Toto

Since no one has used the manuscripts to date Mark, and in particular I did not use the manuscript evidence to date Mark, I fail to see that Layman made a "cogent" point, as opposed to a distraction based on a clear misreading of what I wrote.

I repeat, is there any positive reason to date Mark to 70 CE? Anyone?

Peter Kirby

It is not a clear misreading to assume that you had thought that the date of the earliest manuscript of Mark had a connection to the dating of Mark, either positively by way of showing a later date, or negatively by rebutting an argument for an earlier date, since you had brought up the date of the earliest manuscript in a discussion of the dating of Mark. Is the reader to assume that you were making no connection when you made your statement? Now you are saying that "no one has used the manuscripts to date Mark," so one wonders why you brought it up.

Further, is the second half of your sentence also not an argument for a later date of Mark? It is not distinguished from the first half in what it is intended to show.

"There is no manuscript evidence before the third century, no mention in other literature before the mid second century, as I understand."

Were you not trying to make an argument that would be probative with regards to the dating of Mark in that sentence? Were you not even rebutting the argument of another? Then what was your point? That arguments that noone has proposed should be avoided in the future?

Layman's point is cogent because it is reasonable (that you can't set either a fixed date or a terminus a quo, the beginning part of a range, from the date of the earliest manuscript), even if it was prompted by an (unclear) misunderstanding of your post.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

If there were manuscript evidence of Mark that could be clearly dated to 70 CE, that would be evidence that Mark existed in 70 CE. But there is no such evidence. I brought it up to show the lack of evidence, not to claim that a third century manuscript was any sort of evidence.

If you read what I wrote, I am not making any argument for any particular dating of Mark. I am only asking what evidence there is for a date of 70 CE or before.

No. You are reading things into that.

I personally do not have any firm opinions on the dating of Mark. I am not fully convinced that anyone can be more precise than 70-150 CE (more or less). That is why I asked if there were any evidence for an early date.

I don't think so. What argument would that be? Has any proponent of an early date for Mark relied on those facts? Or relied on facts to which these would be a rebuttal?

I asked a simple question - what positive evidence is there for an early dating of Mark? I listed some of the usual sorts of evidence that are missing in this case. Why is this so complicated?

Cogent: telling, weighty (powerfully persuasive) "a cogent argument"; "a telling presentation"; "a weighty argument"

Layman's point confused something that we all agree on - that you can't get the fixed date or the terminus ad quo - from a maunscript date (although you may derive the terminus ad quem) - with the false implication that I had tried to derive the actual date of Mark from the date of the manuscript.

Nothing "telling" or "weighty" there. Just an attempt to construct a straw man and knock it down with gusto, while avoiding the question that I asked.

Let me try it again.

Does anyone know of any positive evidence for dating the gospel of Mark to 70 CE or before? Is it all based on speculation and catering to Christian sensibilities, or is there an actual argument for dating Mark to 70 CE?

Amaleq13

I think my response indicates the answer to be "no". I acknowledged that he had a point but also recognized that it was not a point that was relevant to the statements made or the question asked (ie What evidence is there for the c.70CE date?). As part of his question, he mentioned a couple of examples of things we do not have including that we did not have early manuscript evidence which obviously, at least to me, implied manuscript evidence early enough to establish such a date.

Instead of focusing on the actual question, we've been driving down an irrelevant tangent based on a misinterpretation of an observation that, among other possibles pieces of evidence, we have no early manuscripts to support such a date.

Peter Kirby

Amaleq and Toto,

Toto writes, "I listed some of the usual sorts of evidence that are missing in this case."

"Usual" must not be with reference to the set of works of classical antiquity in general, because neither the date of the manuscript (usually 10th-15th century) nor the date of the first clear citation (often hundreds of years later) is the most common method for fixing the "earliest" terminus ad quem (the terminus based on a piece of evidence that sets the earliest date for the latest possible date at which the text was probably written). Rather, what is most usual is to refer to (a) internal evidence, implicit and explicit, in the text and (b) written references about the identity and point in time of the author. Typically, only if both of these come up empty will the date of the earliest manuscript be useful as a terminus ad quem.

Although it was not clear, it is now apparent that you were not presenting an argument nor attributing an argument to any particular person, but rather simply stating two pieces of information that do not fix a terminus of Mark in the 60s or 70s CE (but do show that the terminus belongs to the mid second century, or possibly earlier on other evidence).

Since you did seem to ask the question (of positive evidence for the dating of Mark) directly of Layman, if not also to the forum generally, it would be good if Layman now answered it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

No, but I have read a ton of his other stuff, and I know how his methodological thinking runs. Unless he has his own special methodology for that one piece that is different from all others. If so, please post it here, as I would love to see it. Judging from the reviews, however, it does not seem to be any different from the usual erudite but specious arguments that I have seen before from Evans.

Vorkosigan

Amaleq13

Do you think this is a topic that is likely to require its own thread?

Peter Kirby

Yes.

For that matter, it might be worthwhile also to split the entire discussion between me and prax starting at "Do I need to elaborate?"

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Layman

In other words, because he does not assume that Mark is a work of fiction he can't be trusted?

Layman

Why? Other than pointing out the irrelevancy of the manuscript evidence to the dating of Mark, I have made no assertion here.

But I will say that this kind of 'discussion' is one reason I don't hang around here much. I pick one argument to respond to. I think I do a pretty good job. I am chastised for not addressing every single argument. Then I'm told no one made any such assertion. I point out where it was made. I'm told by the proponent of the argument and his friends that I misunderstood the point and that everyone actually agrees with me (often, as the case here, I'm accused not of misunderstanding the point but of dishonestly distorting the point to score points). But even though I'm told that I still get statements seeming to go back to the point I thought everyone agreed was pointless. Here, that somehow manuscript evidence is a "usual sort of evidence" that historians use to date ancient writings.