"The True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded -- Part 3: Theology Theory, Primary Considerations

Dr. Robert Miller took part in a debate between William Lane Craig and former chairman of the Jesus Seminar, Dr. John Crossan, whom he supported. When I read Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?, I must say that I was quite disturbed by the idea which they pressed. Miller explained it here:

"We need to ask: Who is the audience of the Gospels? For whom did the Evangelists write? The answer is clear: the Gospels were written for Christians. They presuppose that their audiences already believe in Jesus. Although a few outsiders may read a Gospel, it is most unlikely that any of them will come to believe in Jesus by reading that text. This is especially so in the case of the resurrection stories. How likely is it that a Jew or a pagan would read one of these stories and then conclude that Jesus had been physically raised from the dead and that therefore he is God? No, the resurrection stories presume a friendly audience, people who already believe that Jesus has risen. The stories presuppose and build on that belief in order to teach about the meaning of Jesus' resurrection and its implications for the Christian life." (1)

I have thought of the title "theology theory" for their belief. "Theology theory" is vitally important to put down because, if true, it eliminates the criterion of dissimilarity -- and therefore everything in my last post except for two pieces of contextual credibility. 

I should bother to explain what this means again. The criterion of dissimilarity, also known as embarrassing testimony, refers to claims that could cause difficulties in being a Christian, from doubt to being used against them by skeptics. But if doubt has already been dealt with and skeptics are out of the picture, it has no place.

Before moving on, it would be helpful to read the introduction post if you haven't already or would like to review it, because it explains more about using this type of evidence. There I mention (although don't explicitly state) that this idea is ad hoc. It is ad hoc because Mark is the earliest Gospel written, and why is he bothering to record details that historically speaking would be embarrassing? The point is, where did Mark get his theology to present it in a non-historical style in the first place? 

"Acquaintance with the conventions of apologetics makes a difference because it helps us understand what Craig's writing is really about. Since it is meant for insiders, even though it seems to be addressed to outsiders, we have to distinguish its message (that is, its message to its real audience) from its content. Its content is an argument aimed at convincing outsiders that they should believe in the resurrection literally because that is the rational thing to do; indeed, to do otherwise would be irrational. But the message to the real audience is that their belief in Jesus is far more than wishful thinking; it is founded on solid evidence and can be defended by someone with impressive academic credentials against an eloquent detractor." (2)

Partially because of this challenge, I have included a response to theology theory. (I will explain more about how I could have just ignored it in the next post. And as for whether or not Craig was trying to be intellectually convicting of unbelievers: a large part of his argument is the minimal facts approach, found here. As a matter of fact, some quotes I got to use come from him.)

Most Importantly, the Style and Understanding of Mark does not Concure to Theology Theory

Interestingly, I unintentionally found this very favorable quote in the notes of a book. Famous agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman provided a criteria for discerning the genre of the Gospels, here being specifically Luke: 

"There may indeed be fictional elements in the account, as we will see; but judging from the preface to volume one, from the subject matter of the narrative (the spread of the Christian church), and from the main characters themselves (who are, after all, historical persons), we can more plausibly conclude that Luke meant to write a history of early Christianity, not a novel. Moreover, all of the ancient Christian authors who refer to the book appear to have understood it in this way."(3)

With this in mind, we can listen to what J. Warner Wallace, the forensic cold-case homicide detective who provided me with all the internal evidence for Peter's Gospel, has to report:

"One of my Christian friends told me that Mark's gospel was really the eyewitness account of the apostle Peter. The early church seemed to agree. Papias (ca. AD 70-ca.163), the ancient bishop of Hierapolis (located in western Turkey), claimed that Mark penned his gospel in Rome as Peter's scribe. He reported that 'Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not indeed in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ.' Irenaeus (ca. AD 115-ca. 202), a student of Ignatius and Polycarp (two students of the apostle John) and the eventual bishop of Lugdunum (now Lyon, France), repeated this claim. He wrote, 'Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.' Justin Martyr (ca. AD 103-ca.165), the famous early church apologist from Rome, also mentioned an early 'memoir' of Peter and described it in a way that is unique to the gospel of Mark. In addition, Clement of Alexandria (ca. AD 150-ca. 215), the historic leader of the church in North Africa, wrote that those who heard Peter's teaching 'were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine Gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose Gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally.' These early church leaders and students of the apostles (from diverse geographic regions) were 'closest to the action.' They repeatedly and uniformly claimed that Mark's gospel was a record of Peter's eyewitness observations." (4)

