"The True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded -- Part 1: NON-legendary Claims
Gospel of Peter, or Gospel of Mark?
This idea came from Christian apologist Rice Broocks. After summarizing some other evidence, he said, "Equally significant, the name Mark was attached to manuscripts dating back to the second century. Mark was not a major figure in the early church, so his name would not likely have been associated with a Gospel unless he was the actual author. These facts fit well with the traditional claim that the gospel is the recollections of Peter, recorded by Mark." (1)
With the other side, famous skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman explains the non-Christian view of Gospel authorship:
"We call these books, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And for centuries Christians have believed they were actually written by these people: two of the disciples of Jesus, Matthew the tax collector (see Matt. 9:9) and John, the 'beloved disciple' (John 21:24), and two companions of the apostles, Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These are, after all, the names found in the titles of these books. But what most people don't realize is that these titles were added later, by second-century Christians, decades after the books themselves had been written, in order to be able to claim that they were apostolic in origin. Why would later Christians do this? Recall our earlier discussion of the formation of the New Testament canon: only those books that were apostolic could be included. What was one to do with Gospels that were widely read and accepted as authoritative but that in fact were written anonymously, as all four of the New Testament Gospels were? They had to be associated with apostles in order to be included in the canon, and so apostolic names were attached to them." (2)
However, the naming of Mark is actually counter-intuitive for Ehrman's claim.
Let's consider an example here, from Acts 12:1-19. There, the brave ringleader of the Disciples Peter had been imprisoned, but God sent an angel to rescue him. He goes to the house of John Mark, where everybody is astonished that the amazing Peter was free and present. "Mark was not one of the twelve disciples, but it is believed that he was one of the seventy disciples that Jesus sent out to preach and show signs to the people. He is mentioned in the Book of Acts as John Mark." (3) Sure, Mark was (and is) a somebody, but as Brooks said wasn't prominent in the church, and definitely is a nobody when compared to Peter. In fact, Peter was in Jesus's inner trio of Disciples (Mark 14:33). Only the other eight could compare with them.
If the early church was really inventing names to make their biographies of Jesus look credible, why didn't they reap the full benefits, as with Matthew and John? Luke is irrelevant here, because he explicitly claims he is not an eyewitness, but rather got credible testimony from multiple anonymous places (Luke 1:1-4). Accrediting a Disciple would not only clearly be a mistake, but also would be unnecessary. On the contrary, Mark is full of internal evidence that takes Peter's perspective (see the primitive post). Keep in mind that this shows the tradition of authorship started right with the original penmanship.
To this I can imagine the charge that maybe when Mark first wrote his Gospel, he was influential to the people around him, both unbelievers and believers, that he was immediately appealing to. But this only explains the writing at the time. The early church, if inventing a story, would have followed the propaganda and attached the name of an unsurpassed eyewitness like always and discarded the scribe. And unless we want to say that everyone around Mark wanted to dupe anybody else (in other words, the early church fool the early church), Mark would have to have been observed and trusted -- a liar would have immediately named Peter! Or, he could just write a story like Luke, who knew sources that don't have to be named to be believed. Therefore, we have eyewitness testimony of eyewitness testimony. Not naming a Disciple only makes sense if the tradition from there is that Mark was being truthful in what Peter told him!
As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that they didn't use the Disciple's name. What is important is that everything comes from Peter, so it's not a lie to emphasize him. Furthermore, there is a good motive to note apostolic origin.
Ehrman tells us a story from the latter half of the second century, about the formerly famous bishop of Antioch named Serapion(4). One church under his authority was using a Gospel that Peter was said to have written. Considering its "apostolic origin," Serapion saw no problem... until later he learned that it was the Gnostic Gospel of Peter. Then, he demanded it be disowned.
Mid-second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr makes clear allusions to John's Gospel, although he refuses to cite it explicitly -- he and others might have done this because it was beginning to be used by the Gnostics(5).
Bart Ehrman gives us a full picture of this significance. False teachings weren't just in the second century:
"Once Jesus had died and was no longer available to give his apostles instructions, there needed to be collections of his teachings for posterity, and once the apostles themselves had begun to die off, their own writings needed to be collected as a repository of true teachings to be followed.
