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 unde

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.