Rebuttal to Jonathan McLatchie's defense of traditional apostolic authorship of Mark's gospel

This is my reply to an article by Jonathan McLatchie entitled

The Authorship of Mark's Gospel and Why it Matters

The traditional attribution of the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) has come under immense fire today from higher critical scholarship.

Which tells the average unbeliever that the traditional authorship of the 4 gospels is something a bit more controversial than say, Jesus' gender. 

Bart Ehrman, a well known New Testament textual critic at the University of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, has for a long time been a favourite skeptic of Muslims around the world. In his popular-level book Jesus Interrupted, Ehrman writes (page 101),

"There were some books, such as the Gospels, that had been written anonymously, only later to be ascribed to certain authors who probably did not write them (apostles and friends of the apostles)." 

The Muslim is committed to this view. If the gospels really were written by the individuals whose names they now bear, this presents a problem for Islam. Why? The Qur'an, in Surah 3:52 and 61:14, claims that Jesus' disciples were Muslims. If the gospels were indeed written by their canonical authors, then two of those (Matthew and John) were prominent disciples, and the other two (Mark and Luke) were approved by apostles. In this article, I am going to focus only on the gospel of Mark.
There are at least four reasons to think that this gospel was indeed written by Mark and that it communicates the teachings of the apostle Peter.
Reason 1: The attestation to its authorship is geographically widespread.

The attestation to Matthew's authorship is geographically widespread, yet most conservative scholars shy away from saying Matthew was the only person responsible for the final form we know in the canonical Gree.

Reason 2: Justin Martyr refers to the “memoirs of Peter”.

But none of the apostolic preaching in Acts even gets close to the content of Mark's gospel.  In Acts, Peter preaches little more than salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus, neither he nor anybody else quotes Jesus verbatim the way Mark's gospel does.  I'm sorry, but there's an unresolved discrepancy between the Peter of Acts who never repeats what Jesus said, and the Peter behind Mark's gospel who allegedly went around repeating the things Jesus said.  If Acts is historically reliable, it would seem that even if Peter preached in Rome with Mark following, Peter would not have preached the content now found in Mark, he would simply have done similarly as he did in Acts, and simply evangelize in a much more generalized fashion from the important points.  That's quite sufficient to justify suspicion that Peter is not the proper source for Mark's gospel.

Reason 3: John Mark is an unlikely choice for a false attribution of authorship.

So are and Bartholomew, Thomas, and Matthias; yet the early church found it edifying to credit these unpopular apostles with certain forgeries.  Early forgers had no problems attributing works to unpopular names.  Your reasoning, which says forgers were more likely to credit the most popular of the apostles, simply isn't true.

Reason 4: There are internal indications of Peter’s influence on Mark’s gospel.

Which might be enough to help a Christian feel better about their existing trust in apostolic authorship, but certainly isn't enough to intellectually obligate the skeptic to conclude that the Petrine source is the best hypothesis. It could be explained as the author having more of an interest in Peter than the other gospel authors, a thing a forger WOULD likely do, under your own theory, since Peter was popular.  Even assuming Mark was the true author, that does nothing to justify saying the content comes from Peter.  Even conservative inerrantist scholars admit that Petrine influence cannot be proved:

Petrine influence cannot be proved or disproved, but it should be acknowledged as a possibility.

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark (electronic e.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 27). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

McLatchie continues:

The case is overwhelming.

No, you just have a nasty habit of making things bigger than they really are.  Like when I first challenged you to debate, and your only answer was one strawman and that my having sued a few people in the past convinced you I wouldn't be a worthy opponent. My past lawsuits have no more to do with my ability to threaten your confidence in the gospels, than your shoelaces have with neutron stars.

Let’s look at one after the other.
Reason 1: The attestation to its authorship is geographically widespread. Here are three sources from around A.D. 190.

Tertullian of Carthage (Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 5), in North Africa, tells us that,

"...that which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter's whose interpreter Mark was."

Tertullian could not have been doing more than relying on stories he heard from older Christians.

Clement of Alexandria (quoted by Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Book 2, Chapter 15), in Egypt, tells us that those who heard Peter's teaching...

"...were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose Gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally."

 But Eusebius also says things in that immediate context that hurt your case:

Chapter XV. The Gospel According to Mark.

1 And thus when the divine word had made its home among them,155 the power of Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed, together with the man himself.156 And so greatly did the splendor of piety illumine the minds of Peter’s hearers that they were not satisfied with hearing once only, and were not content with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark,157 a follower of Peter, and the one whose Gospel is extant, that he would leave them a written monument of the doctrine which had been orally communicated to them. Nor did they cease until they had prevailed with the man, and had thus become the occasion of the written Gospel which bears the name of Mark.

