DramaQ

The argument that 2 Peter is dependant on the gospels, like the argument that the Passion is constructed largely out of Psalms, should be able to stand up against a bit of counter-argument, shouldn’t it?

If the connection wasn’t so tenuous to begin with, we wouldn’t even be HAVING this debate.

In this case it is the connecting of a (presumably old) Peter saying:

“because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.�

With a younger Peter being told:

“I tell you the truth, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

Finding the similarities between these two quotes to be superficial (and explaining why I find them so) is hardly “splitting-hairs�.

Well thank you. I rather liked debating with Rick (whom I just concede to, incidentally) and appreciate the comparison.

I was only questioning the alleged connection to John in verse 2Pet 1:12. Biblical scholars who are much cleverer than I am (and quoted earlier in this thread) have already addressed the “transfiguration� paragraph.

“Sounds hollow� isn’t much to go on.

For my part, I didn’t argue it on lack of details but on the fact that the two “prophesies� don’t really match.

However, when pressed for details I thought it might lack I did suggest that, if A2Pete WAS using John, why did he pass up such a golden opportunity to quote Jesus with “Feed my sheep� which would be an excellent reason for Peter to say “So I will always remind you of these things� (Per a directive right from the boss).

Frankly I don’t know if and how much 2Pet is dependant on the gospels. It may well be. I have already conceded that strictly following Occam’s razor it is. But since it’s still pretty tenuous for my taste, I would rather see language like “probably� has knowledge of gospels rather than “clearly does�.

Is that splitting hairs? Maybe. But by being careful with our language here we have the opportunity to make ourselves more clearly understood to one another than these bible texts.

Cheers,

DQ

Intelligitimate

It should, and I think it does, so far.

But it isn’t. The method of argument you are using smacks of incredibly ad hoc reasoning. Maybe you could hold your position if this was the only case, but it isn’t. We have the transfiguration, a quote from the voice from heaven, a possible allusion to Gospels with the thief remark (though it could be to Paul), and an allusion to Peter’s prophesized death. On top of that, this work is considered to be the latest one in the Bible. The author clearly knows Jude, 1 Peter and a collection of Paul’s writings and considers them scripture. The epistle shows signs of trying to reconcile Peter and Paul. It is clearly a very late document, and almost certainly knows the Gospels. Chalking these passages up to coincidence is not possible.

Actually, it is. You have to resort to ad hoc rationalizations like it being made up independently twice! That you would even have to do this shows how clearly it is an allusion to GJn.

Because it didn’t have anything to do with 2Pet’s purpose. The epistle is about defending the parousia from the “false teachers,� which is itself another indication of how late it is (and the later it is, the less likely it doesn’t know the Gospels).

DramaQ

Actually, if I'm guilty of anything it's "Continuum Fallacy". I'm not making up theories to explain how two "identical" quotes were derived independently, but rather suggesting that the two quotes are not really the same at all except superficially.

Except that my position isn't and never has been on the dependence of 2 Peter on "the gospels" but specifically of 2Pet1:12 coming from John 21:18.

I never chalked "these passages" up to coincidence. I only pointed out that the two allusions to Peter's death (not really being the same at all IMHO) could easily have been written independently, and that in that respect, while it IS coincidental it is not all the extraordinary.

I also conceded that however tiny a stretch that may be, I cannot make it because of Occam's Razor. In short, we're sort of beating a dead horse here.

I just want to be sure I'm on record as conceding only that point. I am still wholly unconvinced of the "certainly" here.

Cheers,

DQ

Vorkosigan

Well, as they say, after review.........I gotta agree with Rick. 2 Pet has several comments that seem to stem from knowledge of the gospels. It looks like Doherty's stubborn impulse to include every single document is just bad tactics. You were right, Sumner, and I was wrong.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Price says that in aramaic Peter means something like the firstborn. It's in the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

Vorkosigan

Toto

I need to correct what I wrote.

I have had some private email with Doherty. He does not have the time now to join the debate here.

He feels that the gospels are midrash with no historical basis. However, he does think that the author of Mark (call him "Mark") was part of the "Q" milieu, and that by the time Mark wrote, the Kingdom of God movement had developed the idea of a founding figure. Mark could have been exposed to this idea and accepted their founding figure as historical, even if nothing concrete was "known" about him, other than that he taught and performed miracles and was somehow associated with the expected Son of Man. Mark composed his gospel to create a homily and lessons for his community.

(As I noted before, Doherty works with the standard liberal consensus, which accepted 'Q' rather overwhelmingly at the time he wrote. That consensus is being undermined by Mark Goodacre. If there was no 'Q', and Luke used Matthew as a source, this might need some revision.)

As to what would convince Doherty that an author believed in a HJ, he looks at the literary evidence and the milieu - whether the author was familiar with the story of the HJ and how he viewed it. This makes it difficult to say much about Mark, who appears to have invented the story - can we say that the first fashioner believed in a story that did not exist up to that point?

Amaleq13

This was something I asked him about via email waaaaaay back when I bought a copy directly from the man, himself. (He even signed it for me ). It didn't seem clear to me from the book how the shared name in separate traditions was explained. If I remember correctly, he indicated that it may have been added to Q (possibly replacing a different name) or that Q's guy really was named Jesus (common name) while Paul's Christ was given the name because of the significantly relevant meaning.

andrewcriddle

Thanks for that.

Whatever Doherty believes 'Mark' privately believed, he would seem to agree that Mark and the canonical other gospels were intended to be taken as historical.

Hence it would seem to follow that anyone using the Gospels as authorities should be assumed in the absence of clear contrary evidence to accept a historical Jesus whether or not their writings make that explicit.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

In Hebrew there is a form PeTeR with IIUC a similar word in Syriac/Aramaic.
It means literally 'that which breaks forth' and is used for firstborn in a very biological sense usually literally in the phrase 'that which breaks open the womb' but sometimes just 'that which breaks forth'
The usual word for firstborn in Hebrew is BeKoR with again a similar syriac form, unlike PeTeR it can be used for firstborn in a sense wider than the biological and was used for personal names in the OT (Bechorath Bocheru) whereas PeTeR was not.

IMO it would have been possible for someone to be called Peter in Aramaic by their parents for being the mothers first child, although IIUC there is no evidence this happened. I have grave doubts if someone could be called Peter in Aramaic for being metaphorically first-born, (eg first and most prominent disciple), or whether any Hebrew/Aramaic speaker could have thought this to be a plausible origin of such a name.

Andrew Criddle

Amaleq13

How does that follow from this statement?: