We Have Two Swords

[One Bad Pig]

I hadn't seen that before.

The Gospel of John was revealed and given to the churches by John while still in the body, just as Papias of Hieropolis, the close disciple of John, related in the exoterics, that is, in the last five books. Indeed he wrote down the gospel, while John was dictating carefully. But the heretic Marcion, after being condemned by him because he was teaching ² the opposite to him [John], was expelled by John. But he [Marcion] had brought writings or letters to him [John] from the brothers which were in Pontus.

Let's see now: Marcion was born in 85CE ... say he was 20 when he had the run in with John: that would make it105CE
Say that John was 20 when Jesus died ... at the latest 33CE: that would make him 92 in 105CE

The prologue doesn't seem reasonable, even with the unreasonable ages of 20 for each.

Tradition has consistently held that John was quite old when he died (over 100).

[tabibito]

Tradition has consistently held that John was quite old when he died (over 100).

It is (barely) within range on the basis of ages, yes. But common belief is that John died ca 98-100 CE, at which time Marcion would have been younger than 16. Somewhere, someone got something wrong.

[rogue06]

I divided my replies into two separate posts. You evidently have overlooked one of them

Maybe you can point out where exactly you addressed anything at all from the first third of my post that you removed.

Which does not preclude the distinct possibility that it was all initially Googled.

Which does not preclude the distinct possibility it was all initially Googled.

Googling is usually done to get spelling of names and the dates correct. But there is no need to project your habits on to me as you are so wont to do.

Btw, was there a reason you wrote the same thing twice?

We know that on occasion from the late first century BCE and into the first century CE texts [particularly those of astrologers] and sometimes philosophers were occasionally banned but there is no conclusive evidence that books were burned in these contexts prior to the fourth century onward .

Who was doing this banning in the first century?

What other purpose required a secretary?

Again, whoever said "required"?

This is nothing but your own speculative flights of fancy.

Simple fact, or have you never compared two separate, independent translations of the very same book?

I mean, look at the various Bible translations just from the last century. The fact is if you are dictating something and it is translated into another language, the person doing this has a profound effect on the text. He influences at the very least the vocabulary and style. Two of the very things often cited to claim that different authors wrote the epistles.

It is not solely the language that is the issue in 1 & 2 Peter. These texts also show an understanding of Greek rhetorical techniques, philosophy, and a knowledge of the LXX.

Which can be explained by someone extremely fluent in a language improving on what someone who is not nearly as fluent, who speaks in a less refined, inelegant manner, said.

Ehrman sums it up rather well in his book Forged: Writing in the Name of God, Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, HarperCollins, 2011

Ehrman.

How many of his books have you read while still cravenly avoiding reading the text he is talking about? What is it, did you see a movie where a witch got burned when she handled a Bible so you're scared to actually touch one? Copies are available online so you don't have to physically come into contact.

Some scholars have suggested that Peter did not directly write 1 Peter [as I’ve indicated, almost no one thinks he wrote 2 Peter], but that he indirectly wrote it, for example, by dictating the letter to a scribe. Some have noted that the letter is written “through Silvanus” [5:12] and thought that maybe Silvanus wrote down Peter’s thoughts for him.... The answer is, “Almost certainly not.” But for now I can say at least a couple of words about the case of 1 Peter.
First off, scholars now widely recognize that when the author indicates that he wrote the book “through Silvanus,” he is indicating not the name of his secretary, but the person who was carrying the letter to the recipients. Authors who used secretaries don’t refer to them in this way.

But why not suppose that Peter used someone else, other than Silvanus, as a secretary? It would help to imagine how this theory is supposed to work exactly. Peter could not have dictated this letter in Greek to a secretary any more than he could have written it in Greek. That would have required him to be perfectly fluent in Greek, to have mastered rhetorical techniques in Greek, and to have had an intimate familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. None of that is plausible. Nor can one easily think that he dictated the letter in Aramaic and the secretary translated it into Greek. The letter does not read like a Greek translation of an Aramaic original, but as an original Greek composition with Greek rhetorical flourishes. Moreover the letter presupposes the knowledge of the Greek Old Testament, so the person who composed the letter [whether orally or in writing] must have known the Scriptures in Greek. Is it possible, then, that the historical Peter directed someone to write a letter, basically told him what to say, and let him produce it? To that there are two responses. First, it would seem that if someone else actually composed the letter, it would be that person, not Peter, who was the author. But the other person is never named. Even in Paul's letters that are coauthored [almost all of them]he names the others, even though he probably wrote them himself

[...]But even more compelling is this. Where in the ancient world do we have anything at all analogous to this hypothetical situation of someone writing a letter-essay for someone else and putting the other person’s name on it—the name of the person who did not write it—rather than his own name? So far as I know, there is not a single instance of any such procedure attested from antiquity or any discussion, in any ancient source, of this being a legitimate practice. Or even an illegitimate one. Such a thing is never discussed

If this is available online does that mean it's automatically wrong or something? Have I got that right?

You really have to admire how he summarily declares a verdict on a topic without providing his reasoning and then immediately switches gears into a different topic.

Some have noted that the letter is written “through Silvanus” [5:12] and thought that maybe Silvanus wrote down Peter’s thoughts for him.... The answer is, “Almost certainly not.” But for now I can say at least a couple of words about the case of 1 Peter.

I, the great and powerful Ehrman have henceforth decreed, which is more than enough for you peons (someone get that dog away from the curtain!).

As noted, there is some debate regarding how Peter referred to Silvanus, and his yet again unsupported claim ("Authors who used secretaries don’t refer to them in this way.") is obviously not even remotely close to being universally accepted (see the two versions I cited of that passage as evidence for this).