2 And they say that Peter when he had learned, through a revelation of the Spirit, of that which had been done, was pleased with the zeal of the men, and that the work obtained the sanction of his authority for the purpose of being used in the churches. Clement in the eighth book of his Hypotyposes gives this account, and with him agrees the bishop of Hierapolis named Papias. And Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle which they say that he wrote in Rome itself, as is indicated by him, when he calls the city, by a figure, Babylon, as he does in the following words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.”161

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. 

Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and 

Oration in Praise of Constantine. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

 You hid from the reader the following problems created by Eusebius in the fuller context:

• the church had to pester Mark numerous times before they finally "prevailed" on him, suggesting Mark had previously brushed off their request, which cannot look good for apologists who want us to believe Mark was inspired by God to write that gospel.
• Peter's approval of Mark's writing is specified to have come about because Peter learned of it by a "revelation of the Spirit"...and there we are in the la-la land of divine telepathy.  You will say I incorrectly deny the possibility of miracles, but since you aren't willing to allow your readers to see how your case for miracles stands up under the real-time scrutiny of an informed skeptic, your objection is specious.  I'm ready to have a scholarly written debate with you about any apologetics or biblical subject of your choice any day, any time, any rules, so long as we have equal word limits.

Despite Eusebius at this point saying Clement and Papias agree that Peter approved of Mark's literary endeavor, Eusebius records later the contrary tradition, but still allegedly from Clement, that Peter refused to encourage Mark's writing of a gospel:

Eusebius, Book 6, ch. 14

Again, in the same books, Clement gives the tradition of the earliest presbyters, as to the order of the Gospels, in the following manner: The Gospels containing the genealogies, he says, were written first. The Gospel according to Marks had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.

That's why the world needs bible critics and miracle skeptics.  We have a knack for convincing others that Christian apologists often make a case sound good only by refusing to tell the whole story.

Irenaeus of Lyons (Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3) -- who himself was a disciple of Polycarp, a companion of the apostles and in particular John -- in France, tells us that,

"Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter."

 And the closer you connect Irenaeus to apostle John, the more you biblically justify Irenaeus' absurdly unbiblical view that Jesus was aged about 50 at crucifixion.  From Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:22:4-6, ANF,

Chapter XXII.—The Thirty Aeons are Not Typified by the Fact that Christ Was Baptized in His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer in the Twelfth Month After His Baptism,

But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died.

4. Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized, and then possessing the full age of a Master,145 He came to Jerusalem, so that He might be properly acknowledged146 by all as a Master. For He did not seem one thing while He was another, as those affirm who describe Him as being man only in appearance; but what He was, that He also appeared to be. Being a Master, therefore, He also possessed the age of a Master, not despising or evading any condition of humanity, nor setting aside in Himself that law which He had147 appointed for the human race, but sanctifying every age, by that period corresponding to it which belonged to Himself. For He came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God148 —infants,149 and children, and boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, thus sanctifying infants; a child for children, thus sanctifying those who are of this age, being at the same time made to them an example of piety, righteousness, and submission; a youth for youths, becoming an example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord. So likewise He was an old man for old men, that He might be a perfect Master for all, not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age, sanctifying at the same time the aged also, and becoming an example to them likewise. Then, at last, He came on to death itself, that He might be “the first-born from the dead, that in all things He might have the pre-eminence,”150 the Prince of life,151 existing before all, and going before all.152

5. They, however, that they may establish their false opinion regarding that which is written, “to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,” maintain that He preached for one year only, and then suffered in the twelfth month. [In speaking thus], they are forgetful to their own disadvantage, destroying His whole work, and robbing Him of that age which is both more necessary and more honourable than any other; that more advanced age, I mean, during which also as a teacher He excelled all others. For how could He have had disciples, if He did not teach? And how could He have taught, unless He had reached the age of a Master? For when He came to be baptized, He had not yet completed His thirtieth year, but was beginning to be about thirty years of age (for thus Luke, who has mentioned His years, has expressed it: “Now Jesus was, as it were, beginning to be thirty years old,”153 when He came to receive baptism); and, [according to these men, ] He preached only one year reckoning from His baptism. On completing His thirtieth year He suffered, being in fact still a young man, and who had by no means attained to advanced age. Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years,154 and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth andfiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information.155 And he remained among them up to the times of Trajan.156 Some of them, moreover, saw not only John, but the other apostles also, and heard the very same account from them, and bear testimony as to the [validity of] the statement. Whom then should we rather believe? Whether such men as these, or Ptolemaeus, who never saw the apostles, and who never even in his dreams attained to the slightest trace of an apostle?

