Note Michael Pahl's thoughts about Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (amazon.com), where he breaks his discussion into "things I like" and "areas that failed to convince".

Some of the areas that failed to convince Michael also failed to convince me — notably the "inclusio of eyewitness testimony". As regards Mark, if his main source is Peter, what is the likelihood that the first and last testimony he uses are Peter's? Er ... uh ... probably the most likely of the options. It is interesting, and Bauckham provokes thought here, but it just doesn't hit me.