It occurred to me that over the last several years, I have accepted the idea that the Gospel of Mark was not written until after 70 CE, the premise being that Mark knew about the destruction of the Jewish temple in that year.
Wonder of wonders, people also argue that the Gospels can’t have been written after 70 CE because none of them mention the actual destruction of the Jewish temple.
Here’s what I think is happening: those folks who would be more comfortable with an earlier date for the Gospels will point to Mark 13:1-2 and say “Jesus prophesied the temple destruction but Mark never reports its actual occurrence, therefore Mark was written no later than 70 CE”. Those folks that reject the idea of prophecy altogether probably say “Mark knew about the temple destruction and put the fact into Jesus’ mouth as a prophecy to improve his bona fides as a messiah, thus Mark was written no earlier than 70 CE”.
Isn’t that fun?