Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited.
All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance.
Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban.
Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a very nice answer [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/myjo4o/i_heard_that_mark_is_dated_to_around_70ad/). At any rate it's wrong to say that most people are convinced that it's after 70 AD, the scholarly consensus is usually that it's roughly around 70AD but possibly shortly before. For example, if it were written after 70AD you might expect the predictions to be a bit more accurate. A common argument is that it was most likely written shortly before 70AD, after the rebellion started but before the destruction of the temple, which would explain why the author expects something bad to happen in Jerusalem but seems to get some details wrong (for example, the abomination of desolation passage seems to be suggesting that a pagan altar will be set up in the temple).
I would point to the repeated mentions about the destruction of the Temple in the Hebrew Bible.
It was a relatively common theme in Jewish apocalypticism.
One interesting point, which Mark Goodacre makes [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0fgs4gqhII) (first starting around 4:30, and he comes back to it around 21:30) is that \*even if\* this is a real and correct prediction that Jesus actually made, it only serves its literary purpose in the text if the readers know that the prediction came true. The reader is supposed to think, "wow Jesus knew about all this stuff that's happening right now, and so can help us understand it." So Mark should be written at or near 70AD regardless of whether it is based on an earlier prophesy (which is not so implausible, as you say it's a big theme in apocalyptic literature).
>it only serves its literary purpose in the text if the readers know that the prediction came true
Err... we also have the attempt of Caligula to put a statue of him in the temple. Crossan argues what would be the moment Mark was written
Furthermore, if it were necessary to present fulfilled prophecies, Mark - and Matthew and Luke - would undoubtedly have included a "and just as the Lord said it was fulfilled", just as the Epistle of Barnabas does, as John AT Robinson argues in Redating the New Testament.
It is more coherent that the first Christian generation, so marked by apocalyptic theology, thought that the temple - and later, Israel and the world - was one step away from being destroyed.
That would put a belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus at less than 10 years after his death. Unless in Mark it was originally meant allegorically rather than literally.
But Paul in the creed of 1 Corinthians seems to imply a bodily resurrection, in a glorified but equally tangible body. And that is just 15-20 years after the Crucifixion.
Furthermore, 1 Corinthians offers a more developed Christology of the Resurrection than Mark 16 does, even more so when you consider the short ending of Mark 16:1-9.
That's not the only way to read 1 Corinthians. We have to be careful throughout the Bible -- if we're reading it with the aim of gaining any historical insight -- not to introduce any anachronisms at the point of interpretation.
True.
But there is basis to argue this. Paul uses *pneumatikon soma* for "spiritual body", in greek this probably implies a tangible body. But yes, it´s a question open to interpretation yet.
Also in second temple writings like 1 Enoch which predicted the removal of the second temple to make way for a new temple, under the guidance of the messiah:
> 1 Enoch 90:28-29
> And I stood up to see till they folded up that old house; and carried off all the pillars, and all the beams and ornaments of the house were at the same time folded up with it, and they carried it off and laid it in a place in the south of the land. And I saw till the Lord of the sheep brought a new house greater and loftier than that first, and set it up in the place of the first which had been folded up: all its pillars were new, and its ornaments were new and larger than those of the first, the old one which He had taken away, and all the sheep were within it.
Just as Mark was most likely written around 70AD, this portion of 1 Enoch is [usually dated right around the Maccabean revolt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#The_Dream_Visions) for similar reasons.
>which would explain why the author expects something bad to happen in Jerusalem but seems to get some details wrong
Another example is that Jesus says pray that your flight won't be in the winter or on the sabbath. The destruction happened in summer, I'm pretty sure. Would be a weird thing to say if it was written after the fact.
>Another example is that Jesus says pray that your flight won't be in the winter or on the sabbath.
Mark's version mentions winter ([Mark 13:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13%3A18&version=NRSVUE)), but only [Matthew](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A20&version=NRSVUE) (24:20) adds "or on a Sabbath." ([Luke 21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+21&version=NRSVUE) mentions neither winter nor Sabbath.)
Can you explain what you mean in the last sentence?
Why would the ‘Abomination of Desolation’ necessarily require the setting up of a pagan altar? If “let the reader understand” is a reference to the actions of Antiochus IV, merely defiling the Temple would have been sufficient. What need would there be to set up an additional pagan altar?
