-- Three New Testament Prophets from Egypt --

/ Topic: who cares? / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 29Sept99 /

> On 23Sept99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, In all your revelations have you not realized that the House of
> Judah and the House of Israel are seperate and distinct from each other?
.
Tondar answers: Huh? ... Uh, well, no; I guess not, now that you mention it.
.
> That the "lost sheep of the House of Israel" are of the tribes of Reuben, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan,
> Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Ephraim and Manasseh? And that Judah is from Judah and Benjamin?
.
Yes?
.
> Is it too difficult for you to realize that the Jewish people are Israelites, but not all Israelites are Jewish?
.
 I don't know. Since Israel is a real live nation again, it seems to me that not all Israelites are Jewish, but that all Jewish people living in Israel are certainly Israelites.
.
> And as for your mistaken notion that the Word of God is from human authors and not from God ...
.
Since I have never made such a claim, I quite agree with you that it *is* a mistaken notion.
.
> it is so far astray from God's Word that it's not worthy of farther discussion.
.
Just so. ... Well, I mean, not *just* so. I mean: not worthy of *further* discussion :)
.
> Isaiah wrote "Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth; for the Lord hath spoken" (Isaiah 1:2).
.
 Yes, He hath spoken by way of his prophets, his Son, his apostles and evangelists, and his inspired writers and saints ... AND by even more prophets! Check it out ...
.
> Peter (yes Simon Peter) wrote: "And this voice which came from heaven WE HEARD, when WE WERE WITH
> HIM, in the holy mount." The 2nd century prophet (you say) Jacob was not one of this "we."
.
 Again you mispresent my convictions. I do not say that Jacob wrote 2Peter, but rather that an unknown prophet of the same Egyptian-Christian tradition did (one or two decades after the books of James and Jude were written). You feel that the above reference "proves" the author to have been Simon-Peter. I see the above reference as "proof" that the author was very well acquainted with the written gospels (a fact more at home in the second century than in the first); such that he was able to point to the one red-hot flaming instant in Jesus' ministry that serves as the authoritative beginnings of the Christian prophetic tradition that flourished so brightly (and yet ever so briefly) in the early Greek churches of Egypt!!!
.
 So then, the question before our readers at this point is: Which of these interpretations is more true to the Word? Consider the merits of these contrasting and contradictory readings. Yours relies on a straight-forward literal interpretation that clearly assumes that the author is, as stated in the epistle's opening: "Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (2Pt.1:1 / RSV). For you, nothing more needs to be said; and any opinion that denies this plain fact is not only false and evil, but also a direct attack upon the truth of the Word. I quite sympathize
with all this, Fisherman, believe me. It has ever been this reading that gave authority to this letter over the hearts and minds of many good Christians. Indeed it was this view that enabled this second century epistle to avoid exclusion from the canon by the Emperor's bishops. So in that sense this misreading *was* a good and necessary thing. Thus when I claim that 2Peter was authored by an inspired Egyptian-Christian prophet in the middle of the second century, I am in no way challenging or denying the authority or value or necessity of the epistle. Nor am I denying any connection between it and Peter. Far from it!
.
 Look again at 2Peter 1:1a, and compare with these: (1) "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ" (Jm 1:1). (2) "Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James" (Jude 1:1). Notice any resemblance between these three openings? Dare I suggest that this identity is not superficial or accidental or merely coincidental? Is it not apparent that these three epistles are so closely linked together as to be said to be intertwined within the same faith-tradition? When I look at these three universal letters, it seems that they are locked together as if a single unit. All these authors immediately identify themselves, first by name, then by their place among believers. That is, they
are all "slaves of Jesus Christ"; which title clearly identifies them (ie. to the original readers, at least) as prophets (which also happens to be exactly what 'apostle' means (ie. an apostle is a Christian prophet)). [Note to Reader: All this info is, however, lost abruptly and terminally once we translate the Greek into 'servant' rather than 'slave'. Hence the awesome importance of an adequate translation!!!]
.
 But you will say that all three books were *actually* written by the same Holy Spirit - which answer explains nothing at all - or that James and Jude were written by the Lord's brothers; just as 2Peter was written by Simon-Peter. If this is so, then all three letters must have been written early on in the history of the Greek churches (ie. before 65CE), and this would account for the similar openings. But if these three letters were birthed in the same decades as the authentic epistles of Paul, then there should be no question whatsoever of their authority and authenticity; and certainly no shortage of first century witnesses. Yet the history of the early Greek churches, as well as the history of
the formation of the canon, offer scant support for an early first century genesis; and in fact clearly suggest a second
century genesis. How do you account for the fact that Origen is the first and earliest witness to the book of James? Such a thing would be simply impossible if the authors and date are who and when you say they are. But these facts mean nothing to you because you simply will not look beyond the first words of v.1.
.
 Look then at the rest of verse one: "To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:". What does this mean? Does this not suggest that the author has a faith and authority equal to that of Peter? A faith tradition, that is, that has been hard-won (ie. 'obtained') over time, over the generations between Peter and the author? Thus the prophet jumps over the years between them, and identifies himself directly with this great hero of the Faith's earliest days. ... Just as the post-pauline authors spoke directly in the name of *their* great hero of the Faith's earliest days. This sort of thing was common practice among writers in those days, and implies no deceit or dishonesty on the part of these authors.
.
 So what obtained faith-tradition is the author of 2Peter standing in? Look now at v.2: "May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord". What does this remind us of? ... "May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you ..." (Jude 2). Just another incidental coincidence perhaps, Fisherman? ... I don't think so!
.
... Please proceed to 'On Dating 2Peter/2' ... up next ...