As further presented in part 1 of this blog project, the early church viewed this Gospel as a great authority on what Jesus was really saying and doing during His ministry because it all came from Peter. And they obviously didn't invent this tradition because of all the internal evidence written during its origin. Either someone was trying to pass their Gospel as a clever lie, or we have a firm historical ground to believe in Jesus. Yes, the life, times, and teachings of Jesus have always been used to draw theological conclusions about how one should follow Him, but for someone trying to make Jesus's identity as the Messiah, some sort of God-man, and a miracle worker more overt, they sure did a poor job. (And if one still wishes to press theology theory, hypothetically by saying someone would want to keep this limited portrayal of Jesus, then Mark must have gotten access to actual eyewitness testimony to include things like Jesus not being aware of the woman He healed and a delayed exorcism and restoring of sight, as I also mentioned above. This is not how one would invent their Lord and Messiah. Furthermore, even if these specific events did not happen, something within their type obviously did, and so Christians obviously did not make up the foundational theology.)

After this point, we can look at the subject matter of the narrative to see just exactly what Mark thought he was writing, and how his Gospel should be interpreted. What better way to see if Mark was caring about historical material than to look at the points made in my last post and see how well they are explained? 

In my primitive post, there were cited two other pieces of unlikely inventions (2:15-17; 3:22-30). However, I left them out of part 2 of this blog project because they consisted of obvious explanations from Jesus as to what He was doing. If someone read the Gospel, they would know why Jesus did what He did and it would be foolish to doubt or use it against someone. I also left out Peter and his two companions being shocked and frightened during the Transfiguration, because there is an explanation (9:5-7). Another thing I considered is: would this be so embarrassing? They practically were just marveling at what they were getting to experience. In the last post there are some things which are theologically dealt with, but I included them because they would be very embarrassing as a historical invention.  

I suggest looking at specifically 9:6 and 7:19b, because in my NIV Bible they are in parentheses, where Mark made it clear from his own words what was being meant, instead of the teaching coming specifically from Jesus. (I find it particularly interesting to compare these explanations Mark added with instances such as 5:30 and 5:39.) My point is this: Mark has a clear stage set for having a historically irrelevant Gospel. But how often does He stand on it? Here below are instances from part 2 that I have looked at in light of theology theory. If they appear confusing, feel free to cross-reference with that post to know what I am talking about.

1:9 The only argument against this embarrassment I can think of is 2:1, where it is said that Jesus had "come home" to Capernaum. But this does not outweigh how everyone knew He came from Nazareth. Furthermore, there is no mention of Bethlehem in the true lost Gospel of Peter. 

3:21, 31-34 While there definitely is a teaching in verses 31-34, it is never explained why Jesus's family could consider Him to be "out of His mind" in the first place of verse 21. 

4:11-12 I remember reading in some book why Jesus said what He did. That book definitely wasn't Mark. 

5:7-13 I suppose what must have happened here is Jesus didn't command Legion to leave the man immediately. However, Mark doesn't mention this. Furthermore, this would be especially handy to include because of other passages where Jesus made demons immediately leave.

5:30 There is no explanation of Jesus's ignorant human side vs. His knowledge from the Holy Spirit (let alone Deity as God). 

5:39 Elsewhere in the Bible it is explained that this twelve-year-old girl would have to not have been spiritually dead -- unless everyone else is supposed to be incorrect about her physical death, which Mark also does not say. 

6:49-52 Why is the foolishness of Jesus's Disciples so overt? Only so Jesus can calm the storm and say "Take courage! It is I! Don't be afraid"? Their hearts being hardened over the loaves is just weird and dumb. 

7:26-30 We learn from Paul's letters that by the time the Gospel of Mark was written, the church had a large Gentile population. So, why no explanation as to why Jesus seemed to say that the only reason He healed another little girl was because of the mother's response? 

8:14-21 Even granting that Mark would be okay with making the Disciples as fools in the first place, this passage here is too overt. He ends by only saying, "Do you still not understand?"

8:23-25 The only teaching I could possibly get out of this is Jesus Himself being embarrassed by saying in verse 26, "Don't even go into the village."

9:1 This is a teaching in itself and so is self-explanatory.

9:31-32 Unlike when Jesus rebuked Peter (8:32-33), there is no explanation as to why they didn't understand, or any teaching because of it.

