P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Isn’t one enough?
- Status
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
I have to disagree. Faith has to have primacy over scholarship. It has to be the assumption on which any kind of scholarship rests.
If this synod goes the way the original poster suggested, then I wouldn’t be surprised if the Pope condemned it, and issued an Ex Cathedra statement.
This kind of “scholarship” undermines the Catholic faith, and as such needs to be suppressed.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Argh! I got carried away again!
Patg, forgive me for my harsh tone earlier.
I sense in all of this though, a desire to undermine the faith and introduce a liberal agenda.
Isn’t the whole point of Christianity, well, that it’s true?
I understand and accept that our beliefs can grow and develop, but that understanding can never contradict the understanding of the past. Previous encyclicals are just as valid as if they were issued yesterday.
Patg, forgive me for my harsh tone earlier.
I sense in all of this though, a desire to undermine the faith and introduce a liberal agenda.
Isn’t the whole point of Christianity, well, that it’s true?
I understand and accept that our beliefs can grow and develop, but that understanding can never contradict the understanding of the past. Previous encyclicals are just as valid as if they were issued yesterday.
P
patg
Guest
Look at it like this:
*]Encyclical 1 is issued hundreds of years ago. It states that everything in the bible is inerrantly true.
*]Encyclical 2 is published much later and adds that the inerrant truth in Encyclical 1 is conveyed in different forms - there is literal truth, historic truth, poetic truth, symbolic truth, etc. All are still inerrantly true but that truth is presented in varying literary forms and one must consider the form when looking for the truth. No contradiction or lessening the meaning of number 1.
*]Encyclical 3 appears even later (in modern times, so it must be a liberal plot to destroy the Church!) and it adds that the interpretation of the truth not only depends on the literary form, but also on the concept that “due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.” (from Dei Verbum, Chapter III). Notice that the truth is still inerrant.
So here we have a sequence of encyclicals, each just as valid as if they were issued yesterday. They do not contradict each other but, taken together, they represent a significant advancement in the way we look at the interpretation of the scriptures. None of them undermine the faith in any way and they each contribute to the development of our understanding.
If we were living in 1000 A.D. and I said to you that it was raining cats and dogs, you would understand that it was raining very hard and that the animals up in my thatched roof were jumping down to try to stay dry. You would interpret this statement as inerrant truth - as literal, historic truth.
Today, if I told you that last week it rained cats and dogs, you would understand that it must have rained very hard then but you would not assume it was the literal truth. It would still be inerrant truth but you would understand the literary form of the comment and the customary way we have of speaking at this time and thus understand me perfectly.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
But isn’t the historicity of the Gospels proclaimed infallibly?
Isn’t the Virgin Birth a dogma? And also in Jesus of Nazareth, doesn’t the Pope make the argument that the “Christ of Faith,” and the “Christ of History,” are absolutely one and the same? Just because the modern historical construct, “Infancy narratives,” can be artifically jammed into Scriptural analysis, does that invalidate the dogma of the Virgin Birth, which comes from a patristic understanding of Scripture?
What good is Biblical scholarship if it doesn’t lead us to a concrete, rather than abstract faith?
Isn’t it kind of common sense, that if, for example, the raising of Jairus’ daughter, didn’t really happen, then the supernatural is detached from Biblical exegesis, and thus compromised?
Is not the point of Catholic Biblical Exegesis to be saved, rather than appease the flawed theoretical assumptions of Modernism, which with the rise of postmodernism, has become the perspective of old men with old minds?
In Dei Verbum, it states plainly that all Scripture is inerrant, not merely those scripture that specifically deal with salvation. Pope Paul VI’s letter to Cardinal Ottaviani prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Of course there are different literary forms in Scripture. But the Gospels, the events and words surrounding the life of Christ really happened, or we basically have a liberal prot approach to the Bible, as the Pope says, a type of “Gnosticism.”
And that Liberal protty approach has one agenda, to undermine eternal doctrine (like women priests, which you’ve named. Which aint happening). What you’ve been stating isn’t organic growth, it’s a desire to invalidate the basic premises of the inerrancy of Scripture and truth of the Gospels.
