Since Mark 13 talks predicts the destruction of the Temple yet has no record of the fulfillment of that prophecy when the Temple was burned and destroyed and Jerusalem razed in 70, which would have been a cataclysmic event for the church, which would have had it's center in Jerusalem. Eusebius notes in his church history that no Christian died, because they left Jerusalem when the Roman army withdrew briefly because of the prophecy. So it's hard to date Mark to after 70, even if you don't believe that Mark was the written account Peter promised in one of his epistles (and presumed to be written by the Mark that acts talks of); Peter's death is usually dated to 64.
> [lots of letters from Paul] talk about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote
Seems unlikely to me, and I've never heard any reference to them. But do you have any examples?
Regarding faked content, making up the speeches of generals, etc: for one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right. One need not quote someone exactly to write something that is accurately reflects what he said. My dad talks about secretaries who CEOs, etc. would just say "answer this letter for me", and they knew exactly how he would respond and could write the letter for him. The apostles were alive for several decades and could correct things. Eusebius cites someone who had learned the faith from someone who was one or two people removed from the apostles, and he went and found the apostle John, and was overjoyed to find that what he had been taught was the same as what John said.
Or maybe the author did that on purpose: made up a prophecy, to make Jesus look like a prophet. He did not mention fulfillment of that prophecy because all his potential readers already knew about that.
Internal evidence is always very flimsy. And relying on internal evidence alone for dating is problematic. You have to assume a whole lot about the authors understanding of events and assuming you know and understand what he would or would not have written.
If 'Mark' was this early, and such an important document, it seems strange then that externally nobody refers to the text or talks about it or brings it up in arguments.
That seems quite strange, if this was a document that people in the 100-150 frame believed was ACTUALLY from this 'Mark' then this would be by far the most important Christian document. It would be use in debates, it would be referenced. But somehow all the Christian we can date to that period show no evidence of knowing 'Mark' or caring about it. Nobody uses it for theological argument, nobody even references it, or quotes it.
So basically you are relying on incredibly flimsy internal argument to give it the earliest possible dating you can get away with and just assume that must be it while ignoring more reliable ways of dating and establishing a proper historical record.
> Eusebius notes
And I'm sure he had excellent record from a time that was 2+ major wars ago. By the time of Eusebius all of early church history is just legendary history. We have absolutely 0 evidence this is true from anything even remotely contemporary.
> or one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right
Yeah if you believe that we have no basis for argument.
The methodology you want to use here is not valid in literally for any other history. Its just a bunch of Apologetics.
Eusebius wrote his church history around 300, and is widely viewed as an excellent source. He quotes extensively, and is not uncritical of his sources, although sometimes he is overly credulous. He is the only source for many of the documents he quotes, including some imperial decrees. (He doesn't talk about the dating of Mark, I'm just correcting your apparent impression that he lived after 1945.)
I know when he wrote. Why would you assume I don't?
He is basically the arch myth-maker who defined orthodox view on early Christianity. Much of the subject of series study of the topic is overturning myths made popular by Eusebius. Of course the conservatives would say he is an 'excellent source' because he is 'the' source.
To claim he is considered an 'excellent source' by all secular christian historians isn't really accurate, particularly about early christian history.
He has also been called forger, a dishonest historians, a polemicist, a propagandist and many things. And there are good arguments and example for many of these claims.
To just outright claim he is this perfect historian isn't accurate. Specifically when it comes to christian history, as he clearly has a very, very strong bias. So Eusebius in 30 claiming 'Christians' did X, 100s years earlier isn't credibly unless he actually can substantiate this.
There is very significant criticism of Eusebius work. Both from a Christian and a non-christian perspective.
> [lots of letters from Paul] talk about things that literally didn't even exist when Paul wrote
Seems unlikely to me, and I've never heard any reference to them. But do you have any examples?
Regarding faked content, making up the speeches of generals, etc: for one thing the Christians viewed these sayings as coming from God, so they had a definite interest in getting them right. One need not quote someone exactly to write something that is accurately reflects what he said. My dad talks about secretaries who CEOs, etc. would just say "answer this letter for me", and they knew exactly how he would respond and could write the letter for him. The apostles were alive for several decades and could correct things. Eusebius cites someone who had learned the faith from someone who was one or two people removed from the apostles, and he went and found the apostle John, and was overjoyed to find that what he had been taught was the same as what John said.