Both these texts are pseudepigraphical and were written at a later date.

Naked assertion without evidence.

No. I am pointing out that your making those remarks severs to illustrate your ignorance of those campaigns, why they were undertaken [i.e. the history of the region] and that convulsive period of Roman history.

All of which does not change the incontrovertible fact that Julius Caesar invaded and conquered Gaul, just like one can read in various history books.

c0363f2e-2616-44b9-a137-9a6f4c51cbdf.jpg

Hell's bells here we go again. Just how many unnecessary image codes did you insert into the text?

Do you actually consider that quoting six lines of text constitutes quoting "extensively" from a work that runs to [including notes] more than 200 pages?

For the purposes of a post, yes.

Much - to a great extent or degree

But not "most" as in a majority.

Are you alleging that these four gospels were in circulation from the 50s CE?

Re-read what you originally posted and to which I was responding.

Again, I recommend you read Paul's letters

IRON--E.jpg
Considering that you never have.

And again, there were disagreements even in the Apostolic Age (Peter also warns of false teachers), but they had the unquestioned authority to correct them. Shortly after they were gone there was nobody with that much authority and heresies began to take hold.

The tensions and [some might suggest schisms] between those who had known Jesus and Paul are evident from his letters. Acts is in part a later narrative looking back at events some decades earlier and presenting those events and that period in a contrived manner. In Acts disagreements and divisions are all reconciled and everyone eventually comes to agreement. In that regard it is an early form of spin or PR.

Paul is writing at a time when these issues had arose whereas Luke is writing after the issues were resolved. At this point any issues that there was disagreement on could be fully and conclusively decided.

You are acting like the Apostles and other followers of Jesus possessed a hive mind where they all shared the same thoughts and marched in lockstep without even needing to discuss things. Of course disagreements arose (look at Paul dressing down Peter at Antioch for instance). But they worked things out and came to an accord.

My point being that in the mid 50s CE these were small and disparate groups of a clandestine cult.

With the Apostles openly preaching in large cities to large crowds.

Once again you are relying on Acts as your historical source.

Not just Acts, and besides, beats the snot out of baseless speculation and conjecture that you offer.

What on earth has that reply to do with the content of the specific verses I cited from I and II Corinthians?

Written by Paul during the height of the controversy that would later be resolved. What's your point?

Yet again you seem unaware of the fact that in the first century [there was no uniform theology. The theology of these disparate Christian communities tended to be shaped by the ideas of their respective founders and the relations between those various individuals could be often hostile. Hence Paul's remarks on false teachers.

These would be in churches that Paul founded, hence they would have been founded on the same ideas

Therefore, and contrary to your previous repeated assertions, there was no over-arching orthodoxy.

That you seem to think that folks would still make mistakes that required correcting evidence that there was no over-arching orthodoxy is indeed mind-boggling.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There is a world of difference between "being conceived" and "becoming." The latter is what the scriptures declare, though there may be two references that refer to being conceived.

I think all that has been adequately covered.

There is a world of difference between "wrote" and "am sending" even in Koine Greek.

The Greek expression employed in 5:12 [dia Silouanou...egrapsa] conventionally identifies the emissary through whom a letter is delivered [cf. Ign. Rom. 10:1; Ign. Phild.11:2; Ign. Smyrn. 12:1; cf. Polyc. Ep. 7:3] and occurs also in Acts 15:23 to identify Silas/Silvanus and Judas Barsabbas as emissaries of the letter of the Jerusalem council to the believers at Antioch [15:22-34][From John Elliott's entry on 1 Peter in Yale Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 5]

The ridicule doesn't substitute for a reasonable explanation of why you believe that Peter, who was circulating in the Koine Greek speaking world, could not have learnt Koine Greek.

Again from Elliott on 1 Peter:

The letter‘s refined literary style, rich, often rare, vocabulary not occurring elsewhere in the NT; and consistent citation of the Greek OT are also difficult to reconcile with the NT picture of Simon Peter as an unschooled (Acts 4:13) and Aramaicspeaking Galilean fisherman (Schrage Katholischen Briefe NTD, 62–64; Brox Petrusbrief2 EKKNT 43– 47). The hypothesis that 5:12 identifies Silvanus as Peter‘s secretary and co-author (Selwyn 1947: 9–17, 241; Reicke James, Peter, Jude AB, 69–71) lacks convincing proof (Beare 1970: 212–16). Even less is known of Silvanus and his literary ability than of Peter and the commendation of Silvanus as ―a faithful brother‖ would then appear a deceptive form of self-praise.

And from his entry on 2 Peter:

The letter‘s vocabulary and style also distinguish it from other NT documents. Fifty-eight of its 402 word vocabulary (1,105 total words) are unique in the NT—the highest proportion in the NT (14.4 percent). This taste for obscure and grandiose language is matched by a style marked by excess rather than economy of expression. [...]All these features indicate an author and audience at home in a pluralistic Hellenistic society

Saying "us" and "we" somehow doesn't mean that he was present?

At certain points in the text those pronouns are employed. That is all.

The claims are far from unanimous.

Who claimed it to be unanimous?

The people to whom Paul was writing and the people before whom Paul is said to have criticised Peter are the same group.

We have nothing that has come down to us from any of them.

And again, it is reasonable to expect that silence would prevail in the face of manifestly false claim?

Do the dates 66-70 CE have any relevance for you? Whatever those individuals in Jerusalem may have written [assuming they could write] was lost.

He offered them substantially more than that. His preaching was affirmed in the performance of miracles, and members of the churches under his care could do the same.

A lot of things we now know have perfectly rational explanations were deemed miraculous in the ancient world, and once again we have nothing that has come down to us from any of these individuals who witnessed all these events.