We need to go back to tradition and Thomism, not the endless ambiguity and chaos of a modernist mind.
P
patg
Guest
You can find words that seem to say that just as you can find plenty that deny it.
Yes.
Not dogmatically.
The term Infancy Narrative is not a “modern historical construct”, it is merely the name we give to a literary form which was very common in the ancient world. It has nothing specific to do with the gospels - there are infancy narratives for many of the great rulers of that time. The Virgin Birth is a part of the infancy narratives but the dogmatic teaching depends on more than that.
The Dogmatic words of Dei Verbum are what allow and encourage one to understand the infancy narratives as mostly fiction.
It leads to better understanding. It is superficial to ignore the literary form and only demand a literal historic outlook. These authors went to a lot of trouble to describe Jesus in the way authors of the time wrote - if we don’t take that into account and we enforce a historical form, we can easily lose the message.
Not at all. This is a “miracle story”, very similar to stories about other Jewish “holy men” and whether it happened or not is immaterial to the author’s intention of telling us that Jesus was such a person and had such power.
No. the point is to understand the truth and that truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. If we don’t understand the “forms of discourse” and stop trying to make everything literal history, we won’t see the “truth”.
Actually, Dei Verbum really says:
"
…faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation."
and
“…whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation…”
It doesn’t say anything about everything being inerrant history or literal history. It specifically says that it is not all history (see my first quote earlier).
No, my point is precisely to find and interpret the truth. Insisting on literalistic history ignores the reality of the writing.
That is impossible and pointless - "For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. …For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."
Our understanding and interpretation is all part of a process; going “back to tradition and Thomism” is to reject important parts of that process and pretend that there is a firm destination somewhere that was absolute truth. What we have today isn’t the destination either, it is only another stop on the way to the final destination which isn’t on this earth.
Note: All quotes from the online version of Dei Verbum at www.vatican.va.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
People want to selectively cite Dei Verbum to suit their own agendas:
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
This is also a better Latin translation:
"Since, therefore, everything affirmed by the inspired authors, or sacred writers, must be held as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must in consequence acknowledge that the books of Scripture teach the truth firmly, faithfully, and without error, keeping in mind that it was for the sake of our salvation that God wanted this truth recorded in the form of Sacred Writings"
P
patg
Guest
I’m not sure what you are meaning by this. The phrase “teach the truth firmly, faithfully, and without error” does not* in any way* state or imply that truth can only be taught using literalistic writing. Great truths can be taught firmly and without error using total fiction - it is done all the time.
Dei Verbum is explicitly clear in this: For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
Yes. All of Scripture is inerrant, though not literal.
The Gospels, however, are historically true. I’m not a fundamentalist who believes every verse is literal. I’m saying that infancy narratives are rooted in something sinister, a desire to separate the Christ of history from the Christ of faith, and thus attack dogma.
P
patg
Guest
So then you must believe that Alexander the Great, the caesars, the pharoahs, etc. were also gods since they had the same stories written about them. I guess these “true” stories just happen to exactly match the literary form of these made up stories.
There is nothing dogmatic about mangers, a census, magi, strange celestial events, shepherds, angels, the flight to Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, and so on.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Does ‘Lie’ count as a literary form? Are you saying that because other authors of the time made up lies about people they wanted to honor, that it was okay for the Evangelists to also use ‘Lie’ to honor Jesus?
P
patg
Guest
The purpose of the form was, as it was with Jesus, to demonstrate the greatness of the person. The readers of the time recognized the literary form and, rather than calling it a lie, understood it to be honoring the person. It is strange that you equate a standard literary form used to teach a truth with lying. Was Jesus lying when he taught with parables? Is someone lying when they use a commonly accepted form of speaking to explain a situation, even though the words are fiction? Is it lying to say “its raining cats and dogs”, “its hotter than hell”, “someone is pale as a ghost”, or “that box weighs a ton”? If you understand the form in its contemporary setting, it is clear claims of historicity are irrelevant.
