Well evolution is not a theological concept based on the Bible. It’s a scientific theory based on scientific philosophy and various facts from dozens of scientific fields and the consensus in the scientific community is not even remotely divided. They land on evolution as being true. There are not thousands of theories of which evolution is just one.
Versus the beliefs of 1 Peter center around the Greek was to good to have been Peter or one of the disciples that followed him around to help and that since it references destruction, surely it’s not prophetic but written after the fact.
Neither of which I am convinced of. Many skeptics believe that since the supernatural is not real, anything that is potentially pointing towards a conclusive futuristic event must have actually been wrote after that event. That’s just not my stance and it’s not the only stance among scholars.
I think 95% of these threads are the same ones of us just arguing with each other, often about the same things , for the last 3-4 years. Go back 3 years ago and it’s almost the same people and topics.
I don’t doubt it; but the interesting thing about this thread is that the author of the OP is an agnostic and he’s started a thread which won’t answer the question he asks, but stirs a cloud of dust while people who ought to know better get into a public food fight responding to his question.
I thought it was a good question. I wish I had more time so that I could go deeper into it. Regardless if the OP ever comes back it’s a question that comes up quite a bit in Christian forums. Sometimes I read forums that are almost a decade old.
Neither is the question of what human author wrote a specific book in history. Methodological naturalism rules history the same as it rules science.
I can find a whole bunch of PhD scientists who disagree with evolution:
Just because you can string together some conservative apologists who think Peter wrote 2 Peter based on their beliefs about the Bible as a whole is irrelevant. Consensus is pseudonymous composition and it is strongly so.
Do you think that is the stance of Richard Bauckham? He’s just some anti-supernatural biased skeptic? He will tell you Peter didn’t write 2 Peter.
But your logic is the same as that of young earth creationism. Accepting what scripture literally narrates over what the evidence from reality tells us. That is one thing people are fond of doing on here. Cite consensus when it agrees with you, but dismiss and pretend it doesn’t exist l when it does not. That is disingenuous.
The arguments are much more robust than that caricature if you actually read the literature.
But yes, that is the starting point. Acts calls Peter and John unlettered. They could not write and historical probability suggests that Galilean fishermen would not be able to write in their own language very well let alone being able to write the high Greek of 2 Peter. Even 1 Peter is fluid in Greek and well acquainted with the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures— which a fisherman from Galilee would not be reading.
So you have to resort to “Peter had someone write it for him.” But in no way is this high Greek a direct translation of Peter’s dictation. It’s a philosophical tract. So now you have to believe there were two authors. Peter provided the gist and the Greek writer decided to spin it the way he did. Peter in 1 Peter must have referenced scripture in Hebrew but the author changed it to the Septuagint. The style of 1 and 2 Peter is also different so we may end up with 3 different authors. This is entirely defensive and just you making things up from whole cloth. There is not a single shred of evidence that this happened in this case.
Writing books in Peter’s name was a common thing based on everything that survives. We have a lot of books attributed to Peter in the first few centuries of the church. The real question is, why is a historian expected to believe, WITHOUT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE, that books attributed to Peter inside the canon are by Peter, but books outside the canon attributed to Peter are not written by Peter? This is just pure canonical prejudice.
You want to make the date and authorship of this work a theological question. It is not. It is a historical question. And yes, ex eventu prophecy is a thing and the most natural interpretation of something claiming to know specifics of the future in advance is that it was written after the events.
You are free to believe Peter wrote 2 Peter based on theological necessity, but that should not be confused with having a shred of historical evidence this Philosophical tract was written by an illiterate Galilean fisherman in a language not even his own. All we have is the prima facie evidence in the opening that says says Peter wrote it. We have a bunch of books outside the canon that do the same so Petrine authorship is confirmed by canonical bias. It is not the anti-supernatural skeptics with bias. They do history as it is supposed to be done. It’s the believers who just don’t want to admit there are pseudonymous writings in the NT.