"This was especially the case because of the enormous diversity of Christianity, which began to emerge in the first century but was evident with unmistakable clarity in the second century. ...
"Just in the second century, for example, we know of people who claimed to be following the true teachings of Jesus who believed all sorts of things that would strike most modern-day Christians as bizarre to the extreme. There were, of course, Christians who believed in one God, but others said there were two Gods (the God of the Old Testament and the God of Jesus); yet others said there were 12 gods, or 30 gods, or 365 gods! There were Christians who said the world had been created by the one true God, but others indicated that it had been created by a secondary deity; yet others said it was created by an evil being. There were Christians who maintained that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine; another group, as we have seen, said he was so human he could not be divine; yet others said he was so fully divine he could not be human, others said he was two beings--the human Jesus and the divine Christ. There were Christians who believed that Jesus' death brought about the salvation of the world; others said that Jesus' death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world; still another group said that Jesus never died." (6)
The point is that attaching names would combat hearsay. Even if, for example, Mark had long been labeled by the time of Serapion's little issue, attaching Peter's name at the beginning would definitely be a good idea.
But wait, the skeptic in my head says. Maybe they attached Mark's name to make it look unattractive to others, so it wouldn't be abused like John.
Ironically, Mark's Gospel clearly emphasizes a human Jesus who did die. Thus, there is no likely threat from the Gnostics, who found the explicit, high-christological John appealing. Why would Peter be at risk, but they just invent the name of John? Having a Gospel of Mark could also invite mockery, because why is he credible? Moreso, shying away could give opponents more ground for a threshold on supposed apostolic authorship ("we had a Gospel of Peter first!"). The early church of course can't control what heretical groups would do, so the best route would be what they did with Matthew and John: attach a Disciple's name and debate (it would be counterproductive to rely on debate to support Mark, because the name was clearly a stumbling block, as Bart Ehrman says in his first quote it was widely read and Serapion didn't seem to realize Peter hadn't penned a story).
Or, if for some reason they wouldn't do that, why not change the name later? Now, I am not a Bible scholar. How could churches communicate and make a monumental decision without text, email, and cars? But as Ehrman mentioned in his last quote, there was a unified Christian church back then like the one today using the Gospels, and I will cite later multiple different authors who know about Mark's source. Most importantly, Bart Ehrman tells us how after the Council of Nicea, a strong Christian leader Athanasius gave out the 27 books of the New Testament, which was still debated afterward for a few decades or so(7). Had I been in charge back then, there wouldn't be a chance today for people to call Peter's Gospel "lost."
This argument technically does not go so far as to show that Peter didn't make up what Mark wrote, but it is clear that what we have here is first-hand testimony.
What's So "Glib" About the Resurrection?
By God's plan, my last Blog Project's first argument was defining and defending from legendary development in the post-crucifixion narratives. Cited there is leading Christian apologist William Lane Craig:
This idea came from Christian apologist Rice Broocks. After summarizing some other evidence, he said, "Equally significant, the name Mark was attached to manuscripts dating back to the second century. Mark was not a major figure in the early church, so his name would not likely have been associated with a Gospel unless he was the actual author. These facts fit well with the traditional claim that the gospel is the recollections of Peter, recorded by Mark." (1)
With the other side, famous skeptical scholar Bart Ehrman explains the non-Christian view of Gospel authorship:
"We call these books, of course, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And for centuries Christians have believed they were actually written by these people: two of the disciples of Jesus, Matthew the tax collector (see Matt. 9:9) and John, the 'beloved disciple' (John 21:24), and two companions of the apostles, Mark, the secretary of Peter, and Luke, the traveling companion of Paul. These are, after all, the names found in the titles of these books. But what most people don't realize is that these titles were added later, by second-century Christians, decades after the books themselves had been written, in order to be able to claim that they were apostolic in origin. Why would later Christians do this? Recall our earlier discussion of the formation of the New Testament canon: only those books that were apostolic could be included. What was one to do with Gospels that were widely read and accepted as authoritative but that in fact were written anonymously, as all four of the New Testament Gospels were? They had to be associated with apostles in order to be included in the canon, and so apostolic names were attached to them." (2)
However, the naming of Mark is actually counter-intuitive for Ehrman's claim.
