/ NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 28Aug99 /

 Now in order to give the Reader some idea of Reicke's general muddle-headedness regarding the epistles in question, I would direct your attention to the following statement from his general introduction: "Scholars have also endeavored to find some influence of Second Peter upon Jude or vice versa, since the central part of Second Peter runs parallel with Jude, but important differences make it unlikely that either epistle was the source of the other" (AB #37, p.xxxvi). But even a casual examination of both epistles clearly demonstrates that the similarities vastly outweigh the differences, such that it is apparent that one is the primary source of the other. The only real question that remains is: Which document is the source of the other?
.
 In his Introduction to Jude, Reicke discusses further this matter of literary dependence: "Jude, however, would seem to be mainly of secondary origin since it summarizes in an elegant style points which Second Peter expounds with greater effort and more detail. Such smoothness of style is frequently characteristic of editors who condense and revise what has been laboriously drawn up by others" (p.189-90). But Judas was a prophet, not an editor, so his so-called "smoothness of style" can hardly be taken as evidence that he used 2Peter as a source.
.
 In the same way, the tendency to revise and condense is the exact opposite of the general developments that we see within the New Testament documents. 4X: the Gospel of Mark is not a summary form of the Gospel of Matthew (although some few scholars still imagine it so), but rather Matthew is very clearly an elaboration and expansion of Mark. [This is one of the very few "assured results" of the biblical sciences.] Thus if we apply this logic to 2Peter and Jude, the possibility that the former is based on the latter clearly outweighs the other alternatives. But Bo does not see the sense of this; and in fact does not believe that Jude used 2Peter either. His opinion (which is contrary to the view held by the majority of Bible scholars) is that "both epistles derive from a common tradition which may well have
been oral rather than written" (190). He favors this option because he foolishly believes that it "would explain both the similarities and differences in a satisfactory fashion" (190). In point of fact, however, it explains nothing; but rather raises more questions (which Bo does not bother to address).
.
 So let us now leave Reicke's silliness behind us, and pursue this matter on our own. The next question that must concern us, therefore, is this: Are there any other indications that may support the general view that the author of 2Peter used the epistle of Jude as his primary source? Why yes, as a matter of fact, there are! Let us briefly examine two of these: (1) The author of 2Peter explicitly identifies himself as the apostle Simon Peter; but this is clearly quite
impossible. For one thing, Peter was an illiterate Galilean fisherman who obviously never wrote anything directly himself. So unless we're prepared to imagine that God miraculously provided Peter with the necessary longevity and literacy needed to compose a second century Greek document, we shall have to be content with the fact that an unknown author wrote the epistle in his name (so as to provide the letter with the necessary apostolic authority).
.
 Moreover, Peter's contribution to the New Testament already exists in every word of the Gospel of Mark; such that he did his part (ie. in collaboration with Mark (who did the actual writing)), and nothing more is required of him. In other words, Peter is no more the author of 1&2Peter than Paul is the author of Ephesians and Colossians. Those
who claim that the apostle Simon-Peter is the author of 1and/or2Peter because it says so right there in the text only display their abysmal ignorance of the writing habits of the early Christians, and so prove themselves supremely unfit to comment IN ANY WAY on the sacred text!
.
