Jesus Mythicism Prooftexts Examined: 2 Peter 1:16

Hello and welcome. This article will look at one of many biblical prooftexts used to argue for the false theory of Jesus mythicism. Previously on our blog we've written an introduction to Jesus mythicism which covered the primary methodologies of Jesus mythicism, key figures in the historical development of mythicism, and summary statements of the position from contemporary sources that affirm the theory. You can read that article here to get better acquainted with the issue. 

REVIEWING THE LITERARY REVISIONISM METHODOLOGY

Among the arguments for Jesus mythicism, the use of various biblical prooftexts falls under the category of the literary revisionism methodology. In our introduction article to Jesus mythicism, which you can read here, we covered this methodology and others from contemporary mythicist sources. Before getting into the argument itself, let's briefly review this methodology. 

The Literary Revisionism Methodology - This methodology utilizes various New Testament and early Christian documents about Jesus to argue that they do not support the idea that Jesus was a historical person. Therefore, Jesus was not initially believed to be a historical person. 

This idea almost always goes hand in hand with another methodology. 

The Source Criticism Methodology - This methodology utilizes a high degree of textual skepticism about early Christian documents. Most early sources about Jesus are either seen as not authentic or written far too late after the fact to be reliably credible historical texts about a historical Jesus. When it comes to the dating of New Testament books, this methodology almost always sides with proposed "late dates" for when a book was written. 

When taken together, mythicists argue that a significant portion of New Testament books are either forgeries or too far removed from the recorded events to be credible sources. However, the books that they do see as authentic and early enough to be credible are interpreted in light of the literary revisionism methodology to teach that Jesus was not initially believed to be a historical person with a real historical existence in the 1st century. With this in mind, let's move forward and get into things. 

WHAT DO MYTHICISTS BELIEVE 

ABOUT THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATING OF 2 PETER?

To help frame the mythicist argument from 2 Peter 1:16 let's first understand how 2 Peter fits into their model of New Testament books, their credibility, and dating. 

“Polycarp and the author of 2 Peter (both writing in the first half of the second century) knew a number of Paulines (if not a comprehensive collection), as did also Ignatius, writing perhaps as early as 110.” - Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 20

“1 Clement, for instance (written about 95) ascribes ethical teachings to him in words reminiscent enough of gospel formulations to have been derived from sources on which the gospels themselves drew. The Pastoral epistles (of about 100) and 2 Peter (probably written a little later) are still unaware that Jesus gave such teachings, for they make no appeal to him when discussing the same subjects. Nevertheless these documents do advance on earlier ones in other significant respects. 2 Peter alludes to the miracle of the transfiguration, and the Pastoral 1 Timothy suggests (3:16) that Jesus’ life on earth was far from obscure.” - Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 78

“2 Peter most definitely was not written by the same author as 1 Peter (they are far too divergent stylistically), and therefore we can certainly place 2 Peter with all the other forgeries (in fact, its author certainly knew the Gospels and was therefore not writing independently of them), so we must therefore draw the same conclusions regarding its value as evidence.” - Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 321

“The ‘usual’ consensus on the four canonical Gospels is that Mark was written around 70, Matthew around 80, Luke around 90, and John around 100. Those are all arbitrary ballpark figures, which don’t really have much basis in fact.” - Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 322

“This is a second-century forgery, passed off as written by the apostle Peter, an example of how readily Christians fabricated not only their own history but the documents attesting it. There we see an attack upon certain fellow Christians who were actually teaching that the story of Jesus was (as Justin also denies) a ‘cleverly devised myth’ and who were thereby creating a ‘destructive heresy’. Similar hints can be found in other forged Epistles (e.g. 1 Tim. 1.3-4; 4.6-7; 2 Tim. 4.3-4; 1 Jn 1.1-3; 4.1-3; 2 Jn 7-11; etc.). In 2 Peter we also see a related anxiety over the strange celestial Jesus found in Paul’s letters—to the extent that now only the properly ‘informed’ were authorized to interpret them (2 Pet. 3.15-17).” - Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 415 

Prominent mythicists G.A. Wells and Richard Carrier present the view that 2 Peter is a forgery dated to the first half of the second century. In this article, we will not be dealing with the claim that 2 Peter is an inauthentic forgery because it is a separate and distinct issue from what 2 Peter actually says. To help ground this view in their overall timeline, we've included Carrier's comment about the timeline of the gospels where he believes the "consensus" is that they were written between 70-100 AD with Mark being the earliest around the year 70. Understanding the comparative dating of 2 Peter and the gospels from the mythicist perspective will become relevant later when we critique their argument. 

THE MYTHICIST ARGUMENT FROM 2 PETER 1:16

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Let's now look at how some mythicists interpret this verse and their utilization to support the central claims of the Christ myth theory.