Let's consider an example here, from Acts 12:1-19. There, the brave ringleader of the Disciples Peter had been imprisoned, but God sent an angel to rescue him. He goes to the house of John Mark, where everybody is astonished that the amazing Peter was free and present. "Mark was not one of the twelve disciples, but it is believed that he was one of the seventy disciples that Jesus sent out to preach and show signs to the people. He is mentioned in the Book of Acts as John Mark." (3) Sure, Mark was (and is) a somebody, but as Brooks said wasn't prominent in the church, and definitely is a nobody when compared to Peter. In fact, Peter was in Jesus's inner trio of Disciples (Mark 14:33). Only the other eight could compare with them.
If the early church was really inventing names to make their biographies of Jesus look credible, why didn't they reap the full benefits, as with Matthew and John? Luke is irrelevant here, because he explicitly claims he is not an eyewitness, but rather got credible testimony from multiple anonymous places (Luke 1:1-4). Accrediting a Disciple would not only clearly be a mistake, but also would be unnecessary. On the contrary, Mark is full of internal evidence that takes Peter's perspective (see the primitive post). Keep in mind that this shows the tradition of authorship started right with the original penmanship.
To this I can imagine the charge that maybe when Mark first wrote his Gospel, he was influential to the people around him, both unbelievers and believers, that he was immediately appealing to. But this only explains the writing at the time. The early church, if inventing a story, would have followed the propaganda and attached the name of an unsurpassed eyewitness like always and discarded the scribe. And unless we want to say that everyone around Mark wanted to dupe anybody else (in other words, the early church fool the early church), Mark would have to have been observed and trusted -- a liar would have immediately named Peter! Or, he could just write a story like Luke, who knew sources that don't have to be named to be believed. Therefore, we have eyewitness testimony of eyewitness testimony. Not naming a Disciple only makes sense if the tradition from there is that Mark was being truthful in what Peter told him!
As a matter of fact, I'm surprised that they didn't use the Disciple's name. What is important is that everything comes from Peter, so it's not a lie to emphasize him. Furthermore, there is a good motive to note apostolic origin.
Ehrman tells us a story from the latter half of the second century, about the formerly famous bishop of Antioch named Serapion(4). One church under his authority was using a Gospel that Peter was said to have written. Considering its "apostolic origin," Serapion saw no problem... until later he learned that it was the Gnostic Gospel of Peter. Then, he demanded it be disowned.
Mid-second century Christian apologist Justin Martyr makes clear allusions to John's Gospel, although he refuses to cite it explicitly -- he and others might have done this because it was beginning to be used by the Gnostics(5).
Bart Ehrman gives us a full picture of this significance. False teachings weren't just in the second century:
"Once Jesus had died and was no longer available to give his apostles instructions, there needed to be collections of his teachings for posterity, and once the apostles themselves had begun to die off, their own writings needed to be collected as a repository of true teachings to be followed.
"This was especially the case because of the enormous diversity of Christianity, which began to emerge in the first century but was evident with unmistakable clarity in the second century. ...
"Just in the second century, for example, we know of people who claimed to be following the true teachings of Jesus who believed all sorts of things that would strike most modern-day Christians as bizarre to the extreme. There were, of course, Christians who believed in one God, but others said there were two Gods (the God of the Old Testament and the God of Jesus); yet others said there were 12 gods, or 30 gods, or 365 gods! There were Christians who said the world had been created by the one true God, but others indicated that it had been created by a secondary deity; yet others said it was created by an evil being. There were Christians who maintained that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine; another group, as we have seen, said he was so human he could not be divine; yet others said he was so fully divine he could not be human, others said he was two beings--the human Jesus and the divine Christ. There were Christians who believed that Jesus' death brought about the salvation of the world; others said that Jesus' death had nothing to do with the salvation of the world; still another group said that Jesus never died." (6)
The point is that attaching names would combat hearsay. Even if, for example, Mark had long been labeled by the time of Serapion's little issue, attaching Peter's name at the beginning would definitely be a good idea.