6. But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, “Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,” they answered Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? ”157 Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, “Thou art not yet forty years old.” For those who wished to convict Him of falsehood would certainly not extend the number of His years far beyond the age which they saw He had attained; but they mentioned a period near His real age, whether they had truly ascertained this out of the entry in the public register, or simply made a conjecture from what they observed that He was above forty years old, and that He certainly was not one of only thirty years of age.For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham. For what they saw, that they also expressed; and He whom they beheld was not a mere phantasm, but an actual being158 of flesh and blood. He did not then wont much of being fifty years old;159 and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, “Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham? ”He did not therefore preach only for one year, nor did He suffer in the twelfth month of the year. For the period included between the thirtieth and the fiftieth year can never be regarded as one year…

He did not simply affirm such old age, but specified that this age was a fact conveyed by “all the elders”, and further specified that some of his predecessors got this same account from John the Disciple of the Lord (i.e., the alleged author of the Gospel of John).  The editors of the ANF series from which the above-quote was taken, interpret his words in the same way, they provide footnotes indicating they understand Irenaeus to be asserting something in shocking conflict with the gospels:

    155 - With respect to this extraordinary assertion of Irenaeus, Harvey remarks: “The reader may here perceive the unsatisfactory character of tradition, where a mere fact is concerned. From reasonings founded upon the evangelical history, as well as from a preponderance of external testimony, it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but little over three years; yet here Ireneaus states that it included more than ten years, and appeals to a tradition derived, as he says, from those who had conversed with an apostle.”    

    159 - [This statement is simply astounding, and might seem a providential illustration of the worthlessness of mere tradition unsustained by the written Word. No mere tradition could be more creditably authorized than this.]

 He is, for example, quite peculiar in imagining that our Lord lived to be an old man, and that His public ministry embraced at least ten years.  ---Roberts, Donaldson, Introduction to Irenaeus

Conservative apologist James White holds that Irenaeus genuinely erred here, and defends that hypothesis from Mark Bonocore’s desperate trifling. 
 
See also here.

Sorry, but if you had told your readers about Irenaeus' outrageous historical error and how he pushed the issue by specifying he got the error from apostolic tradition less than 2 generations away from apostle John, your readers might have been more hesitant to presume Irenaeus is 'reliable'.

Moreover, according to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History Book 5, Chapter 8), Papias of Hierapolis (writing around 125 A.D.), in Asia Minor, tells us,

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ."

 But again, you are using your right of truncation to hide problems.  Eusebius in another chapter of the Ecclesiastical History gives more details about Peter's relation to Mark:

BOOK III, CHAPTER 39

The Writings of Papias

There are extant five books of Papias, which bear the title Expositions of Oracles of the Lord. Irenaeus makes mention of these as the only works written by him, in the following words: "These things are attested by Papias, an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book. For five books have been written by him." These are the words of Irenaeus. But Papias himself in the preface to his discourses by no means declares that he was himself a hearer and eye-witness of the holy apostles, but he shows by the words which he uses that he received the doctrines of the faith from those who were their friends. He says: "But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you along with my interpretations381 whatsoever things I have at any time learned carefully from the elders382 and carefully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange commandments, but in those that deliver383 the commandments given by the Lord to faith,384 and springing from the truth itself.

4 If, then, any one came, who had been a follower of the elders, I questioned him in regard to the words of the elders,-what Andrew or what Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the disciples of the Lord, and what things Aristion385 and the presbyter John,386 the disciples of the Lord, say. For I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books387 would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice."

5 It is worth while observing here that the name John is twice enumerated by him.388 The first one he mentions in connection with Peter and James and Matthew and the rest of the apostles, clearly meaning the evangelist; but the other John he mentions after an interval, and places him among others outside of the number of the apostles, putting Aristion before him, and he distinctly calls him a presbyter.

6 This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, si called John's.389 It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John390

7 And Papias, of whom we are now speaking, confesses that he received the words of the apostles from those that followed them, but says that he was himself a hearer of Aristion and the presbyter John. At least he mentions them frequently by name, and gives their traditions in his writings. These things we hope, have not been uselessly adduced by us.

8 But it is fitting to subjoin to the words of Papias which have been quoted, other passages from his works in which he relates some other wonderful events which he claims to have received from tradition.

