Columbia PhD in Ancient History says Jesus never existed

[alwayson]

How do Christians respond to Dr. Richard Carrier?

There are several lectures and debates with him on youtube.

[stubbornone]

Feel free to read and address any of the points I am making in this thread, especially about your conspiracy theory and failure to form evidenced based conclusions.

I see bare links to web sites and then told 'Go read'. I extract items from the web site you provide that show the exact opposite of your claim, and you complain about 'Random Google links'..

I don't see you showing where in the web sites you provided that , well, you actually backed up your claim.

Or, besides bluster, actually addressed your claim.

I see a lot of ranting, and ranting against G.A. Wells

But you know what?? You are the only person on this thread that talks about Dr Wells. The OP mentioned Richard Carrier, a PH.D in hisotry.. not G.A Wells, a doctorate in linguistics.

Yes, you provided your opinion. However, the one thing you did NOT do is back up your claims. You built huge straw men. But you refused to address the actual points made.

You pointed to an apologist web site, and showed their opinion. You didn't show any reason to accept some random guy on an apologist web sites opinion.

If you are going to make a point, feel free to make one Goat.

You asked for evidence in support of Mark - you got it.

Now, God himself cannot determine what the devil you are trying to do? How about you clarify your position on Mark, and using the newly discovered evidence (which you have already dismissed as apologists? Because those who place a large and acrimonious portion of scholarship on a web site are of course ... er, not producing such evidence?) and support your contention?

That assumes you are not just another rabid Jesus Denier looking to flame people at any cost?

Well, lets see it then? Reveal your colors one way or the other Goat.

In fact, you have yet to spell out a position on Carrier, or even demonstrate any familiarity with what he deals with. It appears you are simply pulling a Wells, finding random reasons to randomly disagree merely for the sake of disagreement - a practice that scholars have dismissed as simple intellectual insanity.

Where did I get support for Mark being written by an eye witness?? Really? Why don't you extract the passage from the web page whose raw link you posted that shows that 'Mark was written by an eye witness'. I cut/paste from that very web site that shows scholars say it was not written by an eye witness.

Please, cut/paste the words from that web site the show that "Mark was written by eye witnesses', or withdraw the claim.

I see everything but support for your claim. I see4 avoidance for backing up that claim.

Right now, all I am doing it trying to get you to support your claim.

And, for you to support your claim doesn't mean I have to give my opinion on Carrier. When it comes to the primary sources .... I most certainly have given my opinion on the primary extra-biblical sources, and find that are insufficient to think they are independent sources, and that there is enough evidence of corruption at Christian hands to discount the validity of the writings from Josephus for example.

I suggest that you familiarize yourself with Christian narratives before being so silly.

Who are the Apostles? What did they do? Who ostensibly wrote Mark?

Now, would you please, as you are so much smarter and more logical than everyone else, demonstrate logical analysis by proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mark (or any other Synoptic Gospel) was written by someone else with the deliberate intent to fool?

Ignoring of course Paul and Esuebius ... and others ...

Lets see you ACTUALLy produce an argument rather than just play atheist baseball. If you can. But I seriously doubt it.

Asking others to produce evidence to support heir contentions, when they are self evident, while failing to do so in reverse is the highlight of hypocrisy.

Typical of Jesus Mythers.

So, of note, I have made and supported several arguments in this thread. You have yet to make even one.

All I see is denial to absurdity.

A reminder Goat, it is YOU that drug in Mark. It is YOU that demanded evidence. It is YOU that are claiming it is an obvious forgery.

Why I have to support a claim I am not making? Why I have to provide the opposite of your claim for you? All I did was give you the evidence you asked for and told you to help yourself and use the evidence to arrive at your own conclusion.

Now, I have to do all the work? Lazy.

In the meantime, Mark is clearly written with first hand knowledge of Christ - from a witness. THat we cannot, after 2,000 years positively prove that Mark wrote it? Well, we cannot disprove it either - Paul, and other ancient historians, attest to its accuracy - thus we use it critically as a primary source.

Or do you think that Mark was intended to be written as a biography? Fiction?

Well, lets see the proof then - because only one of us appears AT ALL familiar with the evidence not dismissed as apologist.

