This [Addendum: and other arguments from other scholars below] fully refutes Shabir Ally’s argument that Mark was written in 70 AD (following liberal scholars) below in his debate with Dr. The only reason liberals date Mark at 70 AD or later is because they don’t believe in supernatural prophesy.They don’t believe that in 30 AD, a week before He is crucified, Jesus actually prophesied of the destruction of the temple, and it actually came true and happened in 70 AD, about 40 years later. Bruce, puts the Gospel of Mark in AD 64, which is still way before 70 AD and before even the break out of the war of the Romans vs. “As for the earliest of our Gospels, Mark, if it is a Roman Gospel (as I think), the crisis of A. 64 might have provided a suitable occasion for its publication.Most researchers place the date of Jesus’ death at Passover time around the year 30.The earliest New Testament books, the letters written by Paul, were composed in the decade of the 50s.

This slide graphically presents some important first-century dates and events, including the writing of and relationships among the Gospels.

Those who favor an earlier date argue that Mark's language indicates that the author knew that there would be serious trouble in the future but, unlike Luke, didn't know exactly what that trouble would entail.

Of course, it wouldn’t have taken divinely inspired prophecy to guess that the Romans and Jews were on yet another collision course.

For them, it doesn’t make a great deal of difference whether Mark wrote shortly before the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE or shortly after. All this is used to argue that Mark wrote for a Roman audience, perhaps even in Rome itself, long the traditional location of Mark’s work in Christian beliefs.

Because of the dominance of Roman customs across their empire, though, the existence of such Latinisms really doesn’t require that Mark was written in Rome.