Of course you can always believe it is history - the church is ok with that - but doing so is not required or encouraged by the chuch. Again, there is nothing dogmatic about mangers, a census, magi, strange celestial events, shepherds, angels, the flight to Egypt, the slaughter of the innocents, and so on.
K
KingAlfred
Guest
“Thus, the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) contain material that developed in three stages: (Stage I) authentic words and memories of Jesus Himself; (Stage II) materials shaped and transmitted in oral tradition; (Statge III) evangelists’ redaction (edited work). The Fourth Gospel (John) contains material from all three stages.”
– Coogan, Michael D.; Metzger, Bruce M., The Oxford Companion to the Bible; Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 1993; p.356
– Coogan, Michael D.; Metzger, Bruce M., The Oxford Companion to the Bible; Oxford University Press, New York, Oxford, 1993; p.356
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Do you have any evidence at all that the followers of Alexander the great understood his infancy stories to be fictional?
Do you have any evidence at all that the apostles or early church fathers understood Jesus’ infancy narratives to be fictional?
These aren’t rhetorical questions - if you can answer them, it would help me understand.
Isn’t there a feast day for the Holy Innocents? Aren’t they infallibly declared to be in heaven?
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Before I proceed with analyzing the NAB introduction, I should say up front that I am going to be assuming throughout my posts on 2 Peter that the other writings of the New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers are written by the people indicated by the texts. For details on authorship of other letters and books of the Bible, I’d rather that people start other threads so that this thread on inerrancy doesn’t end up reducing to a thread about the authors of every book of the Bible and writing from antiquity. 
I think that I can also say that if Petrine authorship of 2 Peter pulls through unscathed, then we can only look forward to stronger cases being made for every other New Testament book where the author is identified by the text. Now, on with the analysis!
The second principal reason that the NAB gives for doubting that Peter is the human author of 2 Peter is that the author is familiar with a collection of Paul’s letters, and not only with a collection, but with its being misinterpreted as well; hence, this letter must be very late.
The first point to make, very briefly, is that disputed interpretations do not entail or imply any passing of time. A variety of interpretations occurs upon the very hearing or reading of anything. I think that this is plain to everyone’s experience – especially here on the forums – but, for added testimony: “The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, ‘An angel has spoken to him’” (John 12:29). “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked (Interpretation 1). But others said, ‘We will hear you again about this’ (Interpretation 2). So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed (Interpretation 3)” (Acts 17:32-34).
The second point to make is that we cannot assume from Peter’s (assuming it was Peter) language here that he is necessarily referring to a collection of Paul’s writings as such. He could just as easily be acknowledging the simple fact that Paul has indeed written multiple letters, and that, as they’ve been disseminated to their destinations, it has become known to him [Peter] that they are being misinterpreted by some of the various recipients.
However, even if Peter is referring to a kind of anthology, given the fact that some of Paul’s letters were among the first books of the New Testament to be written (if we date Galatians to its earliest proposed date, that gives us an almost twenty year span between Paul’s first letters and 2 Peter, but we can make due with fifteen or even less), and that these two great apostles most likely spent time with each other late in their lives as they both approached martyrdom in Rome, why couldn’t these things have happened in the intervening years and why also couldn’t Peter have been made aware of such things?
Paul could very well have brought such a collection with him to Rome, or, if not Paul when he came, perhaps Timothy later: “bring …] the books, and above all the parchments” (2 Tim 4:13). If Paul is here including some of his own writings in his request, then, assuming Timothy came to Rome and brought copies with him, we may have here a literary witness to the possibility of such a collection already existing in two locations. We also have Paul instructing two churches to each read the letter that was sent to the other church (cf. Col. 4:16). In this case, it would be hard to believe that when one church passed a letter on to the other church, the first church did not keep a copy for themselves. Paul is even charged by his Corinthian opponents with these words: “His letters (plural) are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account” (2 Cor 10:10). So Paul’s written material was known and circulated from very early on.