Gosh, I am not the one making the claim, now am I? You pointed me to a specific web site, saying that backed up your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by an eye witness. I couldn't find it. Perhaps if you cut/paste the exact phrase, I can examine it to see if it says what you claim it does.

I see that you repeat the claimm
'In the mean time, Mark was clearly written with someone with first hand knowledge of Christ'. Back that up. Repeating a claim is not backing UP a claim.

You are trying to make me back up your claim. Sorry.. but.. no. Back up your claim or withdraw it.

And, I also would like you to back up the claim I said Mark was a forgery. I know exactly what I said.. and I brought up Mark because you made the claim "The Gospel were written by eye witnesses'.

Since you seem so reluctant to back up Mark, and avoid the issue, how about moving on to Matthew.. or would you prefer John or Luke first? How about if you back up the claim that ANY of the 4 gospels were written by an eye witness. I chose 1 out of the four .. let's see you back up ANY of them. Pick one, and show that it was written by an eye witness. Come to think of it.l.. include Mark in that, since so far you have failed to show that. You give raw links.. but.. well. the raw link you provided says the exact opposite.

Agh, so indeed, you admit it ... you are indeed not engaged in making a single claim nor supporting with anything.

Indeed, being asked to investigate the evidence, conveniently provided for you, means that I am making a claim and must read aloud the evidence to the laziest of all investigators?

You've been invited to form your own conclusions, please do so and engage in something besides atheist baseball and attempting to pigeon hole people in making claims so that you can deny them using google after the fact.

In the mean time, as we have no idea who wrote say .. beowulf, we still seem to be able to use that source as a PRIMARY SOURCE for investigating Norse Mythology do we not?

And yet you pointedly, without actually saying so ... because you are not actually claiming anything ... think we should treat the gospels differently should we?

Well, why?

Because a random inexpert atheist, one too lazy to read the very evidence he demands and gets, cannot come up with a good reason to reject the evidence placed right before him ... and is indeed not even claiming we should reject them?

Well, your arguments are such a wonderful display of how logic and analysis can be used to not say anything at all! At least when atheism gets a hold of logic ...

Well. I see you are concentrating on me. One thing you are not doing is supporting your claim. As for 'evidence presented'. well, you DID link to a raw link, but, well, what that link said directly contradicted what you said, and you STILL kept pointing to it (without quoting from what was actually there, I might add). That is not providing evidence.

Now, please show the part in that web page you used that supports your claim that the Gospel of Mark was written by an eye witness, or withdraw the claim.

Please provide evidence that ANY of the gospels were written by eye witnesses,.. or withdraw your claim

Stop diverting the fact you have not actually presented any evidence by concentrating on my supposed faults in your eyes, but, well, actually supply evidence.

Prove that it is not. You ar ethe one attempting to over turn convention and the commonly accepted claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The burden is thus on you to demonstrate why.

Feel free to engage with evidence at any point.

Simply demanding that others do for you is both lazy and rude ... about what we would expect from a Jesus Myther in the process of sticking his head in the sand.

"CONVINCE ME," is not an argument - is simple laziness.

So feel free to engage in an actual debate at some point Goat. Otherwise, withdraw. Or I suppose I eventually just ignore your whelps for attention ...

So bone up, present a case - and see what you so readily challenge others to do ... and what it is like to actually have a defined position that you support. What its like not to be completely lazy ...

[Goat]

Prove that it is not. You ar ethe one attempting to over turn convention and the commonly accepted claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The burden is thus on you to demonstrate why.

Feel free to engage with evidence at any point.

Simply demanding that others do for you is both lazy and rude ... about what we would expect from a Jesus Myther in the process of sticking his head in the sand.

"CONVINCE ME," is not an argument - is simple laziness.

So feel free to engage in an actual debate at some point Goat. Otherwise, withdraw. Or I suppose I eventually just ignore your whelps for attention ...

So bone up, present a case - and see what you so readily challenge others to do ... and what it is like to actually have a defined position that you support. What its like not to be completely lazy ...

Realy?? Am I the one that made the claim 'The Gospel are eye witness accounts'? I notice that you again attempt to dodge providing any support other than raw links that disagree with you. .. now it's not even an attempt.

Asking someone to support their claim is not sitting back and saying 'Convince me'.

