"The True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded -- Introduction
When I started this blog in January, the first argument I made originally for it was titled "The True Lost Gospel of Peter." This was because I find it important that Mark's reliable Gospel comes from the Disciple Peter. You don't have to read either in order to understand this Blog Project, though. I almost leave out every piece of internal evidence that makes this biography of Jesus look like it has Peter's perspective because that would make here unnecessarily long; only when needed to show that it all wasn't invented do I explain a certain point, because these posts unpack proof for the story's authenticity.
The conclusion reached back in the primitive post from January was, "So the next time you get your hands on the Bible, maybe open it up to the unidentified true lost Gospel of Peter, and read about the life of Jesus Christ. It's pretty amazing, and accurate, too." That's what I seek to defend now.
Of course, it would be foolhardy to aim at 100% logical proof. By that standard, you might be able to only know that the laws of logic exist, mathematical laws exist (although maybe only a limited number [pun intended]), you exist, and your subjective perception exists. So at least you have that foundation, which -- who knows? -- maybe necessitates another fact.
Instead, I am gunning for 100% historical proof, a.k.a. proof beyond rational doubt. This requires very strong evidence and no good reason to doubt the supported conclusion. A large part of my case for the Gospel of Mark (Peter) rests on embarrassing testimony -- or as world-class agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman calls it, the criterion of dissimilarity. He gives a definition:
"Since the stories about Jesus were obviously changed in light of the perspectives, worldviews, and interests of the people telling the stories, what do we do with the information about him found in our sources that cuts against the grain of these perspectives, worldviews, and interests? Traditions of this kind, which seem contrary to what Christians would have wanted to say about Jesus are obviously not traditions that they would have made up. And so traditions of that sort are especially valuable, since they are not invented traditions but appear to represent things that really happened in Jesus' life." (1)
Now another idea for this argument should be presented. In a book that I only read the first 19 pages of months ago, I recall leading expert on the Gospels Craig Blomberg saying:
"It is extremely difficult to distinguish between historical realism employed in the service of fictitious narrative and detail that can be explained only by eyewitness testimony to actual historical events," because "they may mask hidden symbolism, reflect natural inferences, stress important details, satisfy readers' curiosity, stem from literary style, or be purely fictitious inventions" (2).
This made me think that someone could say apparently uninvented material from Mark was created for theological reasons. But Blomberg was talking about John, the fourth Gospel that skeptics say was written during the turn to the second century. While I doubt he had the criterion of dissimilarity in mind (the book in fact uses it), my purpose here is to defend the first Gospel written. Consider another test for historical truth Ehrman gives:
"Since the stories about Jesus -- including those in which he had some involvement with Mary Magdalene and others -- were changed as they were told and retold over time, in light of the beliefs, worldviews, and perspectives of the people telling the stories, then the earliest sources by and large will provide information that is less likely to have been radically changed than the later sources. The reason is obvious: for the earliest sources there will have been less time to change the accounts than for the later sources. That's why scholars working to uncover what actually happened in Jesus' life tend to use Mark and Q, for example, more extensively than they use John and Thomas. These latter two were created decades after the former two, and so are less likely to retain historically reliable information." (3)
My point is that John might be able to invent things that would otherwise be considered unattractive only if theology by then had put in place the doctrine that Jesus's life was embarrassing. And the early church wouldn't have started with those details.
What embarrassing testimony in historical accounts assumes is the "principle of uniformity," as found in science. Basically, like how gravity worked the same way 2,000 years ago, people then probably wouldn't find something considered unattractive today worth dreaming up. I know that, for example, the mentioning of Jesus's burial in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 did imply an empty tomb in that time, but this didn't occur to me until I actually got evidence (see this post). The hand that holds Mark, however, contains no good reason to suppose Jesus being rejected by His family or a demon being able to resist His exorcism would be made up -- what's more, I do know that it was embarrassing for a Jewish rabbi to be rejected by His home and that Christians did assign their God the power to instantly work a miracle (Mark 1:41-42; 2:10-12; 3:5-6; 4:39; 10:52), even with His spiritual enemies (1:25-26; 9:25-26). (Also my example of the burial is inadequate because it does make a lot of sense to us today and doesn't look like something we would consider embarrassing.)
At first, my plan was to have everything in one post. But after I started writing down my notes, eventually I realized this will be veeeeeeeeeeeery long. Even today, no evidence is advanced because I soon realized that just this introduction will be big. My last Blog Project had an introduction that was shorter, because it was of significant proportion and I want everything to be as short as it can (but of course, you know, with everything I desire to say). In my opinion, doing that and separating introductions from the actual argument, as happens in books, is aesthetically pleasing, and I hope you think so as well (or at least don't find it repulsive).
So stay tuned, if you want! Put an email into the little widget in the sidebar, and make sure to verify the request. Some hours later after I hit the "Publish" button on Blogger you should get my post's link and copied information. Also, maybe hit the "Follow" button, as the email doesn't do that. Thanks if you will/did, and as always thanks for reading!
