I don't see how you can avoid seeing the development of the gospel and Christianity as such as related to the Jewish War of 66 - 70 CE.
Most scholars admit that the destruction of the temple is lurking in the background of the Gospel of Mark. I don't know how many people have actually read what Clement says in To Theodore about the development of the Gospel of Mark but it clearly matches exactly the period when modern scholarship assigns to its creation - i.e. 70 CE. We read:
As for Mark, then, during Peter's stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord's doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected.
The date of Peter's martyrdom is UNIVERSALLY understood to have occurred in the period leading up to the destruction of the temple. I have no time for those who give the event an exact date. The fact that Nero is mentioned as the Emperor or the fires of Rome really mean nothing. The Vengeance of the Savior for instance speaks Berenice and Titus exterminating the population of Israel for killing Jesus while Tiberius was Emperor!
The point is that Clement assigns a date for the development of Mark AFTER another text - essentially a kergyma Petrou - was already established.
I will contend that on a deeper level Clement is hinting that the death of Peter is of central significance to the gospels and the Gospel of Mark in particular. Already we see material in the Gospel of John 'know' of Peter's martyrdom - "You will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." [John 21.19] It is interesting that the Acts of Peter tradition still echoes a 'Simonian' understanding of Peter as a second Jesus.
To be sure Simon Magus is now inserted in the text and Peter spends most of the book combatting his 'heresy' (but notice that Peter is not once identified by the name he happens to share with the heretic - i.e. 'Simon').
The Acts of Peter is the source for the tradition about the famous phrase "Quo vadis, Domine?" (or "Pou Hupageis, Kurie?" which means, "Whither goest Thou, Master?"). According to the story, Peter, fleeing Rome to avoid execution, asked the question of a vision of Jesus, to which Jesus allegedly responded that he was "going to Rome to be crucified again."
Jesus could only be envisioned to utter these words if Simon (a.k.a 'Peter') was understood in terms of being a 'second Jesus.'
More on the Acts of Peter to follow ...