When people can demonstrate that their claims have merit, arrogant people with opposing views will always call them arrogant.

I require evidence.

Only teachings that don't contradict him are correct.

Says who?

Given that his preaching had God's obvious approval, as did the preaching of the founding apostles, it was reasonable to make the claim.

On what evidence did Paul have "God's obvious approval"? All we have are his claims about his mystical revelations. Someone today who see visions and hears voices would either be on medication or possibly kept [for their own safety] in a secure unit.

"supposed to be" ? That doesn't come from a sound reading of the Koine Greek. An adequate translation would be "considered to be." Their reputation wasn't a deciding factor, and they hadn't found fault with Paul's gospel. But this is a rehash of your previous attempts to change the meaning of the text.

You can take up with the translation team at the NCC.

In that piece, where is Peter's diet mentioned? Yet again, yet another attempt to make the text say things that it doesn't

No observant Jew could sit and eat with gentiles without becoming ritually unclean. And gentile food would not be acceptable given dietary laws surrounding ingredients and preparation.

There is nothing technologically backward about the world I live in, and it is most assuredly possible on occasion even to me.

It is a well known fact that people continue to believe in superstition and nonsense. Hence Shermer's 1997 book.



And it has not got any better in the intervening twenty-six years.

Maybe things were being done in the first century that aren't usually being done today.

It seems the penchant for superstition, "magic" and "miracles" still prevails among some.

It certainly does not reflect Christian practice, anyway.

Really? What do you think underlies the wearing of a crucifix/cross or a saint's image e.g. a St Christopher?

Even in the first century, it would have been an uncommon practice at most.

Once again you demonstrate your utter ignorance of Roman religion and religious practises.

[tabibito]

[box]The Greek expression employed in 5:12 [dia Silouanou...egrapsa] conventionally identifies the emissary through whom a letter is delivered [cf. Ign. Rom. 10:1; Ign. Phild.11:2; Ign. Smyrn. 12:1; cf. Polyc. Ep. 7:3] and occurs also in Acts 15:23 to identify Silas/Silvanus and Judas Barsabbas as emissaries of the letter of the Jerusalem council to the believers at Antioch [15:22-34][From John Elliott's entry on 1 Peter in Yale Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 5]

Acts 15:23

γραψαντες	ptcpl: aor act nom masc pl	(‡ ones)　 having written
δια	prpstn: acc, gtv	by・through
χειρος	της noun: gtv fem sgl	of? 　 ‡ hand
αυτων	pers prn: gtv, ..., pl	of? them
ταδε	dmnstv prnn: nom.acc neut pl	these
οι 1	def art: nom masc pl	the (+ subj)
αποστολοι	οι noun: nom masc pl	‡ commissioners・apostles (subj)
και	και　cnjnctn	and
οι 1	def art: nom masc pl	the (+ subj)
πρεσβυτεροι	οι noun: nom masc pl	‡ elders (subj)
και	και　cnjnctn	and
οι 1	def art: nom masc pl	the (+ subj)
αδελφοι	οι noun: nom masc pl	‡ brothers (subj)

Nuff said

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Maybe you can point out where exactly you addressed anything at all from the first third of my post that you removed.

Do you possess no common sense?

I addressed your comments pertaining to accreditation in the post that preceded my reply that made reference to your frantic Googling. If you are really struggling try here: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e7#post1466215

According to my computer that is post #101.

Who was doing this banning in the first century?

As I have previously stated on occasion texts were banned or even burned in pre-Christian Rome but on no comparable scale to that which occurred from the fourth century.

Again, whoever said "required"?

For what reason is a secretary needed?

Ehrman.

Irrespective of your opinion he is an accredited academic and nor is he alone. John H Elliott, Terence Callan, and Duane F. Watson make similar observations.

I, the great and powerful Ehrman have henceforth decreed, which is more than enough for you peons (someone get that dog away from the curtain!).

Tut tut. You appear to be "sneering" and "scoffing" at an academic. The very faults of which you have accused me with regard to the academics you have mentioned. What a hypocrite you are [another fault you regularly attribute to me].

As noted, there is some debate regarding how Peter referred to Silvanus

Not among academics.

Naked assertion without evidence.

From Elliott's entry in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Vol 5 on 1 Peter:

The letter‘s refined literary style, rich, often rare, vocabulary not occurring elsewhere in the NT; and consistent citation of the Greek OT are also difficult to reconcile with the NT picture of Simon Peter as an unschooled [Acts 4:13] and Aramaic speaking Galilean fisherman...The hypothesis that 5:12 identifies Silvanus as Peter‘s secretary and co-author lacks convincing proof. [...]The Greek expression employed in 5:12 [dia Silouanou...egrapsa] conventionally identifies the emissary through whom a letter is delivered [cf. Ign. Rom. 10:1; Ign. Phild.11:2; Ign. Smyrn. 12:1; cf. Polyc. Ep. 7:3] and occurs also in Acts 15:23 to identify Silas/Silvanus and Judas Barsabbas as emissaries of the letter of the Jerusalem council to the believers at Antioch [15:22-34]

And from Watson's commentary on 1 Peter:

This phrase “by Silvanus” means not that Silvanus was Peter’s secretary in writing the letter but that he carried the letter to the churches. The vast majority of commendations using “by” [dia] in papyrus letters and early Christian letters refer to the carrier of the letter [Acts 15:23; Ign. Phld. 11.2; Smyrn. 12.1; Rom. 10.1; Pol. 8.1; Pol. Phil. 14.1]. Also, if Silvanus had a large role in the writing of the letter, it is likely that his name would appear alongside Peter’s in the letter opening, as it is alongside Paul’s in 1 Thess. 1:1 and 2 Thess. 1:1, and he would probably not commend himself here at the end.

