My Case Against the True Lost Gospel of Peter (and refutations)

Because of reading Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene by Bart Ehrman, and using other knowledge (theology theory and specific considerations for purported evidence), I have come to be able to create what is to me a thorough and powerful case against the internal evidence for the book of Mark being the true Gospel of Peter. But, as suggested in the title, and if you already know about me, it is safe to assume I haven't abandoned belief that there is strong evidence in the Gospel of Mark to prove it as eyewitness material. 

If you have read my 6 part blog project titled "The True Lost Gospel of Peter," you've already come across why I believe the miracles in the book of Mark (the conclusion contains the five other links), although the material dealt with here was first recorded in what I call "my primitive post." Don't bother looking at it now: everything is dealt with here, where we can be more confident of my conclusion because of the cross-examination.

I wish to point out right here at the beginning that I'm not claiming Ehrman was ever debating these evidences. In his book, at least with the portion about Peter, there was no acknowledgement of Wallace's position(1). (Here I'm not attacking Ehrman, because why would there be? Wallace is a converted cold-case homicide detective, not a scholar like he is!) Only 1 piece of evidence was directly addressed, but still unaware (at least in that book) that it can be interpreted as such. Instead I have drawn insights from Ehrman which could possibly be used against the true lost Gospel of Peter. Let's consider both of my sides, shall we?

Bookending:
This means that Peter is intentionally mentioned as the first and last of his group, in this case the Disciples.

But Matthew 4:18 and Luke 5:3 both include Simon as the first Disciple named. While it is commonly agreed that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, it cannot be demonstrated that they could get other reason elsewhere to be different. So it could just be common knowledge that Jesus called Simon first. 

Then, Ehrman had an explanation of why the angel at the tomb singled out Peter in Mark 16:7: "No doubt because he was the one who had denied his Lord not three days earlier." (2)

However, I see good reason to doubt this. While all the Gospels have the denial of Jesus, in all the other empty tomb and appearance narratives (so either an angel or Jesus speaking), there is no singling out Peter, just using "the Disciples" or "brothers" or other names for their group.

In Luke 24:9-10 they are "the Eleven" or "the Apostles."

In Matthew 28:7 it is just "Disciples" and 28:10 it is "brothers." 28:16 has the eleven disciples. 

John 20:17 is "brothers" and in verse 18 they are the "Disciples". 

Matthew's account is most significant, because there is no mention of Peter at all in the final chapter 28. The angel says they are the "Disciples" (verse 7) and Jesus calls them His "brothers" (verse 10).

But one might object, perhaps the others didn't bother because they single out Peter later (John 20:2-10; chapter 21 and Luke 24:34 and possibly 24:12).

I came across in his book that verse 12 actually might not belong to the original manuscript. Ehrman referenced another work by him and there is no note in my Bible, so I don't know whether or not that is true, but still there are other clear examples(3). 

At any rate, either Mark is intentionally bookending Peter or found it worthwhile to consider him as someone who needs to be singled out to acknowledge he had betrayed Jesus, but Jesus would forgive him. It doesn't have to come to an author's mind, because it didn't in Matthew (especially if it is true, as some skeptical scholars claim, that all empty tomb stories were created from Mark). So although I don't believe I can show that the only reasonable explanation was an intentional bookending, there is still a piece of evidence for Mark having Peter in mind as his source whom he should base his account around.

Refusal to use "Simon Peter"

Although he never uses the term of Cephas's (Aramaic for Peter) double-name Simon Peter, in 3:16 and 14:37 Mark does explicitly show that they are one and the same. 

But it is still significant that he never bothered at all to use Simon Peter. It was a common title for Peter which all the other Gospels include. I don't know how often the other synoptic Gospels do, but Wallace points out John did 17 times. 

Two objections may be that it wasn't necessary or that he explained Simon as Peter soon enough after introducing him (in my Bible 1:16 is just one page flip away from 3:16). But Luke introduces Peter as Simon Peter in 5:8, and then explains it again in 6:14. Matthew points out Simon was called Peter in 10:2, and then in 16:16 (part of the story where Jesus gives him the new name) Matthew uses Simon Peter, even though it was blatantly obvious by then that Simon could also be called Peter. So even if there is another reason which makes it just not necessary for any Gospels to include Simon Peter (the argument points out that Mark alone wouldn't have need because his readers were aware Peter was his source, but why did the others even bother), it would be very peculiar for the writer to not include "Simon Peter" unless he had some other plan in mind. As Wallace observed, "Mark consistently used the briefest, most familiar versions of Peter's name."

