Revisiting the True Lost Gospel of Peter: General Unlikely Inventions

C.S. Lewis once said, Muslims (other people can as well) can charge that the Trinity is too complex. But he responds, who says the truth has to be simple? I recently got to thinking about an argument against the criterion of dissimilarity, and have to point out that the truth is not necessarily the first straightforward answer. Distinguishing what claims in Mark are unlikely inventions is almost all of the argument for it. 

But if Christianity is false, then embarrassing claims make sense because Mark didn't have a perfect leader. On the other hand, if it is true, then there definitely is a theological explanation to everything. Also, what are religious record keepers going to do when they bump over an embarrassing report? Ignore it? How improbable that a Gospel writer wouldn't think about what he's writing. An explanation would be crafted sooner or later. 

But a good response is that even if there is so far as theological purposes behind mentioning something (as opposed to just presenting historical fact), this does not mean it would be invented by man or it could not be explained by what the Divine brought to the human mind. The question is, is human nature likely to invent such a thing? The criterion of dissimilarity is a powerful tool for figuring out what Jesus really said and did, says critical scholars like Ehrman. Indeed, they are not wrong. 

Still, Ehrman points out that it can be hard to separate myth from fact. Even when it seems like something is obvious, like the fact that Jesus's Disciples and specifically Peter seemed thick-headed a lot, there might be another reasonable critical perspective. He argues that while there is significant evidence that the Gospels' portrayal of Peter goes to a core truth because it doesn't seem to have been invented by just one person because it is widespread, people still could have come up with it to reflect themselves: "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." (1) Also, as you might have read in previous posts, Ehrman argues Mark's theology is one where the culturally less understand Him the best, while His Disciples and others really struggle to get it. A theology like that explains why women found Jesus's tomb empty instead of men, and the significant incidents where His Disciples seem goofy, quarrelsome, hard of heart, and thick-headed.

In part 4 of my original blog project, I wrote that Bart Ehrman doesn't assume "theology theory," which is when a writer invented something to fit a theological purpose. That was before I learned what's in the paragraph above. Now I am aware that Ehrman doesn't assume theology theory, although he does say "Gospels are not historical datasheets and are shaped by believers." (I agree that the style and choice of events are shaped by different purposes by different authors, but believe no historical claim was made up.) He'll argue for theo theory (that's it's abbreviation) if there is a reason. Yet, he does employ the criterion of dissimilarity on them and favors Mark as the earliest Gospel (what I had in mind originally). 

In the blog project conclusion, I cited Richard Bauckham, who explained that critical scholars question the accuracy of the Gospels and consider the possibility that what they learn was shaped by early Christians, from just minding what they like to complete invention including ideas their community favors. Because of this, a big question is, would specifically Mark invent something that looks embarrassing? One way to see if he favored anything theologically is to ask for parallels. Gospels help filter out what is true about the historical Jesus because they show what an early Christian culture accepted despite the fact that if they weren't convinced it's true, they wouldn't favor it. (If an event in a Gospel really happened, it means it must go back to eyewitness testimony somewhere along the line of transmission. I could imagine a Christian church including, say, that Jesus seemed unable to instantly cast out a demon because they heard the story from one of the Disciples.) Then there is the consideration that theological explanation does not necessitate total invention. An author could cover up the embarrassing fact, and/or multiply it because it has become important and looks attractive. Otherwise, it's arbitrary, insulting, and a potential stumbling block to just invent embarrassing things.  

Take the Trinity, for instance. In this hypothetical scenario, Christians felt the need to elevate Jesus with God. But Jesus and they all were Jews, believing in the staunchly monotheistic Old Testament. Everybody knew Jesus was a man during the earliest stages of Christianity, and He referred to God as an individual Father. So, they decided He was the Son of God: the second Person in the Trinity, who took on humanity and limited Himself with His human nature. But this doesn't mean they would invent Mark 13:32 or 15:34. When I was younger, I thought, "Why can't Jesus know the day He is coming back? It's so weird that He's going to be just as surprised as we are." Then, who would invent and stress that the Son was forsaken by His Father(2)? These are not theologically developed in Mark to explain the Trinity either. Even many critical scholars accept these as facts. 