9 That Philip the apostle dwelt at Hierapolis with his daughters has been already stated.391 But it must be noted here that Papias, their contemporary, says that he heard a wonderful tale from the daughters of Philip. For he relates that in his time392 one rose from the dead. And he tells another wonderful story of Justus, surnamed Barsabbas: that he drank a deadly poison, and yet, by the grace of the Lord, suffered no harm.

10 The Book of Acts records that the holy apostles after the ascension of the Saviour, put forward this Justus, together with Matthias, and prayed that one might be chosen in place of the traitor Judas, to fill up their number. The account is as follows: "And they put forward two, Joseph, called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias; and they prayed and said."393

11 The same writer gives also other accounts which he says came to him through unwritten tradition, certain strange parables and teachings of the Saviour, and some other more mythical things.394

12 To these belong his statement that there will be a period of some thousand years after the resurrection of the dead, and that the kingdom of Christ will be set up in material form on this very earth.395 I suppose he got these ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic accounts, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken mystically in figures.

13 For he appears to have been of very limited understanding,396 as one can see from his discourses. but it was due to him that so many of the Church Fathers after him adopted a like opinion, urging in their own support the antiquity of the man; as for instance Iranaeus and any one else that may have proclaimed similar views.397

14 Papias gives also in his own work other accounts of the words of the Lord on the authority of Aristion who was mentioned above, and traditions as handed down by the presbyter John; to which we refer those who are fond of learning. But now we must add to the words of his which we have already quoted the tradition which he gives in regard to Mark, the author of the Gospel.

15 "This also the presbyter398 said: Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.399 For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord's discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely." These things are related 16 by Papias concerning Mark.

From the fuller context, we learn things you didn't want your readers to learn:

• Eusebius denies Papias knew the apostles directly
• Eusebius says Papias was a man of limited intelligence
• Eusebius says Papias set forth certain strange words as if they came from Jesus
• Eusebius says Mark didn't omit any of the things he heard.

I have already debated Monte Shanks, Ph.d, author of the latest and best defense of Papias' reliability, Papias and the New Testament (Pickwick, 2013), so I'll be happy to debate you if you think you can defend Papias' personally knowing any apostle.

You will also say Eusebius only negated Papias' smarts because Papias adopted chiliasm and Eusebius hated that doctrine.  But that's rather superficial and hypocritical, as when you read that the apostle Paul denigrated the Judaizers (Galatians 1:8-9), you don't write that off as Paul's mere disagreement with their theology.  If you can believe Paul was objectively justified to denigrate those whose theology he disagreed with, to be fair you need to extend that courtesy to everybody else...like Eusebius...in which case Eusebius could have had objective reasons beyond his hatred of chiliasm to denigrate Papias' intelligence.

And Eusebius does indeed appear to be objectively justified in saying Papias was stupid, since he already told the reader that Papias also conveyed to posterity "certain strange parables of the Lord and some more mythical things", which Eusebius was apparently unwilling to copy, indicating Eusebius thought the Jesus-sayings Papias passed along were sufficiently dubious as to be unworthy of his effort to preserve them.

Just how stupid was Papias?  He said Jesus taught that grapes would one day talk to people...if Irenaeus has correctly preserved Papias' story.  From Irenaeus, Against Heretics, book 5, ch. 33:

3... The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give twenty-five metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, “I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me.” In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man.

4. And these things are bone witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book; for there were five books compiled (συντεταγμένα) by him. And he says in addition, “Now these things are credible to believers.” And he says that, “when the traitor Judas did not give credit to them, and put the question, ‘How then can things about to bring forth so abundantly be wrought by the Lord?’ the Lord declared, ‘They who shall come to these [times] shall see.’”

Schaff, P. (2000). The Ante-Nicene Fathers (electronic ed.). Garland, TX: Galaxie Software.

 The blurb in section 4 about "these things are credible to believers" does not suggest the words of Jesus given by Papias were parable or metaphor, but were taken literally, hence, the need to speak approvingly of how they are credible, since it is only the literal interpretation that would raise the question of its credibility.  So you cannot shield Papias from stupidity here by pretending that the more unbelievable aspects of the story were non-literal.  There are no credibility problems where the language in question is parable or metaphor.

So Irenaeus quotes Papias as authority for words from Jesus about a talking-grapes story...yet you quote Irenaeus and Papias as if the fact that they touched pen to parchment ended all questions about their general credibility (!?)

I think the reader is starting to discover why Jonathan McLatchie dishonestly hid behind "you sue other people!" excuse.  The only honest way he could have backed down is to say that I appear to be a rather formidable opponent.  I trust that the reader can tell from the way I'm blasting McLatchie in this blog piece, that yes, I know what I'm talking about and I am capable of demonstrating exactly how apologists make Christian history appear more favorable to apologetics than it really is.