All of which does not change the incontrovertible fact that Julius Caesar invaded and conquered Gaul, just like one can read in various history books.

Your own ignorance of the historical situation has been demonstrated on various occasions.

For the purposes of a post, yes.

By no stretching of one's imagination can quoting six lines from a volume be considered "extensive".

But not "most" as in a majority.

There is a small minority that hold opinions on the earlier datings of the gospels but I have never come across an NT scholar in recent history [i.e. since 1950] who maintains that the original authors of these canonical gospels were indeed the men whose names were ascribed to later copies of those texts. Although I assume there may be some theologians who still hold the view that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually were the authors.

And again, there were disagreements even in the Apostolic Age (Peter also warns of false teachers), but they had the unquestioned authority to correct them.

Of those "false teachers" of whom Paul writes it is highly probable that they came from James in Jerusalem. The observant Jews who had followed another observant Jew wished their Messianic Jewish sect to remain true to its religion. That James became known as James the Righteous would indicate he was noted for being particularly strict in his observance of the Torah. Hence if gentiles wished to join their sect they had to convert.

Nor was what Paul was teaching is in any way comparable to what we are given as the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptics; which was a belief in the imminency of the End Times, the coming of the kingdom of God, and that his fellow Jews should repent and prepare for those events.

Shortly after they were gone there was nobody with that much authority and heresies began to take hold.

As there was no orthodoxy how could there be heresies? Paul's beliefs had no authority beyond his groups.

Paul is writing at a time when these issues had arose whereas Luke is writing after the issues were resolved. At this point any issues that there was disagreement on could be fully and conclusively decided.

Acts in this regard is later propaganda because of what was happening within both Judaism and fledgling Christianity following the events of 70 CE. Consider the later sect of the Ebionites. We know little about them primarily because their gospel has been lost and they were persecuted by other Christians, Eusebius of Caesarea in the fourth century declaring them heretic. However, from what we do know of them their beliefs were markedly different from the tradition of present-day Christianity which derives from Paul. They followed the Torah, believed in Jesus as the promised Jewish Messiah [i.e. not a divine or semi-divine figure] and expected his return to restore Israel to prominence and bring about/usher in the End Times. They also had very little time for Paul and his teaching considering him apostate and a liar - presumably why Pauline Christians considered them heretic.

You are acting like the Apostles and other followers of Jesus possessed a hive mind where they all shared the same thoughts and marched in lockstep without even needing to discuss things. Of course disagreements arose (look at Paul dressing down Peter at Antioch for instance). But they worked things out and came to an accord.

Again you are relying on Acts and a somewhat uncritical reading of Paul's authentic letters. We do not know what the followers of Jesus actually thought about Paul as they have left us no attested evidence. However, Sheldon W. Liebmann in his book The Great Betrayal: Christians and Jews in the First Four Centuries [a text incidentally that you brought to my attention and which I have since purchased] makes the following comments.

The shift from James to Paul was momentous in the history of the Church because by most accounts Paul was a cosmopolitan Diaspora Jew who had been exposed to, and was therefore influenced by, Greek philosophy and culture as Jesus, James, Peter, and John were not..These Palestinians were not even from Jerusalem, the somewhat Hellenized spiritual and intellectual centre of Palestine but from Galilee which was notorious as a hotbed of radicalism and as a cultural outpost characterised, at least according to Judeans, by illiteracy and ignorance...It is hardly surprising then therefore that Paul’s ideas particularly on God and ethics were different not only from James and Peter, but also from those of Jesus. Besides rejecting the Mosaic Law in favour of Grace Paul shifted the attention of the Church from the Kingdom of God to Jesus’ Resurrection and Atonement, identified the essential human conflict as a battle between soul and body or spirit and flesh, and replaced Jesus’ emphasis on Good Works as a means of salvation with his own idea of Faith [...]

The exportation of Christianity to the Diaspora was not, at first, a unifying process. Serious divisions in the Churh arose between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians, Palestinian and Diaspora Christians , and rural and urban Christians. Furthermore, as different apostles went to different towns and cities they spread their own ideas of what Jesus said and did. And when these ideas were received by people who were sufficiently impressed by them to become Christians, they understood them in the context of their own cultural and experiential situation. That is, they interpreted the gospel that was presented to them in terms of their backgrounds as Greeks, Mesopotamians, or Egyptians; in terms of their past religious affiliations [e.g., with a mystery religion like the cult of Isis, or a philosophy like Epicuranism]; and in terms of their own personal experience as family members, tradesmen, peasants, slaves, or scholars....All of these many different interpretations of Christianity were manifested in an equally rich variety of religious practices.[pp.269-272]

With the Apostles openly preaching in large cities to large crowds.

Says who?

Written by Paul during the height of the controversy that would later be resolved. What's your point?

From both this and your former reply in response to that question it is evident that you have not read the specific verses I gave to you. So here is the question again. I asked you for your interpretation/understanding of the following verses.

I Corinthians chapter two verses six to eight: We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. ⁷ No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. ⁸ None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

II Corinthians chapter twelve verses two to four: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. ³ And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— ⁴ was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

These would be in churches that Paul founded, hence they would have been founded on the same ideas

And as you so correctly write these were merely Paul's "ideas". Christianity today owes its origin to Paul's ideas and his personal experience of a mystical figure he called Christ Jesus/Jesus Christ and not to a flesh and blood Jewish teacher and Messianic claimant. Paul rarely refers to any of the teachings of Jesus that we are given.

That you seem to think that folks would still make mistakes that required correcting evidence that there was no over-arching orthodoxy is indeed mind-boggling.

See the extract from Liebmann - the book you initially drew to my attention.

