Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark

Abstract

The date of Gospel of Mark is generally set a few years either side of destruction of second Temple on 9th of Av, 70 C.E.1 The grounds for this dating vary. Earlier commentators tended to place considerable stock in patristic testimony, which claimed that author of second Gospel was a companion of Peter, which in turn implied a date for Gospel either during Peter's lifetime or shortly after his death-in any event, before 70 C.E.2 More recent scholarship has insisted on internal evidence of date, with attention mainly falling on Mark 13. There is no strong tendency apparent: although perhaps majority hold that Mark looks back on destruction of second Temple,3 a few recent commentators, usually combining patristic testimony with internal evidence, hold that Mark ought to be placed shortly before 70 C.E.4 The pertinence and reliability of patristic testimony are much in question, but in any event do take us back much earlier than Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus at end of second century.5 The best place to begin is with internal references. Several texts are routinely cited that point to a relatively early dating, but none of these permits us to narrow down date to one side of 70 C.E. or other. Mark 9:1 and 13:30 predict that some of Jesus' contemporaries will live to see parousia, predictions that, given a mean life expectancy of forty years, would point to a date too much later than 70 C.E. Such indications of date are very strong, however, since Matthew, usually dated in 80s, has taken over two Markan predictions almost unchanged. If Matthew was able to tolerate failed or obviously failing predictions, then so might Mark.6 Likewise, details such as explicit naming of Alexander and Rufus as sons of Simon of Gyrene (15:21) or Mark's unelaborated references to the high (14:53) and Pilate (15:2), in contrast to Matthew and Luke, who identify high priest as Caiaphas (Matt 26:3, 57; Luke 3:2) and Pilate as the governor (Matt 27:11; Luke 3:1), presuppose an audience that does need explanations for these persons.7 Or again, Mark's presentation of Jesus' opponents, which, unlike Matthew's account, distinguishes between scribes and Pharisees (Mark 2:15) and, unlike Matthew (3:7; 16:1), restricts Sadducees to environs of Jerusalem, reflects a greater awareness of religious topography of Judea prior to first revolt.8 These data, however, point only to a relatively early date for Gospel and do permit any greater precision. Thus, it seems unlikely that Mark 13:14 was specifically formulated with Titus's desecration of temple area in view, since it so poorly fits details.17 The disadvantages of this solution mount, however, when one considers Mark s inclusion of wish that events leading to flight not occur during (13:18). This fits well Caligula crisis, which was escalating during summer and fall of 40, just before onset of winter rains, but it hardly fits events of August 70 C.E.22 Thus, once again it would be necessary to posit a negligent editor, who missed fact that desecration of sanctuary by Titus and its subsequent destruction occurred before winter of 70 C.E. This is certainly possible-the redactors of Gospels elsewhere are guilty of clumsy editing23-but it is an entirely happy solution. Since both Matthew and Luke were quite capable of alleviating tensions created by w. 14 and 18 when read in a post-70 situation, it is odd that a post-70 Mark could or did not.24 Without abandoning advantages of positing a pre-Markan apocalypse to account for anachronistic reference to flight in winter,25 several authors have alleviated tensions created by w. 14 and 18 by arguing that Mark was composed prior to 70 C.E. Accordingly, for author of Mark, expectation of a desecration of sanctuary, either by installation of a pagan altar similar to that used by Antiochus IV Epiphanes or by a cult image such as that planned by Caligula, was yet unrealized, but under circumstances of an impending threat by Romans, scarcely an unrealistic apprehension. …