[Atrocity Apologist says] Sherwin-White proved “there simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels’ composition” therefore “skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels” is “unwarranted.”

That… is just a straight-up, flat-out lie. S-W does not say two generations is not enough time for significant legends.In fact, he expressly allows that mythologizing can indeed happen in two generations. He just claims that it isn’t enough time to completely bury the history beyond all retrieval.

You’d think I’d no longer be surprised about the lying of Christian excusegists (thanks Way of the Mister), but still…

How does it relate to the article you are commenting on?

He is certainly aware of them. Craig’s modus operandi is to ignore criticisms unless someone really presses him, and then he’ll weasel out with lies and misdirections.

An example here is when (in an interview) he will “dismiss” this criticism by flippantly denouncing “internet” arguments (when in fact my 2005 take-down was in a serious printed monograph, that Craig definitely read in preparation for our subsequent debate, and Komarnitsky’s was in a professional online trade journal) that argue by listing examples of rapid legendary development in Herodotus (which is true, we do that also, but using this argument ignores all the rest of our arguments). So he creates the impression that he has “responded” when in fact he didn’t. He also creates the impression that he responded with an argument, when in fact he didn’t (that something is “on the internet” is not an argument).

This is all you’ll ever get from him. Unless you can find a way to corner him and force him to actually reply to our actual points, and do so with actual arguments. That rarely happens.

Thanks so much for your response and valuable insight with respect to questions of this nature.

You provide a level of trusted knowledge and expertise that would be hard to find elsewhere.

I hope that one day your work will reach the level of awareness and popularity within the public sector and mainstream media along the lines of other well known atheists such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, etc.

Your work is at least as valuable as theirs,
probably more (IMO).

No good reason. That’s a legend repeated by Papias sometime mid-2nd century. It’s wildly implausible and confirmed by no sources. Mark is a Pauline Gospel—it is anti-Petrine. Thus it cannot have come from Peter. Moreover, had it done so, it would say so. That was the standard practice of the era. Instead, it comes from the sect that was hostile to Peter, and claims no sources whatever. Rather, “kata markon,” the “According to Mark” that is its title, means Mark was the author’s source (not that Mark was the author; this confusion continues in general parlance, but experts know this detail). And the text never says who that Mark was. Had Peter been its source, the author would have titled it “kata petron,” “According to Peter.” There is such a Gospel. But even Christians today admit its a forgery (and its one of the most ridiculous of Gospels, and not in the canon, nor does it survive complete; it’s also entirely derivative of the canonical Gospels).

Papias gets a lot else wrong about the Gospels (e.g. he thinks Matthew as translated from Hebrew, which is impossible and definitely false), so we know he was not reliable on these things. Papias just repeated baseless and implausible legends. Even Eusebius concluded he was an idiot.

In this video at the 15:20 mark of this sermon Pastor Steven Furtick states the following:

“Peter is the one telling Mark about this story so he can write it down.
Peter is the one giving Mark the Gospel account. Mark wasn’t a Disciple, Mark was an evangelist, he complied the story. Mark’s Gospel was based on the recollection of Peter.”

Is there reason to beleive that Peter is the source of Mark’s Gospel?

What evidence is there to confirm or refute that?

Indeed. Just be exact so they don’t pounce on semantics.

It was “said” by a historian (half a century ago). But, it is correct to say, it was not “studied” by them (there was no study; and even the argument he did try to build from the evidence was invalid, and pretty much rejected by the historical community altogether).

They often also have been “telephone gamed,” and if so, you can use this to prove the very point: in less than one generation they have distorted the claim from “legends cannot wipe out a historical core” to “cannot generate legends at all.” That isn’t even what the historian said, yet illustrates exactly the issue: if that distortion so easily occurred in an age of the internet and universal education an literacy, how much distortion do you think could plague the Gospels?