 Now it's true that the author's attribution to Peter does not decide the issue of which letter is the source of the other, but it does suggest that the author of 2Peter was very concerned about the matter of authority. And this brings us to our second indicator: (2) A more effective way to decide the issue of literary dependence is to trace the development of some idea or theme that is common to both epistles. That is, if there is some idea in Jude that is built upon and developed in 2Peter, this would constitute good evidence for the idea that the latter made use of the former. Thus in Jude there is a clear concern on the part of the author for the authority of the prophets; and this concern leads Judas to make a special plea on behalf of the prophet at the very closing of his epistle:

 "Now to the one who is able to guard you without stumbling, and sets before you the glory of Him-blameless-with-exultation [ie. the Risen Lord] - and the only God [ie. the God of JC; which is to say, the Heavenly Father], our Savior (through Jesus Christ our Lord) - let that one [ie. the slave/prophet] be given glory, majesty, dominion, and authority before all the Age; now and unto all the ages to come. Amen!"  -- Jude 24,25 / Prophet Version

 [Note to Reader: If you check this rendition against any popular English translation you will surely find serious discrepancies (ie. most versions present these verses as a straight-forward doxology). This is because there is no popular version that respects the Greek text of Jude enough to provide us with an adequate translation of the
entire epistle. Instead, modern Bible-makers are very offended by the prophetic words and ideas of the prophet-slave Judas. And because the truth is such a stench unto their delicate nostrils, they feel perfectly justified in imposing their own goodly and pious interpretations upon the unresisting text ... In doing so, they also distort
and corrupt the Word of God so as to make it conform to their own "enlightened and progressive" theologies. DO NOT BE DECEIVED! The above rendition is true to the spirit and letter of the best Greek text, and in harmony with the mind and heart of the prophet Judas, and the Spirit of Truth that inspired him. Therefore, to be forewarned is to be fore-armed ... But then, who wants four arms? :) ]
.
 And when we turn to 2Peter, we not only find this same concern, but it is also even more pronounced and explicit there: "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention ..." (2Peter 1:19 / NASB). "But know this first of all, that no prophesy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophesy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2Peter 1:20-21 / NASB). "... that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets ..." (2Peter 3:2 / NASB). Thus there are many other clues and indicators in the text of 2Peter suggesting that the author is combating the same ongoing invasion of second centuy Gnostic homos that so concerned the Egyptian-Christian prophet Judas, but it is the added emphasis on the prophets that best suggests that 2Peter was written a decade or two after Jude.
.
 So Judas and pseudo-Peter could both see that the increasing conflict between the clergy and the prophets would not end well for the latter; and by the middle of the second century the priests were aggressively asserting their authority over the People of God. In 2Peter, then, we have the last gasp of a prophetic tradition that would soon be snuffed out and cast aside; a casualty of the war between the spiritless priests and the perverted heretics (ie. "the Ones of Old", as Judas calls them) over the future fate of the Faith!
.
 P.S. It is very instructive (and sobering) to reflect on the fact that 2Peter was the last and final sacred epistle to be written down. After the mid-2C the prophetic tradition was driven underground (even in Egypt) and gradually faded away. Thus the very end of the period of the composition of the New Testament books coincides well with the
beginnings of the priestly takeover of the churches. Now the bishops hurriedly claimed that the prophetic ministry was assumed into the Episcopal office, and continues uninterrupted therein; but the travesty of this absurd lie is made apparent in the fact that these spirit-bereft lords and masters of the People of God far more closely resemble accountants and bureaucrats [almost entirely lacking in passion and imagination (barring a few exceptional exceptions, of course; 4X: Augustine and Jerome and Adamantius, Theophilus of Antioch on the Orontes, Melito, etc)] than they do the holy prophets of the early Greek churches' first generations ... Nuff Said!

/ Subject > Re: Literary Dependence/1 / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> tondaar wrote: LITERARY DEPENDENCE 101 <snipsome> But even a casual examination of both epistles
>> clearly demonstrates that the similarities vastly outweigh the differences, such that it is apparent that one
>> is the primary source of the other. The only real question that remains is: Which document is the
>> source of the other?
.
> On 28Aug99 Jack Holt replies: It is not apparent to me that one served as the source of the other, nor
> is it apparent to conservative scholars (i.e., scholars of integrity who respect the weight of evidence
> offered and accepted for 17 centuries concerning the origin of the New Testament documents).
.