(Oh, and of course it's improbable that "Simon Peter" hadn't been invented by then. Why would such a title evolve later, even though Mark already showed he was both, and Simon was the most popular name in Palestine in the first century? Of course there was a distinguishing between him and other Simons. It would have been created first, not after Mark.)

Peter's "rough outline" preaching

Here are the two examples Wallace gave of Peter's preaching style from the book of Acts. There are more, but these are enough.

Acts 1:22-22 "...Therefore it is necessary to choose one of them men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us." 

Acts 10:37-41 "...You know what has happened throughout the province of Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached -- how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him. We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a cross, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen -- by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead." 

I'm very glad that the evidence for apostolic authorship which was laid out to me in abundance and easily understood was for the Gospel of Mark. I don't know many things about the other Gospels which would be significant in this post (for the most part the synoptics) because not only are they much longer (compare Mark's 16:1-6 to Matthew's 28:1-20 and Luke 24:1-53),  soooo many times there are long-winded teachings and preachings and sermons.

Peter focused on Jesus's public life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Mark's Gospel starts with John the Baptist and His baptism of the Holy Spirit, and his actions throughout the Jewish world are abundantly attested. 

I can't tell you (of course because I am not as familiar with Matthew and Luke as I already said) what "other details of Jesus's private life that are found in Luke's and Matthew's gospels" are left out, but I definitely don't need to. Those italicized words from Acts 10 sound so much like Mark's narrative: a fast-paced account with lots of healings -- including numerous exorcisms of the devil's servants -- which gave Jesus popularity virtually everywhere He went, and the crucifixion, and then an empty tomb three days later. While definitely present in Matthew and Luke, the miracles in His public ministry are not abundant in Matthew and Luke when compared to the teachings and other events they also include.

Specifically, Mark is much shorter, and you won't find page after page after page of red letters (which signify the words of Jesus) with Mark. Compare the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:1-7:27) and Luke 10:1 through... 20:38. Jesus often speaks non-stop or practically so, unlike Mark when he starts to come somewhat close to comparing. The fast paced shortened account of Mark which seems to emphasize his actions in His public ministry moreso than others do, and less focus on teachings, stands out to me in this significantly relatively short account. 

(Oh, and might as well point out it is improbable he only knew of the few teachings he included. What Christian group would not have more stuff, invented or not, like the other three Gospels?)

Now, such details aren't strictly included in the narrative. There are times when Jesus was alone with His Disciples... but even then, they can still be about the rough outline points. Here are all the examples I found of stories where there is not a public event (so Jesus alone with Disciples), be it a miracle or a teaching or otherwise:

8:14-21 has a teaching miscellanous (to my understanding of it) to Peter's preaching points

8:27-33 confirms Jesus's resurrection and identity.

9:2-12 confirms his resurrection.

9:30-32 confirms his resurrection.

9:38-50 has some teachings but probably somewhat publicly (verse 36)

10:32-34 is about the resurrection.

10:35-45 has the purpose of the Gospel of Mark (Jesus is the servant; verse 45)

13:1-37 has a long teaching.

I left out the events around the crucifixion because, well, they are obviously related to the resurrection.

It is definitely worth asking why the private teachings not related to something significant like the resurrection from Peter's rough outline or the purpose of Mark's Gospel, albeit few as they are, are included.

Another objection is that of course Mark starts with John the Baptist because the events preluding John's ministry (most significantly the virgin birth narrative) hadn't been invented yet (even after the introduction in the supposedly most myth Gospel of John, the first event is John the Baptist's ministry). As a matter of fact, I know some skeptics believe this is true. And I have to grant that as a possibility.

Furthermore, someone might want to object that Mark leaves so many things out that the Bible must be significantly wrong somewhere if Mark was trying to write an absolute account about these events, circling around Peter. Why didn't he have the narrative(s?) of the Disciples running to the tomb in John and Luke, or any appearances? Why didn't he describe the lone appearance to Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:5, which is alluded to in Luke 24:33? 