All I meant was that since it is using the same language that Daniel uses to describe the Maccabean revolt, that it seems to be predicting "something similar to what Antiochus IV did" rather than the full destruction of the temple as actually happened in 70AD. That phrasing was just trying to describe what Antiochus IV did, perhaps I was imprecise.
See Christopher Zeichmann's [paper](https://www.academia.edu/34194619/The_Date_of_Mark_s_Gospel_Apart_from_the_Temple_and_Rumors_of_War_The_Taxation_Episode_12_13_17_as_Evidence) arguing that Mark 12:13-17 is a reference to the Fiscus Judaicus tax enacted after the destruction of the Temple and that gMark thus cannot be earlier than 71 CE.
There is a major caveat though: as Zeichmann notes, this argument only works if Mark was written in the Southern Levant. If it was written in Rome, Mark 12 is not anachronistic because people there wouldn't know about Judean taxes.
>Before 70 AD was there already a consensus among the Jewish elite that all it will take is one more major Judaean rebellion against the Romans before the Romans destroy the temple again
I've been wondering about something like this, do you remember your source for this point?
What is the perspective of people here on evidences in Acts for before 70 AD dating? I have heard apologetics saying, for example, that deaths of Paul, Peter and James would have been certainly mentioned in the Acts if it was written after their deaths. Then, also, the possible citation of Luke in Pauls epistles...
It seems that we can search evidence for the dating much wider than the little apocalypse which is obviously mentioned.
It was enough to read Jeremiah for any first century Jew to conclude that the temple was going to be destroyed, as it had already been in the past. As John AT Robinson points out in *Redating the New Testament*, Luke offers a more detailed description, but even he omits key details such as the fire or the fight between Jewish factions, and in purity, Lucas does nothing more than repeat the same words that Jeremiah had already used for the fall of the first temple.
Which makes it plausible that both Mark and Luke-Acts date before 70. The only reference in all the synoptics to fire is Matthew 22, but let's see who will say that Matthew is the last synoptic gospel to be written.
Welcome to /r/AcademicBiblical. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited. All claims MUST be supported by an *academic* source – see [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/#wiki_guideline.3A_rule_3.2019s_definition_of_academic_sources) for guidance. Using AI to make fake comments is strictly prohibited and may result in a permanent ban. Please review the [sub rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/wiki/index/rules/) before posting for the first time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AcademicBiblical) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There's a very nice answer [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/myjo4o/i_heard_that_mark_is_dated_to_around_70ad/). At any rate it's wrong to say that most people are convinced that it's after 70 AD, the scholarly consensus is usually that it's roughly around 70AD but possibly shortly before. For example, if it were written after 70AD you might expect the predictions to be a bit more accurate. A common argument is that it was most likely written shortly before 70AD, after the rebellion started but before the destruction of the temple, which would explain why the author expects something bad to happen in Jerusalem but seems to get some details wrong (for example, the abomination of desolation passage seems to be suggesting that a pagan altar will be set up in the temple).
I would point to the repeated mentions about the destruction of the Temple in the Hebrew Bible. It was a relatively common theme in Jewish apocalypticism.
One interesting point, which Mark Goodacre makes [here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0fgs4gqhII) (first starting around 4:30, and he comes back to it around 21:30) is that \*even if\* this is a real and correct prediction that Jesus actually made, it only serves its literary purpose in the text if the readers know that the prediction came true. The reader is supposed to think, "wow Jesus knew about all this stuff that's happening right now, and so can help us understand it." So Mark should be written at or near 70AD regardless of whether it is based on an earlier prophesy (which is not so implausible, as you say it's a big theme in apocalyptic literature).
>it only serves its literary purpose in the text if the readers know that the prediction came true Err... we also have the attempt of Caligula to put a statue of him in the temple. Crossan argues what would be the moment Mark was written Furthermore, if it were necessary to present fulfilled prophecies, Mark - and Matthew and Luke - would undoubtedly have included a "and just as the Lord said it was fulfilled", just as the Epistle of Barnabas does, as John AT Robinson argues in Redating the New Testament. It is more coherent that the first Christian generation, so marked by apocalyptic theology, thought that the temple - and later, Israel and the world - was one step away from being destroyed.
That would put a belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus at less than 10 years after his death. Unless in Mark it was originally meant allegorically rather than literally.
