The '''Date of the Gospel of Mark''' is unjustifiably pegged to the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70, based very loosely on the eschatological, end-of-the-world talk in {{bibleref|Mark|13}}. Also, [[liberal logic]] for the [[Bible]] is that when a work is known to have been composed before a certain event, as in the Temple's destruction in AD 70, then [[liberal]]s say that is when the work was written to assign as late a date as possible.
Honest biblical scholars are not as well-versed experts in the trickery of [[liberal style]] and, as a result, the scholars allow absurd claims about of a late date of writing of the Gospel of Mark become widely repeatedauthorship to gain unjustified favor.
In fact, at least five considerations point to a There are eight (8) reasons why the date of authorship of the [[Gospel of Mark]] to be was soon after the [[Resurrection]], or even prior to it as an ongoing account:*early in [[Paul]]'s ministry, not long after the form [[Resurrection]], he quoted from the [[Gospel of a diary kept during Mark]] concerning "the events:sandals of whose feet I <nowiki>[</nowiki>[[John the Baptist]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> am not worthy to untie" {{bibleref|Acts|13|25}} ([[ESV]]) (taken from {{bibleref|Mark|1|7}})*the [[Gospel of Mark]] , without the [[Mark ending]] apparently added later, omits subsequent events after the [[Resurrection]], implying that it was finalized at the time of with the Resurrection;
*the Gospel of Mark is concise and to-the-point, almost like notes, while a later work would have been (and was) more verbose;
*it would have been immensely helpful to have an eyewitness account circulate among early [[Christian]]s, but secret from authorities who might have seized it;