Sincerely, I confess that the particular mention of Jesus (as someone with whom ''Peter'' is on the mountain, and not like someone who is seen by Peter on the mountain) points very surely to an earthly Jesus. Even if the episode is read as a post-resurrection episode, the Jesus who is meant seems very humble, a man among men. It seems that the extraordinary event ''Peter'' saw on the mountain was something seen also by Jesus, and was not Jesus himself. Precisely what is found also in the Gospels.GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:50 pm
Is 2 Peter "surely" a historicist epistle? Note that you have high-lighted the only statement in the letter that could conceivably be a reference to a historical Jesus. The rest of the letter (though short) is little different in content or form to those epistles often argued to be 'mythicist' by some mythicists. There are few details to time and space. There is not even a specific reference to Jerusalem! Acting as the devil's advocate, you could even argue that the 'eye-witness' reference was to a vision of Jesus, rather than to an earthly Jesus. There is nothing else in the text that specifically points to an earthly Jesus.
I think that the mention of a mountain is different from the mention of the gates of a city (I have Hebrews in mind): what is a ''mountain'' in a mythicist view? Whereas in Hebrews the ''city'' is interpreted rather easily by Carrier as the celestial Jerusalem.
Therefore this only fact seems sufficient, in my eyes, to consider historicist that epistle and answer your other questions.