Intelligitimate

I think 2 Peter 3:10 probably comes from 1 Thess. 5:2 rather than the Gospels, so I don't see it supporting that the author of 2 Peter knows the Gospels (though I think Rick Sumner still has argued it convincingly on other grounds).

Rick Sumner

Doherty uses the epistle to show that there is no historical Jesus in 2Peter's landscape--that the epistle has no knowledge of the gospels. He's wrong, it does have knowledge of the gospels.

The larger blow from this comes to the argument from silence at large. 2 Peter is, by the standards Doherty employed, silent. So silent that Doherty uses it in his argument. Those standards led him to a false conclusion.

Incidentally, if the author of 2Peter does not accept the gospels as historical, why does the author think the prophecy of 21:18 is authentic?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

This is just cryptic. Jesus says that in Peter's old age he will be decrepit and someone will dress him and lead him around in the nursing home - or does he mean that Peter will be a prisoner and someone will lead him to the cross? But I thought all those apostles went willingly to the cross, so where is it that he did not want to go? The author or interpolator of John adds that this indicated the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God - which is what?? "Jesus" is speaking obscurely.

If there is anything I can say about John 21:18, it is not clear.

Rick Sumner

It's a reference to execution--someone else will dress you and lead you to death before you are ready.

I am aware of no commentary that suggests that this passage refers to anything other than execution. 21:19 makes it still clearer--it's a reference to the death of Peter.

If you would suggest that 1) Jn.21:18 is not a reference to the death of Peter (as is made clear in 21:19), 2) That 2Pet.1:14 is not a reference to the death of Peter and 3) Both are not referring to that death as being prophesied by Jesus, you have some serious work ahead of you. It's going to take a lot more than a wave of the hand and a "it's not clear" to convince anyone that a verse that explicitly claims to be referring to Peter's death as prophesied by Jesus is not, in fact, a clear reference to a death of Peter prophesied by Jesus.

It doesn't need to be clear to the character of Peter in the gospel, it needs to be clear to someone reading the gospel. And it emphatically is, Jn.21:19 dispells any other possible interpretation.

2Peter wasn't written by Peter himself, it's entirely too late to even entertain that. It was written by someone who read John's gospel. And, after reading 21:19, there is absolutely no way that such a person could possibly think that 21:18 was not clear--it's explicitly defined.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

12:19 nails this down as somehow related to Jesus describing Peter's death. But I still think it is a stretch to say that 2 Peter must have this particular passage in mind.

If 2 Peter had read as our Lord Jesus Christ revealed to me on the lakeshore after his resurrection and after pulling off the miraculous catch of 153 fish - there would be no question.

But there are a number of possibilities.

2 Peter was written first and that passage in John was added later, based on 2 Peter

John was written first and 2 Peter picked up the idea that Jesus revealed Peter's death to him

Both relied on another writing or tradition that had Peter learning the method of his death from Jesus - but this tradition might have had Peter learning from a spiritual Christ late in his life that he would be dying soon; the author or interpolator of John turned this into a story about the risen Jesus telling Peter to feed his sheep, and that he would die eventually after being led away where he didn't want to go.

I still ask: I was under the impression that the apostles welcomed death. Is this, as I suspect, a later tradition that has nothing to do with the Bible? gMark has Jesus going to his death somewhat reluctantly, but my impression was that gJohn had Jesus welcoming his death as fulfillment of the scriptures.

Rick Sumner

Let's leave fancifully high standards of evidence to debate with inerrantists and the like. What you are outlining is an entirely unrealistic demand. You need to explain how both would know of this prophecy, independently of each other. You also need to do so in such a fashion that it precludes or renders implausible direct dependence.

If you want to put forth an argument to that effect, then by all means please do.

Then 2Peter knows John indirectly. You're left with the same problem.

Again, you'd need to present an argument to this effect. If you'd care to do so, again, I'm all ears. Bear in mind that William of Occam says that your hypothetical source is entirely unnecessary.

As it is we're looking at three pretty solid indicators of knowledge of the canon, and nothing indicating relative independence except a lot of "Could have" and "well maybe" and "it's not impossible."

We live in a world of probabilities. None of these suggestions are being evidenced as probable.

I'd suggest this is a topic for a different thread.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

I gave you three options, the second of which is the one that you favor. Perhaps that wasn't clear. And I said that IF 2 Peter had included details from John, there would be no question - not that I would necessarily require those details.

There should have been a fourth option - the two sources independently decided that Jesus foretold Peter's death. After all, in stories from this period, it was not unusual for someone to write about a god foretelling a significant event, such as death. I think you are imposing a high burden of evidence to assume that the two prophecies could not have been imagined independently.

But I see no reason to favor one over the other.

Using Occam's Razor to get rid of the common source sounds like a misapplication of that rule. Where two texts have some similarities but are not identical, I don't think you can rule out the possibility of a common source so easily.

I am not saying that there is no influence from the gospels. I think that the arguments for the Transfiguration and the voice from heaven are stronger, although Doherty doesn't. I haven't looked at his arguments closely enough.

Rick Sumner

The second of which is the one I favor. The interpolation to John occurred *before* 2 Peter read it, not as a result of 2Peter--the entire 21st chapter of John is an interpolation.

2Peter knows John, John doesn't know 2 Peter, he can't have because it hadn't been written yet.

The problem with your presentation is that you present all arguments as having equal validity, yet mine is--thus far--the only one that has been argued for. Suggesting the distinct possibility that something is a distinct probability doesn't have much value in critical exegesis.

Occam's razor states that you do not multiply entities unnecessarily. That means that if you want there to be a common source, you need to demonstrate that the common source is necessary, not just "possible." If it's not necessary--or at the very least if it doesn't have a higher likelihood of being necessary as of being unnecessary--it doesn't exist.

If you'd like to argue that they're independent, then by all means please do so.

Naming options without citing evidence isn't argument, it's ad hoc--seeking refuge, not seeking solutions.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

DramaQ

For what it’s worth (I think two cents is the usual price), I am wholly unconvinced that the two passages are linked beyond finding-what-you-hope-to-find:

John 21:18 says
Suppose I grant that this means “You will be executed when you’re old�.

1 Peter 1:12 says
Does this automatically mean “I know I will be executed�? All he’s really saying here is “I know I will die�. It doesn’t say he knows HOW he will die. (WE may know from future events, but there's no indication HERE that this Peter knows)

Also, the “prophesy� of John 21:18 doesn’t give Peter any clear idea WHEN this will happen beyond “when you are old�. If the 2 Peter remark is based on that, how is Peter so confident that he will “soon� die? What in the prophesy made the timing clear to him?

A side note: 2 Peter 1:16 says
Couldn’t this be interpreted as meaning that the author of 2 Peter IS aware of the gospel stories, but rejects them as “cleverly invented� – and is more interested in the Divine Christ that they “witnessed�?

Just wondering...

Rick Sumner

You have no choice on the matter, really. Jn.21.19 tells you what v.18 means. If you'd suggest that John forgot what he was writing in v.18 a scant verse later, there's not a lot of point in further discussion. . .

It says that he knows he will die as Jesus has told him.

Nothing in 2Peter indicates that the timing has anything to do with the prophecy. The prophecy is his death.

Could you make this argument without presupposing that 2Peter makes a distinction between the Jesus of the gospels and the divine Christ? All you've done here is presuppose your conclusions.

Regards,
Rick Sumner