[East of Eden]

Prove that it is not. You ar ethe one attempting to over turn convention and the commonly accepted claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The burden is thus on you to demonstrate why.

Feel free to engage with evidence at any point.

Simply demanding that others do for you is both lazy and rude ... about what we would expect from a Jesus Myther in the process of sticking his head in the sand.

"CONVINCE ME," is not an argument - is simple laziness.

So feel free to engage in an actual debate at some point Goat. Otherwise, withdraw. Or I suppose I eventually just ignore your whelps for attention ...

So bone up, present a case - and see what you so readily challenge others to do ... and what it is like to actually have a defined position that you support. What its like not to be completely lazy ...

Realy?? Am I the one that made the claim 'The Gospel are eye witness accounts'? I notice that you again attempt to dodge providing any support other than raw links that disagree with you. .. now it's not even an attempt.

Asking someone to support their claim is not sitting back and saying 'Convince me'.

You are the one alleging a grand conspiracy (that the Gospels are not what they say they are, and not what they early Church Fathers closest to the events said they were), with absolutely no evidence.

[stubbornone]

Prove that it is not. You ar ethe one attempting to over turn convention and the commonly accepted claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The burden is thus on you to demonstrate why.

Feel free to engage with evidence at any point.

Simply demanding that others do for you is both lazy and rude ... about what we would expect from a Jesus Myther in the process of sticking his head in the sand.

"CONVINCE ME," is not an argument - is simple laziness.

So feel free to engage in an actual debate at some point Goat. Otherwise, withdraw. Or I suppose I eventually just ignore your whelps for attention ...

So bone up, present a case - and see what you so readily challenge others to do ... and what it is like to actually have a defined position that you support. What its like not to be completely lazy ...

Realy?? Am I the one that made the claim 'The Gospel are eye witness accounts'? I notice that you again attempt to dodge providing any support other than raw links that disagree with you. .. now it's not even an attempt.

Asking someone to support their claim is not sitting back and saying 'Convince me'.

Well, someone stole my thunder ... shucks.

And yes, claiming that the gospels are NOT first hand accounts is indeed a claim.

As your is clearly the one that is against the accepted scholarship, I am afraid the burden of proof - of overturning convention - lies solely with the one making the attempt to overturn ...

I realize this places your particular ... idiom (as Monty Python would say), in a bit of bind ... but alas it what you find yourself roped into by the rules of logic and analytical reasoning.

Why else would anyone take your position seriously if there is not a shred of evidence to back it up? Well, they wouldn't would they? And indeed I do not, nor can I if honor and integrity matter in the slightest ... unfortunately for you, they matter to me!

So, I would like you to answer a few questions, honestly, without guile and without the nominal atheist denials ...

Have you ever actually read the Bible - even the New Testament?

Have you actually read the evidence of Jesus? A Single supportive volume (as we already know by your silence that you have not read Wells).

Those are two very important question - should they be answered honestly - and they have direct bearing on whether anyone would, or indeed should, take your claims seriously at all.

[Goat]

Prove that it is not. You ar ethe one attempting to over turn convention and the commonly accepted claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The burden is thus on you to demonstrate why.

Feel free to engage with evidence at any point.

Simply demanding that others do for you is both lazy and rude ... about what we would expect from a Jesus Myther in the process of sticking his head in the sand.

"CONVINCE ME," is not an argument - is simple laziness.

So feel free to engage in an actual debate at some point Goat. Otherwise, withdraw. Or I suppose I eventually just ignore your whelps for attention ...

So bone up, present a case - and see what you so readily challenge others to do ... and what it is like to actually have a defined position that you support. What its like not to be completely lazy ...

Realy?? Am I the one that made the claim 'The Gospel are eye witness accounts'? I notice that you again attempt to dodge providing any support other than raw links that disagree with you. .. now it's not even an attempt.

Asking someone to support their claim is not sitting back and saying 'Convince me'.

Well, someone stole my thunder ... shucks.

And yes, claiming that the gospels are NOT first hand accounts is indeed a claim.

As your is clearly the one that is against the accepted scholarship, I am afraid the burden of proof - of overturning convention - lies solely with the one making the attempt to overturn ...

