Posted: Jan 10, 2012 12:47 am
Dudely wrote:IgnorantiaNescia wrote:Dudely wrote:
Mark was written by an unknown Christian (possibly in Syria), in AD 70- shortly after the destruction of the second temple. It was, in fact, written partly BECAUSE of the destruction of Jerusalem.
Interestingly, this makes it the first of the gospels. It is likely that the individuals who wrote Matthew and Luke did so after reading Mark.
The range of dates I got for it was from about 65 to 75, so that could be both before and after the destruction of the temple. Where do you get this remarkably precise date for gMark from, I you don't mind me asking?
AD 70 is the best estimate. Those who put it before 70 are in the minority. This belief often overlaps with people who believe it was actually Mark who wrote it, which is a traditionalist view not held by many scholars (There are some exceptions, notably Martin Hengel).
Further, it is widely believed that Matthew and Luke are derived form Mark, so since Luke deals with the destruction of the temple it could not have been written before it happened (even though this does cause a few problems). AD 70 is a guess partly based on the belief that you can't predict the future. It could have been written anywhere from 65-80.
Lately I've been wondering whether the 'Little Apocalypse' used to date gMark to post 70 AD might not be referring to the Bar Kochba Rebellion in 135 AD. It was a messianic movement that actually did persecute the christians because they had their own messiah, thank you very much.
It could be later than we think...