Rick Sumner

Firstly, I have neither access to my books (as I've noted, they're packed for a move), nor access to enough time (again, I have to move) to partake in a debate on anything raised here at present. Nonetheless, I thought it might be interesting to see how others think The Jesus Puzzle could be improved in the second revision mentioned by Earl Doherty.

Personally, I think the assessment of the epistolary record needs some slight tweaking. 2Pet.1.14 knows the gospel of John. Yet Earl's assessment of it--using the same reasoning he applies across the board--failed to detect it. The method yielded a false positive of such strength that Earl himself was fooled.

I've seen only two tacts in response to this: The first is to suggest that the presence of 1.14 itself should have excluded 2Pet from consideration. Yet this is a dangerous approach on two fronts: a) It creates a tautology, where texts that do not show knowledge of gospel traditions are said not to show knowledge of gospel traditions and b) more importantly, it becomes unfalsifiable, by excluding the only type of texts the interpretation can be calibrated against.

The second effort is to suggest that it's an anomaly, an exception, usually suggested as the product of mimickry. This, however, is dangerously ad hoc, likewise running a serious risk of becoming unfalsifiable. To use an analogy Stephen Carlson applied yesterday, it is a "get out of jail free card."

I think, with a little tweaking, the "go to jail" space could be avoided altogether, which is what I'd like to see: Tweaking to this interpretation that manages to include other texts, but exclude 2Peter, on grounds other than the simple presence of 1:14.

Secondly, as I mention here, Doherty's understanding of "gospel" in the Pauline Corpus is, IMO, incorrect. While the view I've espoused previously (though I'm waffling somewhat on), that keeps it specific to the Gentiles might not be a majority, it needs only minor tweaking: Paul's gospel is about the underpinnings of his soteriology. That, I'd suggest, is representative of a majority of contemporary commentators on Paul (ranging, really, across the gamut, from Wright to Das--one could word it even less abstractly and still fall withing the majority: Paul's gospel or mystery is the eschatological plan of God to save Israel [and/or mankind in general]. It has been revealed to Paul how he will do so).

If Earl would like to maintain that the "gospel" or "mystery" concerns Paul's "knowledge of the Christ" (I'm quoting the website. . .books are still in the box ), and the subsequent argument that Paul's "knowledge of the Christ" therefore comes from revelation, I'd like to see him engage this reading of Paul. More specifically, I'd like to see an engagement that is not heavily reliant on 1Cor.15, an argument that is, I think, easy to predict and easier still to defeat. What I'd definitely like to see is something more substantiative in defense of this reading than the suggestion that it's "the plain reading" of the text. Such declarations provide little weight in the face of opposition.

What I would not like to see is pages and pages on kata sarka or "brother of the Lord." Firstly, because it's been beaten to death. Secondly, I think it's a case of missing the forest for the trees, though one virtually everyone who has discussed it about has been guilty of.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Dean Anderson

What would I most like to see in the second edition?

Two forewords - one by Robert M. Price and the other by Bart Ehrman.

Since one would likely be fairly sympathetic, and the other fairly unsympathetic, it would make a nice balanced introduction to the book - and would, of course, mean that these professionals would at have at least read the book and made some official comment on it.

(Yes, I know that Price has already commented on the theory in an online review. It would be nice to have something in the book though that all readers would see.)

EarlDoherty

Not at all. I say this in my Supplementary Article No. 7: Transfigured on the Holy Mountain:

This writer (certainly not Peter) is probably referring to (if he isn't simply making it up for effect) a tradition that the Lord (spiritual Christ) had revealed to Peter when or how he was going to die.

I will place the arguments of that article against the contention that 1:14 is derived from John any day, to demonstrate that not only does 2 Peter not know any Gospel, he doesn't know any historical Jesus. Why don't you have a look at it and offer your opinion? (You can start part way in at the heading "A Second Century Silence.")

