Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8606
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:40 am

Under the mythicist scenario, the Peter's claim before who signaled him:

“I don’t know this man you’re talking about.”

(Mark 15:71)

...makes perfectly sense as a historically true claim: the historical Peter, just as the historical Paul, would have answered precisely so: “I don’t know this man you’re talking about,” if asked about the identity of a historical Jesus he had never heard before.

Note that the 'Galilean' provenance of Peter

“Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean.”


...is used to describe his being a 'historicist' disciple of Jesus. From this, I cannot infer that Galilee was the place where Jesus was historicized the first time (probably the Earliest Gospel was written in Rome, Antioch or Alexandria), but the Galilee was known to be the place where various people did messianic 'coming out'. Hence the earthly historicity was invented by who had a strong interest in identifying Jesus and (the Jewish) Christ: the same people I call again and again as: JUDAIZERS.

StephenGoranson
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by StephenGoranson » Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:54 am

Is to deny that “one of them” ordinarily means a human by claiming it is an “invention”—for no other given reason than that it contradicts your presupposition—circular “reasoning”?

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8606
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:35 am

StephenGoranson wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:54 am
Is to deny that “one of them” ordinarily means a human by claiming it is an “invention”—for no other given reason than that it contradicts your presupposition—circular “reasoning”?
I don't understand your point. Are you thinking that my claim is: 'one of them' doesn't mean a human.

Really?

My point is that, under the mythicist paradigm, the Peter's claim


“I don’t know this man you’re talking about.”

...becomes a true claim, since it describes a true fact of the reality: that the historical Peter didn't know the man the Gospel of Mark is talking about .

StephenGoranson
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by StephenGoranson » Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:51 am

Only if those words are taken out of context could you imagine such a thing. My broader suggestion is that you may be deluding yourself, and maybe wasting time.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8606
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Dec 02, 2020 5:44 am

StephenGoranson wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 3:51 am
Only if those words are taken out of context could you imagine such a thing.
my broader suggestion is that you - a Christian apologist? - say "only", only to exorcize the possibility.

Surely the idea that someone "didn't know the man they were talking about" is already in evidence in Acts 25:19
Instead, it was something about their religion and a dead man named Jesus, who Paul insists is alive.

How could Festus -- in Jerusalem -- not know who was the presumed seditionist crucified by his precursor Pilate?

StephenGoranson
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by StephenGoranson » Wed Dec 02, 2020 7:12 am

I don’t think that Acts verse proves what you wish. But good day.

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8606
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by Giuseppe » Wed Dec 02, 2020 7:47 am

I have quoted that evidence from Acts 25:19, because it seems to be decisive. It is based on a narrative of facts, without no need for any knowledge of what primitive Christian thought was, and it is such that it could be submitted, even in our day, to a judge in charge of a review of a case.

StephenGoranson
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by StephenGoranson » Sat Dec 05, 2020 5:46 am

Giuseppe, you called a verse taken out of context “evidence” of your wish, but why have millions of readers, including commentators and translators, read it differently than you?
G., as far as I know, no one is forcing you to join any religion, but to insist on such absurd arguments to prove a negative seems very dogmatic. You have energy and persistence—why waste it on this?

User avatar
Giuseppe
Posts: 8606
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by Giuseppe » Sat Dec 05, 2020 6:14 am

Frankly, Stephen, I may recognize my error about the interpretation given above on the denial of Peter, but when I have written this post as commentary about Acts 25:19:
Giuseppe wrote:
Wed Dec 02, 2020 7:47 am
I have quoted that evidence from Acts 25:19, because it seems to be decisive. It is based on a narrative of facts, without no need for any knowledge of what primitive Christian thought was, and it is such that it could be submitted, even in our day, to a judge in charge of a review of a case.
...I think that you are doing an absurd and vain opposition, an apologetical opposition, since what I have written in the quote above is 100% true:
  • 1) that Acts 25:19 claims to be a narrative of facts
  • 2) that, taken in its own value, what Acts 25:19 is going to claim is the pure and simple fact that in Jerusalem, one of the immediate successors of Pilate, Festus, ignored who was Jesus, he ignored EVEN that Jesus was crucified by Pilate.
  • 3) that this account can be used as evidence before a hypothetical (American or European) court even in our days, as EVIDENCE that Jesus was totally unknown even by who is reported to be there very near in time and place.
Hence my judgement of Stephen Goranson remains identical: he is a Christian apologist insofar he disagrees with me on the points above. Period.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6646
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence ?

Post by MrMacSon » Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:47 pm

I'm not sure about Giuseppe's 'evidence' or reasoning in the OP, but one thing that might support the premise in the question, "Is the denial of Peter Mythicist evidence?", is Galatians 2:9 where shade seems to be thrown at James, Cephas and John as pillars, -

(ESV)
and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

The wording in the Greek is οἱ δοκοῦντες στύλοι εἶναι with δοκοῦντες, dokountes, having the root, δοκέω, dokeó, and δοκοῦντες being rendered variably from, as in the ESV above, 'seemed to be', to 'reputed to be', 'recognised as', 'acknowledged to be', 'esteemed to be', or perhaps even 'appeared to be', (+/- other variations).
  • 'appeared to be' raises the prospect of 'appeared [as]' ...

Some version of Galatians 2 throw shade on the James, Cephas, and John a few verses before 2:9. eg., -

(ESV)
1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me. 2 I went up because of a revelation and set before them (though privately before those who seemed/esteemed - δοκοῦσιν, dokousin - influential) the gospel that I proclaim among the Gentiles, in order to make sure I was not running or had not run in vain. 3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. 4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in—who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery— 5 to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you. 6 And from those who seemed to be - δοκούντων - influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed - δοκοῦντες - influential added nothing to me. 7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), 9 and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be - δοκοῦντες - pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. 10 Only, they asked us to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

note the 3 different versions of the word in the Greek in vv. 2, 6 (twice!), and 9

And of course there's then the infamous confrontation -

11 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned


Post Reply