ON DATING 2PETER / Part Two
[or: The Gnosis of the Prophet]

 So we can all agree on this much: that as far as 2Peter goes, the questions of author, date, and setting are closely bound together. Thus those who assert that Simon Peter is the author of 2Peter must of necessity give it an early date (ie. prior to 65CE), must ignore or deny that Peter was intimately involved with the creation of the Gospel of Mark, must give Palestine or Syria (or possibly even Rome) as the place, and must likewise claim that 2Peter is addressing problems and concerns obtaining among the early Greek churches in those days. But the text of 2Peter gives no indication or support for any of this. The man who wrote 2Peter is most certainly NOT the same man who
helped make the Gospel of Mark what it is! That much at least even the most rabid fundy must allow me.
.
 And in the same way, the text speaks not from the early days of the Faith as it struggles for self-identity and knows not what to make of the gentile world. But a century after the days of Peter and Paul, the churches had broken with Judaism and made a place for themselves among the pluralistic and syncretic Greco-Roman culture. It is from within *this* second century context that the universal letters were written. And it is from within this context that the author of 2Peter addresses the churches of his day ... and ours! Accordingly, we should not be surprised that 2Peter speaks from the tail-end of a long and well-obtained tradition; namely, the Christian-prophetic tradition that had its center in the city of Alexandria in Egypt.
.
 Now this Egyptian-Christian tradition had its roots going deep into the first century; and the scriptures themselves bear witness to the truth of my claims (4X: see where Paul makes mention of a certain apostle known as Apollos of Alexandria). Thus the prophetic tradition of Egypt was a strong and living faith that gave expression in much of the early Christian literature. As far as the New Testament goes, we may include to the prophets credit the following books: Hebrews, the Johannine literature, the book of James, 1Clement, Jude, 2Clement, and (of course) Second Peter. This is the background from which we must read and study 2Peter; for this is the soil out of which this faith-flower emerged and grew.
.
 Let us now turn our attention once more to the text of 2Peter: "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature." (2Pt.1:3-4).
.
 Here several things are made known to us. First is that the author clearly represents the true Christian gnosis: "... through the knowledge of him ...". This is the position that Peter2 expresses and maintains and defends (against the false gnosis) throughout the remainder of the epistle. Next comes a direct link to the Gospel of John: "... his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, ...". And this is at once followed by a remarkable and concise summary of the prophetic tradition as expressed by the prophet Jacob (see the book of James for details): "... that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature".
.
 In v.5-7 the author goes on to draw together the meaning of all this by making it plain that knowledge, virtue, faith, and love are all intimately connected to each other, and together form the perfect expression of the Christian religion: "For this very reason make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love" (2Peter 1:5-7). From all of this (ie. from 2Pt.1:1-7) we learn the essential elements that formed the solid foundation of the faith of the Christian prophets of Egypt ...
.
 v.8 concludes the prophetic vision of the Faith by emphasizing that knowledge, or gnosis, is empty and meaningless unless it is fruitful and effective: "For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." The epistle thus presents the following structure: Opening: From (v.1a), To (v.1b), and the Blessing (v.2); Prologue: True Life Through True Gnosis (v.3-11). This opening section of the epistle tells us immediately what is uppermost in the mind and heart of the prophet Peter2. Here he paints for us a rich portrait of the Christian prophetic tradition that stretches back through Judas and Jacob, through the Gospel of John, through Hebrews, all the way back to Simon Peter himself, and from there straight on to the Lord. Thus it is more than a little significant that already by the end of v.8, Peter2 will have repeatedly emphasized the knowledge of all this that binds it all together as the essence and substance of true Christian faith and life. Therefore, even in the opening blessing the prophet makes mention of "the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord". This is immediately followed by a reference to "the knowledge of him who called us" (see also Jude 1b). And this opening section appropriately peaks with yet another reference to "the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ".
.
 Ah, so then, Fisherman. It would seem that our author is very much concerned about the presence of Gnostic-Christians within the churches. Does not our author clearly state that "we did not follow cleverly devised myths" (1:16)? Are you still eager to affirm that the early Greek churches were infested with second century Gnostic- Christians prior to the Fall of Jerusalem? Does not our author clearly state that "we *did* not follow", rather than "we *do* not follow"; as we would expect if the author were actually Simon Peter (rather than a later prophet speaking in his name)?
.
 v.9-11 rounds off our opening exposition by contrasting the "blind" (Johannine theme) and the "zealous", such that the latter gain entrance into the Kingdom: "For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
.
 The next section opens with yet another mention of the knowledge of the truth, and once again follows the thinking of the prophet Judas: "Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed ..." (Jude 5). v.13-15 expands and emphasizes the theme of remembrance: "reminder" (v.13), "recall" (v.15): "Therefore I intend always to remind you of these things, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to arouse you by way of reminder, since I know that the putting off of my body will be
soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things" (Second Peter 1:12-15).
.
 Here the author speaks as Peter, and addresses not the churches of the first century, but believers far in the future who will have occasion to "recall these things". 'These things' being, of course, the prophetic traditions of the early Alexandrian Christians. v.14 also shows the author's awareness of the written gospels, which are intimately included among those things to be recalled "after my departure".
.
... Please proceed to 'On Dating 2Peter/3' ... up next ...

