I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

"Because of the reference to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE (Mark 13:2), most scholars believe that Mark was written some time during the war between Rome and the Jews (66-74). Most early dates fall around 65 CE and most late dates fall around 75 CE. "

And that's exactly what I've been dealing with all along. There's nothing new in the article you linked to, and it exactly resonates with what I've already said - namely that late dates are accepted only because people believe there are prophesies in the first Gospel (though amazingly, far from all scholars agree which exact events in the first century it does prophesy; some have suggested that it prophesies events as late as in the second century, and thus postponed it's dating until the mid second century, only proving my point that vague predictions happen all the time, and are easily explained as coincidences or reasonable anticipations, before it's necesary to believe in prophecies), which is not even necessary to presuppose, and then of course, on top of that presupposition, the additional presupposition that prophesies are not possible is needed before we can infer a late date. That is not historical evidence, but philosophical presuppositions. Those dates are accepted by many scholars on grounds which are simply insufficient.

---

Then how about some evidence that does not boil down to, effectively, one believer lying and another swearing to it?

There is more evidence than that. The mainstream scholarly view (if you do want to follow "scientific consensus") is that there is, and that there is sufficient reason and material in favour of the fact that the historical Jesus existed, even if most scholars disagree on a variety of other things (such as exact datings, exact source hypotheses, etc), this is the one most universally attested fact in all New Testament history studies. This is the shared mainstream position (mythical Jesus is not; I've seen it classified as an "ideologically driven revisionist project" by scholars who were certainly not in favour of an orthodox Christian interpretation). What is important are really the grounds on which it is accepted, but I have already dealt with that; I am not going to repeat the reasons why scholars think so; I have made sufficient posts and even linked to external resources if anyone is interested in further studies.