Layman

Then you misunderstood me first. My whole point was that Mark could be dated before the destruction of the Temple even if we assume the only explanation for his telling of Jesus' prophecy about the destruction of the Temple was fabrication.

For me, I see nothing extraordinary in Jesus having said something about the destruction of the Temple around 30 AD. It's not the most "immediate" fulfillment of prophecy, is it? 40 or so years later? Nor do I think only God could have predicted that accurately. In the words of that respected New Testament scholar, P.J. O'Rourke:

The early Christians considered the place cursed because Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple (a safe enough prediction; the whole of Jerusalem has been destroyed more than thirdy times).

Holidays in Hell, page 246.

Toto

Aside from the prophesy, what reason is there to date Mark to any year before 70?

There is no manuscript evidence before the third century, no mention in other literature before the mid second century, as I understand. Apologists probably have an explanation for this, but what positive reasons are there for dating Mark even as early as 70 CE?

Diogenes the Cynic

Saying that "God could have done it" is a tautology. Substantively, that boils down to a declaration that if magic exists then magic exists.

The question remains, why should a magical explanation be preferred to a natural one.

Casper

I love this board!

Getting back to the Original Post (please! It was going so well until mid stream!):

I am interested in this Marcion = Mark idea. As it pertains to the OP, may we explore the idea of Luke-Acts being a response (and partial interpolation) of Marcion's Evangelikon/Apostolikon? And if so, is there an Ur-Lukas that closely resembles a Proto-Mark? And would that put the pair at roughly 90CE?

As an aside, because it does have bearing, is Matthew a correction of mark or is Mark a sloppy rehash of Matthew? Other sources for each entertained as well, of course.

Layman

What is our earliest manuscript evidence for Josephus's Antiquities?

Amaleq13

10th century?


Added later:
After doing a quick google: 10th and 11th century

Layman

That's right.

That's several hundred years more of a gap between Antiquities' first manuscript evidence and its accepted date of authorship than the commonly accepted dating of Mark to around 70 AD and its first manuscript evidence. Maybe using such gaps as a factor for dating composition isn't such a good idea.

Diogenes the Cynic

It's a good thing nobody does that then, isn't it? Got any more strawmen you want to throw out there?

Peter Kirby

Diogenes, I have seen people do that. It's hard to claim a strawman because Layman didn't attribute that to you.

best,
Peter Kirby

Diogenes the Cynic

Well, maybe I shouldn't have said literally NOBODY does it, but it is certainly not the primary factor in how historians date ancient writings.