ON DATING 2PETER / Part Three
[Or: The Mystery Of The Empty Tomb]

  In verse 1:16 the prophet immediately separates himself from the Gnostic invaders (ie. those who follow cleverly devised myths), and distinguishes the Parousia from their myths. The Gnostics have their myths, but the prophetic tradition is based on the eyewitness of his Majesty (another major Johannine theme) which took place on 'the holy mountain' when "we heard" the voice of the Heavenly Father: "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,' we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain" (2Peter 1:16-18).
.
 Now these verses 17-18 are yet another direct reference to an event given in the gospel traditions. Actually, the prophet is clearly making reference to Matthew's account of the transfiguration (see Mt.17). But since this rendition is derivative, and comes from well after the Fall of Jerusalem, in our judgment it lacks the greater authority and authenticity of Mark's unsubtle account of things. Accordingly, we will bypass the great editor's gospel completely, and take our text straight from the petrine-horse's mouth! In any case, the full import of this reference can only be grasped when we closely examine the entire pericope that Peter2 has in mind here:

 And after six days, Jesus takes Peter and James and John, and privately leads them alone to a high mountain. There he was transfigured before them. And his garments began to shine, and became an extremely white color (of such a kind that no bleacher on earth is able to thus whiten). And Elijah, along with Moses, appeared to them. And the prophets were talking with Jesus; and he answered them! Then Peter says to Jesus: "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. So let us make three tents; one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." ... Now Peter said this because he did not know what Jesus had answered, and because the three of them were terrified ... Then there came a cloud overshadowing them; and a voice came out from the cloud saying: "This is my son, the Beloved One. Listen to him!" And suddenly, having looked around, they no longer saw anyone. But Jesus was alone with them as before. [Mark 9:2-8 / Prophet Version]
.
 WOWZERZ! Anyone can easily see why various sorts of Gnostics all over the Empire would be intensely interested in this particular theophany. And one can also see why the prophet Peter2 is also interested in this remarkable (and very revealing) passage. But there is another thing about these verses that maybe is not so clear. ... Remember the final verses of Mark, and the excitement and confusion raised by the discovery that Mark 16:9-20 was not written by Mark, but was added later by an unknown scribe (as were other variations)? All this means that Mark originally ended at v.16:8 with the shockingly abrupt phrase: "for they were afraid"! The RSV explains the matter this way: "Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at the end of verse 8. One authority concludes the book by adding after verse eight the following: *But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation* Other authorities include the preceding passage and continue with verses 9-20. In most authorities verses 9-20 follow immediately after verse 8; a few authorities insert additional material after verse 14."
.
 And that last word in particular (ie. "afraid") raised many problems and questions, and not a little self-righteous outrage. Clearly the early Greek churches were not disposed to accept it in that condition. Various bold scribes corrected the matter as they deemed most fitting. In modern times the discovery of these various additions to the original text created a new "Mystery of Mark". Various solutions to this 'mystery' were offered. Some said that Mark's work was interrupted at just that point, and he was never able to complete the project thereafter. Others said that the work was completed, but that the original ending was subsequently lost or destroyed. Still others say that the Holy Spirit simply stopped dictating to Mark at that point, knowing that others would soon supply the much needed "better endings". ... And so it goes.
.
 Needless to say, all these colorful views and opinions are hopelessly wrong. In reality (ie. in the original autograph) the text ended with verse 16:8. Two facts about the text of Mark show this to be the case. (1) Mark is not just the original written proclamation of the Good News. It is also a manual of discipleship for all believers (ie. it is a 'how-to book' for Christians). If we ever lose sight of this fact, we are accordingly unable to correctly understand what it is that the Holy Spirit intends to teach us. And if we apply this awareness to 16:8 we can immediately see that this ending is well and proper; for in times of persecution and violence, of confusion and change, of conflicts and crisis ... Such as the years of the Jewish War (being the background for the composition of the first gospel) ... and in times of doubt and unknowing, the disciple will surely know what it is to be afraid. It is the last word in the text of Mark, but it is most certainly not the last word for the faithful disciple. For beyond death lies the victory already won and assured by our Lord and Savior!
.
 (2) Now the Gospel of Mark (ie. without 16:9-20) is a thing of beauty in both form and design. The fact that the execution of it is a little rude and crude on the literary or rhetorical end does not alter the significance of the overall dramatic structure. Thus the original text is very like unto a circle. It is a journey on the path of discipleship; a path that takes you round and shows you glimpses of important things, and then drops you off back where you started. Thus there are three main points on this roundabout: the beginning, the middle, and the end ... And they are all connected, all intimately linked to one another, each a part of the other. Adding a large and foreign lump of text to one side of this perfect spinning sphere throws everything off balance, and coats the Mona Lisa with a thick layer of stucco. For it is no coincidence that the transfiguration narrative is revealed at the very center of our journey. And if that is not suggestive enough for you, consider how Mark inserts this pericope into the developing plot.
.
 And so the plot of Mark is a seemingly very simple one: Jesus is revealed in Galilee. Jesus is misunderstood and rejected. Jesus makes his way to Jerusalem; where he is misunderstood and rejected, and then put to death. Now the opening of chapter nine comes soon after Jesus and the disciples take the road to Jerusalem. First a blind man is healed ("Do you see anything" 8:23) such that Jesus is revealed as the Anointed One. This is followed by the first dialogue on Christ's identity ("Who do men say that I am?" 8:27). After this comes the first passion prediction; where Peter makes bold to rebuke the one whom he has just called "the Christ" ("Get behind me, Satan!" 8:33). [Hey Fisherman, I bet you don't bother yourself to take that line very literally, do you? :) ]
.
 And after that rather embarrassing moment (for Peter), Jesus teaches the multitude about discipleship: "... For whoever would save his life will lose it ..." (8:35). And you can bet that Peter's ears were burning hot during that whole preaching. But Jesus eventually relents, and concludes his discourse with a prophesy that would be fulfilled within a week: "And he said to them, 'Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power'" (9:1). The transfiguration episode comes mmediately after this public prophesy is issued to the multitude. And after that fearsome revelation things get ever more darker and dreadful, until that awful moment of the Cross. End of story ... Or is it? What lies beyond the empty tomb? Only the Risen Lord who was revealed in power and glory on the holy mountain to Peter, James, and John! Here then is the solution to the mysterious riddle of Mark's so-called bad ending ...  :)
.
 But wait! There are even more treasures hidden in the text of Mark's theophany: "Peter, James, and John" (9:2). How significant that Mark should mention just these three disciples! At this one blazing moment of revelation, the evangelist draws together three of the four main traditions that formed the bulk of the churches of the first century. In Peter we have represented the churches of Syria and Asia Minor (with Antioch as its center). In James we have represented the churches of Palestine; centered in Jerusalem under the leadership of James the brother of the Lord. In John we have represented the churches of Egypt; centered in Alexandria, the home port of the Johannine tradition (which would later bear fruit in the great second century prophets). And conspicuous by his absence is 'the other apostle': Paulos of Damascus, who represents the pauline churches around the Aegean Sea, who was well known to both Mark and Peter (as Paul's authentic epistles amply testify), and whose writings were not only well known to the two collaborators of the first gospel, but were also very much a motivating factor influencing the genesis and shape of the good news (as this revealing list of three apostles attests).
.
 So then we can easily see that the narrative of the transfiguration is rich in symbolic depth and historical meaning. This astonishing pericope was also being misread and misused by the second century Gnostics who so troubled the prophets of Egypt. But Peter2 has set them straight by showing us that this episode was the actual and authoritative beginning of the Christian prophetic tradition, the beginning of the true Christian gnosis, that culminates in he who speaks with the voice and authority of the first Christian prophet, Simon Peter. In Peter, he too was on the holy mountain that day ...
.
 "And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (Second Peter 1:19-21 / RSV).