As I always say in this discussion, it’s a two-way street. One cannot just try to harmonize away problems with Petrine authorship. If you are trying to analyze the date and authorship form a historical perspective, you must also be able to justify your beliefs. You must have positive evidence Peter wrote this. There is none. Just the fear of having another “falsely attributed” work in the canon.
Have you ever wondered about the teaching that was around before there was a Bible? It seems to have been the Apostles who knew Jesus looking up people that they knew had been around Jesus, although outside of the 12, perhaps in the 72, and speculating on what they had experienced. What was that? What have we just experienced?
From the texts that have been found, there was a diversity of interpretations, just as there were various lists of quotes that Jesus said on various occasions, and someone was gathering what they could find together. They were trying to establish a movement because what they had experienced was too important to them, but I feel that they couldn’t convey the experience itself in the way a modern writer would describe a scene in a novel, so they did it the way we find it. It was obviously written by educated people, and the earliest writings are the letters from Paul, who had a Greek education as well as having been a Jewish Pharisee rooted in Jewish theology and thought. But we see that he also incorporated Hellenistic thought and the broader Greek cultural context of his time into his letters.
While the majority of the New Testament was composed in Greek, the lingua franca of the Eastern Mediterranean, a few passages or words from the New Testament have been preserved in other languages such as the Coptic script which use the Sahidic or Bohairic dialects and Aramaic or Syriac. Aramaic was the language spoken by Jesus and his disciples, and while the New Testament is primarily written in Greek, there are a few instances where Aramaic words and phrases are retained in the text. For example, in the Gospel of Mark, Jesus’s words “Talitha koum” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, arise”) are given in Aramaic. Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic, and it was used as a literary and liturgical language in early Christian communities in the Middle East, where New Testament texts used in Syriac-speaking Christian communities were Greek texts that were translated into the Syriac language. They give us a feeling for the original Aramaic spoken by Jesus.
The book of Acts mentions that the early Christians “devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” (Acts 2:42). This likely refers to the practice of the Eucharist or Communion, where bread and wine were shared in remembrance of Jesus’ last supper. Acts also notes that early Christians gathered for prayer. For example, Peter was imprisoned, and “prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him” (Acts 12:5, KJV). So, it appears that early Christianity, or those of “the Way” were primarily reenacting what they had experienced, but their meetings were also heavily influenced by the oppression they suffered. The disciples seem to have had scribes that could search in the Hebrew Scriptures and the disciples gave oral witness to Jesus. The close-knit community shared their possessions and provided for those in need (Acts 2:44-45).
Paul, or then Saul, was initially obsessed with destroying the sect, and went about seeking them out in religious zealotry. It was only when he had a vision that he stopped abruptly, and his immediate response was not to consult any of the Apostles, but he went into “Arabia,” which is a broad term and could encompass various regions. The exact nature and purpose of Paul’s journey into Arabia are not elaborated upon in the New Testament, and as a result, there has been much speculation and debate among scholars about the specifics of this trip. I believe that it was for solitary reflection and prayer, and some scholars also see Paul’s journey into Arabia as a period of spiritual preparation and revelation, during which he received further insights into his mission, and will have been a formative time for Paul’s theological development. In fact, I think that he was one of the first to give the movement a theological grounding.
And 99% of those theologians who think Peter wrote 2 Peter are being guided by a priori doctrinal consideration. It really has nothing to do with the actual evidence since there simply isn’t any that Peter stands behind the work. Just another case of Biblical literalism clouding reality.
you might want to ask Mitchellmckain that he is the one who made the claim about Paul being a misoginist!
Mitchel wrote…
> "I very much see myself as a Pauline Christian. And yes I see His teaching as coming from the teachings of Jesus. But I don’t think that requires deifying Paul or equating everything He said as something straight out of the mouth of God. After all Paul enters the story as a fervent part of the opposition. So Paul said lots of things which did not come from God. And no I don’t think his cultural prejudices and misogyny come from God either.
*> * > On the other hand, His theological explanations are a definitive part of Christianity and I cannot support those who cook of excuses to disregard these."
sorry but i dissagree with part of your statement…the vast majority of biblical doctrine is not something that one has to develop outside of the bible writings themselves. MOST biblical doctrine is self supported from lots of related passages of scripture found in other books of the bible itself and by different authors.