Our earliest known “canon” of approximately A.D. 140 comes to us from the heretic Marcion through the writings of another eventual heretic, Tertullian. Marcion’s list of authoritative books included, in addition to Luke’s Gospel, ten of Paul’s letters, all excised of the material unsuited to his theology. Tertullian says that Marcion knew the Pastoral Epistles of Paul and yet rejected them: “he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus” (Ch. 21 of the preceding link). I note in connection with this that Marcion had spent some time in Rome – where Peter would have been writing from – being denied the bishopric there. But that’s A.D. 140. Let’s move a little earlier…
Ignatius in perhaps A.D. 107 mentions “Paul” and “all his Epistles” (Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. 12).
We have allusions to more than one letter of Paul’s made by Clement of Rome (A.D. 96). In his Letter to the Corinthians, Clement alludes to Romans 1:32 when he writes that “they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them” (Ch. 35). We have Ephesians 4:4-6 in Chapter 46: “Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ?” And he makes a very strong allusion to Titus 3:4-7 in Chapter 32: “we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart.” And, of course, he refers to at least one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians (compare Ch. 47 and 1 Cor 1:12). There may be allusions to other of Paul’s letters in Clement, but I haven’t made a careful inquiry into this question. The examples provided are sufficient because Clement’s purpose isn’t to enumerate for us the letters of Paul with which he is familiar – although we’d expect mention of at least Paul’s letters to the Corinthians – and yet he naturally alludes to several of them without provocation. Moving still earlier…
And settling the matter in my mind, Peter himself displays extreme familiarity with any number of Paul’s letters. In some cases he seems to be familiar with the letters themselves; in other cases, he may perhaps only be familiar with the thought-life of the man who wrote them. So sit back and enjoy the following comparisons made between 1 Peter and the Pauline corpus:
I think that I can also say that if Petrine authorship of 2 Peter pulls through unscathed, then we can only look forward to stronger cases being made for every other New Testament book where the author is identified by the text. Now, on with the analysis!The second principal reason that the NAB gives for doubting that Peter is the human author of 2 Peter is that the author is familiar with a collection of Paul’s letters, and not only with a collection, but with its being misinterpreted as well; hence, this letter must be very late.
The first point to make, very briefly, is that disputed interpretations do not entail or imply any passing of time. A variety of interpretations occurs upon the very hearing or reading of anything. I think that this is plain to everyone’s experience – especially here on the forums
– but, for added testimony: “The crowd that stood there and heard it said that it had thundered. Others said, ‘An angel has spoken to him’” (John 12:29). “Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked (Interpretation 1). But others said, ‘We will hear you again about this’ (Interpretation 2). So Paul went out from their midst. But some men joined him and believed (Interpretation 3)” (Acts 17:32-34).The second point to make is that we cannot assume from Peter’s (assuming it was Peter) language here that he is necessarily referring to a collection of Paul’s writings as such. He could just as easily be acknowledging the simple fact that Paul has indeed written multiple letters, and that, as they’ve been disseminated to their destinations, it has become known to him [Peter] that they are being misinterpreted by some of the various recipients.
However, even if Peter is referring to a kind of anthology, given the fact that some of Paul’s letters were among the first books of the New Testament to be written (if we date Galatians to its earliest proposed date, that gives us an almost twenty year span between Paul’s first letters and 2 Peter, but we can make due with fifteen or even less), and that these two great apostles most likely spent time with each other late in their lives as they both approached martyrdom in Rome, why couldn’t these things have happened in the intervening years and why also couldn’t Peter have been made aware of such things?
Paul could very well have brought such a collection with him to Rome, or, if not Paul when he came, perhaps Timothy later: “bring …] the books, and above all the parchments” (2 Tim 4:13). If Paul is here including some of his own writings in his request, then, assuming Timothy came to Rome and brought copies with him, we may have here a literary witness to the possibility of such a collection already existing in two locations. We also have Paul instructing two churches to each read the letter that was sent to the other church (cf. Col. 4:16). In this case, it would be hard to believe that when one church passed a letter on to the other church, the first church did not keep a copy for themselves. Paul is even charged by his Corinthian opponents with these words: “His letters (plural) are weighty and strong, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech of no account” (2 Cor 10:10). So Paul’s written material was known and circulated from very early on.