/ Re: On Dating 2Peter / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 3Oct99 /
.
> On 30Sept99 Fisherman say: Tondaar, Where do you get the notion that "Origen" was "the first and
> earliest witness to the book of James?"
.
 Tondaar say: Uh, would you believe from Origen? ... How about from the many and various well-respected Bible scholars who boldly assert that Origen contains the first clear and undisputed quote from Jm? ... :)
.
> Origen assumed that the Bible was of divine origin,
.
 As any True Believer should.
.
> and stated that "the LITERAL MEANING has an edifying value for the average reader"
> (Origen's Contra Celsum, 1:17-18 & 27:4.48).
.
 To say such a thing is *very* most appropriate for the Father Of The Biblical Sciences to say. However, he also distinguished between four levels of meaning within the sacred texts (including the literal and "spiritual" meanings); and sometimes the literal meaning is *not* the best. But usually it is. In the same way, I quite agree that *usually*
the literal reading works best; but *not* always! And sometimes the literal reading even leads to distortion and misunderstanding. Thus the proper reading must always conform to the nature of the texts (and the intentions of the inspired authors) ...
.
 4X: A literal reading of the book of Jonah might take it as a straight-forward historical account correct and accurate in each and every detail. Such a reading clearly does great violence to the text, the author, and the Holy Spirit; and makes a mockery of the truth of things (ie. because the book of Jonah is a parable in the form of a short story, and most emphatically NOT a literal historical account of actual historical events)!
.
> And he also states that "the literal has an apologetic value in commending the ACCURACY OF THE TEXT" (4.45).
.
 Just so. Usually. ... Again this cannot be taken to mean that Origen in any way, shape, or form approves and promotes an unrelenting literal reading of the scriptures all the time and in every conceivable way.
.
> And he says that "the literal sense attracts people to study the Bible so that they may eventually
> proceed to a deeper understanding" (7.60).
.
 Quite right. And the reason for this is that the literal reading is the most natural one for all manner of Readers to assume; especially for children, pooh bears of very little brain, and those incapable of proceeding "to a deeper understanding".
.
> He also believed that "interpretation of Scripture should be in line with the tradition of the church" (5.61).
.
 Dear Fisherman, my interpretation of Scripture *is* in line with two long and distinguished traditions of the churches: (1) The prophetic tradition which includes Paulos and Silvanus, Mark and Simon-Peter, John, Jacob, Judas, Peter2, and many other good prophets among the early and later Fathers of the churches. (2) The critical tradition;
which (for Christians) formally begins with this same Adamantius of Alexandria that you are here quoting. [Which tradition also includes such distinguished saints and believers as Clement of Alexandria, Jerome and Augustine, Aquinas, Erasmus, Luther and Calvin, William Tyndale, and many other great writers and exegetes and commentators!]
.
> This tradition holds that Simon Peter wrote both 1st and 2nd Peter.
.
 The episcopal and priestly traditions (including its legions of monks and scribes) have always forwarded this view. And it is from this source that many scribes and scholars (and various types of fundies) get their simplistic and erroneous notions regarding the authors of First and Second Peter.
.
> And you misrepresent me when you say (concerning Mark 8:33) "Hey Fisherman, I bet you don't bother
> yourself to take that line very literally, do you?") Hey Tondaar, I take ALL SCRIPTURE literally. The Lord told
> Peter in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, behold, satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as
> wheat; But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; And when thou art converted, strengthen thy
> brethern." It's not some sort of mystical thing to understand that Satan would control people such as Peter
> if he were allowed to do so. But, when Christ said: "Get thee behind me satan" he had no more control over
> Peter ... And satan is still "behind Christ" to this day (Zechariah 3:1-2).
.
 So then what you are saying is that because of various scribblings in Luke you are able to imagine that Jesus is here addressing Satan directly; and that he is NOT speaking directly to Peter? ... As the literal reading of Mark clearly suggests?!? ... Where is the sense in this? This is not at all a good and sensible way in which to read the gospel of Peter and Mark!
.
> You see Tondaar, I believe that it's much more logical and coherent to accept what the Bible says, than to
> listen to a bunch of "bunk" such as you spue forth, in your attempt to be some sort of a 21st century prophet.
> I think that you are "being sifted as wheat" In His Service
.
 My dear Fisherman, I am not "attempting" to be anything. I am simply attempting to demonstrate the many and various weaknesses and short-comings of your interpretive methodology. And to show also that the way in which you treat the scriptures implies a fundamental disrespect for the Word of God in all its manifold depths and glory. You do not believe this, of course. But it is so, nevertheless. Those who dissociate The Book from the true and real history and living traditions of (formerly) living peoples (thus separating it from all historical realities etc) deny and ignore the full splendor and providence of divine assistance and activity in the ordinary lives of ordinary people in every generation. This is not at all a good thing; mainly because it tends to set up a situation wherein the individual
Reader approaches the text as its undisputed lord and master: "I am believer! Hear me roar!" And so forth ... Instead of approaching the sacred texts with a humble heart and a prayerful question:
.
 "What shall the Lord speak to us today?"