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Rick Sumner

I don't recall reading a similarly thorough treatment of 2Peter in your book. If there is one, then apologies for the confusion. If there's not, there should be.

That said, I'll offer my thoughts on your article once I've had a chance to more fully review it. One things sticks out now, however, being your statement that the word "delow" places it "without much doubt" in the realm of revelation. There can certainly be some doubt, I'd suggest quite reasonably.

The epistle of Barnabas 9.8 refers to Abraham's "revealing" (deloi) "Jesus by letters and the cross by one."

Barnabas hasn't "placed this in the realm of revelation." He means it exactly as it reads: This is what Abraham was showing us here.

Likewise the Hermas Mandate 6.2.10. Hermas isn't suggesting that the information from this commandment comes from "the realm of revelation." It comes from the commandment itself. This commandment "reveals" (deloi) this. Roberts-Donaldson goes with "exhibits" here.

1Clem 24.3 (delonoin) likewise suggests other than your reading. Day and night "reveal" to us a resurrection. This doesn't occur in the "realm of revelation," it's what we observe in the passing of day and night--it was what they make clear, or what they show. Roberts-Donaldson here goes with "declare".

Leaving the ANF, let's take a look at Philo (certainly, I think, relevant for your suggestions, which necessitate a great deal of Hellenist Jews).

A full list of Philo's usage of the word would be quite lengthy, as he was quite fond of the term, but look, for example, at De opificio mundi 1:150 (delonuenwn). Here Yonge opts to translate it as "displayed." The qualities of the animals certainly don't appear in "the realm of revelation." On the contrary, they are clearly watched.

OT examples are abundant, of course. Est.2.22, 1Ez.3.15, 1Kings 8.36, there are a great many.

Heading, finally, the New Testament, Hebrews 12.25. Now, to be sure, the "words" in question are God's, which might make it, prima facie, appear to support you. But one doesn't need to dig very deep to see why this is incorrect. What is being "revealed" (deloi) isn't revealed by "revelation", it's revealed by proper interpretation of the words, at least in the mind of the author of Hebrews. KJV goes with "signifieth," NAS with "denotes," the RSV with "indicates."

Col.1.8. Epaphras' "revealing" (delosas) of the "spirit" of the Colossians isn't in "the realm of revelation." It's quite plain that what Epaphras did is tell them so. This one is, I think, most damaging, because you suggest that the verb "not [being] one of speaking" rules it out as being received as such. It doesn't: Epraphas told them. Presumably he wasn't a mute.

Examples are, of course, much more abundant. So, while your reading of 1:14 isn't out of the question, to suggest that it is placed "without much doubt in the realm of revelation" has a lot more rhetorical than actual weight.

2Peter is a late text, and one that is defending an emerging proto-"orthodoxy." That it would know the gospels is certainly not a longshot. Given this, William of Occam fairly demands that we take the simplest route, which runs from GJohn directly to 2Peter. I don't know that quoting a lexicon gets us from that too "without much doubt in the realm of revelation."

In either event, thanks for the link. I'll offer more comments after I've had a chance to review and digest it, though I must warn you, for the reasons noted above, it might take a little longer than usual.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

EarlDoherty

I picked out this one passage from your posting just as an example. I think you’re ‘overtaxing’ my phrase “realm of revelation.” If you like, I’ll withdraw my “without much doubt,” but to interpret the verse as a reference to a claim or tradition about something that had been shown or revealed to Peter in a vision or conviction of revelation is no more unlikely, especially given the use of the verb “delow”, than the interpretation that it means he read it in a copy of the Gospel of John. If it had been the latter, I suggest that the author (or the tradition regarding Peter) would have used a different verb, namely one describing Christ “speaking” or “predicting” to Peter. The fact that many of the examples of the verb you quote are translatable in terms of “reveal” (regardless of the source or manner) indicates that revelatory experience can be included in the meanings of “delow”. (R-D’s use of “declare” hardly means that day and night are literally “speaking” to us. And remember that this is not actually “Peter” writing, but someone referring likely to some kind of tradition about Peter.) Taken in the context of the rest of 2 Peter (as you will discover when reading my article), I suggest that the revelatory interpretation of 1:14 comes across as the strongest, and that knowledge of the Gospels is likely ruled out.