There is no evidence of any competing authorship tradition, either for Mark or any of the three other gospels.

There is also no evidence of any competing authorship tradition for Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Peter.  But Jerome's comment that most Christians deemed Gospel to the Hebrews as "authentic Matthew" raises problematic questions of whether Matthew authored heretical material, or whether the early church had serious problems keeping facts straight about gospel authors:

Jerome,Commentary on Matthew 12:13

“There is a Gospel,” he says, “which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which I lately translated from the Hebrew tongue into Greek and which is called by many the authentic Gospel of Matthew”. 

Orr, J., M.A., D.D. (1999). The International standard Bible encyclopedia  : 

1915 edition (J. Orr, Ed.). Albany, OR: Ages Software

Jerome, Against the Pelagians, 3.2

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldee and Syrian language, but in Hebrew characters, and is used by the Nazarenes to this day (I mean the Gospel according to the Apostles, or, as is generally maintained, the Gospel according to Matthew, a copy of which is in the library at Caesarea), we find, “Behold, the mother of our Lord and His brethren said to Him, John Baptist baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized by him. But He said to them, what sin have I committed that I should go and be baptized by him? Unless, haply, the very words which I have said are only ignorance.” 

  McLatchie continues:

The geographical spread and unanimity of the traditions suggests an early origin.

Ditto Gospels of Thomas and Peter

Given that the gospels are quoted by authors in the first part of the second century without being named (in a similar way to how the Old Testament Scriptures are often quoted) suggests that these authors assume their audience to be acquainted with these documents and that they consider them to be authoritative.

The failure to name them also suggests the gospels didn't originally have names.

If there was controversy and debate about the authorship of these gospels in the first part of the second century, it stands to reason that we should expect this to be reflected when names begin to be associated with these documents. Instead, we see unanimity. 

Ditto for Thomas and Peter.

Reason 2: Justin Martyr tells us that the apostles themselves composed "memoirs" which are "called Gospels" (e.g. First Apology, chapter 66). In chapter 106 of his Dialogue with Trypho (dated around 160 A.D.), he writes,
“And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder.”
Justin says that in these "memoirs of him" it is written that Jesus changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter and also changed the name of the sons of Zebedee to Boanerges, meaning sons of thunder. Neither of these is found in the extant portion we have of the so-called Gospel of Peter, but both of them are included in the Gospel of Mark. The statement about calling the sons of Zebedee “sons of thunder” is found only in Mark (3:17). Since Papias also tells us that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, this suggests that the Mark being referred to by Papias is indeed our canonical Mark.

If the majority of Christian scholars are correct to say Matthew borrowed much text from Mark, then the fact that Mark's story of Peter's confession is far less detailed than the parallel in Mathew, raises interesting problems:

“Messiah”?  or “Messiah, Son of the living God”?
Mark 8	Matthew 16
27 Jesus went out, along with His disciples, to the villages of Caesarea Philippi; and on the way He questioned His disciples, saying to them, "Who do people say that I am?"  28 They told Him, saying, "John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets."  29 And He continued by questioning them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered and said to Him, "You are the Christ."  Did Mark intentionally choose to exclude the parts that Matthew felt were important?   30 And He warned them to tell no one about Him.  31 And He began to teach them that the Son of Man must  suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes,	13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  14 And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."  17 And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.  19 "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."  20 Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. 21 From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.

 Gee, Jonathon....did Mark "intentionally omit" all of those theologically significant details found in Matthew's parallel?  If so, then apparently Matthew thinks Mark was wrong to omit all those significant theological details.  I have to wonder how that affects your belief that both authors were equally inspired by God to write what they did.

Or did Mark tell it like it is...and Matthew is the one who is adding fictional embellishments to the earlier simpler version of the story?  Remember, most Christian scholars think Matthew borrowed extensively from Mark, and its also true that the later accounts (here, Matthew) are the ones that typically contain more fictional embellishment...the very reason historians and criminal investigators prefer to get the earliest possible testimony on the events in question.  Those concerns don't evaporate merely because you intended to defend Matthew's inerrancy to the death.  Matthew still looks like he is embellishing Mark's account with fictional details Mark would not likely have 'chosen to omit'.

Reason 3: Mark is an unlikely choice for a false attribution of authorship. The apocryphal forgeries routinely attribute their gospels to high-profile figures such as Peter, James and Thomas.

