andrewcriddle

IIUC Doherty is saying that 'Mark' composed a prima-facie historical narrative about a character his community believed to exist.

(I did not intend to say that Doherty accepts that the gospels were intended to be taken as historically accurare. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.)

ie the narrative is legendary rather than mythological, intended to be read as based at least loosely on historical events relating to a historical figure.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Getting back to the question of whether 2 Peter knew gJohn because of the prediction of Peter's death, Loisy writes that both 2 Peter and the supplemental chapter of gJohn are dependent on the Apocalypse of Peter (that missing common source, inow found, if this is true.)

Origins of the New Testament, Chapter 7

supra p 53

Birth of the Christian Religion
I am unable to clearly locate the prediction in the Apocalypse of Peter available online: The closest I can find is

andrewcriddle

If 2 Peter is partly based upon the Apocalypse of Peter, and this was written about 135 CE (both of which are IMO probable); then it would make pretty certain that the author of 2 Peter knew at least the synoptic gospels.

This is firstly because 2 Peter is so late in this case that ignorance of the gospels is unlikely, and secondly because of the strong influence of the synoptic tradition particularly Matthew on the Apocalypse of Peter. (NB the Synoptic parallels are much stronger in the Ethiopic Apocalypse than in the Akhmin Greek fragment partly because many parallels come in parts of the Apocalypse not present in the Greek fragment, but most authorities regard the Ethiopic text as at least as good a witness to the original as the Greek)

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

That evens us up for the temple incident

This concession carries with it considerable weight, at least for the Doherty enthusiast. Of Doherty's 3 key criteria in finding a "mythicist" text (silence, "midrash," high christology), 2Pet meets all three. It meets them so well that it fooled Doherty himself.

If his criteria can't tell a mythicist from an historicist, what good are they? And how is he not guilty of what you termed elsewhere the "criterion of declaration?"

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Intelligitimate

2Pet does not meet all three. It isn’t silent (isn’t that what this whole thread was about?), I don’t know what you mean by it containing midrash, and I don’t recall just the presence of a high christology having anything to do with Doherty’s thesis. The silence comes in when we should expect it to know something about the Gospels, as in numerous cases in the Pauline corpus and the rest of the epistles.

As far as I’m concerned, this doesn’t say much about Doherty’s overall thesis.

I think it can, or rather, Doherty’s criteria can tell us with some degree of confidence when an author doesn’t know the Gospels, which supports the belief that Gospels are fictional (which we have other, better methods of establishing anyway).

Rick Sumner

You miss what is meant by "silent." Not that it makes no mention of the gospels, but that it shows no clear knowledge of the "gospel Jesus"--it misses occasions where Doherty expects it should mention historical details.

Speaking of Jesus in OT terminology. It's an incorrect use of the term, but the mistake is Doherty's not mine.

Speaking of Jesus in spiritual terms has everything to do with Doherty's thesis. That's what a high christology means.

And, using Doherty's application of the criteria, 2Peter meets it as well. So at what point do we determine that we've gone too far? If, for example, 2Peter can fail to mention historical details, speak of Jesus in spiritual terms, and rely on "midrash," yet still be familiar with the gospels, then what grounds are there to judge anyone else by that standard? Using it has lead to a false conclusion.

A reversible criteria is a criteria that has merit by fiat and fiat alone.

Then you've largely missed the point of his handling of the epistolary record.

Then why did it fail on 2Peter, and what grounds do you suggest make it succeed elsewhere?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Intelligitimate

Yes, Doherty does use some examples where he thinks 2Pet should mention more historical details, but I would say that any clear reference to the Gospels disqualifies using the criteria (obviously). And I don’t think Doherty’s examples are particularly strong anyway in this case (unlike with Paul and some of the other epistles).

I would say Doherty has violated his own methods, in this instance.

I know what high christology means. I’m asking where does Doherty say anything like “A high christology means they didn’t know the Gospels.� Obviously John has a pretty high christology, so what? Doherty never (to my knowledge) uses it solely to say an author isn’t aware of the Gospels.

On this point I think you’re misrepresenting Doherty.

I would say it doesn’t meet it well, because it obviously isn’t silent about Peter’s prophesized death, the Transfiguration and the heavenly voice, and possibly even Jesus’ words about coming like a thief in the night (which may be from Paul). I would say Doherty has merely violated his criteria here.

A clear reference to something in the Gospel, like the Transfiguration? Doherty went too far.

No, the Gospel does mention details from the Gospels, and just speaking of Jesus in spiritual terms doesn’t necessarily mean anything to Doherty’s thesis (GJn?). I would say the false conclusion was arrived at by improper use of his method.

I think you’ve mischaracterized Doherty’s thesis.