P.S. An evolutionists pop song: "We are family tree. I got all my baboons and me. Come on everybody: Swing!"

  Dear cyber-saints, due to our unfortunate (albeit fascinating) digression into the greatest gospel - in our next to previous article 'On Dating 2Peter' - we were unable to adequately deal with the issue at hand (namely, fixing the right date for the epistle called 'Second Peter'). We already saw that the questions of date, author, and setting are necessarily interconnected such that one determines the others. And we also saw how a literal reading is loath to accept the evidence of a second century date in any way, shape, or form. We, of course, sympathize with the sad and pathetic simpletons who passionately and arrogantly assert that the author is none other than the first apostle
Simon-Peter. After all, the text clearly states as much; and in no uncertain terms. Moreover, the churches (along with their legions of scribes, scholars, and saints) have always recognized Peter as the author. Now along comes this arrogant swine of a third-rate cyber-prophet proclaiming that Peter is NOT the author!? Wut? Is the Holy Spirit a liar then? Is God the author of confusion? No, no, no! A thousand times 'NO'!
.
 What such believers fail to realize is that the confusion exists not in the text, but only in their own tiny constipated minds. Thus a rational approach to 2Peter dispels all confusion in that it answers the questions of author, date, and setting on the basis of the evidence supplied by the text; rather than on the basis of attractive fantasies (4X: verbal inspiration; which modern doctrine is nothing more than an excuse for intellectual laziness, which clearly demonstrates a gross disrespect for the sacred text) and pious emotions.
.
 In our last article-in-three-parts we examined some of the evidence offered by the text, and how it supports our contention that the author is a second century Egyptian-Christian prophet addressing the crisis created by Gnostic infiltrators bent on corrupting the morals of believers, and destroying the integrity of the Faith, through false teachings and the practice of perversion. With all this in mind, let us now return to the fundamental matter of dating our unfortunate epistle. Now the strongest strand of evidence we have for dating any New Testament document is its awareness of other NT books. In this regard 2Peter is unparalleled among all the canonical books.
.
 We have also already seen how the prophet Peter2 makes frequent (albeit subtle) allusions and references to the Gospel of John (4X: vital themes and words such as Glory, Majesty, blindness, etc). We have also seen the author's clear awareness of the teachings of the prophet Jacob (as given in the NT book of James) in 2Pt.1:4. And we have also seen how 2Peter quotes directly from the Gospel of Matthew in 1:17. And, of course, there are the many and well known parallels with the epistle of Jude. ... And all this comes from the first chapter yet!
.
 So rather than ask the fundies the embarrassing question of how it is that Simon Peter could have such detailed knowledge of documents that did not even exist in his day, let us instead look to chapters 2 and 3 and see if there is any more evidence of a like kind. Not surprisingly, such evidence abounds; and two items in particular demand our immediate attention. First is the opening remarks of chapter 3: "Dear friends, this is now the second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking" (3:1/NIV).
.
 Now the fundies will take this verse as simply more proof that the author is Simon Peter, but the absurdity of this reading is made apparent when we compare 1 and 2 Peter such that it is obvious (or rather ought to be) that these two epistles could not possibly have come from the same hand. Rather, the significance of this verse lies in the author's knowledge of the existence of a prior epistle attributed to Peter (namely, First Peter). ... This is important in
that most scholars date 1 Peter towards the end of Peter's life, about 64CE (which date is absurdly early, in our humble opinion); but leaving no time for Peter to do a follow-up. Thus even the rank stupidity of the scribes and scholars leaves scant room for the assertion that Peter wrote both epistles; (but actually he wrote neither).
.
 Our second item is even more important to the matter of fixing a second century date for 2Peter: "So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (3:15-16/RSV). Two things are relevant here:
.
 (1) "in all his letters" clearly suggests the existence of a well-established collection of pauline epistles (authentic and post-pauline letters); and such a collection was the end result of an ongoing process that continued throughout the first century. This clearly places 2Peter in the second century.
.
 (2) The reference to 'other scriptures' also implies that Peter2 regards the pauline collection as scripture. This would then make this verse the earliest statement among all the Christian literature (with the exception of 2Clement) recognizing NT documents as scripture. This also places 2Peter in the second century. The attribution of scriptural
status to Paul's letters simply did not exist in the first century; and it is inconceivable that Peter, who was so often at odds with Paul, would call his letters 'scripture' while that author was yet alive!
.
 Now this exposition by no means exhausts the evidence pointing to a mid-2C date for 2Peter. 4X: one could also make mention of the prophet's obvious concern to explain the delay of the Parousia. "Where is this 'coming' he promised?" (3:4). Needless to say, this could hardly have been a major problem for the churches in Peter's day, when expectation of an imminent Parousia was still strong.
.
 And I would also like to offer one final piece of evidence to those who are fortunate enough to find some meaning and value in such things. It is a small, but significant, item that comes from a conservative evangelical source; one that bears many similarities to Fisherman's views on the date/authorship of 2Peter. Now it's true that this book
is a nightmare of sloppy and shoddy biblical commentary (and I shudder even just to think of reading it!), but even here I can find strong support for my claims that 2Peter comes out of the Egyptian churches:
.
 "There is evidence that an earlier ancestor of Codex B did not contain 2 Peter. This conclusion seems certain from the fact that this manuscript uses two systems of divisions of sections, one older than the other, but the older is missing for 2 Peter, although preserved in the rest of the catholic epistles. But it should be noted that 2 Peter was included in the two great Egyptian versions of the third century, the Bohairic, probably originating in the first half of the century, and the Sahidic, apparently going back to the very beginning of the century. In the recently discovered Papyrus 72, of the third century, 2 Peter is accepted as canonical along with 1 Peter and Jude. And the variant text types embodied in this manuscript indicate that the use of these epistles in Egypt extended back over a considerable period" (D.E.Hiebert, An Introduction to the New Testament: Volume Three - The Non-Pauline Epistles And Revelation, p.136-7).
.
 Of course I am not so vain as to fancy that any of this will convince you, dear Fisherman, to depart from your erroneous and childish reading of 2Peter. No doubt the truth means nothing to you next to your stubborn certainty that an unrelenting literal interpretation of the text is just what God intends for all believers. But, in any case, I
hope that I have given some food for thought to those who are still able to muster a modicum of respect for the Word of God, and to those who likewise have a strong passion to better understand the text of 2Peter: "You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" (Second Peter 3:17-18/RSV).

