Diogenes the Cynic

I've decided to just started a clean new thread right here.

(Layman is especially invited)

Marxist

I thought it was pretty obvious Toto was just running down the list of things we could potentially use to date Mark. Layman's 'point' was something we all know to be trivially true, and is clearly based on his own misreading of Toto.

Toto

No - you picked a side comment, turned it into a strawman argument, and wasted our time with it.

I was trying to put the most charitable interpretation on your actions for the sake of the discussion here, but that is what I was thinking, now that you mention it.

For example, in dating the fourth gospel, scholars tend to rely on P52 and its dating to 125 CE (plus or minus 25 years), and work that into their arguments one way or another. But there are no such scraps of papyrus of Mark that can even be argued over.

Once again, it appears that there are no positive arguments for dating gMark to 70 CE.

Layman

Typical.

I didn't come here to argue for any particular dating of the Gospel of Mark. But since I pick apart one argument I have to be hailed into my own personal thread by name so you guys can chest thump and pile on over there.

My plate is full with other projects. For example, I hope to have lengthy article on the Acts of the Apostles published on the 'net soon. If you want to hail me into your petty thread by name then, I'll be glad to stop by.

Edited to add: All right, I remember that I picked apart two arguments about dating Mark, not one (the other being the idea that the only explanation for Mark's having Jesus prophecy the destruction of the Temple was supernatural).

Toto

If you identify this post and how far the discussion goes, I will split it off.

Layman

Why not actually buy a book that argues substantively for a date around 70 AD and refute it instead of baiting the most likely suspect on a discussion board frequented mostly by people who think Early Doherty is a great scholar?

My declination to enter the fray on this at the moment doesn't score you many points, Toto.

As for P52, most scholars I have read see that papyrus as a latest possible date. But since most scholars already dated John to the first century, it's really only useful against skeptics like yourself who think the manuscript evidence is so important.

What manuscript evidence has been used to date Paul's letters to the first century? Or the Johannine Epistles? Or Clement of Rome? Or any of Josephus' writings? Or Pliny the Younger? Tacitus?

Amaleq13

I've split it off here: True Text of the NT?.

Toto

You might suggest such a book on the other thread. But at this point I think that you are the one who is baiting me (and trying to insult some other people here), and I think I will decline to take the bait.

Amaleq13

You didn't pick apart any argument. You picked apart a question and then incorrectly interpreted the phrase you selected out. The subject of the question clearly deserves its own thread.

If you would like your name removed from the thread title, I would be happy to do it.

You don't have to defend anything you don't want or have the time to but, personally, I would be interested in what you consider to be the strongest evidence for a c.70CE dating.

Vorkosigan

Nowhere do I say that, so I have no idea how to answer this question.