 On Aug30 Tondaar answers: Dear Jack, when you place Jude and 2Peter side by side and carefully compare the contents of both epistles, do you notice any resemblances in theme, and similarities in style? If not, then we have nothing to discuss (as you would then prove yourself incapable of reading the texts). But if you see the obvious
identity that exists between these epistles, then I must ask you: How do you account for all these convergences if you will not allow one to be the source of the other? And furthermore, why should it be such a great horror to you if that indeed were the case?
.
 As to your reference to 17 centuries of the "weight of evidence", I can say that the bulk of this so-called evidence is based on nothing more substantial than hearsay and a simplistic literal reading of the texts. For the first 17 centuries of church history there was no such thing as a clear, unbiased, and rational approach to the texts. Only when the biblical sciences were finally taken seriously was it possible to discover that an unrelenting literal interpretation of the texts is grossly inadequate! [Actually, Origen discovered this in the third century; but his solution leaves much to be desired!]
.
 Thus your talk of 17 centuries of scholars who respect the weight of evidence is *very* misleading. For 17 centuries there was legendary traditions and fanciful speculations and pious fables concerning the origins of the NT documents. But that's all there was! How could it be otherwise when a truly scientific and historical approach to the
scriptures only became possible *after* the so-called Enlightenment?
.
>> <snip> 4X: the Gospel of Mark is not a summary form of the Gospel of Matthew (although some few scholars
>> still imagine it so), but rather Matthew is very clearly an elaboration and expansion of Mark. [This is one of the
>> very few "assured results" of the biblical sciences.]
.
> "Assured"?  Assumed is more like it.
.
 Just what are you saying here, Jack? That you don't buy the fact that Matthew used Mark? And why not, eh? Is it because you fancy that such an idea somehow undermines or damages the value or credibility of the Bible? If so, you are very wrong. Or is it because your contempt for the biblical sciences is such that you need not bother yourself with anything that the scholars may say about scripture? If so, you are (again) very wrong to do so.
.
>> <snip> So let us now leave Reicke's silliness behind us, and pursue this matter on our own.
.
> Reicke is not the only one guilty of silliness here.
.
 I will assume that you are referring to me; although I fancy that you would make for a much better candidate. But if you wish to accuse me of silliness, at least provide our Readers with some samples of this. For example, I notice that you posted your article in html format. Are you a newbie, Jack? I ask this because only newbies are silly enough not to know that posting an article to newsgroups in html format is a gross indecency and an (almost) unforgivable offense. As a matter of fact, I despise html articles, and very nearly tossed your post in the trash (without even bothering to look at it) because of that. So if in future you direct another html article at me, please don't be
surprised or offended if I don't answer it.
.
>> <snip> (1) The author of 2Peter explicitly identifies himself as the apostle Simon Peter; but this is clearly
>> quite impossible. For one thing, Peter was an illiterate Galilean fisherman who obviously never wrote
>> anything directly himself. <snip>
.
> Clearly impossible? Only to the biased, liberal scholar (by liberal, I mean a scholar who begins with the
> bias that the New Testament books were written in the second century at the earliest, and are at best
> the product of uninspired men.)
.
 Obviously you haven't bothered yourself to read much of my various prophetic scribblings. If you had, you would know that your definition of a 'liberal scholar' certainly cannot be rightly attributed to me. In point of fact, I believe that the composition of the NT books occurred over the space of about a century (ie. from c.50CE (1&2Thess) to c.150CE (2Peter)). In other words, some books come from the first century, others from the second. Moreover, in no way do I consider the second century documents to be inferior, or less authoritative, or less inspired, than the first century documents. ... Indeed, why should you suppose that I am of the opinion that the Holy Spirit just up and died from one year to the next, simply because some people would much later make a distinction between this century and that (a distinction that in no way existed at that time)?!?!
.
> Peter was a fisherman, but your assumption of illiteracy is just that--AN ASSUMPTION.
.
