Writing the gospels.(Letters)

SIR: None of the "powerful reasons" David H. Lewis cites against the apostolic authorship of Mark's gospel (Letters, March 2004) bears scrutiny.

Mr Lewis claims that there is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that Peter ever visited Rome. But 1 Peter 5:13 is usually regarded as evidence that the First Epistle of Peter was written there.

Mr Lewis claims that we would expect to find evidence of Peter's visit to Rome in the Book of Acts. Yet Peter's visits to Antioch and Corinth (which are attested to in Galatians 2 and 1 Corinthians 1 respectively) are not referred to in Acts either. Did Peter not visit those places?

Next, Mr Lewis claims that there is no reference earlier than, the fourth century to Peter being in Rome. But St Clement's letter to the church at Corinth (c. AD 100) certainly implies it. And Irenaeus (writing in the second century) writes confidently of "when Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there".

As for his involvement in Mark's gospel, the earliest reference is that of Papias who, writing in about AD 130 states, "Mark having been the interpreter of Peter ... wrote all that he recalled of what was either said or done by the Lord. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I have said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his instructions as necessity required." Justin writing c.150, Irenaeus c.170 and Clement c.180 agree. I would prefer their testimony to that of Lewis c.2004.

If Mark has Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple and the persecution of the disciples, Mr Lewis insists these events must already have taken place. Will he not allow even the possibility that Jesus was, as Christians believe, the incarnate Son of God, and therefore capable of some ...