Professor Martin Hengel interview from the Christ Files part 2

[RichGriese]

The interviewer says something like "you and other scholars have shown that marks gospel... appears to record the witness of peter, who was a eye witness...". The problem is that we don't even know if there was an actual Peter character, so to say that they "have shown" that, and he was an "eye witness", is problematic. Hengel does not correct the questioner. This is a kind of problem that you see over and over again in the religion industry.

Cheers!

[Ousias1]

@RichGriese Peter is mentioned in numerous independent sources from the first and early second century. This is the sort of stuff of which history is made, unless of course the ones doing history are part of the hyper-skeptical, anti-religious industry. Ciao!