Citations:.
1. Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 2004), 124.
2. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2001), 28.
3. Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 2004), 122-123.
The conclusion reached back in the primitive post from January was, "So the next time you get your hands on the Bible, maybe open it up to the unidentified true lost Gospel of Peter, and read about the life of Jesus Christ. It's pretty amazing, and accurate, too." That's what I seek to defend now.
Of course, it would be foolhardy to aim at 100% logical proof. By that standard, you might be able to only know that the laws of logic exist, mathematical laws exist (although maybe only a limited number [pun intended]), you exist, and your subjective perception exists. So at least you have that foundation, which -- who knows? -- maybe necessitates another fact.
Instead, I am gunning for 100% historical proof, a.k.a. proof beyond rational doubt. This requires very strong evidence and no good reason to doubt the supported conclusion. A large part of my case for the Gospel of Mark (Peter) rests on embarrassing testimony -- or as world-class agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman calls it, the criterion of dissimilarity. He gives a definition:
"Since the stories about Jesus were obviously changed in light of the perspectives, worldviews, and interests of the people telling the stories, what do we do with the information about him found in our sources that cuts against the grain of these perspectives, worldviews, and interests? Traditions of this kind, which seem contrary to what Christians would have wanted to say about Jesus are obviously not traditions that they would have made up. And so traditions of that sort are especially valuable, since they are not invented traditions but appear to represent things that really happened in Jesus' life." (1)
Now another idea for this argument should be presented. In a book that I only read the first 19 pages of months ago, I recall leading expert on the Gospels Craig Blomberg saying:
"It is extremely difficult to distinguish between historical realism employed in the service of fictitious narrative and detail that can be explained only by eyewitness testimony to actual historical events," because "they may mask hidden symbolism, reflect natural inferences, stress important details, satisfy readers' curiosity, stem from literary style, or be purely fictitious inventions" (2).
This made me think that someone could say apparently uninvented material from Mark was created for theological reasons. But Blomberg was talking about John, the fourth Gospel that skeptics say was written during the turn to the second century. While I doubt he had the criterion of dissimilarity in mind (the book in fact uses it), my purpose here is to defend the first Gospel written. Consider another test for historical truth Ehrman gives:
"Since the stories about Jesus -- including those in which he had some involvement with Mary Magdalene and others -- were changed as they were told and retold over time, in light of the beliefs, worldviews, and perspectives of the people telling the stories, then the earliest sources by and large will provide information that is less likely to have been radically changed than the later sources. The reason is obvious: for the earliest sources there will have been less time to change the accounts than for the later sources. That's why scholars working to uncover what actually happened in Jesus' life tend to use Mark and Q, for example, more extensively than they use John and Thomas. These latter two were created decades after the former two, and so are less likely to retain historically reliable information." (3)
My point is that John might be able to invent things that would otherwise be considered unattractive only if theology by then had put in place the doctrine that Jesus's life was embarrassing. And the early church wouldn't have started with those details.
What embarrassing testimony in historical accounts assumes is the "principle of uniformity," as found in science. Basically, like how gravity worked the same way 2,000 years ago, people then probably wouldn't find something considered unattractive today worth dreaming up. I know that, for example, the mentioning of Jesus's burial in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 did imply an empty tomb in that time, but this didn't occur to me until I actually got evidence (see this post). The hand that holds Mark, however, contains no good reason to suppose Jesus being rejected by His family or a demon being able to resist His exorcism would be made up -- what's more, I do know that it was embarrassing for a Jewish rabbi to be rejected by His home and that Christians did assign their God the power to instantly work a miracle (Mark 1:41-42; 2:10-12; 3:5-6; 4:39; 10:52), even with His spiritual enemies (1:25-26; 9:25-26). (Also my example of the burial is inadequate because it does make a lot of sense to us today and doesn't look like something we would consider embarrassing.)
At first, my plan was to have everything in one post. But after I started writing down my notes, eventually I realized this will be veeeeeeeeeeeery long. Even today, no evidence is advanced because I soon realized that just this introduction will be big. My last Blog Project had an introduction that was shorter, because it was of significant proportion and I want everything to be as short as it can (but of course, you know, with everything I desire to say). In my opinion, doing that and separating introductions from the actual argument, as happens in books, is aesthetically pleasing, and I hope you think so as well (or at least don't find it repulsive).
So stay tuned, if you want! Put an email into the little widget in the sidebar, and make sure to verify the request. Some hours later after I hit the "Publish" button on Blogger you should get my post's link and copied information. Also, maybe hit the "Follow" button, as the email doesn't do that. Thanks if you will/did, and as always thanks for reading!
Citations:.
1. Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 2004), 124.
2. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2001), 28.
3. Bart Ehrman, Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know About Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (Oxford University Press: New York, NY. 2004), 122-123.
Comments
Post a Comment
I regret to say that comments have to be turned off. I encourage everyone to use this blogs resources in constructive, thoughtful discussion and research.