But wait, the skeptic in my head says. Maybe they attached Mark's name to make it look unattractive to others, so it wouldn't be abused like John.
Ironically, Mark's Gospel clearly emphasizes a human Jesus who did die. Thus, there is no likely threat from the Gnostics, who found the explicit, high-christological John appealing. Why would Peter be at risk, but they just invent the name of John? Having a Gospel of Mark could also invite mockery, because why is he credible? Moreso, shying away could give opponents more ground for a threshold on supposed apostolic authorship ("we had a Gospel of Peter first!"). The early church of course can't control what heretical groups would do, so the best route would be what they did with Matthew and John: attach a Disciple's name and debate (it would be counterproductive to rely on debate to support Mark, because the name was clearly a stumbling block, as Bart Ehrman says in his first quote it was widely read and Serapion didn't seem to realize Peter hadn't penned a story).
Or, if for some reason they wouldn't do that, why not change the name later? Now, I am not a Bible scholar. How could churches communicate and make a monumental decision without text, email, and cars? But as Ehrman mentioned in his last quote, there was a unified Christian church back then like the one today using the Gospels, and I will cite later multiple different authors who know about Mark's source. Most importantly, Bart Ehrman tells us how after the Council of Nicea, a strong Christian leader Athanasius gave out the 27 books of the New Testament, which was still debated afterward for a few decades or so(7). Had I been in charge back then, there wouldn't be a chance today for people to call Peter's Gospel "lost."
This argument technically does not go so far as to show that Peter didn't make up what Mark wrote, but it is clear that what we have here is first-hand testimony.
What's So "Glib" About the Resurrection?
By God's plan, my last Blog Project's first argument was defining and defending from legendary development in the post-crucifixion narratives. Cited there is leading Christian apologist William Lane Craig:
"One of Craig's responses was exactly how the story from Mark is 'remarkable just for its simplicity and lack of apocalyptic embellishment.' Many subjects that someone creating a story to substantiate a doctrine would add, like proof from prophecy and the use of christological titles, are missing."
Mark doesn't glorify Jesus's identity (Matthew 28:18-20), or cite any scripture (Luke 24:27). As a matter of fact, there is not even a single resurrection appearance! Instead, the women clearly suspect Jesus is still dead by wanting to anoint His body, and finally run away in fear, keeping the news quiet.
But, I protest, the presence of an angel and him mentioning Jesus's prophecy from the scriptures are counterexamples.
Now I must admit, I hadn't remembered that the "young man" was wearing a white garment. I thought there was going to be a most simple answer because this "angel" isn't called such, but that's not quite the case. Still, looking at all the ways the Gospel writers decided to explain the post-crucifixion events does indicate a clear conclusion. In Mark, a single young man dressed in white is just sitting there waiting and alarms them, where in Luke 24 it is two men "in clothes that gleamed like lightning." They suddenly appear next to the women, who bow down in fright. I also cite the false Gospel of Peter in my post, which includes the extra company. John 20 does as well, and although they barely play a part he bothers with the name "angels." Similarly, Matthew 28 has an explicit angel, whose "appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow." This angel rolls back the tomb during a mighty earthquake, and doesn't scare the women -- he terrifies the guards!
Onto the next issue. Luke, like Mark, made explicit Jesus's prophecy of His resurrection before it occurred (Luke 9:22; Mark 9:31). They technically quote the Old Testament because Jesus said His doctrine is from there. But Luke actually bothers to remind us of it by using Jesus's specific words.
It is obvious that legend doesn't stop at no resurrection appearance and a single young man in a plain uninteresting white robe who only "cites scripture" with "as He said." Even without other examples for comparison, Mark's resurrection narrative is boring, confusing (the women's attitudes), and simple -- glib. Glib is a good word for it.
(I firmly do not believe that there is any legend in the New Testament. My point is skeptics do have a criteria where certain details can fit.)