My response, though, is that Mark is still writing a Gospel, not a sermon. He chooses some things to leave out and others to include as he composes his book to be just the way it should. As a matter of fact, some scholars believe that he ended with the women running away to let the reader ask him-or-herself, "What are you going to do with Jesus?" 

Of course see the conclusion for convicting proof.

Peter as a prominent character

Mark referred to Peter twenty-six times in his 16 chapters(4), while Matthew only mentioned Peter 29 times in 28 chapters. 

Details that can be best given to Peter

I just thought of something while writing this post; it didn't come to mind while I was filling up papers with notes. Maybe it isn't so significant that Matthew mentions Peter almost as many times, because so much more of his Gospel is full of teachings. But I realize that Mark's Gospel definitely isn't by any means deplete of parables and the like, and Matthew's Gospel isn't by any means deplete of times to draw attention to Disciples. He does differ only by a little more though, so I guess maybe the accounts aren't so strikingly comparable, in that when it comes down to the times they could mention Peter, it's about the same. (I guess: remember, I haven't studied the other synoptics! I just don't like assuming stuff, even if the opposite seems improbable.) But these other points Wallace gives calls such a claim into question by giving counterexamples of when Matthew could include Peter. 

Mark alone included a number of seemingly unimportant details that point to Peter's involvement in the shaping of the text. A quick google search shows me other comparisons to add to Wallace's examples:

Only Mark identifies the ones to find Jesus when He was praying by Himself as "Simon and his companions" (Mark 1:35-37; Luke 5:16 doesn't even have the Disciples finding Him, and nothing from Matthew came up).

Mark alone points to Peter as the first to draw Jesus's attention to the fig tree (compare Matt. 21:18-19 and Mark 11:20-21; it's not in Luke).

Mark identified the Disciples (including Peter) who asked Jesus about the timing of the destruction of the temple (compare Matt. 24:1-3 and Luke 21:5-7 with Mark 13:1-4). 

In Matthew 4:13-16 it is written that Jesus returned to Galilee and "came and settled in Capernaum," but Mark said that the people there heard that Jesus had "come home" (Mark 2:1). But everyone knows He came from Nazareth. It turns out, Mark alone says that Capernaum is Peter's hometown (Mark 1:21, 29-31). The source for the Gospel of Mark appears to have once experienced Jesus coming to his home, so Mark looks like a Gospel of Peter.

Although I suppose it could be argued that since the entire verse goes "A few days later, when Jesus again settled in Capernaum, the people there heard that he had come home," Mark only decided to take the perspective of his subject, not  model it after Peter or what Peter remembered. But it seems very strange that Mark alone employs this literary tactic right here, especially considering it seems misleading. He could have been just like Matthew instead. Mark has a story about when Jesus returned to His real hometown (6:1-6), and even then they don't hear that Jesus had "come home." 

But guess what, something I learned in Ehrman's book about Peter was just that there were a lot of Christian stories about him, because he was the popular chief Disciple. So maybe Mark identifies Peter so much because so many traditions to use focused on Simon. Then, the other Gospels wanted to detract both from looking so much like the writings of Mark and from focusing on Peter, so they left out these details. But this stands in direct contradiction to the other argument: surely if Matthew wanted to avoid Peter and be different from Mark (for whatever reason), he wouldn't mention Peter 3 more times (29 in all) and instead attribute stuff to just "the disciples," like the case with the withered fig tree. Or they could have just had different independent sources, and I won't go into that now, because the point is that Mark showed some knowledge which is very specific to Peter, that belongs only to his Gospel.

 (Also, it doesn't make sense that Matthew and Luke would work so hard to not be like Mark, because sometimes they quote the first Gospel word for word.)

 

Which brings into question material found in the other Gospels that Mark left out. Why doesn't he include the whole confession story in Matthew 16:13-20? I'm sure there are other things related to Peter missing from Mark I am not aware of, some of which are related to the resurrection and have already been addressed and some more below. Other things may be easily dismissed, but when Jesus gives Simon the name Peter seems significant. Mark's version (8:27-30) is much shorter and only has Peter saying, "You are the Messiah," no "the son of the living God." 

