"The True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded -- Part 2: Embarrassing Testimony

If you looked at my last post, so far we're just passed the tip of the iceberg. I don't know if you found it convincing (I certainly do), but here we get into the major pieces of evidence that I explained in my introduction for this Blog Project. Prominent Christian apologist J.P. Moreland cited two colleagues, Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, from whom most of my argument finds its source (if you wish, see the primitive post about Mark and Peter). Moreland was explaining "The inclusion of self-damaging or embarrassing details," and tells us, "There are answers to these cases, but that is not the point. That these are even present significantly increases the credibility of the Gospels." (1)

Let there be no mistake: this isn't an attack on the character of Jesus. Actually, following all the evidence to its conclusion would practically necessitate reasonable, Christian explanations. If that sounds self-defeating, you've skillfully used critical thinking, so nice job (and no shame if you didn't, I didn't consider that for a while and it doesn't mean anything embarrassing [pun intended]; no matter what just reading this stuff takes skill!). But stay tuned, because I plan on explaining more next post. 

General Embarrassing Claims to All Christianity

1:9 Jesus was from Nazareth. While this verse doesn't explicitly state that Nazareth was Jesus's hometown, this is said to be true from a demon terrified of Jesus (so he wouldn't be lying; 1:24), an anonymous girl (14:67), and most importantly the angel at the tomb (significantly the only title for Jesus in that passage, consider my last post; 16:6). Even if he hadn't, you wouldn't want to associate your God with there anyway.  Bart Ehrman, the famous agnostic New Testament scholar I prominently cite, explains Nazareth as evidence for Christianity because it passes the "criterion of dissimilarity" (embarrassing testimony), and "contextual credibility," meaning it has been discovered outside the Bible (I will use external evidence in this post only twice, because it is convenient and not important to the argument's focus). "The [Associated Press] story concludes [after digging up a house and pottery shards dating roughly from 100 BCE to 100 CE] that 'the dwelling of Nazareth was an out-of-the-way hamlet of around 50 houses on a patch of about four acres ... populated by Jews of modest means.'" (2) Furthermore, "... the messiah was supposed to come from Bethlehem (which is why we have stories about him being born there)." (3)

3:21, 31-34 Tension between Jesus and His family. Jesus's mother and brothers called Him, "out of His mind." Then, Jesus payed them no heed and instead seemed to denounce them.

4:11-12 Jesus seemed to want to keep others from being forgiven. This would contradict His intent for "Whoever has ears to hear, let them hear." (4:9,13,21-23, 33-34) Virtually everywhere Jesus went He had severe compassion for all people, teaching and healing them. Even in His hometown, where many rejected Him during His teaching in the synagogue, Jesus still healed some (6:1-5).

5:7-13 A demon managed to not immediately leave his host after Jesus commanded so. This seems to undermine His authority proven earlier and later, when He controlled many impure spirits (1:25-26, 34; 9:25-26).

5:30 Jesus was unaware of the woman He healed. He asked, "Who touched my clothes?" and searched for her. But Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit (1:10) and "Jesus knew in His Spirit" when people were against Him (2:8). Later on He makes many accurate predictions (11:2-6; 14:13-16, 27 and 50; 30 and 72). 

5:39 Jesus thought a dead girl was simply asleep. Obviously, she wasn't - - unless people were horrible at telling whether or not she was still breathing (5:35, 40) and Jesus only had to take her by the hand and tell her to get up (5:41-42). Furthermore, telling them to keep silent (5:43) is paralleled by two other miracles (7:36; 8:26). See the next post for more information

6:1-6 Jesus was rejected by His hometown. Technically, everyone did not reject Him, and so He still healed a small handful of people. But this makes Him not being allowed by God to perform many miraculous deeds and convince the people of Nazareth all the more embarrassing. Compare this to when He healed many in Capernaum and throughout Galilee (1:34, 39).

6:49-52 Jesus's Disciples could not understand an obvious miracle. Even though Jesus fed five thousand men by starting with two loaves and five fish, leaving twelve baskets behind (6:41-44), they thought Jesus was a ghost during a windstorm "for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened." Talk about being mule-headed!

7:26-30  Jesus appeared rude to a mother by only agreeing to heal her child of a demon if she had the right response. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. Why did Jesus compare the Gentiles as dogs to eat the crumbs from children? 

8:14-21 The Disciples were very dense. They started by forgetting to bring enough bread (just bread!) to not understanding His use of this opportunity to teach by taking the lesson literally and not drawing any conclusions.

8:23-25 Jesus's healing of a blind man was not instantaneous. Before it actually worked He spat on the man's eyes and made people "look like trees walking around." Furthermore, to get this answer, Jesus asked, "Do you see anything?" As if He had failed and did not know it!