It failed on 2 Peter because Doherty was trying to pack in everything he could, including very late forgeries like 2Pet, and in thus doing so violated his own methods. He was sloppy. That doesn’t mean the criteria can’t be properly used to give us an indication of when an author doesn’t know the Gospels.

Rick Sumner

But if clear reference to the gospels is the only way to invalidate the method, Doherty has a problem: There were no gospels when Paul wrote.

Without the gospels, what would distinguish 2Peter from Paul?

He repeatedly addresses the highly spiritual language in the Pauline epistles as evidence that Paul was referring to a "cosmic Christ."

Yet, again, that's only because 2Pet has the advantage of being able to be compared to the gospels--the progression is linear. It isn't in the case of Paul. Without the obvious linear progression, Doherty's thesis is unfalsifiable. That makes it a decree, not a conclusion.

Much too far. The question is how do we tell when he's gone too far in epistles that predate the gospels--in situations where such clear dependence cannot possibly be demonstrated.

You're confusing his treatment of the gospels with his treatment of the epistolary record.

We don't need to know when an author doesn't know the gospels--most of the epistles predate the gospels, rendering such a criteria useless. Without that point of comparison, we have an unfalsifiable theory, unless you can suggest an alternative method for it to be falsified.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Intelligitimate

I don’t see the problem. Paul wrote before the Gospels were created, before the fictions about Jesus were invented (which are fictions demonstrable by other methods). If there was a clear reference to something in the Gospels (assuming we would have reason to believe the work is still earlier than the Gospels), then it would falsify the mythicist position on the Pauline corpus, and lend more credence to the case for historicity, since Paul would know historical details independently of the Gospels.

Not much. Why is that a problem?

Sure, but he never says just because Paul speaks of Jesus in spiritual terms that he doesn’t know any details of Jesus’ supposed life. Perhaps we’re just talking past each other on this point.

I don’t see how so. A clear reference to an event in Jesus’ life would falsify his position.

A clear reference to something allegedly historical would do.

Perhaps I’m just not getting your idea.

No I’m not. He never says just because something has a high christology that the author isn’t aware of any historical details, and that is my point.

Not so. If it doesn’t know the Gospels, and still has nothing to say about any alleged historical events in Jesus’ life, that leads us to believe there was no beliefs corresponding to anything in the Gospels, which means they are fiction.

I think you’ve just misunderstood it.

Toto

Let's see what we have here.

The claims that 2 Peter knew the gospels (which is not exactly the same as saying that 2 Peter assumes a HJ) rests on three claims, but none of them are as clear as you would have it.

=1= The presumed knowledge of gJohn, which started this, has pretty much been laid to rest. The last chapter of John cannot be confidently dated as earlier than 2 Peter, even if 2 Peter is very late. 2 Peter is more likely to have used the Apocalypse of Peter than gJohn, and it seems more likely that gJohn relied on the AofP or 2Pet than vice versa. (Is there any scholarly rebuttal to Loisy?)

And if 2 Peter knew the Apocalypse of Peter, it is not certain that 2Pet also knew the gospels, much less that 2Pet assumed the gospel stories were history as opposed to homily. Loisy is of the opinion that there were free floating stories that each writer felt free to rearrange, and that at the time of AofP, the stories had not crystalized into a gospel(s).

=2= The reference to the thief in the night is in Paul and in the Revelation of John (3:3 and 16:15).

Rev 3:3 Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent. But if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what time I will come to you.

Rev 16:15 "Behold, I come like a thief! Blessed is he who stays awake and keeps his clothes with him, so that he may not go naked and be shamefully exposed."

This was undoubtedly a common phrase, and is never attributed to a HJ.

=3= And the transfiguration scene could very well have come from the Apocalypse of Peter or some earlier tradition.

Doherty raises some questions in his article that have not been addressed:

• 2 Peter still speaks of Christ as an entity to "have knowledge of" (1:3, 1:8, 2:20, 3:18), implying revelation rather than historical memory
  
• Among these silences is 1:20, where the writer says that "no one can interpret a prophecy of scripture by himself." Yet Jesus is represented in the Gospels as showing how to do this.
  
• Another is 2:1, a warning that "you will have false teachers among you," which fails to include any mention that Jesus himself had prophesied this very thing.
  
• A very telling silence appears in 3:2:

  Remember the predictions made by God’s own prophets, and the commands given by the Lord and Savior through your apostles.

  Here the writer seems to lack a sense of Jesus having recently been on earth, issuing predictions and commands in his own physical person. Instead of saying that the Lord had spoken these commands during his ministry, and the apostles had passed them on, the writer is somewhat ambiguous, suggesting that the apostles served as mouthpieces for commands received through revelation or simply through personal judgment of what the Lord wanted.
  