 No. Rather, it is a logical inference based on our knowledge of the tremendous lack of literacy among poor peasant types who could not afford books and education. Such things were largely the privilege of the higher classes. Have you perhaps forgotten that things were different 2000 years ago from what they are today? A literate man in those days was a prized commodity, and would not need to resort to fishing in order to earn a living.
.
> The fact is, the Jews were big on education--especially education concerning sacred literature.
> Was Jesus an illiterate carpenter? No, he stood in the synagogue and read from the scriptures.
.
 Just so. Jesus was an exceptional student who was very lucky to learn to read the Greek LXX as a child. No doubt he was fluent in both Aramaic and Greek. But how does this translate to Peter? If Peter was literate, as you suggest, it would be in Aramaic. If Peter was literate in Greek, then he wouldn't really need Mark to write down his 'memoirs' (ie. the Gospel of Mark). At this point one could raise the objection that even if Peter was illiterate in Greek he could still have dictated 1&2Peter to a scribe who wrote down his spoken words in Greek, just as he did with Mark. My answer to this is that the author of 1Peter bears no resemblance to the author of 2Peter, and neither of these authors bears any resemblance to the author of Mark's gospel. In other words, my view is that Peter did his part by contributing the lions share to the creation of the first and greatest gospel. In the same way, the fact that 1&2Peter are both second century documents precludes the possibility that Simon-Peter wrote them. ... I fail to see why silly Christians should take offense at this simple fact. It's as if I'm deliberately devaluing the letters, or calling the authors liars, by pointing out that these textual claims to apostolic authorship cannot be taken literally. Rest assured that that is NOT the case here!
.
> Why assume it's a second century product?
.
 Would you like the short version or the long version? Since this posting is already long enough, I'll give you the short version. Firstly, I do not assume that 2Peter is a second century document. Rather I come to that conclusion by carefully weighing the evidence provided by the epistle against the evidence provided by the rest of the NT against the evidence provided by the history of the early Greek churches. It is not a conclusion reached by simply pulling it
out of thin air, like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. It comes from placing 2Peter in its proper literary and cultural context. 4X: The problems that 2Peter addresses are not those to be found in the early formative period of the churches. No. Rather, these problems and issues arose from a situation that could only exist after the 'Parting of the Ways' (between Judaism and Christianity); which is to say, AFTER the first century!
.
> William F. Albright, in his book Recent Discoveries of Bible Lands, on page 136, states, "We can already say
> emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any New Testament book after about 80 AD,
> two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics
> of today." "Many of the liberal scholars are being forced to consider earlier dates for the New Testament.
> Dr. John A.T.Robinson's conclusion in his new book Redating the New Testament are startlingly radical.
> His research led to the conviction that the whole New Testament was written before the Fall of Jerusalem
> in A.D. 70." (Secondary Source, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, page 63, by Josh McDowell. Primary
> Source, Redating the New Testament, page 79, by Dr. John Robinson.)
.
 Well, Jack, my response to that is simply to say that any scholar who fancies that the entire NT was finished before 70CE is an ignorant baboon who knows nothing about the way things work in the slow but sure processes of history. Here is but one objection to this ludicrous fantasy: All through the first century, and especially before
Jerusalem's Fall, Christians were *very* certain that the Lord would be returning soon (to judge the living and the dead, etc). In that situation no one had any thought to write things down for posterity because there was no future for this world! Paul's epistles clearly demonstrate the power of this erroneous conviction, and also provide proof of our contentions. His epistles were "occasional" letters written for the moment, not for all eternity. Thus all those letters that demonstrate a wider vision or a longer view, obviously had to come from a later period in the history of the churches ...
.
P.S.  Please proceed to: 'Re: Literary Dependence/2' ... up next ...

/ Subject > Re: Literary Dependence/2 / NG: alt.religion.christian.biblestudy /
.
>> tondaar wrote: <snip> In other words, Peter is no more the author of 1&2Peter than Paul is the
>> author of Ephesians and Colossians.