But forgers also credited works to Bartholomew and Matthias, and it's difficult to see why you think "Thomas' constitutes a "high-profile" figure, when in fact he is famous for not much more than doubting the testimony of eyewitnesses he was personal friends with.

John Mark is best known for having caused a sharp fallout between Paul and Barnabas over having withdrawn from them in Pamphylia. Since the early church believed Mark’s gospel to convey the teachings of Peter, it seems likely that it would have been attributed to Peter had the early church not felt constrained by the fact that Mark really did write the gospel that bears his name.

 Only if you assume the Mark who abandoned Paul's ministry in Acts 15:38-39 is the same person as the "Mark" who allegedly wrote the gospel now bearing that name.  Unfortunately that name was very common, and the NT references often mention Mark in ways that are unqualified or qualified in a sense that doesn't permit reasonable distinction/identification.

Furthermore, he was allegedly the son of a wealthy Jewish-Christian family in Jerusalem and was cousin to affluent landowner Barnabas (Col 4:10; Acts 4:36–37), hence John Mark would have been a person a forger would view as likely to be taken by future readers as in the perfect position to know the truth about everything.

Reason 4: As New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham has shown in his landmark book, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, there are internal indications of Peter’s influence on the gospel of Mark.

But as shown above, a comparison of Mark's version of Peter's confession, with the parallel in Matthew, requires that somebody is either shockingly stupid or willing to mix fiction into history for the purpose of beefing up theology.

In brief, here are a few of those internal evidences:

• The frequent mention of Peter in Mark's gospel. Mark refers to Peter a total of 26 times, whereas Matthew mentions Peter only three additional times, despite the fact that Matthew's gospel is about double the length of Mark's gospel.
• Mark is the only gospel author who does not use "Simon Peter" when talking about Peter, instead using either "Simon" or "Peter". Simon was a very common name in Palestine, but Mark does not give distinguish him from other Simons This suggests familiarity.
• Mark's gospel is book-ended with the disciple Peter (he is the first and last disciple mentioned). This is a phenomenon that has been identified in other ancient texts where a source is attributed to a particular eyewitness. 

See Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses for more information and further detail regarding this.

Even granting Mark's authorship of the gospel, most of the problems I've outlined above don't go away, and in the case of Mark's failure to write a resurrection appearance narrative despite being the earliest published gospel author (the majority view of Christian scholars says Mark was earliest and didn't write 16:9-20), the more you justify apostolic sanction of Mark's gospel, hence, the more you justify apostolic sanction of a problematically short resurrection story that ends with an angel telling the good news of Jesus' resurrection to women who run away in reverential awe and amazement.

If the earliest gospel did not say a risen Jesus actually appeared to anybody, the appearance narratives at the end of the later 3 gospels look so much like later embellishment that we are justified to flush Christianity down the toilet...making Mark's authorship of the gospel now bearing his name, somewhat moot.

Why Does This Matter for Islam?
Given that Mark was a companion, disciple, and interpreter of the apostle Peter, this presents a problem for Islam. Mark most certainly was no Muslim. Besides his narrative concerning the crucifixion (expressly denied by Surah 4:157-158), Mark also affirms the deity of Christ and even the Trinity. The Trinity can be demonstrated from the first three chapters alone. Mark 1:1-3 presents the deity of Christ:

“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”

This of course is a reference to Isaiah 40:3, a prophecy which is obviously in reference to Yahweh. .

Well angels cannot be god, yet the "Angel of the Lord" often speaks as if he himself is God:

 10 Moreover, the angel of the LORD said to her, "I will greatly multiply your descendants so that they will be too many to count." (Gen. 16:10 NAU)

 11 But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
 12 He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me." (Gen. 22:11-12 NAU)

Sorry, but the typical Trinitarian argument that says Jesus is god because NT authors applied to Jesus certain OT texts that were originally about 'God', is too simplistic. They could just as easily have meant that Jesus represented God perfectly the way the angel of the Lord did, so that he could speak as God without actually being god.

Of course, that's not to deny the NT elsewhere teaches Jesus is god.

Now, remember: this is the first paragraph, of the first gospel, and what does Mark do? He takes an Old Testament prophecy that applies to Yahweh and applies it to Jesus. (In Isaiah 40, the way is prepared and Yahweh comes down it; in Mark 1, the way is prepared and Jesus comes down it). Some have suggested that this text is referring not to the way being prepared for Yahweh himself, but rather Yahweh's representative or messenger. Is this the best reading of the text though? The text goes on:

"John appeared, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Now John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist and ate locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, “After me comes he who is mightier than I, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

The context, therefore, seems to portray John the baptist self-identifying as the one who is preparing the way for the person of Jesus. Furthermore, the Old Testament parallel to Isaiah 40:3 is Malachi 3:1, in which we are told that the forerunning messenger was preparing the way for Ha Adon (i.e. Yahweh) is literally coming in person to His temple. This text is cited among the Q material by Jesus Himself in reference to John the Baptist preparing the way for the ministry of Jesus (Matthew 11:10/Luke 7:27).