I realize this places your particular ... idiom (as Monty Python would say), in a bit of bind ... but alas it what you find yourself roped into by the rules of logic and analytical reasoning.

Why else would anyone take your position seriously if there is not a shred of evidence to back it up? Well, they wouldn't would they? And indeed I do not, nor can I if honor and integrity matter in the slightest ... unfortunately for you, they matter to me!

So, I would like you to answer a few questions, honestly, without guile and without the nominal atheist denials ...

Have you ever actually read the Bible - even the New Testament?

Have you actually read the evidence of Jesus? A Single supportive volume (as we already know by your silence that you have not read Wells).

Those are two very important question - should they be answered honestly - and they have direct bearing on whether anyone would, or indeed should, take your claims seriously at all.

Tell you what.. I will go to a head to head debate on you, with you taking the position that the gospels are 'eye witness accounts', and I taking the negative on that.

For that matter, on the Gospel of Mark, I provided what it said in there, which specifically pointed out that the GOM was NOT an eye witness. I would say that counts as providing evidence that the GOM is not an eye witness. I could also point out such little details as the geography around Jerusalem is inaccurate, and someone who was an eye witness would have known that.

Shall we go head to head? I would be GLAD to.

[Mithrae]

Realy?? Am I the one that made the claim 'The Gospel are eye witness accounts'? I notice that you again attempt to dodge providing any support other than raw links that disagree with you. .. now it's not even an attempt.

Asking someone to support their claim is not sitting back and saying 'Convince me'.

You are the one alleging a grand conspiracy (that the Gospels are not what they say they are, and not what they early Church Fathers closest to the events said they were), with absolutely no evidence.

What do the gospels say that they are?

Mark says nothing about its authorship, and nor does Matthew. Luke quite clearly says that it's not an eyewitness or first-hand account, but that it's based on Luke's 'perfect understanding' of earlier accounts as "those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us" (1:1-4). Luke is believed to have been a gentile companion of Paul, and Mark is believed to have been Peter's interpretor in Rome. Virtually no-one, not even most fundamentalists, suggest that Mark or Luke are eyewitness accounts. It is Stubborn One who is advocating an extreme fringe position there, and openly making things up to 'support' it.

The earliest Church Father to speak on the matter said that the apostle Matthew wrote the "oracles of the Lord" in the Hebrew tongue; not a narrative in Greek, like canonical Matthew. Since canonical Matthew doesn't say that it's written by Matthew, and even appears to have copied extensively from Mark (including the account of Matthew's own call by Jesus!), it is obviously not the apostolic work Papias was talking about.

John is the only gospel which internally implies an eyewitness account (John 1:14, 19:35 and 1 John 1:1-3) and even has multiple attestations of its eyewitness status prior to Irenaeus' well-known comments (John 21:23-24, Justin Martyr and the gnostics Heracleon and Ptolemy). On that point I disagree with Goat. Regarding the other three gospels, which were the three which Stubborn One claimed were first-hand accounts, there's neither internal suggestion nor church claims within a century of their composition to support such a fringe position.

[Goat]

Prove that it is not. You ar ethe one attempting to over turn convention and the commonly accepted claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The burden is thus on you to demonstrate why.

And who said that it is the 'commonly accepted claim' that the gospels were written by eye witnesses?? Please, show that this claim is 'commonly accepted'.

Oh wait, you can't.. because it isn't commonly accepted. You will find some uber conservative evangalistics making that claim.... all of whom work at such places as the 'Dallas theological seminary' or some such group that claims the bible is without error.

However, I already pointed out, in the one web site YOU provided that it is not a commonly held belief that Mark was an eye witness.

You are doing what is known as 'shifting the burden of proof'. Now you are saying it is 'commonly held that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses'. I already used your own source to show the GOM is not 'commonly' thought.

Now, if it is 'commonly' thought that the Gospels are 'eye witness' accounts, you will be able to EASILY provide evidence of this. You avoid, and shift the burden of proof.

We already did the GOM, and showed your very own source showed that common consensus is that Mark was NOT an eye witness. Tradition has Mark being a disciple of Peter, who wrote things down after Peter died. .. not an eye witness (not that tradition is correct, but not even tradition makes that claim).