.
> Jack Holt replies:  More assumptions.
.
 tondaar say: No. More conclusions based on historical, cultural, textual, and literary evidence combined with sound reasoning and a sober view of the formation of the NT canon.
.
> The weight of the evidence is so heavy that Paul wrote the epistles attributed to him that one has to be
> biased to reject it.
.
 No. The authentic epistles of Paul all bear the stamp of his unique personality. The post-pauline epistles are clearly developments based upon his work, and it is rather easy to see that Paul did not write them. Indeed few scholars today would ever suggest that Hebrews is an authentic letter of Paul's. Differences in style, diction, setting, and theology all provide sufficient evidence to strongly suggest that Paul did not write everything that bears his name! In this situation the only bias comes from those who prefer pious nonsense over thinking clearly about the tangible evidence offered by the texts themselves ...
.
>> tondaar: Those who claim that the apostle Simon-Peter is the author of 1and/or2Peter because it says so
>> right there in the text [ie. the canonical titles] only display their abysmal ignorance of the writing habits of
>> the early Christians, and so prove themselves supremely unfit to comment IN ANY WAY on the sacred text!
.
> JH: Those who claim he's not because some writers of the early church wrote using pseudo names "only
> display their abysmal" bias. This argument says: (1) Some early Christian writers used pseudo names.
.
 Some writers, such as the author of 2Peter, wrote in the name of famous heroes so as to honor them, and to provide their words with apostolic authority (a concern that in itself suggests a second century setting). Now I do not attribute any evil or low intent to the author of 2Peter. He clearly felt that his thinking was in perfect harmony with the first apostle; and indeed I think that he was fully justified in assuming the apostolic authority (given the grave dangers that faced his churches in Egypt in the first half of the second century).
.
> (2) 1&2Peter were written by an early Christian writer. (3) Therefore, 1&2Peter was written by someone who
> used a pseudo name. What's wrong with this argument? RIGHT! It ASSUMES what it seeks to prove.
> It argues from "SOME" and concludes essentially saying "ALL."
.
 Since I do not proceed in this way, but rather approach each book on a case by case basis (respecting its unique features and characteristics), this silly logic of yours hardly applies to my particular methodologies.
.
> And conservative Christians are the ones who are supposed to have difficulty reasoning?  Please!
.
 You have yet to convince me otherwise, Jack ...  :)
.
>> <snip> Thus in Jude there is a clear concern on the part of the author for the authority of the prophets; and
>> this concern leads Judas to make a special plea on behalf of the prophet at the very closing of his epistle:
.
> JH: So, any book written concerning the theme of "the authority of the prophets" must have been drawn from
> the same source that 2 Peter and Jude were? I can't believe your seriously making these kinds of arguments.
.
 You misunderstand me, sir. My contention is that 1Clement, James, Jude, and 2Peter are all closely related documents. All the indications are that they originate from the Greek churches in Egypt in the first half of the second century. Within this context the development of the theme (ie. prophetic authority) is a good indictor of the relative position of each document (ie. which came before, and which came after, the others).
.
>> tondaar: <snip> Thus there are many other clues and indicators in the text of 2Peter suggesting that the
>> author is combating the same ongoing invasion of second century Gnostic homos that so concerned the
>> Egyptian-Christian prophet Judas, but it is the added emphasis on the prophets that best suggests that
>> 2Peter was written a decade or two after Jude.
.
> Faulty premises produce fault conclusions. Your conclusions are based on the premises already refuted above.
.
 Dear Jack, please put your money where your mouth is! ... I am far more impressed by cogent presentations of evidence than by lame declarations that my premises are "faulty". I present my evidence and reasoning for all the world to see and evaluate. Where are yours? I have seen little from you other than one denial after another.
.
> Incidentally, Gnosticism was not just a second century problem.
> It was a first century problem. Good grief. Study history, man!
.