P.S. "For by teaching, one learns more; and in speaking, one is often a hearer along with his audience.
For the teacher of him who speaks, and of him who hears, is one - who waters both the mind and the word"
(Clement of Alexandria - from the 'Stromata'). 

/ Re: More Dating 2Peter / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 5Oct99 /
.
> On 4Oct99 Timothy2;15 writes: Tondaar, I have huge volumes of bible interpreters that you seem to mirror.
.
 Tondaar say: Dear Timothy, while it's true that I have learned much about the Bible from the various scribes and scholars down through the ages that I have studied (and continue to study), rest assured that the resemblance is more apparent than not. As far as I am aware, there is no scholar anywhere who dares to approach the sacred text with the same love, honesty, and respect that I make a basic and fundamental ingredient of my interpretive methodology ...
.
> Hours and hours of endless dribble of how the first two words of a certain verse of the bible were not
> written by moses but simply some author J.
.
 I'm sure I don't know what you mean. I have never written anything for, against, or about this legendary 'J'. But neither am I so foolish as to imagine that Moses is the one and only author of the entire Pentateuch. ... If you wish to believe such pious nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then that is your problem ...
And may you be very happy as you wallow in your self-created ignorance!
.
> You are straining to prevent swallowing a gnat and yet Im convinced that you have already digested
> at the least 4 good sized camels!
.
 Really? And what are their names?  :)
.
> You seem to be more concerned of the accuracy of the bible than the actual message,
.
 I am equally concerned about both.
.
> which to me seems to indicate that you do not trust that God has made available to us an accurate
> account of how we may obtain eternal life.
.
 What in tarnation are you babbling about? How we "obtain eternal life" is entirely dependant on our faith in the Lord. Moreover, being a Christian is NOT about 'obtaining eternal life'; it *is* about DISCIPLESHIP! May I be so bold as to sugget that you *attentively* read (if you are capable of it) the Gospel of Mark? It is well-suited to those who have an inadequate grasp on what it means to be a true believer.
.
> Please quit plagerizing the wasteful works of those who never really trusted God and begin to study
> the message of his word.  -- GOD BLESS ALL -- TIMOTHY
.
 Show me one instance where I have plagerized anybody, you pompous baboon, and I will kiss your furry, ignorant buttocks all the way from here to Timbuktu and back! Until then, I'll thank you not to accuse me of crimes that I haven't committed! ... btw: Bite me! ...