“Obviously the forgers of 2 Peter would have to represent these Christians as introducing a novel heresy. But in reality, these may have been Christians still connected to the original mysteries who knew the exoteric myths were only cleverly constructed allegories. The fact that this is all we ever hear of the demonstrates that we cannot expect to have heard more—for here, clearly, 2 Peter is attacking some Christian heresy we know nothing else about and have no documents from. Instead, we get a forged ‘eyewitness testimony’ cleverly designed to refute the claim that the Gospel was a myth—refuting it, that is, with a fabricated historical report. This letter is therefore a decisive proof-of-concept for the entire transition from the original Christian mysteries to a historicizing sect fabricating its own historical testimonies to ‘prove’ its claims.” - Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus, p. 415-416

“Other clues have survived as well, of a lost Christian sect that believed the Gospels were just “cleverly devised myths” (2 Peter 1:16), perhaps intended to market a new savior god and a new package of social values.” - Carrier, Jesus from Outer Space, p. 37 

“We know there were Christians who thought the Gospel stories were “cleverly devised myths” and not witnessed events (as attested in the forgery of 2 Peter 1:16–2:3); but we are not allowed to hear anything from or about them.” - Carrier, Jesus from Outer Space, p. 56 

Richard Carrier sees 2 Peter 1:16 as referring to a rival sect of Christianity that represented the original Christian beliefs where Jesus was an entirely mythical and celestial being who had no actual historical existence in human history. According to Carrier, this sect believed all canonical gospels were mythological and not actual history; therefore, they rejected Jesus as a historical person. 

“2 Peter is widely recognised as a forgery and seems like it could be specifically addressing Christians that saw the Gospel story as allegorical and that denied Jesus’ Earthly career: “For we did not follow cleverly devised stories when we told you about the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in power, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty… But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them – bringing swift destruction on themselves.” This is in the context of many other warnings of “false teachers” and “fabricated stories.” - Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus, p. 302 

“Clearly there were Christians who saw the Gospels as myths, and the Christians who 2 Peter represented invented evidence to refute their rivals.” - Lataster, Questioning the Historicity of Jesus, Footnote 287, p. 332

Rafael Lastaster shares this perspective and interprets 2 Peter as saying that some Christians believed the gospels were allegorical myths and rejected Jesus' earthly existence. 

 

CRITIQUE OF THE MYTHICIST INTERPRETATION 

There are multiple unwarranted assumptions and errors made by mythicists in their interpretation of 2 Peter 1:16. We will break up our critique into multiple points. 

1. The first unwarranted assumption is that a rival sect or group is in view. This is clear in Carrier's analysis that this verse identifies a "lost Christian sect". 

2Pe 1:1-2 Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

The author of 2 Peter frames his audience as people who have "like precious faith" as himself. 

2Pe 1:10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

The author then addresses his audience as brethren. Leading up to verse 16, there is no indication that a rival sect is in mind. 

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

When we get to the verse in question, there is again no indication of a rival Christian sect. The only party our author specifically designates is the same audience in prior verses by the words "when we made known unto you". For all we know, the accusation of fables could have come from unbelieving Jews or Romans, or the author could just be doubling down on the truthfulness of his witness. 

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Elsewhere in this document, the author of 2 Peter is shown to not shy away from identifying false teachers among his audience. If he meant to identify a sect of Christians denying the historicity of Jesus' existence in verse 16, one would think the author would have included this detail. 

2. The second unwarranted assumption is that the author of 2 Peter is referring to the gospel stories in their entirety as what's not cunningly devised fables. We will elaborate further on this point in a moment. Suffice it to say for now, it becomes clear what the author was referring to when we continue reading the passage. 

3. Our third problem is that, taken on its own, this prooftext and argument do nothing to bolster the mythicist perspective that the earliest Christians didn't believe in a historical Jesus. Mythicists don't believe the gospels are early enough to be credible sources and date them after 70 AD. As we previously covered, they also date 2 Peter to the beginning of the 2nd century AD. In their own model, this puts 2 Peter coming roughly 30-50 years after the earliest gospels. Even if we were to accept the mythicist analysis of 2 Peter 1:16, which says a Christian sect that rejected the historicity of Jesus is in view, how would this indicate that the group represented the original Christian belief? This would only demonstrate that you have rejection of a historical Jesus in the 2nd century AD and we all agree that there are documents attesting to a historical Jesus before this time. Why shouldn't we conclude that the historicists were the original Christians? In our estimation, at least four things would need to be demonstrated for this argument to support the mythicist perspective. First, the analysis of the first itself would need to be correct. Second, it would need to be shown that Paul didn't believe in a historical Jesus. Third, it would need to be shown that Peter didn't believe in a historical Jesus. Fourth, it would need to be shown that the gospels, which certainly affirm a historical Jesus, were written as late as mythicists say. If all of these points were proven first, then it could be plausibly argued that this supposed mythicist sect of Christians represented the earliest beliefs if it could be matched up with much earlier Christian sources which didn't affirm a historical Jesus. 

THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF 2 PETER 1:16 

Our interpretation of 2 Peter 1:16 is derived from reading the following verses and comparing them with the New Testament gospels.

2Pe 1:16-18 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

The author of 2 Peter goes on to clarify what is meant in verse 16. The entirety of the gospels is not in view. Rather, the specific event of the transfiguration is in view. 2 Peter is pulling from the events recorded in both Matthew 17 and Luke 9. Let's take a look at these passages. 

Mat 16:28-17:1-9 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him. And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid. And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid. And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only. And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.

Luk 9:28-36 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said. While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

There are multiple points of overlap between what the author says and what the gospel accounts record about the transfiguration. First, "coming of our Lord Jesus" in 2 Peter 1:16 pairs with "the Son of man coming" in Matthew 16:28. Second, "honour and glory" in 2 Peter 1:17 pairs with "appeared in glory" in Luke 9:31. Third, "this is my beloved Son" in 2 Peter 1:17 pairs with "This is my beloved Son" in Matthew 17:5 and "This is my beloved Son" in Luke 9:35. Fourth, "voice which came from heaven" in 2 Peter 1:18 pairs with "a voice out of the cloud" in Matthew 17:5 and "a voice out of the cloud" in Luke 9:35. Fifth, "in the holy mount" in 2 Peter 1:18 pairs with "up into a mountain" in Luke 9:28 and "into an high mountain" in Matthew 17:1. Undoubtedly, this event is what the author of 2 Peter is referring to. 

In addition, a few aspects of the transfiguration help clarify and give reason for why the author would feel the need to mention that this isn't a cunningly devised fable. First, the transfiguration event only had Peter, James, and John as witnesses. Second, Jesus charged them to not speak of this event until after the resurrection. So we have limited accounts and a significant amount of time passing before the events are spoken of in public. There is no need to insert a rival sect of Christians who rejected Jesus' entire historical existence into the context of 2 Peter 1:16. Even if it were granted that a portion of Christians didn't believe the transfiguration account, it would not follow that they also didn't believe in Jesus' historical existence. There are plenty of atheists and Christian skeptics who don't believe in Jesus' resurrection. However, these same people also often affirm that Jesus was a historical person. Skepticism about a particular event in a person's life does not lend itself to wholesale rejection of said person's historical existence. 

G.A. WELLS' OPPOSING PERSPECTIVE ON 2 PETER 1:16

George Albert Wells was a British professor of German and one of the most influential proponents of the Jesus myth theory in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. His work evolved over time, initially arguing that Jesus never existed before later modifying his stance to acknowledge the possibility of an earlier, obscure historical figure who was later mythologized. How did he interpret 2 Peter 1:16?

“2 Peter does indeed refer to the gospel transfiguration story, and has occasion to do so;” - Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, p. 51

“The author mentions Jesus’ transfiguration (i) in order to authenticate himself as Simon Peter (1:1), a witness to this event (1:16-18); and (ii) as evidence of Jesus’ ‘power’ and of his ‘coming’ in order to discredit heretics who had abandoned all hope that he would come again (3:3-4).” - Wells, Did Jesus Exist?, Chapter 2, Footnote 25 

“2 Peter alludes to the miracle of the transfiguration,” - G.A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus, p. 78

In Wells' work, we see an interpretation of 2 Peter 1:16 in line with what we've articulated as the biblical perspective. Wells did not share the perspective that contemporary 21st-century apologists of Jesus mythicism have come to hold. 

EARL DOHERTY'S REBUTTAL TO THE BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE

Earl Doherty is a prominent contemporary apologist for Jesus Mythicism. He authored The Jesus Puzzle (1999), Challenging the Verdict (2001), and Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (2009). Doherty argues that Christianity began with a mythical Christ and that the Gospel Jesus was a later, fictional creation. In his 2009 book, Doherty briefly touches on 2 Peter 1:16 and offers some interesting comments. Let's see what he says. 