So, we got 1 out of the four gospels out of the way. Which one do you want to do next.. You provide evidence that ANY of the other three were eye witness accounts.

And, I will show that many if not most biblical scholars don't think so.

[stubbornone]

Prove that it is not. You ar ethe one attempting to over turn convention and the commonly accepted claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The burden is thus on you to demonstrate why.

Feel free to engage with evidence at any point.

Simply demanding that others do for you is both lazy and rude ... about what we would expect from a Jesus Myther in the process of sticking his head in the sand.

"CONVINCE ME," is not an argument - is simple laziness.

So feel free to engage in an actual debate at some point Goat. Otherwise, withdraw. Or I suppose I eventually just ignore your whelps for attention ...

So bone up, present a case - and see what you so readily challenge others to do ... and what it is like to actually have a defined position that you support. What its like not to be completely lazy ...

Realy?? Am I the one that made the claim 'The Gospel are eye witness accounts'? I notice that you again attempt to dodge providing any support other than raw links that disagree with you. .. now it's not even an attempt.

Asking someone to support their claim is not sitting back and saying 'Convince me'.

Well, someone stole my thunder ... shucks.

And yes, claiming that the gospels are NOT first hand accounts is indeed a claim.

As your is clearly the one that is against the accepted scholarship, I am afraid the burden of proof - of overturning convention - lies solely with the one making the attempt to overturn ...

I realize this places your particular ... idiom (as Monty Python would say), in a bit of bind ... but alas it what you find yourself roped into by the rules of logic and analytical reasoning.

Why else would anyone take your position seriously if there is not a shred of evidence to back it up? Well, they wouldn't would they? And indeed I do not, nor can I if honor and integrity matter in the slightest ... unfortunately for you, they matter to me!

So, I would like you to answer a few questions, honestly, without guile and without the nominal atheist denials ...

Have you ever actually read the Bible - even the New Testament?

Have you actually read the evidence of Jesus? A Single supportive volume (as we already know by your silence that you have not read Wells).

Those are two very important question - should they be answered honestly - and they have direct bearing on whether anyone would, or indeed should, take your claims seriously at all.

Tell you what.. I will go to a head to head debate on you, with you taking the position that the gospels are 'eye witness accounts', and I taking the negative on that.

For that matter, on the Gospel of Mark, I provided what it said in there, which specifically pointed out that the GOM was NOT an eye witness. I would say that counts as providing evidence that the GOM is not an eye witness. I could also point out such little details as the geography around Jerusalem is inaccurate, and someone who was an eye witness would have known that.

Shall we go head to head? I would be GLAD to.

We already are basically one vs one ... and I am still waiting for you to support your claim ...

By all means begin.

What a petulant way to avoid your own burden of proof. Please begin.

By all means, please prove that these accounts are not collections of eye witness statements to Jesus but forgeries. Begin.

It is your challenge - once again, the burden falls on you brother.

Any more failure to back up your claims, even once, and I will simply ignore you .. peacock feathers and all

[stubbornone]

Prove that it is not. You ar ethe one attempting to over turn convention and the commonly accepted claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses. The burden is thus on you to demonstrate why.

Feel free to engage with evidence at any point.

Simply demanding that others do for you is both lazy and rude ... about what we would expect from a Jesus Myther in the process of sticking his head in the sand.

"CONVINCE ME," is not an argument - is simple laziness.

So feel free to engage in an actual debate at some point Goat. Otherwise, withdraw. Or I suppose I eventually just ignore your whelps for attention ...

So bone up, present a case - and see what you so readily challenge others to do ... and what it is like to actually have a defined position that you support. What its like not to be completely lazy ...

Realy?? Am I the one that made the claim 'The Gospel are eye witness accounts'? I notice that you again attempt to dodge providing any support other than raw links that disagree with you. .. now it's not even an attempt.

Asking someone to support their claim is not sitting back and saying 'Convince me'.

Well, someone stole my thunder ... shucks.

And yes, claiming that the gospels are NOT first hand accounts is indeed a claim.

As your is clearly the one that is against the accepted scholarship, I am afraid the burden of proof - of overturning convention - lies solely with the one making the attempt to overturn ...

I realize this places your particular ... idiom (as Monty Python would say), in a bit of bind ... but alas it what you find yourself roped into by the rules of logic and analytical reasoning.