After all, we have no clear indication of any Christian writer knowing or using any Gospels until the time of Justin in the mid-2nd century. Even commentators like Koester regard ‘similar sounding’ material to the Gospels in the early Fathers is likely to be an echo of oral traditions and not written works. 2 Peter is well within that early period, in a time when other ‘witnesses’ to the Gospel of John are virtually nonexistent.

I might note that even Papias, who is probably to be dated at the same time, or maybe a little later, than 2 Peter, for all that he has to say about a certain "John the Elder" (whom many like to equate with the apostle John), has nothing to say about any document supposedly written by this John, let alone anything that might be read from it. Papias doesn't even possess any of these so-called "gospels" but simply heard his "John" speaking of them, and what he repeats (2nd or 3rd hand) doesn't sound like our canonical gospels anyway.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Rick Sumner

Which is my principle caveat: Not that your case is untenable, it's overstated. I still don't think it's right, but in the end that's going to come down to the subjective weight one puts on "delow." Like many things in the "Quest for the Historical Jesus," whim of the exegete plays no small part here.

Why are these the only (relatively) early texts to appeal to this tradition? It seems likely to me that John (or, more aptly, a redactor of John), and had the actual death of Peter in mind. Your own "argument from silence" works against you here: The reason nobody else mentions is is that nobody else knows it. Certainly there are scores of places one could find where it could have come up, so why doesn't it?

Because they don't know. Because John (or, again, the even later redactor of John), made it up.

With that in mind--that John made up the "prophecy" of Jesus, and that 2Pet knows it, it's difficult to reconcile this tradition existing outside of John. You need to multiply entities, but have no evidence that those entities exist. Unless you're going to move John past 2Pet, which I don't think is tenable.

Colossians literally means that Epaphras spoke to them. But I don't have to say "literally spoke" to indicate that somebody told me something. In fact, I frequently don't--I say things like "As you suggest" or "as so and so indicates," the Greek works just as well for this, and it's not unccommon to see it applied as such.

I am bearing that in mind, in fact it's one of the principles of my suggestion that 2Pet knows John: Peter was already dead, which is why John made it up.

I don't, apparently, think 2Peter is as early as you do. I'd put it closer to Justin.

I'm not appealing to Papias, and I'd date 2Pet after him, so what he was or was not aware of doesn't have a lot of bearing to what I say.

I'd put 2Pet to about the latest end of the spectrum usually ascribed to him (which is generally the second quarter of the second century).

In either event, I apologize, but really don't know how much more discussion I can commit to on it (though I will do my best should more come up). My original statement still holds, unless, as I said, it appeared in your book but I don't remember it. It's something I'd like to see more detail on in a second revision of the Jesus Puzzle--certainly more than kata sarka (which, I think, borders on irrelevancy to your general thesis--if everything else manages to hold up, then your reading of kata sarka becomes almost a necessity--again, a case of missing the forest for the trees that almost all of us have, at one time or another, been guilty of in discussion of it).

Thanks,
Rick Sumner

Brian63

As someone very brand new into learning about Biblical history, I would find it helpful to have a timeline of events (in an appendix, say) according to which Doherty believes key documents were written, earliest references made, particular events occurred, etc.

I had started reading the Jesus Puzzle a long time ago but stopped fairly early when I realized I needed to do other background reading first. I am unaware of the relative level of difficulty of this book compared to others. If Doherty intends the book for a layman audience, I think a timeline or chronology of events would be very helpful (especially since it would differ significantly from what we are likely to see in other introductory books). If the book is intended for a more scholarly audience, I would think such a graphic would be unnecessary. I dunno.

Brian