Some answer I've considered is that maybe Peter didn't literally say "the son of the living God," it was just added in by Matthew who observed what it meant and it would fit his purposes to bring it explicitly to light. Mark, on the other hand, is addressing an audience who is already aware of the story of how Peter got his name, so he writes a skimpy narrative. 

Leaving out Peter's embarrassments

One final piece of evidence Wallace gave which I didn't deal with was that Mark left out striking embarrassments of Peter:

He said "Go away from me Lord, for I am a sinful man!" (Luke 5:1-11). Mark's parallel leaves out this episode entirely (Mark 1:16-20).

Matthew 14:22-23 has Jesus calling Peter a man "of little faith." Mark, actually, omits the story completely (Mark 6:45-52).

This is where theology theory comes in, further supported by an observation from Ehrman. He claims that Christian storytellers would want to present Simon in unfaithful ways because it was common human nature -- their nature -- so it's appealing for Peter to be the same. "It is easy to want to be faithful, hard to attain the goal; easy to make promises to God, hard to keep them; easy to display religious bravado when the sailing looks smooth, hard to pay the price when things get rough; easy to think you'll withstand persecution, hard to stand firm when the implements of torture are laid out in front of you." (5) I hadn't learned of this before and thought it was more likely that while perhaps the miracles were invented, they were only added later to the historical kernel of Peter's embarrassments (because embarrassments seem to be unlikely inventions). That way Mark definitely left them out. I haven't really questioned Ehrman's theory; it makes sense and definitely might work, but I'm not so sure they still would want to invent their leaders as unreliable in historical narratives (while teaching theology, they are writing as if everything actually happened). I can't prove or disprove this..

Moreover, we do learn things from those two examples: we should have faith, and everyone is a terribly sinful being before having a relationship with the Lord. So I definitely cannot show that these details were around for Mark to leave out; maybe they evolved later.

Elsewhere Ehrman pointed out "some readers" argue that Mark must have known Peter because he left open his embarrassments, showing he was very familiar with them. "It's a clever argument, but it doesn't work. ...there are a lot of negative portrayals of lots of people in lots of books... Was Judas the source for the Gospel of Matthew, since he comes off badly? Or was Herod? Or James and John? And so on." (6)

So it is interesting that J. Warner Wallace supports his case with the times Mark doesn't include Peter's negative character. More evidence he has is that there are other embarrassing times where Mark will leave a Disciple unnamed or just refer to the group, but other Gospels will identify Peter. But I don't know what these are, so I cannot use them. 

My response to both contradictory arguments is also interesting. As I have explained in my blog project, I have observed that Mark leaves out episodes like the examples above, but still includes things like when Jesus harshly rebuked Peter (Mark 8:33; he did leave out a line found in Matt. 16:21-23, but that's it), or betrayed Jesus three times (14:66-72). But these are actually very significant to the lives of Peter, specifically with being about the resurrection. Another example that fits the category is when Peter falls asleep on Jesus with James and John (Mark 14:32-42). When Jesus returns the first time, he addresses Simon specifically ("Simon," He said to Peter, "are you asleep?"), but Matthew goes, "'Couldn't you men keep watch with me for one hour?' He asked Peter."

So actually, I think that Mark left in the embarrassments of Peter that he deemed important to Peter's life and the purpose of his Gospel (so far examples only being related to the resurrection has been demonstrated). I cannot use this as evidence because I can't prove that there were stories like the ones from Matthew and Luke that Mark definitely left out, but it does fit the theory that Mark is the true lost Gospel of Peter.

Conclusion

When Wallace first heard that Mark was the scribe for Peter, he didn't have any reason to believe it. As a matter of fact, Wallace was unimpressed as a cold-case detective with his Christian cop peers who were usually skeptical and critical of claims, yet didn't back up their faith with evidence. Before he studied the Gospel of Mark forensically for traces of Peter's involvement, he came across the claim in the writings of early church fathers.

This is most likely how things would turn out. J. Warner Wallace didn't happen to fall upon the evidence in Mark and originally create the claim, he was led to start searching. 

Likewise, Ehrman did explain that on the "basis" of a quotation from Papias, an early second century church father, some scholars believe that Mark is the true Gospel of Peter(7).  His witness is captivating: Papias was alive during a time when he could meet those who were acquainted with the Disciples. 