There was no temporal authority for the first two hundred and fifty years or more of the Christian religion's development by which to declare "Belief X is the only correct belief"

As I have pointed out on several occasions to you a Christian prelate/leader of a community from the middle/late second century onward and who leaned to a proto-orthodox view could inveigh against other Christians, as indeed many did. However, those views carried no authority beyond their own community and among like-minded individuals.

It was only when the religion gained toleration in the early fourth century and when the adherents of what had started out as a proto-orthodox group had gained ascendancy and Imperial patronage that the so-called heretical views of those other sects would be upheld as going against the teachings of the Church. And Imperial patronage gave those individuals the power to destroy texts and exile/anathematize adherents to alternative beliefs.

However, it took time along with Imperial edicts for that group to gain overall control. Despite the events of 325 CE alternative views [including subordinationism] did not go away and by the last quarter of the fourth century the Empire was effectively split with the two Augusti supporting different beliefs. Valentinian II in the West was a Homoean and Theodosius I in the East held to the Nicene Creed.

Christianity has never been a unified religion and continues with its numerous sects and denominations all of which have shades of opinion within them.

To use the line from the late great Dave Allen - do you think that Ian Paisley worshipped the same God as the Pope?

[tabibito]

In Acts 15:23 we have something written by the hand (δια χειρος), and who wrote it? the apostles, presbyters, and brothers (οι αποστολοι και οι πρεσβυτεροι και οι αδελφοι)
In 1Peter 5:12 we have something being written by Silvanus (δια σιλουανου)

[γραψαντες δια χειρος αυτων] ταδε [οι αποστολοι και οι πρεσβυτεροι και οι αδελφοι]
[having written(participle, subj) by the hand (indir object) of them (genitive)] these things (object) [the apostles and the presbyters and the brothers (subject)]

So, correcting for English grammar: Having written these things by the(ir own) hand, the apostles, presbyters, and brothers ~

[tabibito]

So, correcting for English grammar: Having written these things by the(ir own) hand, the apostles, presbyters, and brothers ~

Forgot to put the quotes: Having written these things by the(ir own) hand, "the apostles, presbyters, and brothers ~"
The bit about sending actually occurs in verse 22.

[tabibito]

So - having reviewed the statements of Acts 15:22-23 and compared them with the relevant passage in 1Peter,
we can be confident that Silvanus did in fact pen Peter's letter.

Once again you demonstrate your utter ignorance of Roman religion and religious practises.

First century Christian practices (on topic) weren't part of the Roman religion (off topic).

[rogue06]

Do you possess no common sense?

I addressed your comments pertaining to accreditation in the post that preceded my reply that made reference to your frantic Googling. If you are really struggling try here: https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e7#post1466215

According to my computer that is post #101.

What does any of that have to do with the fact that you did one of your "snipped for relevance" about a third of my post before you started addressing it?

As I have previously stated on occasion texts were banned or even burned in pre-Christian Rome but on no comparable scale to that which occurred from the fourth century.

Or the 1930s? A lot of bonfires then.

What you will of course deliberately skip over is how much Christian monks were able to preserve during the numerous invasions by the Huns and various Germanic and Slavic hordes that overran western Europe starting around that time. Irish monks for instance, particularly those belonging to the Hiberno-Scottish mission, were copying manuscripts of Greek and Latin writers, both pagan and Christian and were responsible for saving much of what was saved during this period.

For what reason is a secretary needed?

Well, for one, just because you spoke a language doesn't mean that you could read or write it.

There are actually a number of reason that someone might employ an amanuensis aside from the reason I provided. For instance, the author could be ill, injured or disabled such as the blind English composer Fritz/Frederick Delius who, due to blindness, used them to write his music for him.

Irrespective of your opinion he is an accredited academic and nor is he alone. John H Elliott, Terence Callan, and Duane F. Watson make similar observations.

Tut tut. You appear to be "sneering" and "scoffing" at an academic. The very faults of which you have accused me with regard to the academics you have mentioned. What a hypocrite you are [another fault you regularly attribute to me].

Aside from, unlike you, I don't rely solely on the opinion of others and constantly harp about "academics" as you do, my observation had more to do with how you hang on Erhman's every word but refuse to look at the primary source itself in spite of kvetching about it for how many decades now? This reliance on out-of-context snippets rather than reading the actual text has turned around and bit you in the hind-end multiple times now and could be remedied by actually reading what you seek so hard to disparage.

Not among academics.

Still wrong again. Among academics.

From Elliott's entry in The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary Vol 5 on 1 Peter:

The letter‘s refined literary style, rich, often rare, vocabulary not occurring elsewhere in the NT; and consistent citation of the Greek OT are also difficult to reconcile with the NT picture of Simon Peter as an unschooled [<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Acts+4.13&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Acts.4.13" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Acts 4:13</a>] and Aramaic speaking Galilean fisherman...The hypothesis that 5:12 identifies Silvanus as Peter‘s secretary and co-author lacks convincing proof. [...]The Greek expression employed in 5:12 [dia Silouanou...egrapsa] conventionally identifies the emissary through whom a letter is delivered [cf. Ign. <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Rom.+10.1&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Rom.10.1" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Rom. 10:1</a>; Ign. Phild.11:2; Ign. Smyrn. 12:1; cf. Polyc. Ep. 7:3] and occurs also in <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Acts+15.23&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Acts.15.23" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Acts 15:23</a> to identify Silas/Silvanus and Judas Barsabbas as emissaries of the letter of the Jerusalem council to the believers at Antioch [15:22-34]

And from Watson's commentary on 1 Peter:

