andrewcriddle

Is this actually right ?

ie does Doherty hold not only that the traditions on
which Mark was based did not imply a historical Jesus
but that Mark in its final form does not imply one either ?

I find this sufficiently surprising that I would like
confirmation that Doherty actually holds this before
discussing it further

Andrew Criddle

Toto

This is what I understand Doherty to hold, especially if Mark is dated to the first century.

But Doherty spends very little time on the gospels. His arguments are mostly based on other early Christian literature.

andrewcriddle

If Doherty actually does hold this then his detailed
arguments about specific passages in Paul become
beside the point.

eg he could on this basis hold that 1 Thessalonians
2 14-16 is authentic but to be interpreted
symbolically

On this basis it is hard to see how any writer who is not
explicitly opposing Docetism could convince Doherty that
he believes in a historical Jesus

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

You were making it sound as though the assumed name of Peter, and the Peter in the gospels, were not intended to be the same the character.

It doesn't "really speak for the Peter in the gospels." It is, however, really supposed to.

You're missing my point. "Peter," the character assumed by the author of 2Peter, and "Peter" the character in the gospel, are one and the same. That doesn't mean that 2Pet is the "real" Peter, it means that the reader is expected to *believe* that he is the real Peter. And therein lay your problem. The same character is receiving the same prophecy from the same person. You don't presume such coincidences happen independently--Occam's Razor fairly demands otherwise, in fact. The simplest solution is that 2Peter knows John.

I don't need to presuppose. If two people tell me very similar versions of the same story, odds are good that it's the *same* story. If we can state with a high degree of probability that the first person made that story up, then it is quite reasonable to assume that the second is copying the former.

I think you might be misunderstanding what "positive evidence" is. We're presently examining what I've suggested is positive evidence.

Both characters are the *same* Peter. That doesn't mean that Peter wrote the letter, it means that the 'Peter' that the author is intending to be is the same Peter as the one in the gospels. Both are familiar with the same prophecy, coming from the same person.

So dependence is demonstrable only by direct citation? Yet 2Peter is clearly alluding to something broader that is familiar to his audience. What is he alluding to? And why doesn't he provide the explicit reference to it you suggest above we should expect?

They refer to a fictitious prophecy, and therein lay your problem. Jesus never really said anything of the sort, John made it up. How does 2Peter know a prophecy that John made up?

And yet they both attribute it to Jesus. 2Peter attributes it in passing--an allusion, clear that his reader would understand the fuller meaning. What is the fuller meaning? Why doesn't he reference it?

1) The far simpler solution includes dependence--Occam's Razor.

2) Because, as I just noted, 2Peter isn't making things up, he's drawing on earlier tradition. On earlier tradition known to his audience.

You are presupposing that what Peter witnessed is the "divine Christ" as distinct from the "gospel Jesus." The "cleverly invented stories" are a reference to heretical gospels.

Wrong distinction.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

I see your point. Doherty points to a lack of supporting historical detail in Paul. But Mark does have supporting historical detail.

You might want to email Doherty if we cannot get him here to discuss this. But I imagine that Doherty would point out that these details only show up 2 generations (at least) after the events, that Mark clearly incorporates elements from the Hebrew Scriptures and other literature.

DramaQ

Ok, it’s getting late and I rushed this. But here goes:

I think part of the issue here is the confusion (on my part) about the people we’re referring to as being real or fictional. Or for that matter, fictions based on real people. I personally believe it’s one of the last two (in both John and 2 Peter).

That said, I would point out that it is somewhat absurd to try to refer to the characters in two different pieces of literature by two different authors as being “the same�.

For example: suppose I took it upon myself to write a story about the giant Paul Bunyan and his blue ox. There would be no reason to assume that MY Paul Bunyan is “the same� as the more famous one. Only that I was “borrowing� his character.

Moreover, there would be no reason to automatically assume that I’d even READ the other Paul Bunyan stories. I would only have had hear about them, with a few basic details.

It is some author’s attempt to speak for A Peter who was an apostle of Jesus. That does not automatically associate this Peter with one (or any) gospel Peter.

Two characters of the same NAME receive SIMILAR prophesies from someone else with the same name.

Occam’s Razor demands the simplest explanation.

You’re right in that my suggestion presumes a coincidence. However, such a coincidence could easily have happened and is simply not that extraordinary. Especially given the vagueness of the “prophesy� in both accounts.

On the other hand, your suggestion that 2 Peter is dependant on John presumes that the author of 2 Peter knew of John’s Peter and that his intention was to write as if he was writing of that Peter.

What is it about your presumption that makes it the “simpler� explanation?

If you had “very� similar versions of the same story, you would be right. All you have is two vaguely similar prophesies.

If you have two people tell only somewhat similar stories, the odds are no longer quite so good. You could have two people telling separate stories about events they’d heard independently.