But, as Ehrman goes on to show, Papias is often not trustworthy elsewhere, for he was given to "flights of fancy," (8) shown by writing things like a long, disgusting description of how Judas was cursed after betraying Jesus. Furthermore, he said that Mark "wrote down accurately everything that he recalled of the Lord's words and deeds," yet it is seems implausible that all a first-century man living in a time of oral tradition (literate people were scarce, although whoever wrote Mark was literate and so had another place to exercise his intelligence) who learned directly from Peter would remember only enough to fill up an approximately 2 hour narrative. Another flight of fancy, this seems to be.

(I couldn't help but be perplexed at what he said after "flights of fancy." Ehrman asked, "Why do scholars trust him when he says that Peter was the source of Mark's Gospel? It is only because they want to trust him in this instance--even though they know full well that when he gives other pieces of' 'historical' information he is in fact passing on pious fictions." [8] But who were the "some readers" he mentioned before? Did they come from lay Christians he knows or something? And one of the sources Wallace cited for bookending was the highly authoritative Christian scholar Richard Bauckham, who is also my notes. It appears that Ehrman was exaggerating -- having his own "flight of fancy," if you have a good sense of humor.)

Still, though, Papias was in a place where he could be reporting a story with a historical core -- that is, that Mark got his information from Peter. 

So it is important that Wallace didn't base his belief of Mark being eyewitness material on the testimony of early church fathers (unless one defines "basing" his belief as what started the investigation). He asked, "But could a forensic statement analysis of the gospel of Mark verify these claims?" And after explaining the evidence, Wallace came up with this,

"Mark used specific titles to describe Peter, gave him priority in the narrative, uniquely included information related to Peter, and copied Peter's preaching outline when structuring his own gospel. These circumstantial facts support the claims of the early church fathers who identified Peter as the source of Mark's information."

You see, I rest my case on the great point that historians must weigh the evidence. By itself bookending (or otherwise focusing on Peter in the end) may not be conclusive (it isn't at all to me), but when you stack everything else mentioned in this post on top of it(8), Papias being completely wrong becomes very improbable. 

One final consideration: I can take Ehrman's very logical logic about Mark keeping Peter's embarrassments to some of my arguments. Is there evidence for Luke being the true lost Gospel of Peter because he actually has the ascension, and Mark doesn't? Or that John was trying to base a Gospel around Peter because he even goes so far as to explicitly describe Peter and Jesus being reconciled after His death (John 21:15-23)? 

No, those by themselves don't weigh at all toward this conclusion (especially if John was written by the Disciple John, see 21:20-23). Furthermore, Mark didn't need any of that in his Gospel. He was probably the only one to identify Peter in that section of evidence above because his independent source from Matthew and Luke was Simon Peter himself. 

Citations/notes:

1. All quotes and evidence, unless otherwise noted, from J. Warner Wallace, Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels (David C Cook: Colorado Springs, CO. 2013), 94-96.

2. Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 53. 

3. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 51. He cites Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effects of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 212-17.

4. In 1:16 Simon is used twice; 1:29, 30, 36 all use Simon; 3:16 Simon/Peter; 5:37, 8:29,32,33, 9:2, 5, 10:28, 11:21, 13:3, 14:29, 14:33 all use Peter; 14:37 uses both Simon and Peter; 14:54, 66, 67 70 72, 16:7 all use Peter.

See Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI. 2017), 148-49.

5. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 21.

6. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 262.

7. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 8.

8. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 10. 

9. It would be worth pointing out that some scholars believe (which Ehrman showed on page 66) that the preaching attributed to Peter in the book of Acts was really put on his lips by the author. I know that it can be argued such is not the case because some teachings in the first part of Acts appear primitively Jewish, and have a 2 posts for the reliability of Acts (albeit they scarcely defend the first 12 chapters). But it would be a very improbable coincidence if the Gospel falsely accredited to Mark and Peter so significantly looked like the sermons falsely accredited to Simon. With the other evidence for the true lost Gospel of Peter, this is even more unlikely. So this argument actually demonstrates more reliability for Acts.

Are the Acts of the Apostles Accurate? Part 1

Are the Acts of the Apostles Accurate? Part 2