How much of scripture is fiction?

[polonius]

Vatican II in 1964 claimed “The books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures� (Dei Verbum, no. 11).:

Catholics usually aren’t told that some other things need not be true, a major difference! The trick is to recognize this difference.

The Christian writer Oregon claimed we should “also considered levels of inspiration and the possibility of error in both Testaments owing to the Origen noted the authors’ humanity�. Errors in the text, it should be said, would not contradict our present understanding that there is no error in “the truth which God . . . wished to see confided� there for the sake of our salvation.

“ Acknowledging such historical or prescientific errors is a far cry from saying the Bible is “God breathed.� Much can actually just be legend or fiction for believers to accept.

For example, I think Catholics can safely conclude that Jesus wasn't really born twice (Compare Matthew and Luke)

[JehovahsWitness]

From The HarperCollins Study Bible (this particular page isn't in the Google Books preview, so I didn't bother to link it):

Although the readers are suffering for their faith, there is no hint of current or impending martyrdom as there is, for example, in Revelation, a document often dated in the late 90s. If 1 Peter represents the earlier stages of such eventually lethal suffering, it would point to a date in the late 80s. This date and the high quality of the Greek suggest that 1 Peter is pseudonymous.

What is this nonsense? What has the death of Peter got to do with his level of Greek? We don't know when he died or if his death was imminent at the time of writing the letters? What relevance to John's Revelation and how does any of this prove or disprove the identity of the writer?

Please explain,



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Moreover, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.*

The four you named also thought that the Pastorals were written by Paul.

Did you make this comment [strike]meant[/strike] in order to suggest their testimonies regarding scripture have been discredited and everything they wrote should be their disregarded?

Yes and yes.

So let me get this straight, you are suggesting thàt the catalogues of authenticity of the formost authorities in the early church, individuals who were literally in a position to interview or verify testimony of those that were within living memory the first teachers of the epistles, should all be rejected because some 21st Century higher critics are questioning the authorship of the book of Titus?

Surely you jest. If not, explain why "I don't think Paul wrote Titus" should lead to burning the works of Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian.

Let me know if I need to try harder.

You need to try harder.


And try smarter. And please spare me more copy paste "well he agrees with me and he's written a book and wears glasses" silliness. Cut and paste devoid of rationale, documented evidence or facts is not trying harder it's just trying bulkier.


Thanks,

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

HOW LITERATE WERE FIRST CENTURY JEWS ?

From Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene by Bart Ehrman:

Yet more significant is the basic question of whether a book like this could have been written by Peter. As we have repeatedly seen, Peter himself was an Aramaic-speaking, lower-class fisherman from rural Galilee. There is nothing to suggest that someone in that socioeconomic situation would have gone to school to learn to read and write.

BACKGROUND

Unlike in many historic cultures, Jewish literacy was not just a privilege of an elite few. This is because knowledge of their sacred scripture was central to Hebrew culture. There was no need for working classes to neglect their spiritual education as everyone, even working class peasants, were prohibited from working one day a week. The Sabbath was consecreated to the spiritual education of the family, under the family head, and while like many eastern communities , there was a strong oral tradition, every male had access to the synagogues scrolls. Traditionally learning to read and write was something that was undertaken by family heads and others in the local community not a formal school system. While the religious elite disregarded the underclass who only had rudemental skills, this grassroots system arguably enabled the Hebrews to observe the Mosaic command

DEUTERONOMY 6:6,7
These words I am commanding you today are to be upon your hearts. And you shall teach them diligently to your children and speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

SECULAR LIFE

While some contend that reading and writing was out of the reach of the working classes in rural communities the available evidence suggests otherwise .

• The Babatha Archive for example , albeit originating from Judea rather than Galilee at the very least give an impression of rural life where written documents (ownership rights, debts, and marriage and divorce settlements ...) played a role even for ordinary folk.
  
  Ossuary inscriptions, especially the so-called graffiti inscriptions that were scrawled by non-professionals, testify to a higher level of literacy in Jesus' Israel than is sometimes supposed.
  
  Interstingly the writer of Peter's epistle used a writing illustration. It seems safe to presume he did this because his intended Christian audience, few if any were from the ruling classes, was familiar with writing apprentisage. Indeed Jesus illustrations and references to the writing of financial settlements, certificates of divorce, ect take for granted a minimum level of literacy among the non-elite (Luke 16:1-8) .
  
  While papyrus or other such writing materials were expensive and outside of the reach many, archeological discoveries indicatee ordinary folk would write on scraps of broken pottery. Such inscribed potsherds, called ostraca, have been found with indicating they used for riting apprentisage and were used for everyday activitirs. Some were found in the excavations at Masada and were left by the Jewish rebels, many of whom were ordinary people, and interestingly testify that some could read three different scripts and at least two languages.