This phrase “by Silvanus” means not that Silvanus was Peter’s secretary in writing the letter but that he carried the letter to the churches. The vast majority of commendations using “by” [dia] in papyrus letters and early Christian letters refer to the carrier of the letter [<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=Acts+15.23&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.Acts.15.23" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">Acts 15:23</a>; Ign. Phld. 11.2; Smyrn. 12.1; Rom. 10.1; Pol. 8.1; Pol. Phil. 14.1]. Also, if Silvanus had a large role in the writing of the letter, it is likely that his name would appear alongside Peter’s in the letter opening, as it is alongside Paul’s in <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=1Thess.+1.1&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.1Thess.1.1" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">1 Thess. 1:1</a> and <a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/preSearch.cfm?Criteria=2Thess.+1.1&amp;t=NIV" target="BLB_NW" rel="NIV.2Thess.1.1" class="BLBST_a" style="white-space: nowrap;">2 Thess. 1:1</a>, and he would probably not commend himself here at the end.

If you want to go with dueling authorities I can play that game noting that

Richard J. Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary: Jude -- 2 Peter
E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered
Norman Hillyer, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude
Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter
Frank F. Judd, The Case for Petrine Authorship of 1 Peter
Daniel Keating, First and Second Peter Jude
Michael J. Kruger, The Authenticity of 2 PeterDennis Lane and Thomas Schreiner, Introduction to 1 Peter
Donald Guthrie, Introduction to the New Testament
Daniel Wallace, Second Peter, Introduction, Argument and Outline
Travis B. Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering

among numerous others, disagree

Your own ignorance of the historical situation has been demonstrated on various occasions.

The unintended irony of that statement was not missed. And then of course I never tried to pretend that I am an academic historian like someone else here who keeps making mistakes on the level that would humiliate a freshman student on his first day in class.

There is a small minority that hold opinions on the earlier datings of the gospels but I have never come across an NT scholar in recent history [i.e. since 1950] who maintains that the original authors of these canonical gospels were indeed the men whose names were ascribed to later copies of those texts. Although I assume there may be some theologians who still hold the view that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually were the authors.

That says far more about the sources you cherry pick from than anything else. I could provide a list similar to the one provided above but then, why bother? You'll do your level best to ignore it and make the same erroneous claims anyway.

Of those "false teachers" of whom Paul writes it is highly probable that they came from James in Jerusalem.

It is not impossible that they tried to assume his authority but the very fact that they were pretty much crushed indicates that it would be an illegitimate claim as both Paul's letters and Acts indicate that any potential rift between Paul and James was healed if there was even one to begin with.

The observant Jews who had followed another observant Jew wished their Messianic Jewish sect to remain true to its religion. That James became known as James the Righteous would indicate he was noted for being particularly strict in his observance of the Torah. Hence if gentiles wished to join their sect they had to convert.

Both Paul's letters and Acts contradict your assumptions. That James was an observant Jew did make him a good choice to preach to the Jews and might explain why we never hear of him traveling to spread the Gospel message.

Nor was what Paul was teaching is in any way comparable to what we are given as the teachings of Jesus in the Synoptics

Paul concentrated on the message of the Risen Christ, something Jesus would hardly be teaching prior to His death.

As there was no orthodoxy how could there be heresies?

You keep asserting that, but as usual that's all you do.

Paul isn't alone in warning about false teachers and keeping them in check.

Acts in this regard is later propaganda because of what was happening within both Judaism and fledgling Christianity following the events of 70 CE.

Given your hilarious history of mangling Acts, one would think you'd be hesitant about making pronouncements regarding something you were exposed multiple times as having no knowledge about.

Consider the later sect of the Ebionites.

I bolded the important part. Later sects arose holding all sorts of beliefs.

Again you are relying on Acts and a somewhat uncritical reading of Paul's authentic letters.

Oh the horror of relying on the evidence!

And by "uncritical reading of Paul's authentic letters" don't you mean, agreeing with your jaundiced interpretation of what you accept?

We do not know what the followers of Jesus actually thought about Paul as they have left us no attested evidence.

We have Acts. Just because it doesn't support what you oh so desperately want to be the case does not mean it should be rejected as you do.

However, Sheldon W. Liebmann in his book The Great Betrayal: Christians and Jews in the First Four Centuries [a text incidentally that you brought to my attention and which I have since purchased] makes the following comments.

The shift from James to Paul was momentous in the history of the Church because by most accounts Paul was a cosmopolitan Diaspora Jew who had been exposed to, and was therefore influenced by, Greek philosophy and culture as Jesus, James, Peter, and John were not..These Palestinians were not even from Jerusalem, the somewhat Hellenized spiritual and intellectual centre of Palestine but from Galilee which was notorious as a hotbed of radicalism and as a cultural outpost characterised, at least according to Judeans, by illiteracy and ignorance...It is hardly surprising then therefore that Paul’s ideas particularly on God and ethics were different not only from James and Peter, but also from those of Jesus. Besides rejecting the Mosaic Law in favour of Grace Paul shifted the attention of the Church from the Kingdom of God to Jesus’ Resurrection and Atonement, identified the essential human conflict as a battle between soul and body or spirit and flesh, and replaced Jesus’ emphasis on Good Works as a means of salvation with his own idea of Faith [...]