8:32-33 Peter, one of Jesus's innermost trio from the Disciples, had to be reconciled in the moment with Satan because he misunderstood and disrespected Jesus. Jesus said, "Get behind me, Satan! You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

8:38 Jesus distinguished Himself in the now from later. Bart Ehrman explains his skeptical view: "If you did not already think that Jesus was the Son of Man, you certainly would not think so from this kind of statement; on the contrary, Jesus seems to be referring to someone else. ... But the sayings in which Jesus seems to be talking about someone else do pass the criterion: surely Christians who thought Jesus was the Son of Man would not make up sayings that appear to differentiate between him and the Son of Man." (4)

Mark 9:1 Jesus made a prophecy that could be tested within the generation of His audience. This sure is a risky claim for the church to make up.

9:31-32 Like Peter, the Disciples didn't understand Jesus prophesying about His resurrection. In an earlier post I say this: "Not only do the foremost leaders of the church not understand -- the ones Jesus chose and left behind --  it makes sense that they wouldn't. On pages 159-163 of his book, Bart Ehrman explains how Jews of the first century had all these ideas about messiahs: an earthly human king to overthrow the enemies of the Jews, an angelic cosmic being who would overthrow the enemy, or a powerful priest with another messiah. But a crucified Messiah would sound like the Waco Branch Dividian David Koresh, who stockpiled guns and was killed by the FBI. Sure, this verse doesn't specifically say crucifixion, but a messiah dying by any means would be unheard of and considered self-defeating. So the Disciples' response makes sense." (5)

10:18 Jesus seemed to suggest He is not good, and therefore not God. Ehrman says, "In Mark Jesus is certainly not God. In fact, in one passage he clearly indicates that he is not to be thought of as God (Mark 10:17-18; a man calls Jesus 'good,' and Jesus objects because 'no one is good but God alone')." (6) But Mark did present Jesus as God by usage of the Son of Man when talking to Pilate (see here for the scripture verses, which I will use later in this blog project). Furthermore, God or not, why would Mark emphasize that Jesus is not "good" just like everybody else who are not the Son of God? (I was surprised when I found Ehrman using this argument that Jehovah's Witnesses also make. The answer Trinitarians can give is that Jesus never necessarily denied Deity, and maybe He was just trying to get the rich man to think.)

10:35-37, 41 James and John asserted a self-righteousness, which led the other ten to be angry with them. They did not "know what you are asking," as Jesus said in verse 38. Furthermore, sitting at His right and left sides was something which Jesus did not give them. The Disciples had a nasty habit of being "dull, obstinate, and even cowardly" (as Moreland's sources put it). In 9:34 they "kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest." 9:10 has Peter, James, and John baffled over the statement "rising from the dead" as if it is rocket science (and also see above for two other examples like this). 

11:13-14, 20 Jesus cursed and killed a fig tree when it wasn't even the season for it to bear fruit. 

13:32 Jesus does not know when He is returning to earth. Like Jesus claiming in 10:18 that only God (supposedly only the Father) is good, why can't the Son of God know something so directly related to Him as well? With the Son of God as God Himself or not, this is still embarrassing. "It is unlikely that an author would invent an account so as to include details that are embarrassing and potentially discrediting. In Mark 13:32, the Gospel writer states that there is something that Jesus does not know, the time of his coming. One would think that in an evolving theology where Jesus was assigned a divine status, even of being God himself, a statement emphasizing his limitations would not be included. This is why most scholars agree that this verse is an actual statement of Jesus." (7)

14:37-41 Jesus's inner trio of Peter, James, and John fell asleep on Him three times. Even though Jesus needed the support of His friends and wanted them to keep watch (14:33-35), they failed Him multiple times, not learning from their mistake. 

14:50 Jesus's Disciples left Him for dead. The only one who isn't said to have followed Jesus is Peter. However, he kept his distance from the party who had Jesus (14:54) and denied that he knew Jesus three times (14:66-72). 

15:24 Jesus was crucified. Crucifixion was the worst punishment imaginable -- for a CRIMINAL. A first century B.C. writer named Cicero calls it "that most cruel and disgusting penalty" and says that "the very word 'cross' should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes, and his ears." Furthermore, see how Jews specifically thought the Messiah wouldn't ever die,  under 9:31-32. Crucifixion makes it all the worse. Paul explains, "we preach Christ crucified -- a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23) and cites God's law given through the great prophet Moses that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: 'Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole.'" (Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:23)

15:34 Jesus seems to despair because God has "forsaken" Him. This seems to defeat Jesus being confident of the situation. He predicts His death three times (8:32-33 and 9:31-32 as previously mentioned and Mark 10:45), and "Even while facing the agony of what he was about to suffer, Jesus, according to Mark, stated in the garden of Gethsemane, 'Get up; let's go! See -- My betrayer is near' (Mark 14:42). This does not sound like a man who has lost control of the situation. Moreover, in the trial before the high priest, Jesus himself provides the testimony that led to the crucifixion (Mark 14:62)." (8)

15:42-47 Jesus was buried by a lone member of the Jewish court. Joseph of Arimathea, part of the Jewish court who had condemned Jesus (14:64) "boldly went before Pilate and requested to bury the body." Why couldn't the Disciples (or for Mark's matter, at least Peter alone) have been the bold ones, and buried him like John the Baptist's Disciples did (6:29)? Indeed, this is one piece of evidence, that because of a strong bias against Jews in the latter part of the first-century, many scholars have considered to conclude that Jesus did in fact receive an honorable burial. 

