Why is the "Jesus Myth" theory universally disregarded?

[Meatros]

Originally Posted by VegasReno

Mark wrote Peter's Gospel. For the record. So when you read the Gospel of Mark... you are reading the Gospel of Peter.

You are making a lot of assumptions here. Some scholars do believe that Mark was a disciple of Peter, but this doesn't mean that Mark relied solely on Peter.

From here:

Nevertheless, even though the author may have been a disciple of Peter at some point, the author of the Gospel of Mark needn't have limited himself to Peter's preaching for his material. The NAB introduction says: "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."

John P. Meier provides an example in which the author of Mark shows himself to be dependent on oral tradition. The story of the feeding of the multitude is found twice in Mark and once in John. Meier writes (A Marginal Jew, v. 2, pp. 965-6): "This suggests a long and complicated tradition history reaching back to the early days of the first Christian generation. Prior to Mark's Gospel there seems to have been two cycles of traditions about Jesus' ministry in Galilee, each one beginning with one version of the feeding miracle (Mk 6:32-44 and Mk 8:1-10). Before these cycles were created, the two versions of the feeding would have circulated as independent units, the first version attracting to itself the story of Jesus' walking on the water (a development also witnessed in John 6), while the second version did not receive such an elaboration. Behind all three versions of the miracle story would have stood some primitive form."

Originally Posted by VegasReno

We know this from Papius, bishop of Heirapolis (A.D. 130), in which Papius records “Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake writing down in this way some things as he (Peter) mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing, not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among."

Actually we get that from Eusebius, who is purporting to quote Papius. I'm not entirely sure how we can have confidence in his opinion of Mark and how it came about. Papius was born somewhere around 70 AD, which is when scholars date Mark to. He is supposed to have written around 100-130 AD, which is far too late to really give any credence to his knowing Mark, really.

Further, as Ehrman loves to point out (in Misquoting Jesus), the early Christians had a habit of altering texts - many of the early Church figures try to dissuade the copyists from adding things to their text. The most famous one that I can think of is the end of the Revelation.

[VinnyJH]

Originally Posted by Meatros

Actually we get that from Eusebius, who is purporting to quote Papius. I'm not entirely sure how we can have confidence in his opinion of Mark and how it came about. Papius was born somewhere around 70 AD, which is when scholars date Mark to. He is supposed to have written around 100-130 AD, which is far too late to really give any credence to his knowing Mark, really.

Eusebius didn't think that Papias was very bright, apparently because he passed on any fantastic story that he heard. Little of Papias survives, but there is one story about how Judas became so incredibly fat and disgusting that he could not get through a space where a chariot could pass.