In verses 9-11 of chapter 1, we have all three persons of the Trinity mentioned and distinguished from one another:

“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.”

In Mark 3:29 we also learn that it is possible to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. But how can something that is not both divine and personal be blasphemed against?

Well maybe early Christianity held to stupid notions that don't make sense?   You've also got other problems here, since Jesus taught that any word spoken against the son would be forgiven, but not when words are spoken against the Holy Spirit:

 10 "And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him. (Lk. 12:10 NAU)

Under your reasoning the Holy Spirit must be more holy than the Son of Man, since offending one can be forgiven, but offending the other cannot.  Would love to hear you 'explain' what, under Trinitarian theology, can only be an errant distinction between the wrongfulness of speaking against Jesus and the wrongfulness of speaking against the holy spirit. 

Are there any other indicators in Mark's gospel regarding Jesus' status? Mark 13:32 identifies Jesus as the unique divine Son of God who is superior to human and angelic beings. That doesn't sound very compatible with the Qur'an.

In Mark 2:5-7, we read,

And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

And indeed who can forgive sins but God alone?

the apostles:

 21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you."
 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.
 23 "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." (Jn. 20:21-23 NAU)

The "angel of the Lord" can refuse to pardon transgression, implying his ability to forgive:

 20 "Behold, I am going to send an angel before you to guard you along the way and to bring you into the place which I have prepared.
 21 "Be on your guard before him and obey his voice; do not be rebellious toward him, for he will not pardon your transgression, since My name is in him. (Exod. 23:20-21 NAU)

hope that helps.

The sins that Jesus claimed authority to forgive were not sins that had been committed against him. Only God has authority to forgive in that way. The scribes understood the significance to Jesus’ claim to authority to forgive sins. Note that Jesus does claims to be forgiving sins on his own authority. In verses 10 and 11, he says:

"But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home."

 I'm sorry, but its just rather stupid to continue on and on with a Christian apologist who pretends a theological point can be sustained by talking about how one person 'forgave' others 2000 years ago, when "forgiveness" by its nature is a hideously subjective thing and admits of zero possible verification.  You can never prove somebody 'forgave'  you even if they really did, you couldn't even prove that GOD forgave you of anything even if he really did. Still less any forgiving going on 20 centuries ago.

In Mark 2:27-28, when Jesus is accused by the Pharisees of doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath, Jesus replied,

"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath."

How could anyone who is not God declare himself to be “Lord even of the Sabbath”?

Maybe because that person is a crazy son-of-a-bitch whose own mother and brothers classified him as insane in Mark 3:21?

Whoops, did I just give the fearless apologist Jonathon McLatchie another superficial excuse to avoid dealing with my arguments on the merits? 

What would McLatchie think of a Mormon who refused to debate me on the divine authenticity of the book of Mormon, on the grounds that I had defamed Joseph Smith as a child-molester?

Gee, does that sound like valid grounds to avoid a scholarly debate?  NO.  Then my low view of Jesus and the bible-god cannot be valid grounds to avoid debating me on those subjects either.

Twice in the gospel of Mark we read of Jesus calming the sea (4:39-41; 6:50-51), which recalls occasions in the Psalms where Yahweh is described as doing this (e.g. Psalm 89:9; 104:7; 107:29). The latter of those occasions on which Jesus calmed the sea involves Jesus also walking on water, something that Yahweh is spoken of as doing in Job 9:8 and 36:16.

Sorry, but you've done nearly nothing so far in this article to justify the historical accuracy of Mark's miracle stories.

In Mark 8:38, we read the words of Jesus:

"For whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels."

Could these words really have been uttered by someone who was merely a man?

Yes.

Mark 9 narrates the transfiguration of Jesus, which bears some striking parallels to Yahweh’s appearance to Moses on Mount Sinai.

Perhaps because the OT parallel is the basis upon which Mark is constructing Jesus-fiction?

