[Deut. 32.8]

Originally posted by Ken Carman+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ken Carman)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It depends on whether the author(s) was telling truth or adding to the myth. According to most scholars I've read Mark is the only book most likely actually written by Mark.[/b]

Which scholars? For that matter, which Mark? The widely acknowledged summary of scholarly consensus is found in Udo Schnelle's The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, about which the Publisher notes:

An introduction to the New Testament in classic format, Schnelle's book presents full and up-to-date information about the individual writings with respect to date, author, place of writing, structure of the document, current scholarships, themes and theological aims. The book, intended to supersede W. G. Kummel's introduction, informs the reader of all the important historical issues and describes the range of scholarly opinion and literature, preparing the reader to pass judgment. After providing an overview of the development of the New Testament canon, Schnelle then takes up, in turn: the letters of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels (including Q), Acts, the Deutero-Paulines, the Catholic letters, the Gospel of John, and Revelation. With extensive anglicized bibliographies.

Regarding gMk, Schnelle writes:

About 130 CE Papias of Hierapolis reports concerning Mark, Mark was the interpreter of Peter and wrote down accurately everything that he remembered of the words and deeds of the Lord. It was not, however, in order. For he had neither heard the Lord nor followed him. But later, as I said, he followed Peter, who adjusted his instructions to the needs [of his hearers], but with no intention of providing a connected presentation of the Lord's sayings. Thus Mark did nothing wrong by writing down some things as he remembered them. For he was careful not to omit anything of what he had heard, nor to repeat anything false. (Eusebius HE 3.39.15) Papias traces this tradition back to the presbyter John, claiming it was delivered to him by followers of the elders whom he had asked about traditions from the apostles. (cf. Eusebius HE 3.39.4) - ibid, pg. 199

So the "Father of Church History" Eusebius, writing in the 1st quarter of the 4th century CE, notes that Papias, writing 2nd century CE, claims an oral tradition concerning the author of gMk, writing in the 1st century CE. Note parenthetically that this is the same Eusebius who complained that Papias was "a man of exceedingly small intelligence" (Hist. Eccl. 3.39.13). Be that as it may, what does Schnelle have to say about the core assertion, i.e., that 'Mark' was the 'interpreter' of Peter:

Thus a decision cannot yet be made concerning the historical trustworthiness of this tradition, since no distinctive Petrine theology can be discerned behind the Gospel of Mark, nor does Peter play a role in it beyond that already given him in the pre-Markan tradition. No one would suppose thatthe figure of Peter stands behind the distinctive theology of the Gospel of Mark, if there were no Papius tradition! Nor can any recognizable connection between Pauline theology and the Gospel of Mark be determined. The second Gospel is thus the work of a Christian by the name of Mark, who is otherwise unknown to us. ... Mark's mother tongue seems to be Greek, for the characteristics of the Markan language do not point to Semitic influence, but corresponds to the style of Hellenistic folk literature and the literary Koine. Since Mark demonstrably writes for a Gentile church (cf. 3.4.4), he can be described as a Greek-speaking Gentile Christian who has a command of Aramaic, probably a native of Suria who grew to adulthood there. - ibid, pg. 200

Kirby, in his remarkably valuable Early Christian Writings, further undermines the case for John Mark of Jerusalem:

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)." - see Mark

What makes this all the more interresting is current consensus on the Marcan priority of the synoptics, i.e., the recognition that Matthew and Luke are heavily dependent upon Mark and [possibly] 'Q'.

Originally posted by Ken Carman@ Authorship was rather loosely defined back then and there are many spots within the same book where the writing styles switch and the author(s) seem to be writing from a different historical perspective... like years later. Then there's text alteration/manipulation.

Precisely.

<!--QuoteBegin-Ken Carman
Add to this that Jesus told many stories to make his point.[/quote]
Not exactly. It would be more correct to say that early Christian sect leaders wrote of someone telling stories decades earlier. There is little reason to assume that anyone named Yeshua actually said any of the things later attributed to him.