How Michael Licona can save himself

Revisionist antitheologian Dr Richard Carrier almost restrains himself from ranting about Trump long enough to review some Christian apologists. At bat were Michael Licona and Jonathan Sheffield (reversing Carrier's title), against Bart Ehrman perhaps a para-apologist in Carrier's sight.

Carrier is getting too old to put up with debates much, but he's been at the podia long-enough he can effectively rate others'. Here, Carrier rates the trio Sheffield > Ehrman > Licona. Since Licona needs the help most, let's help him. I share the spirit of Sheffield, as a theist (Nestorian-Christian specifically) willing to hear out the skeptics. However amateurishly in my case.

First, an aside: on Mark's Aramaic. May I suggest - to Carrier, not to Licona - that Mark using targum hardly implies Mark's distance from Peter's ambit. This more implies the opposite, that Peter's people were steeped in the Aramaic culture from Hebron to Damascus (we needn't go further north; Edessa comes later). Hence why contemporaries called him Kepha (Aramaic), and not ho Petros (Greek) until 1 Clement and Mark. Not that it much matters to anyone anymore.

Licona went wrong in that Mark talked more about Peter than "the others". This opened Licona to Carrier's observation that nuh-uh, Matthew was. Licona could - instead - concede Marcan Priority. From this basis Mark would be talking about Peter more than Mark's contemporaries and sources. These would include Paul's letters, which is why Paul's doctrines even show up. One can also bring Evan Powell that some lore against Peter was floating around. This wasn't 1 Clement which is proPeter. I submit it wasn't Paul who was generally amiable to "Cephas"; e.g. Paul says nothing about Peter abandoning Christ at the Passion, as Paul might as he is hotly debating Peter's party and defending his own apostolate. So... who was it? I'd suggest, the Beloved Disciple had put something out - which Carrier is here and there hinting. If we don't like Powell's proposal of John 1-20, Carrier might have to accept *Lazarus its source. Or even some scurrilous Life Of Peter we do not anymore own (think, George of Resh'ayna's take[down] on Maximus).

If Licona had held that stance - that Mark is defending Peter to a Pauline community, against the Beloved Community (John? Lazarus?) - Mark does not have to be taking Peter's direct dictation. Mark can be writing after Peter's death, on the frame of the antiPetrine lore. The late Peter has enough surviving friends who can fill in details here and there; and, of course, Mark has Paul's letters. From the position of Mark as Peter's literary advocate, a Papias can spin that into "amanuensis" (scribe, for us Latins). But Licona doesn't have to.

All this assumes Licona is not tied to an episcopal anvil like, oh, Pitre and Hahn.