Kosh

Get a Mac, the updates are easier and don't take as long.

Diogenes the Cynic

The whole New Testament? Really? Can you reconstruct all of 2 Peter for me using only non-Canonical sources from before 150 CE?

darstec

Dbarmstrong's point of view is interesting considering the first mention of all four gospels was made circa 190 CE.

The Murtorian fragment doesn't mention 2 Peter (nor 1 Peter nor Hebrews for that matter). It does however mention that some considered Apocalypse of Peter to be canonical. I can't remember off hand (not enought coffee in my system), but who was the first early christian writer to mention 2 Peter?

Diogenes the Cynic

Origen is the first and even he said it was disputed.

Didymus

While it's possible that Mark derived some of his material from the same oral tradition as Paul, there's certainly no textual evidence that Mark depended directly on Paul. There are no clear textual linkages such as there are from Mark to Matthew and Luke and, to a lesser extent, John. Paul wouldn't have been of much value to Mark anyway, since Paul didn't utilize Mark's pseudohistorical narrative core. Plus, their theologies were more than a little dissimilar.

"OBVIOUSLY"?! Well, that's certainly not obvious to many, many scholars, including some who doubt that Jesus even existed. With that in mind, I think you ought to make some sort of evidentiary case for a statement that departs so radically even from radical scholarship.

You don't need to move Paul into the second century to account for the lack of acceptance/rejection of the crucifixion myth in the first century. That can be easily explained by the late first-early second century authorship of the gospels (and the spotty mail delivery in the first century Middle East).

Didymus

I agree that he would be surprised to learn about the 500. Paul's treatment of the "historical" events surrounding the crucifixion was sketchy at best; this passage goes into detail that is uncharacteristically specific. The "500" business seems like it might have been a marginal note or something else that got folded into the text by mistake. It doesn't appear anywhere in the gospels.

Memory may fail, but Robert Price's "formula" doesn't sound very Pauline. Paul didn't mention any of the twelve apostles as Jesus' companions, but only as church leaders in Jerusalem. He certainly wasn't concerned with Jesus' earthly activities, whether they were pre- or post-resurrection. In fact, it's quite possible that he, unlike the gospel writers who came along many years later, didn't think of Jesus as an earthly man at all.

I'm not sure what the point of your message is. Surely you're being ironic about Paul's "confusing" you. Perhaps his contradictions would trouble you less if you view him as a Hellenist mystic and sect leader with no interest in Jesus' earthly ministry. If you're looking to Paul for historical consistency, you're looking in the wrong place. He could care less.

Didymus

Amaleq13

IYO, why was Paul not interested in Jesus' earthly ministry?

Ecrasez L'infame

Darstec, loved your devastating post. But...

It's a really minor point, but this a rare figure in modern English: eg Gerry and the Pacemakers. I know someone who always talks about "Tony Blair and the Labour Party", as if those two were separate political parties that had formed a temporary alliance (perhaps they have). So I don't see why "Peter and the Twelve" might not only refer to twelve people, even if that figure isn't found elsewhere in the koine.

But in fact it seems it is, even if you forbid use of loipous, leftover ones (as in Acts 2:37, Peter and the (remaining) Apostles). Acts 1:14 has "the women and Mary", the figure in reverse. John 20:26 talks of "the disciples... and Thomas." Was Thomas not one of the disciples? Yes, two verses earlier he is specifically pointed out as included in the twelve. Luke 13:28 has "Abraham & Isaac & Jacob & all the prophets" in the Kingdom of Heaven - which reads a bit odd if you think the speaker didn't mean the first three as prophets in this sense. Matthew 26:59 has "the chief priests and the Sanhedrin" - again using kai. I found all these with only half an hour's flicking about at random; there's likely to be many more. In short, your claim might need refining.

Didymus

Because he knew nothing about any such ministry.

Unlike the gospel authors, he did not describe Jesus in historical terms or as a man in recent history. Paul displayed no knowledge of Jesus as anything but a mythical figure who fulfilled the theological "necessity" of a descending/ascending savior.

Didymus

Amaleq13

I tend to agree but only because I also suspect none of the other apostles did, either.

I don't want to create a tangent and I don't intend to continue much beyond this question but, if you do not agree with the latter, how do you explain his ignorance?