“Here we can make an intriguing comparison outside Hebrews, for one is reminded of a very similar passage in the epistle 2 Peter. Briefly put, the scene in 1:16-18, traditionally presumed to be derived from the Transfiguration episode in the Synoptic Gospels (dubiously so, since important elements are missing and the text tells us otherwise), presents the reader with the report of a visionary experience by Peter and others in which the displayed power and glory of Christ is meant to prefigure his Parousia, his arrival at the End-time. For the writer of 2 Peter, this was a vision of what is to come. (And an analysis of the text indeed identifies it as a vision, an epiphany of a spiritual entity, not an experience of those apostles with an historical Jesus during his ministry.) He goes on in verse 19 to say something very incongruous: that this visionary experience of Christ “confirms for us the message of the prophets,” the biblical prophecies and guarantees about the coming of the Messiah and the kingdom. Yet it can hardly be thought that an incident like this, if part of Christ’s life on earth witnessed to by his followers, could be placed in a position of secondary importance to the general promises of scripture, which the writer styles “a lamp shining in a murky place until the day breaks.” Scholars admit the incongruity in such a way of putting things, that the experience of Christ’s own person and life on earth has not taken over first place to that of scripture in inspiring Christian hopes. The continued existence of a murk awaiting the break of day would hardly be possible; it would surely have been dispelled, at least partially, by the recent life of the Son of God on earth. (This alone reveals 2 Peter’s lack of an historical Jesus.)” - Doherty, Jesus: Neither God nor Man, p. 1312-1313

Doherty acknowledges that the traditional interpretation is that 2 Peter is referring to the transfiguration. However, he rejects this for a few reasons and provides his own interpretation that the author is referring to a vision of a future event. We will provide a few points in response to Doherty's reasoning. Some of these points are derived from our previous comments. 

1. Doherty claims it's dubious to presume that the transfiguration is in view because "important elements are missing". He doesn't elaborate on what elements he would need to see before concluding that the transfiguration is in view, so it's hard to interact much here. However, the author gives us plenty of details that correspond with the transfiguration recorded in the gospels. As we covered earlier, at least 5 parallels exist between 2 Peter 1:16-18 and the transfiguration accounts in Matthew 16 and Luke 9. If these details don't suffice to conclude that the author did not mean to draw attention to the previous experience of Peter, James, and John, what would he have needed to say for us to make this conclusion? 

2. This leads us to our second point. Doherty claims the author describes a celestial vision rather than a historical experience. If this were the case, why does the author use plural language multiple times when describing the group of people who have "made known" the coming of Jesus Christ? In verse 16, "we have not", "we made known", and "were eyewitnesses" are all plural. In light of this detail, what option is more plausible: the claim of a celestial vision shared by multiple people, or the claim of a historical experience shared by multiple people? This begs the question of how a shared vision in the minds of separate individuals would even work. Additionally, it raises the question of whether shared visions by separate individuals even work at all. 

3. The author of 2 Peter claims to have been one of the "eyewitnesses" of Jesus' majesty. If the author is meaning to refer to a celestial vision that presumably occurred in his mind or in a dream, why use this language? This language normally indicates observing or participating in a real event.

4. Doherty claims that the author is speaking of a future event. Unfortunately, this does not match the tense of the verses in question. When he speaks about the event in question, he repeatedly uses the words were, received, came, came, and were in this order. This is not the language of someone who believes they are describing a future event. 

5. Doherty claims that verse 19 is "incongruous" with interpreting the prior verses as referring to the transfiguration. The author says, "We have also a more sure word of prophecy". Doherty doesn't believe that if these events were historical that they'd be placed in a position of secondary importance to the prophecies of scripture. We fail to see how the event in 2 Peter 1:16-18, which solidifies the truthfulness and certainty of biblical prophecy, simultaneously means the event isn't historical. In fact, the gospels, which explicitly attest to a historical Jesus, repeatedly point to the Old Testament prophecies and how Jesus solidifies and fulfills them. Of course, this doesn't mean the gospels were making Jesus into a mythical person by pointing back to prophecies. Therefore, we find Doherty's point on this irrelevant. 

6. Doherty sees the continued existence of darkness waiting for daybreak in verse 19 as hardly possible if Jesus had recently existed historically. Yet, the gospels in places like Matthew 4:16, Matthew 6:23, Luke 1:78-79, Luke 22:53, John 1:5, John 3:19-20, John 8:12, John 12:35-36, and others speak of a currently existing darkness during Jesus' life and ministry. Therefore, the language of darkness existing cannot reasonably be taken to mean that Jesus has not yet come. 

These six points summarize a few of the reasons why we find Doherty's rebuttal of the transfiguration interpretation to be impersuasive. 

CONCLUSION 

We have now examined the Jesus mythicism prooftext of 2 Peter 1:16. Through the course of this article, we have looked at the mythicist view of 2 Peter's authorship and worked through how the text should be interpreted. In conclusion, we don't believe 2 Peter 1:16 supports the distinct claims of Jesus mythicism. 

Thanks for reading. That concludes this article.