RELIGIOUS LIFE

By the first century each community usually had a synagogue* . The Jews had a strong tradition of public reading and the weekly Sabbath meetings allowed any Jewish male the opportunity to read and extol scripture (compare Acts 13:15). A tradition that obviously reflected the ability of at least some in even rural communities to read (A minimum of 12 Jewish males was necessary to establish a synagogue. If only one person could read then that one was charged to read the entire prescibed scrptures).

Luke's gospel, testifies that even rural agricultural communties had synagogues, and thus the presence of males from that community capable of public reading. Luke presents a literate Jesus reading and explaining scripture despite his lack of formal education - see Luke 4:17-20. Indeed we note the reaction of the local community was that Jesus demonstrated such familiarity with the text , not that one of their number knew how to read. The presense of a synagogue in Capernaum, Simon Peters hometown, indicates they too had at least some locals, that could read.

Peter was no lone fisherman but part of an operation of some size. Though the Jewish leaders viewed Peter and John as "men unlettered and ordinary", this does not mean they were illiterate or unschooled. Regarding the word "unlettered" applied to them, Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1905, Vol. III, p. 757) says that to a Jew meant one who had had no training in the Rabbinic study of Scripture” - Compare Joh 7:14, 15; Ac 4:13.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003451#h=4

* At least some synagogues seem to have has schools of some description associated with them.

Acts further testifies to a general literacy amongst ordinary Jews, the religious elite for the most part rejected Christianity yet the writer of Acts testifies that those accepting the gospel (many of whom were ethnic Jews) {qoute} "searched the Scriptures" to verify his teachings. Obviously the first century gospel writers could read and write but we forget we preserve the body Christian writings due to the thousands of copies that were made by that same Christian community.

CONCLUSION: Although one cannot be dogmatic as to literacy rates of first century Jews, available evidence indicate even working class people had opportunity and cultural incentive to learn to read and write through a familial and communal structure that favoured knowledge of their sacred scripture. The picture conveyed through archaeological findings and written records indicate a minimum level of literacy was even in rural communities. Thus there is no reason not to believe Simon Peter son of Judah, local business man, devout Jew and disciple of Jesus was indeed literate.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS







FURTHER READING

http://orvillejenkins.com/languages/gre ... njews.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rel ... 3658/posts




RELATED POSTS

Could Simon Peter Ben Jonah have written the Epistles of Peter ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 315#972315

Should Acts 4:13 be taken to mean Peter and his associates were illiterate?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 563#972563

Is the Simon Peter of the Christian Greek scriptures presented as a capable speaker familiar with Greek culture?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 675#972675

Should the bible be considered historical fiction?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 271#972271

[polonius]

From The HarperCollins Study Bible (this particular page isn't in the Google Books preview, so I didn't bother to link it):

Although the readers are suffering for their faith, there is no hint of current or impending martyrdom as there is, for example, in Revelation, a document often dated in the late 90s. If 1 Peter represents the earlier stages of such eventually lethal suffering, it would point to a date in the late 80s. This date and the high quality of the Greek suggest that 1 Peter is pseudonymous.

JW posted:

What is this nonsense? What has the death of Peter got to do with his level of Greek? We don't know when he died or if his death was imminent at the time of writing the letters? What relevance to John's Revelation and how does any of this prove or disprove the identity of the writer?

Please explain,

JW

History claims that Peter was executed in Rome with Paul in 64 AD.

[polonius]

From The HarperCollins Study Bible (this particular page isn't in the Google Books preview, so I didn't bother to link it):

Although the readers are suffering for their faith, there is no hint of current or impending martyrdom as there is, for example, in Revelation, a document often dated in the late 90s. If 1 Peter represents the earlier stages of such eventually lethal suffering, it would point to a date in the late 80s. This date and the high quality of the Greek suggest that 1 Peter is pseudonymous.

JW posted:

What is this nonsense? What has the death of Peter got to do with his level of Greek? We don't know when he died or if his death was imminent at the time of writing the letters? What relevance to John's Revelation and how does any of this prove or disprove the identity of the writer?

Please explain,

JW

History claims that Peter was executed in Rome with Paul in 64 AD.

The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1). Although the text identifies Peter as its author, the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter have led many scholars to conclude that it is pseudonymous. Many scholars argue that Peter was not the author of the letter because its writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language,[1] none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman. Wikipedia

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 35 by polonius]

Ive already responded to issues regarding the language and stlye (feel free to offer counter arguement, the posts are above. I'll just thank you to quote which specifc point you are offering a counter to as the posts are quite long).


You'll have to explains your issues as to dating and structure for me to be able to respond to that.

