Rick Sumner

Nothing is preventing Mark. Now pretend you don't have 2 Peter. Give me a criteria for Mark that can tell Markan invention from tradition Mark receives.

The usual criteria just got the wrong answer. Until you can get the right answer, without 2 Peter, you don't have a case.

spamandham

I'm not following this logic at all. Is it your position that Mark was familiar with 2nd Peter?

What dates to you ascribe to Mark and to 2nd Peter?

Rick Sumner

I don't care if Mark knows 2 Peter or not, or if 2 Peter knows Mark or not, or if they're entirely independent. All that matters is that both can't be true, so we either can't tell Markan invention from received tradition, or Doherty can't tell whether an author knows it or not.

My point isn't that either is right, it's that both aren't right. To break it down into the most vociferous proponents, either Michael Turton is wrong, or Earl Doherty is wrong, or they're both wrong. But they can't both be right.

ApostateAbe

There is no early Christian record on what happened to the 12, except for Peter, who succeeded Jesus in leadership of the cult, according to the letters of Paul, and Judas, who reportedly committed suicide. Since Jesus was executed, it is likely that the rest of the disciples were disappointed, disillusioned, put their lives back together, and went on living, abandoning the cult. There are late Christian myths that they went on to be great evangelistic heroes, but it is not likely.

dog-on

I think that 2 Peter definitely knows some form of Mark and that it is also a polemic against Marcion, written around the time of Paul's rehab.

spamandham

I'm not going to argue about whether Doherty or Turton is right or wrong, but it seems to me your analysis is a bit simplistic.

2nd Peter was written by an author pretending to be Peter. If that author were reasonably clever, he would intentionally avoid drawing attention to his knowledge of the written Gospels.

Rick Sumner

Doesn't matter. Not your argument from silence we're looking at. We're looking at Earl's. As we discussed previously. If you'd like to lay your own out, I'd be delighted to have a look at that too. But what we'll need to do is take away 2 Peter's knowledge of Mark, and then apply your criteria and see if we get the right answer. Then we'll need to see how well it applies in other instances. Doherty realizes that dodging the dilemma here is unacceptable. His criteria need to be applied consistently to all sources, so, by his criteria, 2 Peter cannot know Mark. If you have another one where it can, as you keep implying, I'd be delighted to see it laid out.

If 2 Peter knows Mark, Earl's argument fell here, even in your scenario. It can't tell the difference between someone avoiding mention and someone who is just pretending.

spamandham

Personally, based on my belief that 2nd Peter is most likely a late 2nd century catholicising work, I'd say the author is almost certainly familiar with the canonical gospel stories.

aa5874

Any use of the words "Jesus Christ" in the canonised writings show exposure to the Gospels.

The very same name, Peter, was a character in the Jesus stories.

It makes no logical sense to claim that whoever used the name Peter was not aware of a character called Peter in the Gospels.

Why did he use the name Peter in the first place?

To make his readers believe he was one of the disciples of Jesus Christ as found in the Gospels.

This is the 1st verse of 2 Peter.

ph2ter

My position is that Mark knows 2 Peter or the tradition written in 2 Peter. This is the only solution which gives the right answer and which saves Markan invention and Doherty's silence. This is the tradition which Mark receives. I don't want to pretend that 2 Peter doesn't exist, because then my case will fall. In reality 2 Peter exists and my case cannot fall. You have your case only in imagination.

2 Peter could know Mark but could think that the Gospel of Mark contains 'cunningly devised fables', meaning that Mark distorted the original tradition which he then provide ("For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty...")

I am not prepared to engage with your pet theories about Paul being later than the Gospels.