If two people tell two stories with only one similar remark, the odds get lower still.

Do we have a high degree of probability that Ajohn made it up? Or is it not equally possible that he too heard it from somewhere else?
Sorry. I didn’t mean to infer that you were not offering positive evidence. Only that I hoped what *I* had suggested was not a double negative.

What a peculiar remark. Sorry, but I’m a little confused. Where on Earth did I say (or imply) that it can not be demonstrated as dependant without direct citation?

Perhaps what I did was misunderstand what you asked me for:

I took this to mean that “How else would the author of 2 Peter use the material from John if he had it in front of him.�

I gave an example of what that would reasonably sound like to me. (Especially given the fact that the Peter in 2 Peter is talking about spreading the Lord’s message, which – I think – fits in very nicely with the “feed my sheep� command given in John right at that very point you want to see them connected.)

(Why WOULDN’T A2Pete have used that quote?)

Obviously dependence is not demonstrable ONLY by direct citation. But citations that could be – or perhaps SHOULD be – made and aren’t IS cause to question the dependence.

I’m not sure what you’re asking me here.

Hey! There we agree!

There we stop agreeing. AJohn either made it up or heard it from someone else. How do we know?

I’ve actually never read a single Paul Bunyan story. How do I know he had a blue ox?

Again, not such an astounding coincidence. Someone having information about “Peter� was probably aware that he was a follower of someone called “Jesus�. It’s a big leap to take the and say “Therefore he MUST have read John’s gospel�.

You mean the fuller meaning of ‘as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me�. I’m not sure what it is and why he doesn’t reference it.

Ok, although I’d hardly call it a “far� simpler solution, I’ll agree that by STRICTLY following Occam’s razor, I lose:

Your way assumes dependence because of the same names and one similar comment.
My way does not DENY dependence but does allow for non-dependence by ADDING a (mild) coincidence.
Occam’s Razor slices off my coincidence leaving me with bupkis.
We then have 2 Peter vaguely connected to Gjohn without any added weight of acknowledgment.

I’m still pretty under whelmed by it. But I don’t see as I can argue it further.

Thanks for the exercise!

PS
I wish you’d quit saying I’m “presupposing� it. I honestly only threw it out as a little hypothesis to see if it would hold any water. Suggesting it as a possibility is NOT the same as presupposing it.

Cheers,

DQ

Ted Hoffman

Toto
Allegory is not how I understand it. Mark marked the marriage of the Galilean and Jerusalem traditions and Jesus in Mark was undoubtedly supposed to be taken as historical.

The Galilean tradition had an earthly founder figure behind the sayings we find in Q and GThomas. Of course, this founder figure was shadowy, but however fictitious. Doherty writes: "it is a natural human tendency to explain the development of progressive ideas, new technologies, better social and political systems, as the product of exceptional individuals, idealized forerunners, sometimes even proceeding from divinities...History is full of invented founders for religious, social and national movements, such as Taoism's Lao-Tse, Lycurgus of Sparta, William Tell of the Swiss Confederation. It has now been generally recognized that these people, an others like them, never lived" p.7,p.8 The Jesus Puzzle.

The Galilean tradition is silent about the founding figure's death and resurrection, the figure is not given a saviour role and there is no Jerusalem ministry. The Jerusalem Tradition of course has a cosmic saviour figure, a heavenly son - as we find in Paul's letters.

Mark, under Hellenistic influence, marries these two whilst employing Midrash. This fecundating union brings forth Jerusalem, death and resurrection, a biography, Pontius Pilate etc.

Vorkosigan

If Ted Weeden and Norm Peterson are right, and Mark is parody, what does that say about the Jesus in Mark's final form?

Vorkosigan

Intelligitimate

DramaQ, it looks like to me you're engaging in the sort of hair-splitting that could be used to deny the Passion is constructed largely out of Psalms (in fact, I'd accuse Rick of doing something similar in another thread). And besides, we do have a direct quotation from the Gospels. 2Pet 1:17 quotes the voice from heaven. Doherty's complaints about a lack of other details sounds hollow.

2Pet does not support Doherty. It is a second century forgery that clearly does have knowledge of the Gospels.

Intelligitimate

I'm thinking the reason why 2Pet has a high christology is because the author knows Paul's letters and considers them scripture. Modern Christians have no problem reading Paul and the Gospels, and I don't think 2Pet does either.

2 Peter 3:15-16 - And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Here 2 Peter is talking about the misuse of Paul's letters, and seems to include them as scripture, comparing their misuse to the misuse of "the other scriptures." And of course this smacks of later attempts to reconcile Paul and Peter, which might even indicate the author knows Acts.

This is clearly a very late forgery, and the later it is the less likely it doesn't know the Gospels. Indeed, it quotes from them.