Leander 2013, p. 167 refers to Hengel 1985, pp. 7–28 and Collins 2007, pp. 11–14 as arguing for a dating immediately before 70 AD, and to Theissen 1992, pp. 258–262, Incigneri 2003, pp. 116–155, Head 2004 and Kloppenborg 2005 as arguing for a dating immediately after 70 AD. Leander also refers to the minority position of Crossley 2004, who proposed a much earlier c. 35–45 AD dating, listing reviews that point out the problems with Crossley's argument. Leander, Hans (2013). Discourses of Empire: The Gospel of Mark from a Postcolonial Perspective. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN978-1-58983-889-5. Hengel, Martin (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM. Collins, Adela Yarbro (2007). Mark: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Theissen, Gerd (1992). The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Incigneri, Brian J. (2003). The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 65. Leiden: Brill. Head, Ivan (2004). "Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel's Thesis". Journal of Religious History. 28 (3): 240–259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2004.00242.x. Kloppenborg, John S. (2005). "Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark". Journal of Biblical Literature. 124 (3): 419–450. doi:10.2307/30041033. JSTOR30041033. Crossley, James G. (2004). The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (The Library of New Testament Studies). T & T Clark International. ISBN978-0567081957.
Leander 2013, p. 167 refers to Hengel 1985, pp. 7–28 and Collins 2007, pp. 11–14 as arguing for a dating immediately before 70 AD, and to Theissen 1992, pp. 258–262, Incigneri 2003, pp. 116–155, Head 2004 and Kloppenborg 2005 as arguing for a dating immediately after 70 AD. Leander also refers to the minority position of Crossley 2004, who proposed a much earlier c. 35–45 AD dating, listing reviews that point out the problems with Crossley's argument. Leander, Hans (2013). Discourses of Empire: The Gospel of Mark from a Postcolonial Perspective. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN978-1-58983-889-5. Hengel, Martin (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM. Collins, Adela Yarbro (2007). Mark: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Theissen, Gerd (1992). The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Incigneri, Brian J. (2003). The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 65. Leiden: Brill. Head, Ivan (2004). "Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel's Thesis". Journal of Religious History. 28 (3): 240–259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2004.00242.x. Kloppenborg, John S. (2005). "Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark". Journal of Biblical Literature. 124 (3): 419–450. doi:10.2307/30041033. JSTOR30041033. Crossley, James G. (2004). The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (The Library of New Testament Studies). T & T Clark International. ISBN978-0567081957.
Theissen, Gerd; Maloney, Linda M. (2011). The New Testament: A Literary History. G - Reference, Information and Interdisciplinary Subjects Series. Fortress Press. p. unpaginated. ISBN978-0-8006-9785-3. Retrieved 11 February 2025. In the case of Mark and John
Dunn 2005, p. 174. Dunn, James D.G. (2005). "The Tradition". In Dunn, James D.G.; McKnight, Scot (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Eisenbrauns. ISBN978-1-57506-100-9.
Leander 2013, p. 167 refers to Hengel 1985, pp. 7–28 and Collins 2007, pp. 11–14 as arguing for a dating immediately before 70 AD, and to Theissen 1992, pp. 258–262, Incigneri 2003, pp. 116–155, Head 2004 and Kloppenborg 2005 as arguing for a dating immediately after 70 AD. Leander also refers to the minority position of Crossley 2004, who proposed a much earlier c. 35–45 AD dating, listing reviews that point out the problems with Crossley's argument. Leander, Hans (2013). Discourses of Empire: The Gospel of Mark from a Postcolonial Perspective. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN978-1-58983-889-5. Hengel, Martin (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM. Collins, Adela Yarbro (2007). Mark: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Theissen, Gerd (1992). The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Incigneri, Brian J. (2003). The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 65. Leiden: Brill. Head, Ivan (2004). "Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel's Thesis". Journal of Religious History. 28 (3): 240–259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2004.00242.x. Kloppenborg, John S. (2005). "Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark". Journal of Biblical Literature. 124 (3): 419–450. doi:10.2307/30041033. JSTOR30041033. Crossley, James G. (2004). The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (The Library of New Testament Studies). T & T Clark International. ISBN978-0567081957.
Levering, Matthew (2024). "The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology, and the Gospel of Matthew by Michael Patrick Barber (review)". The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 22–3 (3): 1053–1059. doi:10.1353/nov.2024.a934941.
Thiessen, Matthew (2024). "The Historical Jesus and the Temple: Memory, Methodology, and the Gospel of Matthew by Michael Patrick Barber (review)". The Catholic Biblical Quarterly. 86–1: 168. doi:10.1353/cbq.2024.a918386.
Smith 1995, pp. 209–31. Smith, Stephen H. (1995). "A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark's Gospel". Novum Testamentum. 37 (3). E.J. Brill, Leiden: 209–31. doi:10.1163/1568536952662709. JSTOR1561221.
Leander 2013, p. 167 refers to Hengel 1985, pp. 7–28 and Collins 2007, pp. 11–14 as arguing for a dating immediately before 70 AD, and to Theissen 1992, pp. 258–262, Incigneri 2003, pp. 116–155, Head 2004 and Kloppenborg 2005 as arguing for a dating immediately after 70 AD. Leander also refers to the minority position of Crossley 2004, who proposed a much earlier c. 35–45 AD dating, listing reviews that point out the problems with Crossley's argument. Leander, Hans (2013). Discourses of Empire: The Gospel of Mark from a Postcolonial Perspective. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN978-1-58983-889-5. Hengel, Martin (1985). Studies in the Gospel of Mark. London: SCM. Collins, Adela Yarbro (2007). Mark: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Theissen, Gerd (1992). The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Incigneri, Brian J. (2003). The Gospel to the Romans: The Setting and Rhetoric of Mark's Gospel. Biblical Interpretation Series. Vol. 65. Leiden: Brill. Head, Ivan (2004). "Mark as a Roman Document from the Year 69: Testing Martin Hengel's Thesis". Journal of Religious History. 28 (3): 240–259. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9809.2004.00242.x. Kloppenborg, John S. (2005). "Evocatio deorum and the Date of Mark". Journal of Biblical Literature. 124 (3): 419–450. doi:10.2307/30041033. JSTOR30041033. Crossley, James G. (2004). The Date of Mark's Gospel: Insight from the Law in Earliest Christianity (The Library of New Testament Studies). T & T Clark International. ISBN978-0567081957.
Smith 1995, pp. 209–31. Smith, Stephen H. (1995). "A Divine Tragedy: Some Observations on the Dramatic Structure of Mark's Gospel". Novum Testamentum. 37 (3). E.J. Brill, Leiden: 209–31. doi:10.1163/1568536952662709. JSTOR1561221.