Our earliest known “canon” of approximately A.D. 140 comes to us from the heretic Marcion through the writings of another eventual heretic, Tertullian. Marcion’s list of authoritative books included, in addition to Luke’s Gospel, ten of Paul’s letters, all excised of the material unsuited to his theology. Tertullian says that Marcion knew the Pastoral Epistles of Paul and yet rejected them: “he rejected the two epistles to Timothy and the one to Titus” (Ch. 21 of the preceding link). I note in connection with this that Marcion had spent some time in Rome – where Peter would have been writing from – being denied the bishopric there. But that’s A.D. 140. Let’s move a little earlier…
Ignatius in perhaps A.D. 107 mentions “Paul” and “all his Epistles” (Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. 12).
We have allusions to more than one letter of Paul’s made by Clement of Rome (A.D. 96). In his Letter to the Corinthians, Clement alludes to Romans 1:32 when he writes that “they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them” (Ch. 35). We have Ephesians 4:4-6 in Chapter 46: “Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? And have we not one calling in Christ?” And he makes a very strong allusion to Titus 3:4-7 in Chapter 32: “we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart.” And, of course, he refers to at least one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians (compare Ch. 47 and 1 Cor 1:12). There may be allusions to other of Paul’s letters in Clement, but I haven’t made a careful inquiry into this question. The examples provided are sufficient because Clement’s purpose isn’t to enumerate for us the letters of Paul with which he is familiar – although we’d expect mention of at least Paul’s letters to the Corinthians – and yet he naturally alludes to several of them without provocation. Moving still earlier…
And settling the matter in my mind, Peter himself displays extreme familiarity with any number of Paul’s letters. In some cases he seems to be familiar with the letters themselves; in other cases, he may perhaps only be familiar with the thought-life of the man who wrote them. So sit back and enjoy the following comparisons made between 1 Peter and the Pauline corpus:
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
Peter
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:3).
Paul
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 1:3).
Peter
“you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Paul
“You are not your own, for you were bought with a price” (1 Cor 6:19-20).
Peter
“So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander” (1 Peter 2:1).
Paul
“But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth” (Col 3:8).
Peter
“You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
Paul
“You are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Cor 3:9).
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1).
Peter
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Paul
“…giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col 1:12-13).
Peter
“abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul” (1 Peter 2:11).
Paul
“For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other” (Gal 5:17).
Peter
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13-14).
Paul
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed. …] do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain” (Rom 13:1-2, 3-4).
Peter
“Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect” (1 Peter 2:18).
Paul
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ” (Eph 6:5).
Peter
“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24).
Paul
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’” (Gal 3:13).
“So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus …] having been set free from sin, [you] have become slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:11, 18).
Peter
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands. …] Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:1, 7).
**Paul **
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. …] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …] For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (Eph 5:22, 25, 29).
Peter
“Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (1 Peter 3:3-4).
Paul
“women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works” (1 Tim 2:9-10).
Peter
“Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind” (1 Peter 3:8).
Paul
“So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. …] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who …] humbled himself” (Phil 2:1-3, 5-6, 8).
Peter
“Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing” (1 Peter 3:9).
Paul
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. …] Repay no one evil for evil” (Rom 12:14, 17).
Peter
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).
Paul
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).
Peter
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him” (1 Peter 3:21-22).
Paul
“…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12).
“whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him” (Col 1:16).
“For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet’” (1 Cor 15:27).
Peter
“whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God” (1 Peter 4:1-2).
Paul
“For one who has died has been set free from sin. …] For …] you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness …] But now that you have been set free from sin [you] have become slaves of God” (Rom 6:7, 19, 22).
Peter
“As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies” (1 Peter 4:10-11).
Paul
“Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom 12:6-8).
Peter
“So I exhort the elders among you, as a …] partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1).
Paul
“those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom 8:30).
Peter
“…casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7).
Paul
“do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:6-7).
…ad nauseam (not ad nausea)
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:3).
Paul
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Cor 1:3).