[Difflugia]

So, I'll try to unwrap what you've posted into something that can be responded to. I mean, I told you in my own words why Peter didn't write the epistles attributed to him. You insulted me and said I didn't offer enough documentation. I documented that the experts agree that Peter didn't write the epistles and then you insulted me for quoting experts. For good measure, you went on to insult the experts.

You also claimed that I didn't respond to "numerous points," but I've re-read your posts prior to that statement the only point you made (albeit several times) was that, despite the opinions of the experts, Peter was not only very educated during the timeframe covered by Acts, he possibly (and therefore probably?) went on to become even more educated between then and when the epistles were presumably written.

Just to recap, then, the experts that I quoted (and when possible, linked to full discussions for context) opined that:

• Peter as described in the Gospels and Acts was unlikely to be able to generate the polished Greek (perhaps the most literary of the New Testament writings, according to one of the experts) of 1 Peter (and we haven't discussed 2 Peter).
• The Old Testament quotations in 1 Peter are predominantly direct quotations of the Septuagint rather than either matching the present Hebrew text or even being a personal translation of an alternate Hebrew text. A Galilean would be expected to know either a Hebrew or an Aramaic textual tradition, if any.
• 1 Peter discusses matters that would be of interest to Gentile churches (and Pauline matters in general) rather than topics tailored to the Jewish Christians of Peter's ministry as described in the Pauline epistles.
• The high Christology of 1 Peter and lack of focus on the life of Jesus and events of the Gospels seems inconsistent with one that traveled with Jesus and not only lived through, but participated in those events.
• The structure and concerns of the Church as described in 1 Peter are most consistent with a composition date sometime after Peter's death, but before Revelation was written.

Now, to your new responses.

The book of Acts obviously has the ex-fisherman Peter from the inception preaching to non-jews (Acts 10), participating in the judicating between the Hebrew and the Greek speaking Jews (Acts 6) and, since we are referencing Paul's testimony, presumably living or at the very least having close association with Gentile Christians in Syrian Antioch; the same Antioch were it is reported large numbers of Greek-speaking people were becoming believers. (Compare Ac 11:21-26; Gal 2:12). Obviously then, Galatians 2:9 is not implying Peter had or was to have, no further contact with hellenized Jews or would cease having any opportunity to progress in his knowledge of the culture which was proving to provide so many new converts.

While this raises the question of whether Acts is accurately describing events alluded to in Paul's epistles, I don't think it demonstrates what you want it to. I'm guessing that the two points you want to make from this are that (1) Peter is described as talking to Greek-speakers and therefore spoke Greek and (2) Peter was involved with Gentile Christians and therefore 1 Peter's focus on Gentile issues isn't anomalous.

I've said several times that I'm not disputing that Peter may have spoken Greek, but simply speaking Greek is not the same as having the education to write in Greek at all, let alone in the stylistic Greek of 1 Peter. Furthermore, I see nothing about Acts 10 that even implies that Peter spoke Greek. First, despite you claiming that there were no interpreters, 10:23 makes the point that "some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him." Second, 10:46 says that there was speaking in tongues going on. The text is a bit vague, but I don't think it rules out that the listeners were, as at Pentecost, hearing Peter's Aramaic words in Greek. While Acts 10 doesn't explicitly say that Peter wasn't speaking Greek, it is far from conclusive that he was.

I'm not sure why you mentioned Acts 6. Peter isn't mentioned in that chapter at all, except perhaps indirectly in references to "the twelve." Is that what you meant or did you mean to reference a different chapter?

I don't think anyone here nor any of the quoted experts were claiming that Peter was to have no more contact with Gentiles (that, for the record, would be a straw man argument). Somewhat ironically, though, Galatians 2 might mean that he actually didn't contact (or at least didn't eat with) Gentiles again. Paul writes in Galatians that he confronted Peter about being a hypocrite, but definitely doesn't say that he convinced Peter to change his behavior. While Acts (I think fictively) describes Paul's and Peter's positions as nearly aligned, the picture painted by the epistles is that Paul and Peter were completely at odds and never really saw eye-to-eye. The verse you quoted is just as likely to mean that Peter thereafter, at the urging of the "men from James," ate separately from Gentiles.

Indeed those that take the position that "Galilean fisherman" (a misnomer if ever there was one, since all indications are the Simon Peter had long hung up his fishing nets), could not have possibly been so familiar with "with Hellenistic religious thought" seem to have forgotten it was this same man who played a major role in the Jerusalem council where the leaders of the then growing Christian community discussed the very matter and to what extent Jewish law should be imposed on gentile converts (Acts 15).

All he said in Acts 15 is that Peter witnessed to Gentiles "in the early days" (while he still had his nets?). Whether Acts is accurate or not, the intention here seems to be a contrast with later days after Paul was given the ministry to the Gentiles, when Peter no longer ministered to Gentiles.