/ Re: More Dating 2Peter / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 6Oct99 /
.
> On 5Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, God has plenty of warnings (of course you don't take them literally
> ... right?) for "prophets" that try and falsify His Word.
.
 Tondaar say: Dear Fisherman, I take all of the Word's teachings about the prophets *very* seriously. Far more seriously than you and your prophet-hating fundy pals do, I expect. As for all these nice sayings of yours here, maybe they would be more appropriate and effective if you first demonstrated to our Readers how it is that I "falsify his Word". You seem to be of the opinion that because I dare to disagree with you, and because I claim to be a prophet, that this somehow proves that I am a "false" prophet. But when it comes time for you to refute my exegesis, and provide one of your own in its place, you run and hide and quickly change the subject so that no one may notice that you have nothing constructive to say. You may fool these fellow fundy Mindless Ones, but you don't fool me, mister. Not by a long shot. So maybe these cool verses below are better aimed at you than at me!
.
> He says: "I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran; I have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
> But if they had stood in my counsel, and HAD CAUSED MY PEOPLE TO HEAR MY WORDS, then they should
> have turned them from their evil way and from the evil of their doings. Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord,
> and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do
> not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord. I HAVE HEARD WHAT THE PROPHETS SAID, THAT PROPHESY LIES
> IN MY NAME, saying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed. HOW LONG SHALL THIS BE IN THE HEART OF THE
> PROPHETS THAT PROPHESY LIES? Yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart;
.
 This sounds much more like you, than like me, Fisherman. My heart is always open to the cyber-saints, but you are the one who practices deceit in every posting you post against me!
.
> Which think to cause my people to forget my name by their dreams which they tell every man to his neighbour,
> as their fathers have forgotten my name for Baal. The prophet THAT HATH A DREAM, let him tell a dream; and
> HE THAT HATH MY WORD, LET HIM SPEAK MY WORD FAITHFULLY.
.
 Which is *exactly* what I do. ... The cyber-saints are not fools. Let them read my postings, and your inept answers to them, and they will see for themselves which one of us treats the sacred scriptures with more love and respect ...
.
> What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the Lord. Is not My Word like as a fire? saith the Lord; and like a
> hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? (Jeremiah 23:21-29).
.
 Oh how I do love Jeremiah! He is surely one of my favorite OT prophets (second only to Jonah himself). The Word is indeed like a fire that burns up illusions and lies. Like a hammer that breaks the rocks of hardened hearts. Maybe *that* is why so many hate and despise the Offensive One?
.
> The only "embarrasment" should be to yourself, when you falsely tell people that Simon Peter was "quoting
> directly from Matthew" in 2 Peter 1:17. Peter was telling something as an "eyewitness," and was not quoting
> anyone.
.
 Oh yeah? That's not what the vast majority of commentaries on Matthew say. But then, you wouldn't know about that, would you? After all, since all the mysteries of scripture are made plain to your literal reading, you doubtless never feel the need to consult any commentaries. Why should you pay heed to the scholars and exegetes when you know darn well that no one can read the scriptures better than you!
.
> "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, (very unlike you, Tondaar) when we made known unto
> you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but WERE EYEWITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY. For he
> received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent
> glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (2 Peter 1:16-17).
.
 Yes, now we have *both* quoted the same passage. I note that your reading offers no explanations whatsoever, and does not bother to place these verses in any sort of intelligible context. I have already given mine; at length even (much to the horror of the Administrator). The only question that remains is: What version are you using?
.
> You should study the Word just a little bit, Tondaar
.
 Geez, haven't you been reading my postings? ... No? Well, that would explain a lot!
.
> ... and stop trying to lead people into Satan's (Baal's) camp.
.
 I can't imagine where you get that notion from. No wait! Yes I can. I don't agree with Fisherman, therefore I *must* be an agent of Baal. Sheesh! Well, I guess there's just no arguing with "fool-proof" logic like that.

