"The True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded -- Ultimate Conclusion: Who is the Historical Jesus?

How can this argument prove anything?

As you've probably noticed, if you've read the five other posts before this one, my argument that the Gospel of Mark really is the true eyewitness material of Peter is cumulative. This is important. It's not like the only internal evidence we have to go back specifically to Peter is his name as the first and last Disciple mentioned, and that there are few pieces of embarrassing testimony, say just Jesus coming from Nazareth and the Disciples being thick-headed sometimes. Instead, there is 25+ pieces of embarrassing testimony (different scenarios are sometimes clumped together), and 21 of those examples are left theologically unexplained.

Here is the links to read my "True Lost Gospel of Peter" Updated and Expanded blog project in order:

Introduction

Part 1: NON-legendary Claims

Part 2: Embarrassing Testimony

Part 3: Theology Theory, Primary Considerations

Part 4: Theology Theory, Less Direct Issues

The thing with cumulative cases is that the more evidence there is, the least likely other theories are true. How could I conclude that Mark got so many traditions that don't look invented but were invented, and tried to put them together in one account he wants to dedicate to Peter? The skeptic looks at the Gospels story by story, but this cumulative argument unifies it all.

Now, I can't help but think of another argument I heard of, which has been pressed by Ehrman. It's that "You can never rely on the winners to write an unbiased account of the past." (1) So, the final question I have about trusting the Gospel of Mark is, "How do I know that he didn't invent the un-embarrassing things, most importantly miracles, like when Jesus healed a death and mute man with a great appeal to heaven, expressed in Aramaic (7:34-35)? For that matter, what about all miracles which look like what an inventor could create (see also chapter 9)?"

One major thing to consider is that bias -- partiality -- does not have to be a bad thing. People can love a cause so much, they are dedicated to getting the truth right! Let me use myself as an example. In order to try to see if I can prove my faith (oh did I ever want to prove a Gospel), I questioned myself and did my best to parallel my thoughts with the famous agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman. Inside I am very partial, but I try not to let my bias fog my solely intellectual judgement. And still, to me, the evidence points with INCREDIBLE strength toward an author dedicated to accurately recording a historical biography of Jesus. I see no good reason to doubt this conclusion. 

But for a greater intellectual conviction that Jesus really was a miracle-worker, all we have to do is look at the supernatural feats reported that have something which meets the criterion of dissimilarity (and for the heaven of it, because I can, ones that aren't theologically explained, either).  

What about when Jesus restored a man possessed by many demons, who was infamous as a dangerous creep (chapter 5)? Or when Jesus finally -- emphasis on "finally" -- restored a man's sight (8:22-26)? Or when he healed a woman subject to bleeding without being aware of it(5:25-33)?

Or when he raised a twelve-year-old girl from the dead(5:38-42)?

What does this argument prove?

Richard Bauckham, a great New Testament scholar who wrote a large volume defending the Gospels as eyewitness material, said this in his first chapter (which so far is about all I have read):

"Yet everything changes when historians suspect that these texts [the Gospels of the New Testament] may be hiding the real Jesus from us, at best because they give us the historical Jesus filtered through the spectacles of early Christian faith, at worst because much of what they tell us is Jesus constructed by the needs and interests of various groups in the early church. Then that phrase 'historical Jesus' comes to mean, not the Jesus of the Gospels, but the allegedly real Jesus behind the Gospels, the Jesus the historian must reconstruct by subjecting the Gospels to ruthlessly objective (so it is claimed) scrutiny. It is essential to realize that this is not just treating the Gospels as historical evidence. It is the application of a methodological skepticism that must test every aspect of the evidence so that what the historian establishes is not believeable because the Gospels tell us it is, but because the historian has independently verified it. The result of such work is inevitably not one historical Jesus, but many. ... The historian's judgement of the historical value of the Gospels may be minimal, as in some of these cases, or maximal, as in others, but in all cases the result is a Jesus reconstructed by the historian, a Jesus attained by the attempt to go back behind the Gospels and, in effect, to provide an alternative to the Gospels' construction of Jesus."(2)

And one good "ruthlessly objective" "methodological skepticism" test that I used as most important is the criterion of dissimilarity, from Bart Ehrman. See his non-Christian summary which is similar to Bauckham's:

"It is important to see how historians go about this kind of work, in order to make my overarching point: that knowing about Jesus is not simply guesswork, on one hand, or a matter of coming up with an imaginative idea, on the other hand. ...if historians are to accept such claims, they need to look at the evidence. The only reliable evidence comes from our earliest sources, and we can neither simply take these at face value nor just read between the lines in order to make the sources say what we want them to say. They have to be used critically, following established criteria and historical principles.

"When that is done, we arrive at an understanding of Jesus that is historically plausible, that fits Jesus-- his words, deeds, and experiences-- within his own time frame without trying to make out that he fits perfectly well into our own. In many ways the picture of Jesus that emerges may seem strange to modern ears. For Jesus appears to have been a Jewish apocalypticist anticipating the end of this present evil age within his own generation. This may not be the Jesus we have learned about in Sunday school or seen in the stained-glass window, and it may not be the Jesus touted in popular fiction based on sensationalist claims. But it does appear to be the Jesus of history." (3)

But Jesus taught Peter multiple times that He was the Son of Man (8:31; 9:12, 31). And Peter followed Jesus to the place (Mark 14:53-54, 66) where He said this:

Mark 14:62 "I am," said Jesus. "And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

Doesn't that sound a lot like...

Daniel 7:13-14 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a Son of Man [Aramaic phrase meaning "human being"], coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into His presence. He was given authority, glory, and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

Now, no Jew can claim to deserve worship; by the law of Moses that belongs to God alone! (Exodus 20:4-5; 34:14; Deuteronomy 5:8-9)

Indeed, Judaism is a staunch, dedicated, devoted religion with its fiercely moralistic claim to monotheism. The famous Shema from Dueteronomy 6:4-5 goes like this:

"Hear, O Isreal: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." 

Unlike Ehrman, my investigation did lead me to the Jesus I had learned about in Sunday school. Jesus was a man who claimed to be God by usage of the Son of Man and proved it by His many miraculous deeds. 

My primitive post ended by saying: "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."

But Jesus being God means that He was watching over the formation of the New Testament canon. My first step of faith is to trust the Gospel of Mark as the true lost Gospel of Peter because of the evidence, and then the next logical step of faith is to trust the entire Bible as the word of God, since it is what Jesus used to hand His verified biography down to us. Another reason we need more than just Mark is because it does not teach us theology and how to live in the Christian church (as extensively argued), but elsewhere, for example Paul's letters, there is material invaluable to that study. 

So if you want to meet the historical Jesus, definitely don't ignore the Bible or greet it with heavy skepticism. Read any of the first four books of the New Testament -- the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. They're pretty amazing, and accurate too.

Citations: 

1. 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), 116. This book specifically focuses on many challenges from Bart Ehrman. 

2. Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI. 2017), 3.

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), 138.