 I do. Constantly, in fact. Therefore I am well aware that Gnosticism entered the Mediterranean Basin *before* the first century CE. However, it did not become a *major* problem for the early Greek churches until *after* the so-called 'Parting of the Ways' [ie. between Judaism and Christianity]. Prior to that time (ie. in the first century) the major concerns of the churches revolved around the Faith's relationship with Judaism. This is the major theme that can be traced through every 1C NT document from Paul's authentic epistles to the Gospel of John. After that painful separation, the churches turned their attention to the larger world (ie. the Roman Empire), and that's when the Gnostic influence really began to make itself felt; *especially* upon the churches in Egypt.
.
>> tondaar: <snip> Now the bishops hurriedly claimed that the prophetic ministry was assumed into the
>> Episcopal office, and continues uninterrupted therein; <snip>
.
> JH: We disagree about what you say about 2 Peter and Jude,
.
 And you have yet to give me even *ONE* good reason why!!!
.
> but I agree that priests unlawfully attempted to assume prophetic standing.  It's still going on today.
.
 Yes. I even heard that the pope recently made reference to 'Jesus Christ the prophet' in one of his recent authoritative documents. Needless to say, I was very surprised by this ...
.
> What's the bottom line here?
.
 The bottom line is that if you wish to understand 2Peter you must place it within its proper social, theological, and textual context! Anything less necessarily does violence to the sacred text ...
.
> People who are biased against the idea of inspiration
.
 I am not biased against the idea of inspiration. On the contrary, I fully believe and assert that EACH & EVERY New Testament document is the product of the collaboration of the Heavenly Father's providence, the Lord Jesus Christ's grace and guidance, the Holy Spirit's passion for truth, and the author's unique personality and faith ... REGARDLESS
of *when* these books were written ... and REGARDLESS of the fact that most of the authors were not among the Twelve (or even from the first generation of Believers)!!!
.
> are naturally going to try and redate the books of the New Testament.
.
 My dating of the NT books has nothing to do with debunking the reality of inspiration, and everything to do with properly understanding the meaning and setting of those books.
.
> It's that simple.
.
 HA! You wish!
.
> "But," you ask, "aren't conservatives biased when it comes to this topic as well?"
.
 Apparently; judging from the nature of your comments ...
.
> I suppose some are, but those who think and investigate know that the weight of the historical record,
> including the testimony of late first century authors, and authors from the 2nd-4th centuries, conclusively
> prove that the New Testament was a first century production.
.
 Good Grief! Do you realize what you are saying? ... NONE of the NT documents can be accurately dated because none provide the necessary historical references needed to pin them down to a specific year (or decade even). The closest thing that scholars have is an obscure reference in 1Clement which scholars *wrongly* wed to 96CE. And
around this erroneous 'fixed point' the scholars are able to 'place' the remaining early Christian documents. BUT they are wrong in the date they give to 1Clement, just as they are wrong in the author they suppose wrote 1Clement. And once you remove this all-important lynch-pin, their entire 'all NT books are 1C' monument comes crashing down
around their ears like so much rotten cabbage!
.
... "think and investigate" - That's a laugh. I can count on the toes of one foot the number of Christians who are able to think and investigate!
.
> Liberals dismiss this evidence with a wave of their biased hands, but their dismissal doesn't lessen the
> power of the evidence and its conclusive nature.  -- Jack H. <snip remainder>
.
 What liberals do is to undermine and corrupt the Faith with their appalling arrogance and vanity, and their utter rejection of the authority of scripture. They are servants of the Wicked One, and therefore my enemies to the bitter end. As for you, if you were at all interested in the evidence, as you claim, then you would not be so quick to dismiss me. I know whereof I speak; and I would urge you to reflect well upon the words of the prophet who wrote 2Peter:
.
 "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention ..." (2Peter 1:19/NASB).
.
 ... Wut? ... Whoz dat knockin on my door?

textman
*