> On 3Oct99 Fisherman wrote: Tondaar, Have you ever seen the Majesty of the 12 knot currents
> and the 40 foot rise and fall of the tides of fundy?
.
 Tondaar scratches his head in dismay and confusion, and says: Huh? 
.
> Did such "distinguished saints and believers" as Clement of Alexandria, Jerome, Augustine, Erasmus,
> Luther, Calvin, Tyndale and others ever question the authorship of the books of the Bible? I think not!
.
 Of course they did; as best could be done in the pre-scientific age. Clement in particular was remarkably critical (in the best sense of the word) in all his thinking and writing. Please do check it out! But in the meantime, have a quick peek at what Calvin says in the opening words of his commentary on 2Peter:
.
"The doubts respecting this Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, ought not to keep us from reading it. For if the doubts rested on the authority of men, whose names he does not give, we ought to pay no more regard to it than to that of unknown men. And he afterwards adds, that it was everywhere received without any dispute. What Jerome writes influences me somewhat more, that some, induced by a difference in the style, did not think that Peter was the author. For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter."
.
> And I believe that Origen would strongly disagree with you concerning your "false statment," that
> the "book of Jonah is not a literal, historical account of actual historical events."
.
 I think you are very wrong about that; and the evidence I forward in support of my understanding of Origen is that he most certainly was *not* a 'conservative evangelical'!
.
> For "Origen" was committed to the "historical reality" of the Bible.
.
 He was not one whit more committed to the historical reality of the Bible than I am. He and I, unlike fundies and evangelicals, are quite able to distinguish between fantasy and reality. You see, Fisherman, being committed to the historical reality of the Bible does not mean that we must read The Book as if it were some kind of divine history book, accurate in each and every detail. Rather, it means that we must carefully unravel the historical truths from the surrounding fluff and dross that obscures its clear perception. The book of Jonah is *obviously* a work of fiction; and I pity those who are so stubborn in their blindness that they cannot even accept this simple fact.
.
> Although sometimes he regarded the "spiritual" as superior to the "literal," he believed that contact with the
> metaphysical IS GAINED THROUGH THE HISTORICAL.
.
 Frankly, I couldn't agree more. That's why it is so important to make these necessary distinctions between real history as it actually happened, and the pious additions and interpretations that encrusted, and then engulfed, the original historical facts, events, and realities.
.
> Origen also believed that there is a fundamental difference between a work being susceptible to allegory
> and being intended as allegory. And he took this stance toward the Bible (1.50; 3.74).
.
 And he is absolutely right! The difference is fundamental not only to the text itself, but ALSO to the way we must read it. ... 4X: The book of Jonah was not intended as allegory. It was written as a humorous short story [but fundies see no humor in it -> a dead give-away!] revealing profound spiritual truths about the Lord (and about the prophets!). To read it as a straight-forward historical account is to miss the point completely!
.
> He also quoted other books of the Bible besides James. In book 3 he quotes Paul twice as many times as
> he does the New Testament gospels. He quotes the Psalms as much as all the other books of the Old
> Testament combined. So what does it prove if he was the "first writer" to quote James?
.
 It proves that before him no one ever bothered to quote from James directly. There are various reasons for this reluctance on the part of the pre-Origen Christian writers. Outside of Egypt James was more less disputed, or at least suspect, as regards its "apostolic" character. Most writers, I suspect, simply had no use for it, or dismissed it as mere exhortation. ... But the point is that Origen's use of James proves that the book could not have been written after the time of Origen. It doesn't tell us exactly when Jm was written, but the fact that Origen was the first to quote him is *very* highly suggestive of a second century genesis (as I have been maintaining all along).
.
> And it seems that Jesus would disagree with you also concerning the historical reality of the book
> of Jonah (Matthew 12:39-41).
.
 Only if we were inclined to a literal (ie. blind and foolish) reading of the Gospel of Matthew could I agree with your assessment. A more sensible and scholarly approach to the text leads to quite different conclusions. Please allow me to demonstrate:
.
 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh will arise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here" (Mt.12:38-41).
.
 Now this is undoubtedly a fascinating pericope all round. Especially so for the Matthean scholar, as this brief episode classically demonstrates the style and method of the great scribal editor who authored the Gospel of Matthew. That is, Matthew takes an original bit from the tradition and reworks it by way of supplementing it with additional materials. In this case, verses 38-39 preserve an authentic Jesus-saying which ended at the word 'Jonah'. But the saying is some-what obscure in its brevity, and so Matthew clarifies things by placing his own commentary in the mouth of the Lord. Thus it is Matthew who reads the book of Jonah literally (as most did in those days), NOT the Lord.
.
 Nor am I much impressed with his interpretive additions to the original saying. I simply mean that Matthew's vision of the meaning of the authentic saying strikes me as basically misguided. It is one interpretation that the early church came up with; but is by no means the only one, nor even the best. So what is the sign of the prophet Jonah? Matthew obviously thinks that it has something to do with Jonah's down-time in the belly of the whale, but this is clearly not what Jesus intends to say here. The sign of Jonah is not a miraculous event or a wondrous happening (as Matthew supposes). Rather, it is just the opposite! The sign of Jonah is something mundane, an everyday reality that is anything but wondrous and miraculous. And what is that subtle and mysterious sign? Jonah himself tells us what it is:
.
 "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God repented of the evil which he had said he would do to them; and he did not do it" (Jonah 3:10). In other words, God saves sinners if they repent and turn away "from their evil ways". This then is the sign of Jonah: God saving sinners! And it is the *only* sign that an "evil and adulterous generation" will be given! ...
.
 As it was, so it is now in this wicked generation. Do not many good Christians seek after the signs of the Rapture and the coming Apocalypse? Do they not seek signs in the stars and in the weather? Do they not anxiously await the spectacular coming of the Lord in power and glory? ... But no sign shall be given *this* evil generation! No sign, that is, other than the sign of Jonah!
.
                                              - one who reads the signs of the times - Tondaar ;>
.
P.S. "But as we say that a man can be a believer without learning, so also we assert that it is impossible for a man without learning  to comprehend the things which are declared in the faith. But to adopt what is well said, and not to adopt the reverse, is caused not simply by faith, but by faith combined with knowledge" (Clement of Alexandria - from the Stromata).

/ Re: On The Sign Of Jonah / Forum: TheologyOnLine-BibleStudy / Newsgroup: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 6Oct99 /
.
>> On 6Oct99 Fisherman decides that he's had more than enough of the cyber-prophet's "blasphemous"
>> rantings: Tondaar, Most people should scratch their heads and say: "Huh?" after reading such
>> "blasphemous nonsense" as you spue forth when addressing the Word of God.
.
 Tondaar answers: Dear Fisherman, anything that inspires the People of God to think about the sacred scriptures is well-pleasing unto the Lord; and ought to be encouraged to the max!
.
>> When anyone will call any part of the Holy Scriptures "a work of fiction" ... they have resorted to blasphemy!
.
 Really? I can't imagine why. The Bible contains many different types and styles and genres of literature. If the Lord can reveal eternal truths through mythology and poetry, why not through fiction as well? But you seem to think that God made use of all manner of literature *except fiction* because (of course) the Lord would never ever stoop so low as to make use of fiction as a vehicle of revelation, oh no, perish the thought!
.
 ... btw: You have a lot of growing up to do, Fisherman.
.
>> I will not discuss the Word of God with you any longer
.
 When have you *ever* really discussed the Word of God with me?
[As opposed to denying, ignoring, and insulting me, I mean.]
.
>> ... not because I am "afraid to face you" ... as you will say.
.
 I will *not* say that, because I know you better than that, Fisherman. ...
Sheesh! Give me a little credit, why don't ya?
.
>> But because I have reached the conclusion that you are unfit to discuss the Scriptures.  -- In His Service
.
 That's funny, I was thinking the same thing about you!  :)
.
> On 6Oct99 Geoff rightly responds to Fisherman's unchristian judgmentalism and hard-heartedness
> with a well-justified and heart-felt: EGADS!
.
 Dear Geoff, my sentiments exactly!

P.S. "Logic is not a property of men. It is rooted in the LOGOS (from which we get the word). God's Word (the Bible and The Logos of John 1:1) is not illogical, and we are not given license to be lazy and careless in our logic when defending the faith."  -- Kevin T. Rice 

textman
*