Peter
“you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Christ” (1 Peter 1:18-19).
Paul
“You are not your own, for you were bought with a price” (1 Cor 6:19-20).
Peter
“So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander” (1 Peter 2:1).
Paul
“But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth” (Col 3:8).
Peter
“You yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).
Paul
“You are God’s field, God’s building” (1 Cor 3:9).
“I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom 12:1).
Peter
“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Peter 2:9).
Paul
“…giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son” (Col 1:12-13).
Peter
“abstain from the passions of the flesh, which wage war against your soul” (1 Peter 2:11).
Paul
“For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other” (Gal 5:17).
Peter
“Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good” (1 Peter 2:13-14).
Paul
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed. …] do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain” (Rom 13:1-2, 3-4).
Peter
“Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect” (1 Peter 2:18).
Paul
“Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, with a sincere heart, as you would Christ” (Eph 6:5).
Peter
“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Peter 2:24).
Paul
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, ‘Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree’” (Gal 3:13).
“So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus …] having been set free from sin, [you] have become slaves of righteousness” (Rom 6:11, 18).
Peter
“Wives, be subject to your own husbands. …] Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel” (1 Peter 3:1, 7).
**Paul **
“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. …] Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her …] For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church” (Eph 5:22, 25, 29).
Peter
“Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious” (1 Peter 3:3-4).
Paul
“women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works” (1 Tim 2:9-10).
Peter
“Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind” (1 Peter 3:8).
Paul
“So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. …] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who …] humbled himself” (Phil 2:1-3, 5-6, 8).
Peter
“Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing” (1 Peter 3:9).
Paul
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. …] Repay no one evil for evil” (Rom 12:14, 17).
Peter
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18).
Paul
“For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor 5:21).
Peter
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him” (1 Peter 3:21-22).
Paul
“…having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12).
“whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him” (Col 1:16).
“For ‘God has put all things in subjection under his feet’” (1 Cor 15:27).
Peter
“whoever has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, so as to live for the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for human passions but for the will of God” (1 Peter 4:1-2).
Paul
“For one who has died has been set free from sin. …] For …] you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness …] But now that you have been set free from sin [you] have become slaves of God” (Rom 6:7, 19, 22).
Peter
“As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace: whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God; whoever serves, as one who serves by the strength that God supplies” (1 Peter 4:10-11).
Paul
“Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; the one who teaches, in his teaching; the one who exhorts, in his exhortation; the one who contributes, in generosity; the one who leads, with zeal; the one who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness” (Rom 12:6-8).
Peter
“So I exhort the elders among you, as a …] partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1).
Paul
“those whom he justified he also glorified” (Rom 8:30).
Peter
“…casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you” (1 Peter 5:7).
Paul
“do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus” (Phil 4:6-7).
…ad nauseam (not ad nausea
)
P
Pete_Holter
Guest
To summarize the comparisons: Peter seems to be familiar with at least Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and 1 Timothy. I also venture to say that the vast amount of similarity that exists between 1 Peter and Paul’s writings, and the seamlessness with which the Pauline material is incorporated into 1 Peter, suggest more than just a literary awareness. I think it suggests something of a shared mind; it suggests to my mind that the authors of 1 Peter and the Pauline corpus were contemporaries who had spent time together in intimate fellowship.
So there doesn’t really seem to be any warrantable objection to an early date for 2 Peter. What Peter leaves implicit in 1 Peter – his overwhelming familiarity with many of Paul’s letters – he makes explicit in 2 Peter by referring to “all his letters” (3:16) But to build our confidence, and to answer the critic who might say that, on this basis of familiarity 1 Peter and 2 Peter are therefore both late, let me provide a related example to shed additional light on the processes of authors writing and recipients anthologizing.