Further, it seems clear from the Account of Acts and the Pauline epistles that any division of focus and responsibilities Galatians 2:9 represents was far from absolute. If Paul the "Apostle to the nations" spent plenty of time preaching to Jewish communities, while spending the majority of time mjnjstering to gentiles (as was the case) what impedes Peter from mirroring that?

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Just as "uneducated" doesn't actually mean that someone isn't highly educated, ministries "divided" between Jews and Gentiles aren't divided at all.

So let me get this straight, you are suggesting that the catalogues of authenticity of the formost authorities in the early church, individuals who were literally in a position to interview or verify testimony of those that were within living memory the first teachers of the epistles, should all be rejected because some 21st Century higher critics are questioning the authorship of the book of Titus?

Surely you jest. If not, explain why "I don't think Paul wrote Titus" should lead to burning the works of Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian.

If Peter wrote 1 Peter at the moment of his death, that was at least sixty years before Irenaeus was even born. Who do you think they interviewed?

Now, it's not that I myself don't think Paul wrote Titus (though I don't), but that the only modern scholars that think Paul wrote Titus are apologists for biblical inerrancy. Titus (and the other Pastorals, 1 and 2 Timothy) are so un-Pauline that no scholars that I'm aware of argue for Pauline authorship except those that also assert inerrancy. The Pastorals all claim to be written by Paul. If they weren't, then inerrancy as a doctrine is in jeopardy.

An interesting exercise for you would be to find a counterexample. If you could, for example, find a scholar that thinks one or more of the Pastorals is genuine, but that at least one of the other self-attributed epistles (i.e. not Hebrews) isn't, then I'll grudgingly concede that you have a point.

I'm not claiming we should "burn" anyone's works and assume you meant that as hyperbole. I am claiming, though, that since we know they're wrong about the authorship of the Pastorals, there's no good reason to trust their reasoning about authorship in any other cases.

HOW LITERATE WERE FIRST CENTURY JEWS ?

I know you don't like experts and I won't bother finding specific quotes, but the two that get referenced in the academic literature are Meir Bar-Ilan and Catherine Hezser. Bar-Ilan concluded that less than 3% of the Palestinian Jewish population were literate. Hezser's 500-page monograph hesitates to directly confirm Bar-Ilan's 3%, but is willing to say that Jewish literacy was "well below" the 10-15% estimated for the Roman average. Note that by "literacy", the authors mean anything beyond the ability to sign one's name, while our discussion is about the ability to compose a learned, rhetorical document in a second language.

Unless you can think of a convincing reason to discount their scholarship, I consider their results conclusive. They're experts.

[JehovahsWitness]

Further, it seems clear from the Account of Acts and the Pauline epistles that any division of focus and responsibilities Galatians 2:9 represents was far from absolute. If Paul the "Apostle to the nations" spent plenty of time preaching to Jewish communities, while spending the majority of time mjnjstering to gentiles (as was the case) what impedes Peter from mirroring that?

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Just as "uneducated" doesn't actually mean that someone isn't highly educated, ministries "divided" between Jews and Gentiles aren't divided at all.

You haven't actually offered counter argument to either point (ie that Acts 4:13 "uneducated" might not mean absolutely without any kind of education whatsoever from any source; and an "apostlship to those who are circumsized" (Gal 2:7)does not have to imply absolutely not contact with any Gentiles and a total lifelong prohibition on learning anything about them)

Do you care to offer any counterargument? (May I remind you "I don't believe it" is irrelevat and a counterargument would normally involve evidence as why to why such a releatve reading cannot be accurate).



JW

[JehovahsWitness]

So let me get this straight, you are suggesting that the catalogues of authenticity of the formost authorities in the early church, individuals who were literally in a position to interview or verify testimony of those that were within living memory the first teachers of the epistles, should all be rejected because some 21st Century higher critics are questioning the authorship of the book of Titus?

Surely you jest. If not, explain why "I don't think Paul wrote Titus" should lead to burning the works of Irenaeus, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian.

I am claiming ... there's no good reason to trust their reasoning about authorship in any other cases.

.... but we should trust modern day higher critics in their stead? (That is not a rhetorical question, if yes, can you outline the reasons why we should favor the those born many thousands of years after the fact over those with access to living links to those facts)

[JehovahsWitness]

Unless you can think of a convincing reason to discount their scholarship, I consider their results conclusive. They're experts.

Did I not present an entire post contexualizing archaeological and historical evidence as to why literacy amongst first century Jews may well have been higher than is generally believed?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 743#972743

Did your experts* address any of the points I raised, if so you have my permission to quote what they have said about each point, if not will you?


JW


* I have not problem with quoting or refering to experts if the quote or the reference presents their evidence or rationale or if you yourself explain how they come to the conclusion you are using the quote to support.