Revisiting the True Lost Gospel of Peter: Concluding with Miracles

In part 2 of the original blog project, loaded down with embarrassing testimony, there were four claims which go to the heart of a miracle, all quoted below. Thus, if it can be shown that they really fit the criterion of dissimilarity, there is strong evidence Peter reported what actually happened and didn't make it up.

Jesus's apparent ignorance

"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)."

I don't think that Jesus was really unaware at all of what He had done, even as a human. I think what he was doing was trying to draw out the woman who was scared of Him, so she could grow by facing her fear and He could talk to her. But I've come up with some arguments that this could fit theology theory. I remember reading from Bart Ehrman that a Gospel is expected to be filled with theological reflections. He would say a reader wouldn't be so quick to judge something to support Christianity, and care about the other side. See the beginning of my last post for how the most obvious answer isn't necessarily true.

The arguments I came up with fit the idea that Jesus, apart from being equal with God the Father, really didn't know what had happened. This might fit with 13:32 and 15:34, two other verses on the Trinity I dealt with last post. 

For starters, Jesus knew why God had "forsaken" Him (15:34). His purpose was to die as a sacrifice (10:45). He prayed to God and submitted to His will, and was confident when the escort came (14:34-36, 41). So that fails as a parallel.

Actually, in Ehrman's view (and I doubt he is alone), Jesus rose to Deity through theological evolution. In Mark, He isn't the Son of God until the baptism (when He received the Holy Spirit; 1:9-11). But then in Matthew and Luke, He is born of a virgin, and so was always God's Son. So it would be a very unlikely invention to say God's Son, with the Holy Spirit, was ignorant. See the other examples above for anti-parallels. When in the Gospels there is something that would fit invention by human nature,  and something seems to contradict that (and therefore looks like it wouldn't be invented), I call that "anti-parallels." They bolster the unlikelihood that anyone would invent the claim. 

Jesus is the distinct Son (1:11). If you're looking for what Mark might invent, 6:41 and 8:6 are good examples. There, Jesus gives thanks to God, and then multiplies the food until there is much more than enough. He is fully aware of what is happening the entire time. He knew God's power works in Him. Also, the incident where Jesus curses a fig tree (11:12-14, 20-24) has Jesus teaching His Disciples to "Have faith in God." And why should they have faith in God? Jesus gave them evidence by cursing a fig tree and knowing it would die. They should have faith in God because Jesus is the greatest Teacher about God since He has intimate knowledge of God. Jesus is NOT some body bag for God in Mark! 

Really, where are the parallels? Where else does Jesus heal others but isn't aware? This appears as a quirky event, isolated from how Jesus regularly acts. It would be arbitrary to invent.... and therefore, arbitrary to argue it would be invented. 

Intriguingly, James D. G Dunn points out that one of Matthew's purposes as a Gospel was to "correct misleading interpretations (1). Matthew did this with Mark. When He is rejected at Nazareth, Matthew says (13:58), "And he did not do many mighty works there, because of their unbelief." But in Mark 6:5, it says He couldn't do great works. Obviously, Jesus had been commanded by His Father to not  work miracles among those who want to stubbornly reject Him (which He whole-heartedly agreed to). (Now that I think of it, this isn't a likely theological invention either. Seems like Jesus really did work some minor miracles at Nazareth, as the beginning of Mark 6 says. But my four miracles will be enough.) Dunn points out Matthew's account of the woman's healing is much shorter, and cuts out the embarrassing incident (Matthew 9:20-22). So not only is there internal evidence this wouldn't get invented, we have external testimony to it as well.

Indeed, 13:32 and the incident in chapter 5 are very different. In the former, Jesus doesn't (at the time) know when a far off event is going to happen. Remember what I wrote last post about this verse and theological invention. Theo theory only works if theology is worthy of invention. Both things are not what someone would invent to show how Jesus had a side which wasn't equal with God the Father. 

Then I thought that maybe Mark had in mind Jesus not having received complete authority at that time. Maybe it was God through Jesus, to emphasize the Father. He Himself was kept from doing many miracles at Nazareth (6:1-6). Jesus spoke of doing things on God's authority (11:28-33).