The exportation of Christianity to the Diaspora was not, at first, a unifying process. Serious divisions in the Churh arose between Jewish and non-Jewish Christians, Palestinian and Diaspora Christians , and rural and urban Christians. Furthermore, as different apostles went to different towns and cities they spread their own ideas of what Jesus said and did. And when these ideas were received by people who were sufficiently impressed by them to become Christians, they understood them in the context of their own cultural and experiential situation. That is, they interpreted the gospel that was presented to them in terms of their backgrounds as Greeks, Mesopotamians, or Egyptians; in terms of their past religious affiliations [e.g., with a mystery religion like the cult of Isis, or a philosophy like Epicuranism]; and in terms of their own personal experience as family members, tradesmen, peasants, slaves, or scholars....All of these many different interpretations of Christianity were manifested in an equally rich variety of religious practices.[pp.269-272]

The shift was monumental because of the number of Gentiles that entered Christianity to the point that it wasn't long before they outnumbered the Jews. That Paul was from Tarsus and Jesus and the Apostles were from Galilee are incredibly insignificant compared to that.

Says who?

This is yet another instance where your stubborn insistence in refusing to actually read what you have criticized for decades becomes glaringly apparent. If you actually read the Bible you wouldn't have likely asked such a foolish question. I mean this was weapon's grade ignorance on display.

From both this and your former reply in response to that question it is evident that you have not read the specific verses I gave to you. So here is the question again. I asked you for your interpretation/understanding of the following verses.

I Corinthians chapter two verses six to eight: We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. ⁷ No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. ⁸ None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

II Corinthians chapter twelve verses two to four: I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. ³ And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— ⁴ was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.

In the first, Paul is indicating that God's message can only be accepted by those willing to accept it and to those who can't it would seem foolish....



At this point my power went out and I lost everything below this point.

Aside from not understanding the relevance to the discussion these two snippets from Paul are supposed to have, if there was anything you asked below this that you felt was important, you'll have to re-ask it since presently I'm in no mood to try to reconstruct what was lost

[tabibito]

Googling is usually done to get spelling of names and the dates correct. But there is no need to project your habits on to me as you are so wont to do.

Seems to me that complaining about googling is every bit as sensible as complaining that you found information by checking its location a library catalogue.

Some have noted that the letter is written “through Silvanus” [5:12] and thought that maybe Silvanus wrote down Peter’s thoughts for him.... The answer is, “Almost certainly not.” But for now I can say at least a couple of words about the case of 1 Peter.

Had to look all the way back to the previous verse to verify that the parallel does not exist, not to mention that the claimed application of "write" to indicate "send" does not exist, in the Acts pericope at least. We can be confident that Silvanus did in fact pen Peter's letter.

As noted, there is some debate regarding how Peter referred to Silvanus, and his yet again unsupported claim ("Authors who used secretaries don’t refer to them in this way.") is obviously not even remotely close to being universally accepted (see the two versions I cited of that passage as evidence for this).

Sometimes, secretaries take dictation. Often, they'll just be told something like, "summarise the points I made earlier."

[rogue06]

Seems to me that complaining about googling is every bit as sensible as complaining that you found information by checking its location a library catalogue.

No real difference. I only give H_A a hard time about it because she mocks anyone who gets something from online while doing it herself all the time. And, as I've noted before, even when I have a particular text I'll still Google it if it's available online. Easier to copy pasta it than to do so by hand and let potential typos creep in.

Had to look all the way back to the previous verse to verify that the parallel does not exist, not to mention that the claimed application of "write" to indicate "send" does not exist, in the Acts pericope at least. We can be confident that Silvanus did in fact pen Peter's letter.

I think there is still room for some doubt, but the evidence does tend to lean in that direction. And if you have someone doing the actual writing, that can account for the lion's share of objections raised regarding it's authorship.

Sometimes, secretaries take dictation. Often, they'll just be told something like, "summarise the points I made earlier."

Or, much like some editors, to "clean it up."

[tabibito]

I think there is still room for some doubt, but the evidence does tend to lean in that direction. And if you have someone doing the actual writing, that can account for the lion's share of objections raised regarding it's authorship.

The attempt to use the Acts reference to show that "write" can be used to indicate "send" failed dismally, but I'll check other evidence if it is proffered. Meantime, I see no cause to believe that Silvanus did not pen the letter.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The attempt to use the Acts reference to show that "write" can be used to indicate "send" failed dismally, but I'll check other evidence if it is proffered. Meantime, I see no cause to believe that Silvanus did not pen the letter.

Oh good grief! Yet another poseur. Now we have a faux Classicist on the Greek language.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

What you will of course deliberately skip over is how much Christian monks were able to preserve during the numerous invasions by the Huns and various Germanic and Slavic hordes that overran western Europe starting around that time.

No one is disputing that a lot of ancient texts were conserved and copied. However, many were lost and/or deliberately destroyed.

Irish monks for instance, particularly those belonging to the Hiberno-Scottish mission, were copying manuscripts of Greek and Latin writers,

Perhaps you could provide the titles of those precise Greek texts that were being preserved by Irish monks "particularly those belonging to the Hiberno-Scottish mission" in the 6th and 7th centuries.

There are actually a number of reason that someone might employ an amanuensis aside from the reason I provided. For instance, the author could be ill, injured or disabled such as the blind English composer Fritz/Frederick Delius who, due to blindness, used them to write his music for him.

Delius has no relevance to texts composed in the late first/early second century. All you are offering is speculation. The majority of academics accept that 1 & 2 Peter are pseudonymous texts.

Aside from, unlike you, I don't rely solely on the opinion of others and constantly harp about "academics" as you do, my observation had more to do with how you hang on Erhman's every word

Yet more evidence of your mendacity and caricature. I also cited Watson, Callan, and Elliott.

but refuse to look at the primary source

Acts as it has come down to us is not strictly a primary source as it is not the original MSS. At present we know of twelve papyri [Western and Egyptian text types] for Acts, which includes papyri from the third century, additional complications arise by the fact that the Western text shows additions and alterations.

If you want to go with dueling authorities I can play that game noting that

Richard J. Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary: Jude -- 2 Peter

Bauckham agrees with the majority opinion. If you had actually read the text you cited by Daniel B. Wallace you would have known that.

