writers used stories of Jesus in the Gospels under the false* pretense that their main figure, Paul, had [only] received information from his dead Lord Jesus.'

Certainly that's possible, but the accounts are so different, and there is an unexpected paucity of info in the Pauline epistles, that Mark being posterior to Paul seems more reasonable (or they were quite different 'traditions' ie. different sects, such as the Pauline one being more 'gnostic' and the synoptic one being more Jewish-aligned, as others have previously proposed)

* omitted b/c tautology

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice,

Well yeah, I'm being honest that you can't really tie it down. People claiming that Mark was written in 70 or 73 CE are trying to just use a very literal reading of Mark 13 and Daniel and presume that the writer was using the exact calculations in Daniel. I don't think anything quite so precise was intended.

I don't tie the dating of gMark to Daniel and to "Mark" using any calculations in Daniel.

For one thing, Mark 13 is based largely on Paul:

What you quoted next has nothing to do with a dating of gMark. These quotes only say that "Mark" knew about 1 Thessalonians.

Besides, I am confident that the "desolating sacrilege" refers to the statue described by Pilate in his account of the "Caligula Crisis", which occurred in 40 CE.

That statue never made it to Jerusalem, not even Judea: Josephus' Antiquities, book XVIII, ch 8.

I don't know exactly when the Gospel of Mark was written, but I know that Mark 13 wasn't a real prophecy nor an attempt at a real prophecy.

"Mark" put that prophesy in the mouth of Jesus. So what do you think gMark mini-apocalypse is?

Cordially, Bernard

[hakeem]

It is the so-called Pauline writers who used stories of Jesus in the Gospels under the false pretense that he received information from his dead Lord Jesus.

FIFY -

'It could be the so-called Pauline writers used stories of Jesus in the Gospels under the false* pretense that their main figure, Paul, had [only] received information from his dead Lord Jesus.'

Certainly that's possible, but the accounts are so different, and there is an unexpected paucity of info in the Pauline epistles, that Mark being posterior to Paul seems more reasonable (or they were quite different 'traditions' ie. different sects, such as the Pauline one being more 'gnostic' and the synoptic one being more Jewish-aligned, as others have previously proposed)

* omitted b/c tautology

All the so-called Pauline Epistles are to Churches where stories of Jesus must have been known before the supposed Paul wrote the letters. The Pauline writers state their Jesus was already dead so could not have gotten any information from their dead Lord.

The Epistle writers boasted about not getting their Gospel from any man so if their Lord Jesus was already dead then they must have been lying about their sources.

The Epistles writers lied about their sources which is evident in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25 where it is claimed the writer got information from the dead Lord about the ritual of the Eucharist.

The Epistle writer probably got it from the Memoirs of the Apostles.

Justin Martyr claimed he got information about the ritual of the Eucharist from the Memoirs of the Apostles. The Epistle writer claimed he got it from his dead Lord.

Justin's Apology LXVI

For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;"...

1 Corinthians 11. 23-25

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood. 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body...

There is no doubt that the Epistle writers lied about their sources for their stories about their dead Lord Jesus.

All NT books with stories that the resurrected Jesus was seen by the apostles or over 500 people at once or Paul and that the apostles or Paul was commissioned to preach the Gospel to the world by the resurrected Jesus must be or most likely was later than the short gMark.

[hakeem]

I don't know exactly when the Gospel of Mark was written, but I know that Mark 13 wasn't a real prophecy nor an attempt at a real prophecy.

So what was it? What was the point of putting so many concrete predictions into what was not supposed to be a prediction?

If gMark was written after c 70 CE then how could it contain "concrete" predictions of events which have already occurred?

It is evident that Christian writers falsely claimed gMark was written since the time of Philo or no later than c 50 CE so that it would appear that Jesus of Nazareth was a prophet.

The real authors and date of writing of the Gospels and Epistles could not ever be revealed since it would be realized by the readers that all stories of Jesus were in fact fabricated after the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE.

[davidmartin]

Hakeem if the gospel were post 70 they could still be recording predictions made before the events occurred
But these predictions are not astounding, it was surely perfectly obvious a war would break out with the Romans sooner or later and the temple would be destroyed, since that outcome had only been narrowly averted on numerous previous occasions. When something is obvious, is it a prophecy any more or just stating the obvious?

The issue of the prophesied return of Jesus is a different question and far more interesting i think

[hakeem]

Hakeem if the gospel were post 70 they could still be recording predictions made before the events occurred
But these predictions are not astounding, it was surely perfectly obvious a war would break out with the Romans sooner or later and the temple would be destroyed, since that outcome had only been narrowly averted on numerous previous occasions. When something is obvious, is it a prophecy any more or just stating the obvious?

The issue of the prophesied return of Jesus is a different question and far more interesting i think

The fundamental problem is that the Gospels are not historically credible. Since everything else said about NT Jesus is found to be implausible and fictional then it is not likely that he made any predictions about the fall of the Temple in the time of Pilate.

We have the writings of Josephus so we know those supposed predictions would be regarded as extremely significant since Jews had no expectation at all that the Temple of their God would be destroyed.

In the writings of Josephus, it was not Jesus of Nazareth who predicted calamities in Jerusalem and the Holy House--not at all---it was Jesus the son of Ananus who, day by day, for seven years cried out "Woe unto Jerusalem, Woe unto the city, woe unto the people and woe unto the holy house".

Josephus' Wars of the Jews 6.5.3

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, (23) began on a sudden to cry aloud, "A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!" This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city.................This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, "Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!"

The supposed prophecy about the fall of the Temple and trial of NT Jesus was really lifted from accounts about Jesus the son of Ananus who correctly predicted calamities in Jerusalem and the Temple.

Now, the supposed prophecy about "the son of man coming in the clouds" was already known for hundreds of years before the Gospels were fabricated.

The book of Daniel contains such supposed prophecy.

Daniel 7:13

I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.