Ted Hoffman

Vork, I think a number of us would appreciate it if you, or Rick, posted, in point form (a summary of sorts), clear arguments that demonstrate that "2 Pet has several comments that seem to stem from knowledge of the gospels" over and above his dependence on Apocalypse of Peter, and Jude.

It would be of great help.

CX

Just a quick reminder to all. Let's try to keep a lid on analyses of individual's personalities or personal motivations in posting to this thread. This is an interesting and potentially fruitful thread so it would ashame for it to get mired down in discussions of people's intents.

Best Regards,

CX

DramaQ

Wow! Go away for a week and you miss a LOT.

Just to get caught up quick:

It’s true. I didn’t. In fact, I didn’t even start reading the AoP until this morning. What a happy, upbeat document it is, too!

Do I think it shows where the prophesy of Peter’s martyrdom could have come from? No. I don’t see it there at all.

I DO see a lengthy discourse on the events described in the synoptics as the transfiguration. Which is very odd to me, because the context in the AoP seems to have to do with a Risen Christ (since they are asking about the day he will return.) and the transfigurations scene takes place before the crucifixion.

Moreover, there are curious differences in the details: In the Akhmim fragment (as opposed to the Ethiopic text), the two men seen with Christ are not named, just “righteous brethren� – dead men whom the disciples wanted to see. And it’s THEIR faces that glow like the sun, not Christ’s. The text also reads “And going with him, we the twelve disciples besought him that he would show us one of our righteous brethren that had departed out of the world�. But according to the synoptics, only Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus on the mountain.

I could understand these kinds of discrepancy in detail if the synoptics and the AoP shared a common tradition, but it seems odd to me if the AoP is based on the gospel account(s).

So while the AoP may not be able to answer the OP that 2Pete is dependant on GJohn, I still think there’s a lot of room to explain some of the common tradition without direct gospel dependence.

And now, to step into a tangent issue:

I don’t think I understand this. From what I’ve read, it isn’t that Paul lacks gospel material specifically but ANY details of an earthly ministry - period. Had Paul lived in a time and place not long after that earthly ministry, he should have been able to provide anecdotal information about Jesus not found in the gospels at all.

(I realize that his failure to do so does not automatically mean he knew of none, but the point is that it is – IMO – incorrect to say that Doherty’s argument hinges on gospel dependence.)

Glad to be back again. Sorry to bring back a thread that’s been lying dormant for a week. :wave:

DQ

Toto

Welcome back. There are still a lot of loose threads here, and I was hoping for someone with more knowledge of the Apocrypha to chime in. It appears that the Gospel of Peter was widely used in the 2nd century churches until it was decided that it was not - what is the word - kosher? (or too heretical, or too gnostic.) There seems to be no way to know how it originally read, and since it predates the canon, it could have been rewritten as desired. It may have been part of a packet with the Gospel of Peter (of which fragments remain) and 1 Peter, and probably predates the gospels, at least in their current form. We are obviously missing a chapter in the development of Christian writings.

But I do not see any basis for claiming as undisputed fact that 2 Peter either knows the gospels or assumes a historical Jesus.

And I would like to know what version Loisy was reading when he found the prophesy of Peter's death.

Vorkosigan

Yes, Doherty's argument is extremely dependent on the dating of the documents. What happens if all of these documents are not in the order he says, but are later forgeries/writings that are all concurrent in time? Would they show an evolution from one thing to to another, or would we simply be looking at a spectrum of views with no evolutionary movement? What if Paul dates from AFTER Mark? Suppose we knew for certain that Mark dated from 75 and Paul from 90. Paul's silence on the gospel tales would then be meaningless, because the earliest documents would indeed have those tales. If Mark dates from 90 and Paul is a second century forgery, then Doherty has no case. Doherty's case is extremely dependent on a particular dating of the gospels.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

The dating complements his theory.
If the Gospels are all fictionalized forgeries (double whammy), the historical Jesus questers have no quest.

Seriously though, if Paul is a second century forgery, we would still need to explain the lack of mention of a HJ outside the gospels (in the face of the publicity attracted by a triumphal entry in Jerusalem, feeding thousands and expelling people from the temple). We would still have to explain the nature of "the son" and "Christ" as we see in Shepherd of Hermas, Odes of Solomon, Didache, 1 Clement and so on.

We would still need to explain why, with exception of Justin Martyr, a HJ based on the Gospels only shows up in the late second century. We would need to explain the shifts we see in Tatian's Address to the Greeks to Diatessaron. We would need to account for Marcion's Docetism, Minucius Felix's works and so on.

We would still have to explain why the Gospels rely on the OT to create a biography of Jesus (and then choose between prophecy historicized and history imitating prophecy). We would still need to explain why Jesus is historical, unlike ideal types like Asclepius the son of Apollos, whose mother was a mortal woman, and who died and was resurrected by Zeus.

We would still have to explain why Matthew and Luke copy Mark, freely mane changes and omissions and move around events and people and edit Mark's contents to suit their theological agendas.

Etc etc. My point being, Doherty's case does not rely on dating alone. It has plenty of explanatory power. Perhaps that is why he inspired Price and others about the validity of Jesus Myth.

GakuseiDon

One interesting part of this debate is how the ancient world looked on their gods. Just to be clear: are you saying that they thought that Asclepius lived in a non-earthly realm, or did they think that he was historical?

Ted Hoffman

Where they thought Asclepius lived is irrelevant. Did Paul believe that Jesus lived in the earthly realm? How come he never mentioned any places? Did anyone bother to locate the empty tomb? Where was the place called Arimathea? And Golgotha? and Gargasenes(sp?)?

What was important was what people could learn from the story.

Your question demands that Asclepius be a photocopy of Jesus. This is not necessary for two figures to be of the same (ideal) type. The fact is that the gospel Jesus was conceived by a mortal woman and a God, just like asclepius. He was also resurrected by a God (Zeus), just like Jesus. And after resurrecting, he appeared to people. Just like Jesus.

Now, whether he brushed his teeth or wore yellow underwear is just details. The important question would be, if Asclepius was mythical, why should we believe that the gospel Jesus was historical?

Rick Sumner

I stated, from the outset and repeatedly therein, that it is Doherty's case I'm arguing against--the initial statement was that to take Doherty correct wholesale was incorrect.

If you'd care to go for a 90 CE dating of Paul, perhaps another thread would be prudent?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

DramaQ

But I was questioning Rick’s point was that Doherty’s theory is unverifiable because Paul predates the gospels and therefore dependence can never be shown.

If Paul was written after Mark, Rick’s point is moot.

If Paul was written BEFORE Mark, I think my point still holds: that Paul could easily have obtained real-life details not found in the gospels (if such really existed), therefore dependence is not necessary.

This just in:

I'd have to agree. And I'd love to join in. We've drifted quite a bit off 2Pete's prophecy dependence on GJohn.