A Major Embarrassing Claim about Peter

The early creed that goes back to the Disciples says "He appeared first to Cephas [aramaic for Peter], then to the twelve." (It would be constructive to see pages 2 and 6 from my argumentative essay found here, which mentions a defense of the empty tomb from Luke and the importance of the women.)

As you might know by reading some of my earlier material, a woman's testimony wouldn't have been invented for the empty tomb because of cultural views about them. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus says in his Antiquities 4.8.15: “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.”

Pinchas Lapide was a Jewish rabbi who came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus because of historical evidence. After some examples of Talmudic sources, he says: "In a purely fictional narrative one would have avoided making women the crown witnesses of the resurrection since they were considered in rabbinic Judaism as incapable of giving valid testimony (compare Luke 24:11). ... Since, however, in exceptional cases (Rosh Ha-Shanah 22a) a woman was permitted to give testimony before court that a man had died so that his widow was permitted to marry again, it had to strike the disciples as irony that here women wanted to testify to the opposite, namely, the resurrection of a dead person." (9)

Indeed, experts on the resurrection Gary Habermas and Michael Licona write (emphasis mine): "There are references where a higher view of women are found. ... Of course, the Talmud is later than Josephus, whose Judaism was contemporary with that of Jesus' time. While exceptions exist, by and large a prejudice against the testimony of women can be shown in antiquity. What can be stated with certainty is that a woman's testimony concerning an empty tomb and a risen person would not have been preferable to a man's, whether or not it may have been allowable. The more important the testimony, the less likely a woman's word would have been taken at face value." (10)

So, even without the early creed, some man should have been claimed to visit the tomb. My question is this: If someone was making up a story in the name of Peter, why was Peter crying the last time we see him and women have to be the heroes in his place?

An Inevitable Objection

However, that brings us to another question: If Mark was recording Peter's testimony so truthfully that it is the word of God, why does he never mention Jesus appearing "first to Cephas?" 

Furthermore, why does Mark include Jesus fiercely rebuking Peter, and that Peter denied Him three times? This is especially interrogative considering the claim from this primitive post that Mark had a habit of leaving out Peter's embarrassments, which are recorded in other Gospels. 

First I have to offer information I have given before, in part 1 of this blog project and the primitive post. It makes sense that these embarrassments of Peter would be recorded if his scribe is more focused on the truth than being biased (reasonably to fit his purpose, but still). These two sins of Peter were major and therefore actually can be seen as further evidence that the story belongs to him.  Then, in part 1 I explained that this Gospel, if related to Peter, makes sense to have a short and sweet, yet obvious resurrection account. And specifically in 16:7, the angel names the Disciples and Peter. 

And this is part of all the internal evidence that Mark was recording Peter's testimony. He is bookended - - the first and last Disciple mentioned. Then, there is all sorts of obvious indications like specifically naming Peter as compared to other Gospels and referring to Peter's hometown, as distinguished from Jesus's. And as I just quipped above at Mark's short account: he focuses the vast majority of his story on Jesus's public life, death, and resurrection (but still this is a Gospel, not a sermon; differences I think specifically of are the transfiguration from 9:2-12 and when Jesus privately explained to His Disciples the meaning of His parables from chapter 4.) 

The historian has to weigh evidence. Not describing the lone appearance to Peter does not defeat the other pieces. 

Citations:

1. J.P. Moreland, Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul (NavPress: Colorado Springs, CO. 2012), 208-209.

2. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: 2012), 197.

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), 124. Ehrman would say Bethlehem was later invented, and I say God had them be true.

4. Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: 2012), 306.

5. See this blog post. There cited is: Bart D. Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (HarperOne: 2012), 159-163.

6. Ibid., 238-239.

7. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 169. 

8. Ibid., 49. They cite Cicero's Against Verres 2.5.165 in Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 8. Also Cicero, Pro Rabirio 9-17. 

8. Andreas J. Kostenberger, Darrell L. Bock, and Josh D. Chatraw, Truth in a Culture of Doubt: Engaging Skeptical Challenges to the Bible B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN. 2014), 41-42. This book specifically focuses on many challenges from Bart Ehrman. 

9. Pinchas Lapide, The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective (Augsburg Fortress Publishing House, 1982), 95-96.

10. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 289.