10:18 There is no explanation that Jesus, as a Divine Being at least in some sense (13:32), is truly good, as Christians would invent Him to be. 

11:13-14, 20 When Jesus begins His teaching about the fig tree, it is with throwing a mountain into the sea (11:23). Why would anyone dream up representing this by cursing a fig tree, when it's not even the season for it to bear fruit?

13:32 Again, this is another teaching in itself and so is self-explanatory.

14:37-41 Like previous passages with the Disciples, there is a teaching ("The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak"), but Jesus's inner trio's errors are too overt, with falling asleep two other times. (The claim that they are to leave because His betrayer is near does not depend on them "sleeping and resting.")

14:50 Mark may have wanted to invent Jesus prophesying that His Disciples would desert Him (14:27), but I doubt he would invent them deserting Him in the first place. Even critical scholars accept that they did this.

15:24 Why, exactly, did Jesus die? While it seems to be implied that salvation is not based on works (12:32-34), and the word "Gospel" is used when speaking about following Jesus (8:34-37; 10:29-30), there definitely is no clear teaching like in the book of John.  Moreover, there is no vindication at the empty tomb of the impact that Jesus's triumph over the grave has for His followers. On the other hand, John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have eternal life." And that common verse isn't the only overt teaching in John (see, for example, 5:24). And we can trust that this faith-based salvation is what Jesus was talking about in Mark, which will be shown in a later post.

15:34 How could Father God desert His righteous Son, whom He anointed with His Holy Spirit (1:10-11) to do His ministry? 

15:42-47 Unlike embarrassing or risky teachings, this is simply a historical story, and so it isn't explained to be un-embarrassing, either.

Finally, I must bring us back to the beginning of this post, with the debate between William Lane Craig and John Crossan. One point Craig raised against his three opponents was that Mark's empty tomb story is anti-theology theory. The only two teachings are that Jesus is alive again, and He came from Nazareth. Other Gospels devote more space to what His resurrection means; see part 1 here -- and then see part 2 for why this story is very embarrassing. What nails the coffin shut on theology theory for me is Mark's empty tomb account. Without His resurrection, the cross means nothing -- and so does everything else Jesus taught, because He prophesied His resurrection as the outcome of His ultimate mission (9:31; 14:27-28, 49). 

Mark's story of Jesus's resurrection is the best proof that Mark was not making up a story.

With all this in mind, I must bother to say that just because there is a teaching to go along with something potentially embarrassing doesn't prove "theology theory" anywhere. Not even when Mark explains something Himself does it prove that anything was made up. All this shows is that Mark had an understanding of the historical content he was dealing with, even if it came explicitly from Jesus's mouth. It is not implausible that Jesus would have, during His real and actual ministry, used opportunities to teach others about Him and His kingdom.

You might remember from my introduction to this blog project (it has been a while) that I said one only could start inventing embarrassing events if it was already decided that Jesus's life was embarrassing. With this in mind, one day while I was asking myself questions about whether or not the Gospel of Mark can be proven, I thought of the possibility that this could be so, since crucifixion is the most embarrassing thing a Messiah can go through (again, see part 2, verses 9:31-32). As a matter of fact, 1 Corinthians 1:22-23 says, "Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles[.]" But I must say that this idea was just a shot in the dark, and can even be used against itself. Is it really human nature to keep playing with things like Jesus being from a very poor town named Nazareth and thinking that a dead girl was really alive? Why rub salt into a wound? Why would Christians think, Hey, let's continue with these difficulties and make the most complicated religion we can think of! Indeed, this hypothesis is totally ad hoc and I doubt has any consensus whatsoever among New Testament scholars, Christian or otherwise.

One final objection: won't Christians have their understanding of the events of Mark as they will be taught by their elders, and so nothing is embarrassing? But this just shows the huge hole for theology theory: if Mark was focused on writing a theological book like one of Paul's letters, his readers shouldn't have to rely on others to understand it. As I said earlier, he set a stage for this to be possible -- and it was left with a huge lack of actors. I also previously mentioned that for embarrassing claims to be included, they would have to come from a reliable source before a teaching was passed about it.

So it seems to me that wherever Mark got his potentially embarrassing material, he was a pristine historical source.

Citations: 

1. Paul Copan, Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI. 1998), 89.

2. Ibid., 88.

3. Gary R. Habermas and Micheal R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, MI. 2004), 294. They cite Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 124.

4. J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (David C. Cook: Colorado Springs, CO. 2013), 93-94.