My argument for Mark is maybe my favorite out of all the three historical ones for Jesus. It goes straight to who Jesus said He is and what He did while on Earth, not just that He rose from the dead or was with Paul during his ministry. Also, I as an investigator, and you as well, don't have to read other books to get, for example, archeological evidence. We just have to read the text and deploy critical criteria ourselves.

Is Peter really the source?

I've already critiqued whether or not Mark looks like the author had Peter in mind as a source. That doesn't mean, though, that maybe he was lying. In the original blog project I had to defend the accuracy with unlikely inventions.

(This is interesting but is by no means proof by itself, and I don't have any other place to mention it but here. Mark 7:18-19 explicitly claims Christians can eat all edible animals. In Acts 10 and 11, Peter reports receiving a special vision of Jesus telling Him all meats are clean. I bet for that reason such a belief was close to Peter and so Mark learned to prioritize it.)

Now I realize there is a much quicker way to prove Mark really goes back to Peter. I said in my post introducing my blog project of revisiting arguments that Bart Ehrman claims no Gospel goes back to an eyewitness. In multiple sources he points out there are no first-person references. 

In contrast, the false gospel of Peter does use "I" language, and it becomes clear that one of Jesus's closest companions is supposed to be talking(2). 

Why would someone forging a biography of Jesus hide away his source in small details? Had Mark really been made up, I wouldn't get to call it the true "lost" Gospel of Peter. Everyone who read it would be able to figure out where it supposedly came from. If someone wants to be crafty they would just ensure every reader could tell, they wouldn't hide their lie by being crafty. (I was so happy and surprised that I was able to come up with that statement.) Thus, the author of Mark knew and learned from one of Jesus's inner trio, the closest to Jesus.

Is the general unfaithfulness to Jesus invented for theological purposes?

Bart Ehrman has also pointed out in multiple sources that so many people just don't get Jesus in Mark. This as historical legend doesn't make sense to me though, because it would insult Peter. Why would someone who learned what Jesus's life was like invent Him being rejected by Nazareth, His family, and Peter and the rest of the Disciples as struggling to come to grips with their Master? Since Mark goes back to Peter, the only good explanation for his theology is it reflects what is true.

However, I think, because apostolic authorship is not generally accepted (rejected by critical scholars and skeptical unbelievers), it is worth it to ask what could plausibly happen if there was just some theological person not significantly influenced by any eyewitnesses. 

I have a hard time believing Jesus's struggles with the minds of others would be prima facie invented. If someone knew it was true that Jesus did have such types of significant struggles, it does seem plausible to me that they could hang on to it for, say, Ehrman's reason that Peter represents a typical fervent believer. However, I doubt anyone would invent the people that they should look up to in such a way. What about just being compassionate leaders? Leaders that faithfully followed Jesus, copying His loving personality? Leaders that would be forgiving to people who mess up. Also, it would seem to insult Jesus by choosing fools for His first and most significant followers, His family couldn't come to grips with Him, and He was rejected by His hometown. (I think I've read before, maybe from Ehrman, a critical scholar saying we can know with confidence some things about Jesus, including He had trouble with Nazareth and His brother James wasn't a follower. Indeed, these are basic embarrassments.) 

Did the Disciples really desert Jesus?

Maybe it was invented by the church that the Disciples betrayed Jesus to fit scriptural prophecy. In Mark, Jesus does quote the Old Testament. This possibility would be threatening to my first fact in the big blog project on the resurrection. (So, with that in mind, this possibility seems suspicious since a majority of critical scholars accept the Disciples really were unfaithful, and running away from a Messiah being overtaken by enemies does have contextual credibility [evidence outside the Bible for what it was like in that time of history].)

But Bart Ehrman argues that an embarrassment, specifically the crucifixion, was read into prophecy to explain it(4). The passage is from Zechariah 13:7. If you read Zechariah 13, one of the minor prophets, you can see it's not (at least at face value) asking to be interpreted that way. It would only make sense to invent that to try to cover up an embarrassment. 

Now onto the most exciting claims in the true lost Gospel of Peter... miracles!

Citations:

1. Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 21.

2. To see my thoughts on Mark 15:34, see "Can Jesus be God and also Feel Distant from Himself?" in this post.

3. Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene, 44.

4. See the "Identity from scripture theory" towards the bottom of this post.