Why else would anyone take your position seriously if there is not a shred of evidence to back it up? Well, they wouldn't would they? And indeed I do not, nor can I if honor and integrity matter in the slightest ... unfortunately for you, they matter to me!

So, I would like you to answer a few questions, honestly, without guile and without the nominal atheist denials ...

Have you ever actually read the Bible - even the New Testament?

Have you actually read the evidence of Jesus? A Single supportive volume (as we already know by your silence that you have not read Wells).

Those are two very important question - should they be answered honestly - and they have direct bearing on whether anyone would, or indeed should, take your claims seriously at all.

Tell you what.. I will go to a head to head debate on you, with you taking the position that the gospels are 'eye witness accounts', and I taking the negative on that.

For that matter, on the Gospel of Mark, I provided what it said in there, which specifically pointed out that the GOM was NOT an eye witness. I would say that counts as providing evidence that the GOM is not an eye witness. I could also point out such little details as the geography around Jerusalem is inaccurate, and someone who was an eye witness would have known that.

Shall we go head to head? I would be GLAD to.

We already are basically one vs one ... and I am still waiting for you to support your claim ...

By all means begin.

What a petulant way to avoid your own burden of proof. Please begin.

By all means, please prove that these accounts are not collections of eye witness statements to Jesus but forgeries. Begin.

It is your challenge - once again, the burden falls on you brother.

Any more failure to back up your claims, even once, and I will simply ignore you .. peacock feathers and all.

You do after all know that Mark the Evangelist is the supposed author of Mark? A contemporary of Peter, a witness to Jesus, and member of the original 70 correct?

Ruh roh ....

Time to pony up old chap.

[Goat]

We already are basically one vs one ... and I am still waiting for you to support your claim ...

By all means begin.

What a petulant way to avoid your own burden of proof. Please begin.

By all means, please prove that these accounts are not collections of eye witness statements to Jesus but forgeries. Begin.

It is your challenge - once again, the burden falls on you brother.

Any more failure to back up your claims, even once, and I will simply ignore you .. peacock feathers and all

Ah yes.. the good old 'Shifting the burden of Proof thingy again. I think doing one at a time should be one at a time shojuld be a good one. I will point out that the claim 'they are a forgery' is a straw man. I never claimed they were a forgery. None of them SAY they were eye witnesses. And, none of the synoptic Gospels even identify in them who they were written by. It is only a matter of later Church tradition that the 'Gospel according to xxxxxs' was assigned.

That being said, let's REVIEW Mark again. Let's go back to the VERY page you kept on using as a source.

That page has the following quotes on it

Eusebius quotes from Papias on the Gospel of Mark in Hist. Eccl. iii. 39 as follows:

For information on these points, we can merely refer our readers to the books themselves; but now, to the extracts already made, we shall add, as being a matter of primary importance, a tradition regarding Mark who wrote the Gospel, which he [Papias] has given in the following words: "And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark.

As we can see here, early church tradition has Mark being written by a follower of Peter.. AND he wrote down Mark AFTER both Peter and Paul died. This puts his location in Rome.

And, this shows apparently , more than one Church Father said the same thing.

Irenaeus wrote (Against Heresies 3.1.1): "After their departure [of Peter and Paul from earth], Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter." Note that Irenaeus had read Papias, and thus Irenaeus doesn't provide any independent confirmation of the statement made by the earlier author

That's TWO early church fathers that said it.

Let's look FURTHER at it.

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)."

Nineham states the following on the provenance of the Gospel of Mark (Saint Mark, pp. 42-43): "of all the places suggested Rome has been by far the most popular, and, so far as the evidence permits of any conclusion, it is perhaps the most likely. The Gospel of Mark was clearly intended for a church consisting largely of Gentile members (see e.g. 7:3f., 11:13, 12:42), and one which had known, or was expecting, persecution for faith (cf. 8:34-38, 10:38f., 13:9-13); all this is compatible with Roman origin, and if the Gospel circulated from the beginning with the authority of the Roman church it is easier to explain how it so soon won an authoritative position."

There, I know used that site , which you so thoughtfully provided, so show the evidence on WHY mark is not an eye witness.