Now, one piece of internal evidence for Mark/Peter is how Mark follows a rough outline similar to Peter's preaching from the book of Acts, what with omitting His birth and other details from Jesus's private life found in the other two synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke). While technically Mark doesn't follow Peter's limited preaching subjects exactly, what with no ascension or appearance, clearly he has a fast-paced account, lacking all sorts of possible expansion. His story is only 16 chapters long, where Luke has 24 and Matthew has 28. And it makes sense that since this Gospel isn't the same as a public sermon, it doesn't have to look exactly like everything Peter would mention when giving one of those.
I quoted the legal expert who discovered the 6 pieces of internal evidence (cited in the primitive argument) in my post on the supposed legendary development of the Gospels: "His account was, as Wallace called it, an early 'crime broadcast' -- bothering only to get the very main points jumbled together. Therefore -- let there be no doubt about it! -- there is a narrative in Mark saying He had been risen from the dead, but it didn't go passed the empty tomb."
At any rate, it is clear that for someone to so cleverly disguise a Gospel as a Disciples accurate testimony, he sure did a poor job of describing the most important part of Jesus's life!
Now I must admit, I hadn't remembered that the "young man" was wearing a white garment. I thought there was going to be a most simple answer because this "angel" isn't called such, but that's not quite the case. Still, looking at all the ways the Gospel writers decided to explain the post-crucifixion events does indicate a clear conclusion. In Mark, a single young man dressed in white is just sitting there waiting and alarms them, where in Luke 24 it is two men "in clothes that gleamed like lightning." They suddenly appear next to the women, who bow down in fright. I also cite the false Gospel of Peter in my post, which includes the extra company. John 20 does as well, and although they barely play a part he bothers with the name "angels." Similarly, Matthew 28 has an explicit angel, whose "appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow." This angel rolls back the tomb during a mighty earthquake, and doesn't scare the women -- he terrifies the guards!
Onto the next issue. Luke, like Mark, made explicit Jesus's prophecy of His resurrection before it occurred (Luke 9:22; Mark 9:31). They technically quote the Old Testament because Jesus said His doctrine is from there. But Luke actually bothers to remind us of it by using Jesus's specific words.
It is obvious that legend doesn't stop at no resurrection appearance and a single young man in a plain uninteresting white robe who only "cites scripture" with "as He said." Even without other examples for comparison, Mark's resurrection narrative is boring, confusing (the women's attitudes), and simple -- glib. Glib is a good word for it.
(I firmly do not believe that there is any legend in the New Testament. My point is skeptics do have a criteria where certain details can fit.)
Now, one piece of internal evidence for Mark/Peter is how Mark follows a rough outline similar to Peter's preaching from the book of Acts, what with omitting His birth and other details from Jesus's private life found in the other two synoptic Gospels (Matthew and Luke). While technically Mark doesn't follow Peter's limited preaching subjects exactly, what with no ascension or appearance, clearly he has a fast-paced account, lacking all sorts of possible expansion. His story is only 16 chapters long, where Luke has 24 and Matthew has 28. And it makes sense that since this Gospel isn't the same as a public sermon, it doesn't have to look exactly like everything Peter would mention when giving one of those.
I quoted the legal expert who discovered the 6 pieces of internal evidence (cited in the primitive argument) in my post on the supposed legendary development of the Gospels: "His account was, as Wallace called it, an early 'crime broadcast' -- bothering only to get the very main points jumbled together. Therefore -- let there be no doubt about it! -- there is a narrative in Mark saying He had been risen from the dead, but it didn't go passed the empty tomb."
At any rate, it is clear that for someone to so cleverly disguise a Gospel as a Disciples accurate testimony, he sure did a poor job of describing the most important part of Jesus's life!
Citations:
1. Rice Broocks, Man Myth Messiah: Answering History's Greatest Question (Thomas Nelson: Nashville, TN. 2016), 49-50.
2. 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), 111.
3. Mark A. Gabriel, Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities (FrontLine: Lake Mary, FL. 2004), 228.
4. 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), 82.
5. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2001), 24.
6. 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), 80.
7. Ibid., 93-94.
2. 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), 111.
3. Mark A. Gabriel, Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarities (FrontLine: Lake Mary, FL. 2004), 228.
4. 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), 82.
5. Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel: Issues & Commentary (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, IL. 2001), 24.
6. 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), 80.
7. Ibid., 93-94.
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.