The Gospel of Mark is difficult to date because it appears to reflect both a pre-70 and post-70 CE context. On the one hand, Mark does not explicitly mention the destruction of Jerusalem or the Temple as a past event. The Temple is portrayed as standing, and its destruction is framed as a future occurrence predicted by Jesus, which suggests a date prior to 70 CE. Moreover, Mark lacks the theological reflection on the catastrophe that characterizes later Christian writings.
On the other hand, Mark 13 contains detailed descriptions of war, suffering, and the destruction of the Temple that closely resemble the events of the Jewish War and the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The precision of these details has led many scholars to argue that the evangelist was writing with knowledge of the events, presenting them in the form of prophecy (vaticinium ex eventu). This suggests that Mark was composed either during or shortly after the Jewish War.
As a result, most scholars date the Gospel of Mark to around 65–75 CE. This dating accounts for the tension within the text: the trauma of the Temple’s destruction is imminent or recent, yet not fully absorbed into Mark’s theological reflection. Mark’s narrative presents the destruction not as a historical report but as a confirmation of Jesus’ authority and prophetic insight. Thus, the Gospel stands at a transitional moment, shaped by both expectation and experience of Jerusalem’s fall.
Mark also records Jesus' prediction of the resurrection of Jesus after the event. In any other book, that would be considered fraud. Also, Mark had no reason to think his gospel would survive long or that there would be others. Claims that it is honest but just using an apocalyptic style and giving a theological interpretation of disaster to comfort the people may have a point but not enough weight. Those ideas are compatible with fraud.
There is a vague historical context. Mark hints at persecution, suffering, and social instability, but these conditions existed at multiple points in the 1st century (e.g., under Nero, before and after the Jewish War).
The place of composition is uncertain. Rome? Syria? Galilee? Different locations imply different historical pressures and timeframes, but there’s no consensus.
A lot of scholars think Mark 13 could stand as a complete work on its own—or at least as a self-contained unit that circulated independently before being woven into the Gospel. Moreover you would not notice if it were left out completely. Notably the account of Jesus' resurrection is absent. The gospel ends with the women fleeing the tomb.