We know from Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians that both he and the Philippian community were familiar with the letters of Ignatius. Polycarp writes from Smyrna that the “Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle.” Now if we assign date of A.D. 105early to the composition of Ignatius’ letters and date of A.D. 140late to Polycarp’s letter, we have a mere thirty-five year period during which time it became desirable in more than one community to assemble a collection of writings written by a single author. And that is the most highly improbable, worst case dating scenario for the point I’m trying to make! Taking the best case scenario, Ignatius a little later and Polycarp early, we could imagine the processes of composing and collecting unfolding within a matter of months. Bart Ehrman, for example, without trying to firmly assign any dates, leans towards locating the two processes within well less than a decade of each other. He observes of Polycarp’s letter that “it sounds like Ignatius has just kinda passed through town” ( After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Lecture 7). This is a great parallel to keep in mind, remembering also that we are working with a span of at least ten to fifteen years in the case of Paul’s letters and 2 Peter.
We would be wrong to think that the Philippian church, to which Paul had written, would be more interested in collecting Ignatius’ letters than Paul’s. I would say that the fact that they were requesting these letters of Ignatius presupposes a collection of Paul’s already in hand. Polycarp seems to write to them under this assumption, writing in one place, “[d]o we not know that the saints shall judge the world? (cf. 1 Cor 6:2) as Paul teaches;” and he alludes to several of Paul’s letters throughout his epistle reminding them also to study Paul’s epistle written specifically to them.
Finally, I offer a general observation from life to tie all of this together. It seems to be a universal tendency among those of us who read (as with all people and the things that they enjoy), that whenever we enjoy the writings of a particular author, we want to read more from that same author. When I started reading Augustine, the first thing I did after reading a first treatise of his was to find a second treatise! This wasn’t an urge that slowly dawned on me decades after the fact. I think that this same predilection can be found among peoples of all times, so that whenever we have a community desiring to preserve a written text from a particular author, we will have that same community seeking out and collecting additional writings from that same author. A close temporal proximity between these two phenomena is called for. The fact that we have thirteen epistles from Paul proves that people were sufficiently impressed by Paul’s writings so as to preserve them upon receipt. I think it stands to reason that if these early communities were moved with enough desire so as to preserve the writings of Paul, then they were likewise moved at the same time to collect and assemble the writings of Paul – not all of his letters, but all of the letters the various communities were and became aware of. What does not stand to reason is the idea that the letters were indeed preserved right away – as they must have been for so many of them to have come down to us – but not collected in any way until much later on.
To conclude,
(1) various and opposed interpretations ensue without any passing of time.
(2) Our earliest recorded “canon” would have included all thirteen of Paul’s epistles had three not been rejected.
(3) Paul’s letters were popular and were drawn from extensively as authoritative by the early Church, starting with a broad display found in Peter’s first letter.
(4) With the explicit example of Polycarp and the Philippians forming Ignatian anthologies within a very short time, and
(5) the a fortiori impetus that this lends to the theory that this same phenomenon unfolded with even greater immediacy and literary activity in the case of Paul’s writings,
(6) coupled with the fact that we as humans have a penchant for drawing to ourselves in increasing measure what we ourselves are drawn to,
it is very easy to conceive of multiple communities forming anthologies of varying numbers of Paul’s letters, of their being widely misinterpreted wherever they were read or heard, and of all of this happening before the deaths of Peter and Paul. And it is no less conceivable for Peter to have made reference to all of this in his second letter shortly before his martyrdom; though, like I said, we’re not forced by what Peter has written to think that we even have such collections. We only need to think that Peter was aware of the fact that (1) Paul had written some letters and (2) they were being misinterpreted. Either way, we have seen that this second principal reason for rejecting Petrine authorship is no reason at all.
May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you!
So there doesn’t really seem to be any warrantable objection to an early date for 2 Peter. What Peter leaves implicit in 1 Peter – his overwhelming familiarity with many of Paul’s letters – he makes explicit in 2 Peter by referring to “all his letters” (3:16) But to build our confidence, and to answer the critic who might say that, on this basis of familiarity 1 Peter and 2 Peter are therefore both late, let me provide a related example to shed additional light on the processes of authors writing and recipients anthologizing.
