In order to know how to interpret a document it is very often helpful to know when it was written.
One passage addressed by Casey and Crossley in support of their case that the Gospel of Mark was written before 40 c.e.
is Mark -28 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
They have learned nothing from the exposure of the same methodological flaws at the root of Albrightianism.All this has been addressed in previous posts and comments.There is no evidence for this proposition, so biblical scholars proceed by means of a circular methodology to discover the evidence they need to support it by analyzing different parts of the gospel texts.Cultural tradition and contemporary public and institutional support for this process enables it to flourish unquestioned, and give licence to its practitioners to ignore or ridicule any attempts to expose their circularity.Words of practical advice from Schweitzer and Schwartz to Hobsbawm and Thompson are dismissed.Discussions by Elton and Carr on historiography are misrepresented.