Once again, the date of Mark's Gospel
Mark Goodacre has again summarised his position on the dating of Mark and how the issue of a prediction by the historical Jesus is largely beside the point. It's more about what you do with a prediction, if you like, and Mark Goodacre thinks post 70 best explains Mk's use of a prediction. Again, I would re-stress the counter argument. Yes, it is perfectly plausible that a) Jesus could have made a prediction of the fall of the Temple and b) Mk could have framed it to make his own point about successful prophecy (I also don't like the debate when it get dragged down into whether or not someone could or could not make a genuine prediction). But I wouldn't throw out the importance of an early pre-Markan prophecy so quickly. Let's say that Jesus and the earliest Christians did predict and expect the fall of the Temple. If so then it remains possible that Mk could have framed the prophecy in light of another event (e.g. Caligula crisis) when it might have seemed likely that Jesus' prophecy would be fulfilled. It might have been written in the aftermath when people appeared to have expected a repeat action. It might have been written in the late 60s when it might have looked as if it were coming true. Throw into the mix, various biblical traditions about what had happened to the first Temple when an imperial power advanced and then maybe add the book of Daniel which was regarded by many as still prophetic and had things to say about the future of the Temple. (And maybe add that Luke did precisely what Mark did not, and made major changes to Mk 13 to make it clear that there was a reference to the fall of Jerusalem). Throughout all of this, it is possible to imagine the importance of an early prophecy guiding later interpretion and influencing narrative placement, all in the name of proving Jesus right. Of course, on the basis on Mark 13 alone, it might all be about something that has already happened in 70. But, then again, it might not. There are different historical contexts which could have given rise to the narrative placement of the prophecy (see Crossley, Date of Mark, ch. 2). This is why I was and am very reluctant to use Mark 13 as a source for dating Mark's gospel.
This sort of reasoning could, if we are that way inclinded, be applied to other aspects of Mark's narrative. Mark notes how the temple functions 'alongside a narrative climax that stresses its connection with Jesus' death'. While that is a bit too vague for my tastes, the connection between Jesus' death in Mark's narrative and the Temple, if there is such a strong connection (I'm not so sure), could still be explained by different historical contexts and by the question of what to do with earlier traditions. Again, like using Mark 13, this is why I remain reluctant to use such narrative themes in dating the gospel (see Date of Mark, ch. 3).