But this really doesn't resolve any of the above evidence. This wouldn't explain why Jesus didn't know, even after He healed her. When Jesus spoke of working under the authority of the Father, He never implied ignorance would come out of it, but rather that He could refute the Pharisees. Jesus didn't do many miracles at Nazareth, but was a powerful, knowledgeable Teacher, who "was amazed at their lack of faith." To try to cover up the Mark 5 incident with this argument (and unless I missed something that would outweigh my evidence, any others) is so completely making something up ourselves. What happened is not explicitly explained by Mark. Ehrman pointed out that Mark worked as a "narrator" in his Gospel(2). In part 3, I observe that the Gospels are evidenced as narratives with a true historical aim because of the lack of really explaining a lot of things. 

I said it before and I will say it again: The straightforward answer is not necessarily true. But still, after looking at other possibilities and refuting them it, being able to see the unlikely invention prima facie really reminds the reader of its truth and is all the more encouraging. 

Raising the dead? Or simply asleep?

"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)." 

First, I should say I looked in both Rotherham's Emphasized Bible from Kregel Publications in 1994 and Young's literal translation. The word Mark used literally means "asleep," and doesn't itself say she was "spiritually asleep" (which I think is what He meant, see part 3). 

For theology theory to work, it must not only explain away an embarrassment but also be a reasonable motive an inventor might have for making up a miracle. It doesn't do to have a teaching in a miracle (like, "trust Jesus"), and then create something embarrassing. That could be damaging and is arbitrary. 

I now realize this is a very unembellished miracle. It is never made explicit that the child was dead! A legend writer would proclaim, we should trust Him because she was raised! Mark the "narrator" should have written down either what Jesus meant or that they were dead wrong (pun not intended).  

Another argument I thought of is perhaps He said she was just asleep because He didn't want everyone to be surprised at the miracle (5:43). They would just think it was some weird occurrence. 

For one thing it's not like a legend writer to so faithfully stick to the facts, especially the embarrassing ones. At any rate, they're not even bound to believe she was still alive. People scientifically could tell that she was dead by testing to see if she was breathing or had a pulse or something. But even if she wasn't dead, it would be awfully suspicious that Jesus could just go in there and make her get up. And again, there is no narration to explain that. Mark wasn't trying to develop a specific theological principle just with her being "asleep."

The way it actually is, it looks like, "Yeah they laughed at Him! He obviously was being stupid to think she's alive!" Mark didn't attempt to cover this up theologically, exposing it as an unlikely invention and reporting the historical facts. 

Controlling demons and restoring sight

These other two miracles I still find very straightforward and can't think of any argument to explain why they would be invented that way. Here is how they were explained in part 2.

"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)."

"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!"

Conclusion

Bart Ehrman, who often laments the barriers with getting to the historical Jesus that skeptics believe in, said "Historians' lives would be so much easier" if there was a Gospel that went back to Peter(3). Yes, if you read the true lost Gospel of Peter, you will never get an explicit piece of evidence for Mark's source. But I favor this argument because all we have to do is look at the text in the Bible, deploying the criterion of dissimilarity and noticing the inclusion of specific details that fit apostolic authority from Peter. Read it for yourself, and you will see what I have argued from.

And of course, what does all this prove? In the conclusion of the original blog project, I point out Jesus called Himself the "Son of Man," who is obviously the same Being from Daniel 7:13-14 (cf. Mark 14:62), who receives worship. But worship is for God alone (Exodus 20:4-5, 34:14; Deuteronomy 5:8-9). We have the testimony of one of Jesus's closest followers, who obviously was bent on making nothing up, that Jesus Christ claimed to be God and proved it by healing the sick, casting out demons, healing the blind, and raising the dead.

Citations:

1. James D.G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Westminster Press: Louisville, Kentucky 1985), 18-22.

2. Bart Ehrman, Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene: The Followers of Jesus in History and Legend (Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY. 2006), 17.

3. Ibid., 8.