For one thing, the event takes place on top of a high mountain. Mark takes three companions with him (Exodus 24:1-9) and likewise is radiant (Exodus 34:29-35). The two figures who appear with Jesus — Moses and Elijah — are also of significance, for they are the two individuals in the Old Testament who sought to “see” God. Both of their encounters with God, however, are veiled. While Moses hides in a cleft in a rock that he might only see God’s back (Exodus 33:22-23), Elijah experiences only signs (1 Kings 19:11-12). In Mark 9, Moses and Elijah are no longer hiding, but freely conversing with Jesus.

In Mark 11:12-14, we read of Jesus cursing the fig tree:

"On the following day, when they came from Bethany, he was hungry. And seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. And he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard it."

Again, this incident recalls certain Old Testament texts where the withering of a fig tree, brought about by God, is a frequently employed image (e.g. Isaiah 1:30; Isaiah 34:2-4; Jeremiah 8:13; Hosea 2:14; Hosea 9:10,15-16).

Jesus was rather stupid to get mad at a fig tree for not bearing fruit out of season.  But then again, Mark represents a low Christology at many points, this being one of them, since Jesus is portrayed as hoping, before arriving at the tree, that it would have fruit.  If Jesus was God, he would have known already it had no fruit, he wouldn't have to inspect it.  It is contradiction to say a person was both cognizant and not cognizant of one fact at the same second.  You can know a fact while being unable to recall it since it is still in your brain.  But you cannot both know a fact and also not know that same fact at the same second.  So Jesus cannot have both known the tree didn't have fruit (from his divine nature) while also not knowing the same (from his human nature).  Hence, the "two natures of Christ" do indeed constitute logical contradiction.  And if Jesus was one single person, common sense would require that you'd have to include BOTH his 'natures' in anything he ever said or did...in which case the divine 2nd person of the Trinity was ignorant, for a few seconds, whether the tree had any fruit.

You will say this is only talking about Jesus' "human" nature, but unfortunately, you cannot read your post-Nicene inerrancy crap back onto the primitive gospel message.  It is hideously unlikely that the original addressees of Mark would have said these kinds of passages are only talking about Jesus' "human" nature.  It is only desperate inerrantists who read their tons of theological baggage into the biblical text, who insist that we read the original gospel preaching through such rose colored glasses.  No thank you.  If Mark's originally intended addressees would have had the presence of mind to trifle in such a hair-splitting and unbelievable way about Jesus having two natures, it would seem that the original church would have been sufficiently agreed on Christ's two natures that no occassion would have arisen for Nicaea and all of its unbiblical word-wrangling.

For example, in Jeremiah 8:13, we read:

"When I would gather them, declares the Lord, there are no grapes on the vine, nor figs on the fig tree; even the leaves are withered, and what I gave them has passed away from them."

By far Jesus’ favorite self-designation throughout the gospels is the title “Son of Man”, and this is a title used many times in Mark. Perhaps most notably, in Mark 14:61-64, we read the account of Jesus’ interrogation:

"Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death."

Besides the claim to share Yahweh's throne and that he will be seated on Yahweh's right hand (which reminds us of Psalm 110:1, where the one seated at Yahweh's right hand is identified as Adonai), the Son of Man, in connection with “coming with the clouds of heaven”, is a clear reference back to Daniel 7:13-14 in which we read of Daniel’s vision:

"I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should worship him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed." 

This divine-human figure seen by Daniel is said to receive worship from all nations (the Septuagint uses the Greek word for the very highest form of worship) — who but God is fit to receive worship?

Apparently sinful men, as was the custom of 1st century Jews, such as the god-fearing Cornelius, whom we might thus otherwise expect not to be ignorant about who deserves worship:

 25 When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him.
 26 But Peter raised him up, saying, "Stand up; I too am just a man." (Acts 10:25-26 NAU)

 We might also have expected that the allegedly "inspired" author of Revelation would not, at least not during his vision, engage in idolatry, but that's exactly what he does and he is rebuked for it:

 9 Then he said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb.'" And he said to me, "These are true words of God."
 10 Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." (Rev. 19:9-10 NAU)

McLatchie ends, thank christ, with: 

"Indeed, the High Priest knew exactly what Jesus meant — and it resulted in him tearing his clothes and declaring Jesus a blasphemer."

He wasn't wrong, if Jesus' own family deemed him insane such that they didn't believe in him during his earthly miracle ministry, they must have had some damn good probable cause to say Jesus was full of shit.  You don't just turn away from gobs of reliable eyewitness testimony of living contemporaries about how your son is causing such a stir among the populace with his raising people from the dead, etc,....unless you have good reason to think your son has less in common with God and more in common with a 1990's televangelist whipping up gullible people into a religious frenzy.