Compositional anaylsis of the Gospel of Mark

[Undeceived]

There are two reasons I don't understand why atheists make the Nonspiritual Mark argument. First, they have been arguing all along that 30 years was much too long a gap to go without record of Jesus. Now some admit that an earlier record could easily have slipped through the cracks--and not only admit, but argue strongly. Second, atheists have liked the idea that a legend developed by hearsay. However, pMark would show that a stable account existed, making any distortions by word of mouth difficult to sell. Nero was already executing mass numbers of Christians in 64 A.D. Either the converts came from hearsay or the primal Mark-- and it couldn't have been the secular pMark described here. On top of all this, there's no positive evidence for the book, only subjective unbacked interpretation.