You cannot make the claim that it is our interpretation when we are referencing statements that are made by Old Testament writers/prophets, Christ, and The Apostles. where doctrine exists as a result of multiple biblical references across multiple authors, these doctrines are self reveling and not modern interpretation. Its a shame that a lot of Christians do not accept self revelation in the bible.
Even excluding the consistency argument for determining sound doctrine, despite anything that Darwinian science attempts to claim, historical evidence that supports biblical doctrines must be included. For example, we know from the discovery of the Silver Scrolls in 1979 (Ketef Hinnom - which date 650-700 B.C), that the book of Numbers was written at least 2700 years ago…its 100% first Temple period. This is genuine historical evidence that supports the existence of the biblical text dating back almost 3000 years ago it was an amazing find for Christianity. And to think it was found by a 13 year old child digging around in an old tomb which had been used for storage during the Ottoman period!
Any time you say “this is what the statements mean” that is an interpretation. Two reasons.
You bring your personal set of presuppositions to the interpretation. These are very human and are nowhere to be found in the Bible.
The selection of which verses you use and which you don’t use is again very human.
If this was strictly true then explain why we have ended up with vastly different doctrines. The “passages of scripture” are all the same. The difference is in how we chose to interpret them.
I don’t doubt it; but the interesting thing about this thread is that the author of the OP is an agnostic and he’s started a thread which won’t answer the question he asks, but stirs a cloud of dust while people who ought to know better get into a public food fight responding to his question.
I gather from the “food fights” and “cloud of dust” that the divine approval of Paul’s apostleship is far from “clear” or “settled”. It isn’t like whether God made Paul an apostle, is equally as clear as Jesus’ gender. Can you answer the two questions in my OP?
When statements are understood by forcing them to conform to a modern human philosophy, it is interpretation, and that’s exactly what YEC does.
You switched topics between the start and end of this statement: the existence of Numbers in the mid first-Temple period doesn’t support any biblical doctrines. Don’t claim more than evidence actually supports!
The divine approval is found in the fact that Paul’s writings were included in the canon.
Where there is weakness is that some of the canonical letters are believed to not have been written by Paul since if those letters were canonized because of Pauline authorship a case can be made that they lack authority.
The early church had a solution to this: disputed books were to be interpreted in accordance with the undisputed books. That principle can be applied to books where Paul’s authorship is disputed even if what are disputed today are not the same as what were disputed early on.
So, you want to know my answers to the two questions in your OP, eh? I’m flattered, but now I have to ask:
Have you and I ever met, in person or online, before you appeared in this forum?
You’re not one of those “atheist counter-apologists” that you mentioned in your previous thread, are you?
Are you an ex-Christian or the kin of Christians?
Given my advanced age and short time left in this world, I don’t get invited personally to share my opinions too often, I’ll give your questions my attention and my response.
You ask first: “Is the case for the divine approval of Paul’s apostleship sufficiently weak, disputable or ambiguous that a Christian can be reasonable to reject him as an authority?”
Being a nobody myself and without sufficient authority to speak for all Christians, at best, I deem Paul to have been called by Jesus and approved by God. As far as I know, Luke and Peter agreed.
Next you ask: “Or is the case for the divine approval of Paul’s apostleship so strong and clear that only the willfully ignorant Christian would reject Paul?”
Again, speaking for myself alone, I note that there are 27 books in the canonical New Testament, of which 13 have been attributed to Paul, but only 7 have squeaked by a majority of authors. I, for one, affirm Paul’s calling as an apostle and the majority opinion: that he authored directly or indirectly 7 of the epistles.
Whether or not a person who rejects Paul’s calling is or was “willfully ignorant”, I would question and doubt that such a person is or was a Christian after rejecting Paul’s calling. That said:
Would it make any difference to an “atheist counter-apologist” how many people, living or dead, are or have been convinced that Paul’s apostleship had or has divine approval?