We know from Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians that both he and the Philippian community were familiar with the letters of Ignatius. Polycarp writes from Smyrna that the “Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle.” Now if we assign date of A.D. 105early to the composition of Ignatius’ letters and date of A.D. 140late to Polycarp’s letter, we have a mere thirty-five year period during which time it became desirable in more than one community to assemble a collection of writings written by a single author. And that is the most highly improbable, worst case dating scenario for the point I’m trying to make! Taking the best case scenario, Ignatius a little later and Polycarp early, we could imagine the processes of composing and collecting unfolding within a matter of months. Bart Ehrman, for example, without trying to firmly assign any dates, leans towards locating the two processes within well less than a decade of each other. He observes of Polycarp’s letter that “it sounds like Ignatius has just kinda passed through town” ( After the New Testament: The Writings of the Apostolic Fathers, Lecture 7). This is a great parallel to keep in mind, remembering also that we are working with a span of at least ten to fifteen years in the case of Paul’s letters and 2 Peter.
We would be wrong to think that the Philippian church, to which Paul had written, would be more interested in collecting Ignatius’ letters than Paul’s. I would say that the fact that they were requesting these letters of Ignatius presupposes a collection of Paul’s already in hand. Polycarp seems to write to them under this assumption, writing in one place, “[d]o we not know that the saints shall judge the world? (cf. 1 Cor 6:2) as Paul teaches;” and he alludes to several of Paul’s letters throughout his epistle reminding them also to study Paul’s epistle written specifically to them.
Finally, I offer a general observation from life to tie all of this together. It seems to be a universal tendency among those of us who read (as with all people and the things that they enjoy), that whenever we enjoy the writings of a particular author, we want to read more from that same author. When I started reading Augustine, the first thing I did after reading a first treatise of his was to find a second treatise! This wasn’t an urge that slowly dawned on me decades after the fact.
I think that this same predilection can be found among peoples of all times, so that whenever we have a community desiring to preserve a written text from a particular author, we will have that same community seeking out and collecting additional writings from that same author. A close temporal proximity between these two phenomena is called for. The fact that we have thirteen epistles from Paul proves that people were sufficiently impressed by Paul’s writings so as to preserve them upon receipt. I think it stands to reason that if these early communities were moved with enough desire so as to preserve the writings of Paul, then they were likewise moved at the same time to collect and assemble the writings of Paul – not all of his letters, but all of the letters the various communities were and became aware of. What does not stand to reason is the idea that the letters were indeed preserved right away – as they must have been for so many of them to have come down to us – but not collected in any way until much later on.To conclude,
(1) various and opposed interpretations ensue without any passing of time.
(2) Our earliest recorded “canon” would have included all thirteen of Paul’s epistles had three not been rejected.
(3) Paul’s letters were popular and were drawn from extensively as authoritative by the early Church, starting with a broad display found in Peter’s first letter.
(4) With the explicit example of Polycarp and the Philippians forming Ignatian anthologies within a very short time, and
(5) the a fortiori impetus that this lends to the theory that this same phenomenon unfolded with even greater immediacy and literary activity in the case of Paul’s writings,
(6) coupled with the fact that we as humans have a penchant for drawing to ourselves in increasing measure what we ourselves are drawn to,
it is very easy to conceive of multiple communities forming anthologies of varying numbers of Paul’s letters, of their being widely misinterpreted wherever they were read or heard, and of all of this happening before the deaths of Peter and Paul. And it is no less conceivable for Peter to have made reference to all of this in his second letter shortly before his martyrdom; though, like I said, we’re not forced by what Peter has written to think that we even have such collections. We only need to think that Peter was aware of the fact that (1) Paul had written some letters and (2) they were being misinterpreted. Either way, we have seen that this second principal reason for rejecting Petrine authorship is no reason at all.
May the Lord Jesus Christ be with you!
K
KingAlfred
Guest
The Bible is neither science nor history, although there is a lot of useful pseudo-history in it. Believing that it’s ‘inerrant’ is a matter of personal choice and faith. I love the Bible as inspiring, religious literature, and as my primary guide to understanding the life of Christ. At the same time, however, I’m fully aware of the extensive, redactive modifications of the post-Easter Christian community. I view them as inspired and guided by the Holy Spirit.
- Status