• Finally, we might note that 2 Peter is a polemical document, primarily concerned with countering accusations and contrary opinions from certain scoffers and errorists (e.g., 1:16, 3:3-4). Apparently these “brute beastsâ€? are concerned solely with the Lord’s power in the present and future, and nothing of his incarnated past, for the author of this epistle never addresses any point of dispute concerning Christ’s life and teachings. No word or incident from the preserved memories about Jesus of Nazareth is offered to counter their objections, no miracle witnessed by many to answer the accusation that the power of the Lord Jesus Christ is based merely “on tales artfully spunâ€? (1:16). And it is certainly a curiosity that nowhere does this author, who writes in Peter’s name, play his best trump card by appealing to the fact that he (Peter) had been a follower of Jesus in his earthly ministry and his chief apostle.
  
• But there is a key passage in this epistle which clearly demonstrates the writer’s unfamiliarity with both the Gospel story and the figure of an historical Jesus. <snip Transfiguration>
  
  Commentators have traditionally seen this as a reminiscence of the Transfiguration scene as recorded in the Synoptics: Mark 9:2-8, Matthew 17:1-8, Luke 9:28-36. But this claim can easily be discredited.
  
  The writer represents himself as Peter, one of three apostles who, according to the account first set down in Mark, witnessed Jesus’ transfiguration on a "high mountain" in Galilee. ...
  
  Now, in 2 Peter, any idea that this scene had taken place during Jesus' earthly ministry has to be read into things. The writer supplies us with no such context. Moreover, no mention is made of the presence of Moses and Elijah, or of Peter’s suggestion that three tabernacles be set up, or that the voice came out of the clouds, features found in all three Synoptic versions. Nor is any mention made of Jesus’ clothes or face being illuminated, features which might better identify the figure in the writer’s mind as a human one. All this makes it highly unlikely that he has drawn his knowledge of this "incident" from a Gospel account.
  
  The word "Parousia" is used in the New Testament to refer to the future arrival of Jesus at the End-time. Here in 2 Peter translators almost always render it "his coming," making it a reference to that future event. This would seem to be borne out by a repeat of the word in 3:4, where it clearly entails a future expectation: "Where now is the promise of his coming?" ...
  
  Here, then, the author is presenting this scene as support for his contention that readers can rely on the Lord Jesus Christ as a powerful entity, that he is present among them, and that the promise will be fulfilled of "full and free admission into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (1:11), when that Lord arrives at the Parousia. The writer holds up this incident, however he sees it, as a prophetic vision of what is to come.
  
  The first question which should occur to us—and some scholars have asked it—is this: if the writer is seeking to offer something as "proof" of the power of Christ, something which supports the promise of eternal life for believers, why would he choose an incident from Jesus' ministry in which his clothes (and possibly his face) were made bright? Even the voice from heaven hardly tells us very much or makes this the most overwhelming of experiences. Why not offer something far more dramatic, something which Peter himself had supposedly witnessed: Jesus’ very resurrection from death? After all, this historical act is the presumed basis for Christian faith in human resurrection. The author could even have supplemented this miracle by enumerating the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to his apostles. And if his readers are looking for guarantees of Jesus’ future coming, why not add Jesus’ own promises that he would return? Kelly (op.cit., p.320) acknowledges that "there are fascinating puzzles here which remain unsolved." Indeed.
  
• Another question: Is all this the language of eyewitness of earthly events? The verb "gnoridzo" (make known—“toldâ€?—in verse 16) is a technical term in the New Testament for imparting a divine mystery. "Epoptai" (eyewitnesses) is also used of the higher grade initiates in the Greek mystery cults who had experienced theophanies (the perceived presence of the god). Rather than visual eyewitness, the idea definitely carries a visionary connotation, suggesting, as Kelly puts it (op.cit., p.318), "privileged admission to a divine revelation."

Doherty concludes:

Thus, indications are that the writer is recounting a visionary experience attributed to the apostle Peter. He knows of a tradition which says that Peter, while with other apostles (here unspecified), had seen the spiritual Christ. Note that there is no mention here of any change to Jesus; we do not have a human figure taking on the appearance of a heavenly one, as in the Gospel scene. Verse 16 simply says: “we saw him in his majesty.� This witness was accompanied by the hearing of a heavenly voice, which further bestowed “honor and glory� upon that majesty.

I didn't want to have to cut and paste so much, but it seems to me that Rick is not addressing Doherty's actual arguments. He merely assumes that there is evidence showing 2Peter knew the gospels, therefore Doherty's method fails. None of that evidence is very firm (it never can be in this field.) If you are going to dispute Doherty's conclusion, you should at least look at his arugments.