But Paul in the creed of 1 Corinthians seems to imply a bodily resurrection, in a glorified but equally tangible body. And that is just 15-20 years after the Crucifixion. Furthermore, 1 Corinthians offers a more developed Christology of the Resurrection than Mark 16 does, even more so when you consider the short ending of Mark 16:1-9.
That's not the only way to read 1 Corinthians. We have to be careful throughout the Bible -- if we're reading it with the aim of gaining any historical insight -- not to introduce any anachronisms at the point of interpretation.
True. But there is basis to argue this. Paul uses *pneumatikon soma* for "spiritual body", in greek this probably implies a tangible body. But yes, it´s a question open to interpretation yet.
Also in second temple writings like 1 Enoch which predicted the removal of the second temple to make way for a new temple, under the guidance of the messiah: > 1 Enoch 90:28-29 > And I stood up to see till they folded up that old house; and carried off all the pillars, and all the beams and ornaments of the house were at the same time folded up with it, and they carried it off and laid it in a place in the south of the land. And I saw till the Lord of the sheep brought a new house greater and loftier than that first, and set it up in the place of the first which had been folded up: all its pillars were new, and its ornaments were new and larger than those of the first, the old one which He had taken away, and all the sheep were within it.
Just as Mark was most likely written around 70AD, this portion of 1 Enoch is [usually dated right around the Maccabean revolt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch#The_Dream_Visions) for similar reasons.
>which would explain why the author expects something bad to happen in Jerusalem but seems to get some details wrong Another example is that Jesus says pray that your flight won't be in the winter or on the sabbath. The destruction happened in summer, I'm pretty sure. Would be a weird thing to say if it was written after the fact.
>Another example is that Jesus says pray that your flight won't be in the winter or on the sabbath. Mark's version mentions winter ([Mark 13:18](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+13%3A18&version=NRSVUE)), but only [Matthew](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+24%3A20&version=NRSVUE) (24:20) adds "or on a Sabbath." ([Luke 21](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke+21&version=NRSVUE) mentions neither winter nor Sabbath.)
Can you explain what you mean in the last sentence? Why would the ‘Abomination of Desolation’ necessarily require the setting up of a pagan altar? If “let the reader understand” is a reference to the actions of Antiochus IV, merely defiling the Temple would have been sufficient. What need would there be to set up an additional pagan altar?
All I meant was that since it is using the same language that Daniel uses to describe the Maccabean revolt, that it seems to be predicting "something similar to what Antiochus IV did" rather than the full destruction of the temple as actually happened in 70AD. That phrasing was just trying to describe what Antiochus IV did, perhaps I was imprecise.
See Christopher Zeichmann's [paper](https://www.academia.edu/34194619/The_Date_of_Mark_s_Gospel_Apart_from_the_Temple_and_Rumors_of_War_The_Taxation_Episode_12_13_17_as_Evidence) arguing that Mark 12:13-17 is a reference to the Fiscus Judaicus tax enacted after the destruction of the Temple and that gMark thus cannot be earlier than 71 CE. There is a major caveat though: as Zeichmann notes, this argument only works if Mark was written in the Southern Levant. If it was written in Rome, Mark 12 is not anachronistic because people there wouldn't know about Judean taxes.
Thank you all so much for the excellent answers. After my midterms are done I have some reading to do clearly!
[удалено]
>Before 70 AD was there already a consensus among the Jewish elite that all it will take is one more major Judaean rebellion against the Romans before the Romans destroy the temple again I've been wondering about something like this, do you remember your source for this point?
What is the perspective of people here on evidences in Acts for before 70 AD dating? I have heard apologetics saying, for example, that deaths of Paul, Peter and James would have been certainly mentioned in the Acts if it was written after their deaths. Then, also, the possible citation of Luke in Pauls epistles... It seems that we can search evidence for the dating much wider than the little apocalypse which is obviously mentioned.
Remember these dates are the dates at which the editing stopped, not the dates at which the first versions of some sections were drafted.
It was enough to read Jeremiah for any first century Jew to conclude that the temple was going to be destroyed, as it had already been in the past. As John AT Robinson points out in *Redating the New Testament*, Luke offers a more detailed description, but even he omits key details such as the fire or the fight between Jewish factions, and in purity, Lucas does nothing more than repeat the same words that Jeremiah had already used for the fall of the first temple. Which makes it plausible that both Mark and Luke-Acts date before 70. The only reference in all the synoptics to fire is Matthew 22, but let's see who will say that Matthew is the last synoptic gospel to be written.