The rest of your list of authors seems heavily weighted towards theologians or those based at theological institutions [e.g. Jobes]. That is not a criticism of their credentials but their beliefs or academic positions have to be considered.

Keating refers to his belief that the text is Petrine. However, belief is not automatically fact. While Guthrie was a "wholehearted and committed Christian, and consistently demonstrated his utter confidence in the Scriptures" according to one obituary.

As to the authorship of these texts as Green noted 2 Peter has long caused dispute "Luther accepted it, Erasmus rejected, and Calvin was uncertain".

On matters historical [particularly when dealing with period of Roman history] your ignorance has been regularly demonstrated.

Nor should we forget the hilariously inept sources you have on occasion provided as reputable citations with regard to various historical issues.

That says far more about the sources you cherry pick from than anything else.

More mendacity. I do not "cherry pick". However, what you seem totally unable to comprehend is that there are no absolutes to the datings of these gospel texts. However, internal evidence indicates composition post 70 CE.

As for alleged authorship, there are references to traditions found in later writings but without any original MSS Pitre and others can allow their beliefs to furnish their opinions. Yet once again, it needs to be remembered that beliefs are not necessarily facts.

It is not impossible that they tried to assume his authority but the very fact that they were pretty much crushed

What do you mean by the schoolboy comment "they were pretty much crushed"?

[QUOTE=rogue06;n1466621both Paul's letters and Acts indicate that any potential rift between Paul and James was healed if there was even one to begin with.[/quote] Of course there was a rift. Paul was insistent that his mystical revelations and his ideas were superior to the views and beliefs of the men who had known and followed a Galilean Jewish charismatic. Why should those individuals not be affronted by his conceit and outraged by his attempts to undermine their faith and present the man they knew as something other than what he was?

Acts was written well after 70 CE and works as PR to gloss over that earlier rift and make it appear that everyone finally achieved harmonious agreement. Conveniently for the author, those men who had known Jesus had by then disappeared from history. So they were not around to contradict anything.

Both Paul's letters and Acts contradict your assumptions.

I wonder why!

That James was an observant Jew did make him a good choice to preach to the Jews and might explain why we never hear of him traveling to spread the Gospel message.

What precisely would he "preach"? That the Law of which he was such an observant adherent was a "curse"? That his brother was some being above a mere human and the "Lord of Glory"? Or that his brother' death was a divinely ordained human sacrifice intended to atone for humankind's collective sin and by which humankind could be redeemed?

Why would an observant Jew preach any of that?

Paul concentrated on the message of the Risen Christ, something Jesus would hardly be teaching prior to His death.

Paul concentrated on what Paul believed.

As far as Paul was concerned his mystical revelations and his idiosyncratic beliefs superseded, were of more importance, and carried more authority than the views, opinions, or beliefs of anyone else. That is the classic behaviour of a cult leader, i.e. Only I am right. Believe only what I tell you. Do not heed anyone else.

You keep asserting that, but as usual that's all you do.

How could there by an orthodoxy in the fifties CE? These groups were disparate, small, and dotted around the eastern empire. Read Liebman, you did, after all, initially reference his work

Paul isn't alone in warning about false teachers and keeping them in check.

Who else in the fifties CE was expressing their concerns? And of course Paul was concerned, he did not want anyone else to challenge his gospel that he preached [predominantly to gentiles] and in communities at some distance from Jerusalem. We are back again to his conviction that only what he preached was true/right/correct etc.

Given your hilarious history of mangling Acts, one would think you'd be hesitant about making pronouncements regarding something you were exposed multiple times as having no knowledge about.

Once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the profound impact on both Judaism and fledgling Christianity of the events of 66-70 CE.

I bolded the important part. Later sects arose holding all sorts of beliefs.

That is the name that has come down to us from the second century. However, it is quite probable that this sect had its roots in mid first century CE. It certainly had far more in common with Judaism [the religion of Jesus] than with Paul's Christianity. And that the Ebionites regarded Paul as both a liar and apostate might be an echo of how those men who knew Jesus regarded him.

Oh the horror of relying on the evidence!

Acts is not a reliable historical source. That is another fact you consistently ignore.

And by "uncritical reading of Paul's authentic letters" don't you mean, agreeing with your jaundiced interpretation of what you accept?

Writes the individual who uncritically and without question accepts as true everything he reads in the NT.

I again refer you to Paul's own comments in his various authentic letters. He is consummately arrogant concerning the truth of his own gospel and his own opinions while being completely dismissive of anyone else.

We have Acts. Just because it doesn't support what you oh so desperately want to be the case does not mean it should be rejected as you do.

The canonical text is not the only Acts. One might ask why accept one and not the others? Or is that because you have been told not accept them?

The shift was monumental because of the number of Gentiles that entered Christianity to the point that it wasn't long before they outnumbered the Jews.

At what precise period?

That Paul was from Tarsus and Jesus and the Apostles were from Galilee are incredibly insignificant compared to that.

Again you assume Acts to be reliable. Paul never directly tells us where he came from.

This is yet another instance where your stubborn insistence in refusing to actually read what you have criticized for decades becomes glaringly apparent. If you actually read the Bible you wouldn't have likely asked such a foolish question. I mean this was weapon's grade ignorance on display.

Reading the bible does not answer the question I put to you.

So, again, where is the extraneous and contemporary evidence to confirm:

the Apostles openly preaching in large cities to large crowds.

In the first, Paul is indicating that God's message can only be accepted by those willing to accept it and to those who can't it would seem foolish....

That is a rather facile interpretation. In their original Greek form αρχοντων του αιωνος the words have a a very different meaning.