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)

[polonius]

1. The Hebrews had been in Egypt for about 400 years according to the Bible when the Exodus took place.

2. The number of Hebrews was about 2.4 million based Exodus'
report of 600,000 fighting men (plus wives, children, and men too young or too old to fight).

3. Thus from about 7 members of one family, 2.4 million offspring were produced in 400 years.

Is this even remotely possible. Or is it just Bible fiction again?

[JehovahsWitness]

That's why I haven't said anything like "absolute," or even "proof," which you also seem to be fond of.

Good well dismissing all your subjective suppositions based on your interpretations of what the writer meant with regard to the Christian calling, no substantial verifiable evidence has been presented to call into serious doubt the documented testimonies and the explicit statement in the epistles themselves that they were indeed written by the Apostle of Jesus.


JW



ps: I would still be most interested by verifiable evidence that said Apostle must have been dead by the date they were written (which would of course involving documented evidence- not guesses - when the letters were written coupled with evidence of the year of Peter's death)

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 62 by JehovahsWitness]

Was the writer of the Epistles of Peter the prominent Apostle, former fisherman and eyewitness of the mjnistry of Jesus mentioned in the gospels?


EXTERNAL EVIDENCE

Some argue that this cannot be the case, however such arguments are largely based on illogical suppositon and a subjective interpretation of the content rather than verifiable proof. The fact is that the earliest available evidence tesfies that the letters were indeed written my the Apostle and eyewitness of the gospel events, Peter.

Peter’s writership is established by the opening words. Moreover, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Tertullian all quote the letter, naming Peter as writer.* The authenticity of First Peter is as well attested as any of the inspired letters. Eusebius tells us that the elders of the church made free use of the letter; there was no question as to its authenticity in his time (c. 260-342 C.E.). Ignatius, Hermas, and Barnabas, of the early second century, all make references to it.*

*McClintock and Strong’s Cyclopedia, 1981 reprint, Vol. VIII, page 15.

Source : All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial� p. 251
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990121#h=6

So we have documented external evidence not only of its the authorship but that it was accepted as authentic and authoritive very early in Christian history.

Name or pseudonym

• We know from Acts that the disciple ex-fisherman Peter figured among the leading men at the newly formed Christian community Jerusalem, and that Paul was introduced to a leading man Peter soon after his conversion. It stretches credibility to breaking point to suppose that the writer of the Letters, that later had the authority to endorse that same Paul's writings in his letter, was another Peter, so was it an unidentified unauthorized individual writing under a pseudonym?
  
  The Pauline Epistles and catalogues from early "church fathers" document how vigorously the leading men in the first and early part if the second centuries fought to protect their communities from emerging false stories, rumour and unauthorized letters. It therefore begs disbelief to assume that a letter written by who knows who cirulated under the name of the famed Apostle Peter, got past Paul and the other leading men of the Christian community, who were according to documented accounts, actively fighting against the circulation of unauthorized material. especially under the name of so prominent a member.
  
  Given the approximate dating, cultural context and content of the letters it seems much more likely that the claim they were written by the Apostle and eyewitness of gospel events was is true

CONCLUSION There is sufficient external evidence to accept that the Epistles of Peter were indeed written by the Apostle and eyewitness of the gospel events.

For a detailed rebuttal of the "ignorant fisherman" hypothesis see continuation POSTS below.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 787#976787

[JehovahsWitness]

WAS PETER UNEDUCATED ?


Some have attempted to counterargue the above, not with early documentation contesting the above facts (since there is none) but with claims that a former fisherman from Galilee could not have possibly learnt, even over decades "scholarly Greek" and "familiarity with Hellenistic religious thought evidenced in the Epistles that bear his name. This supposes, [1] being a protege of arguably the greatest public speaker in human history, Jesus of Nazareth, would have no effect on one's elocution, and that [2] higher schools of education are the ONLY means of educating oneself (there is no such thing as a self taught man) . Both suppositions disregard both facts and common sense that tells us given enough time, basic intelligence and exposure to information, anything can be learnt.


COULD PETER THE FISHERMAN HAVE SPOKEN GREEK?

• Regarding the question could the fisherman write such sophisticated Gresk, the fact is that if the Apostle as described in the gospel did write the letter it would have been many decades after the fisherman we first met on the shores of Galilee. And it should be noted that even at that time the young disciple was part of a family owned business that had at least two other boats, possibly more, so at the very least, even as a younger man, to run a not insignificant small business he must have been apt enough with money and calculas to hire and pay workers. Greek was the common language of the time and especially for northerners just across from the Decapolis and the language of commerce so it's more than likely even then he was could speak both his native Aramaic and Greek, probably fluently.

AT THE FEET OF THE MASTER

• Thanks to the synagogue school system the Jewish literacy was fairly high and any Jewish male could read from the sacred scrolls. Luke records Jesus not only reading from the scroll of Isaiah but being able to locate the desired verses, no mean feat, proving if his discourse were not enough how thoroughly familiar Jesus was with the Hewbrew writings.
  

  In Jesus’ day, why was reading from a scroll quite an undertaking?
  
  A common size of the sheets that were used in making scrolls was from 9 to 11 inches [23 to 28 cm] long and from 6 to 9 inches [15 to 23 cm] wide. A number of these sheets were joined together side by side with paste or sewn together with linen thread. In some cases, longer sheets were used. The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah was made of 17 parchment strips, totaling approximately 24 feet [7 m] in length in its present state of preservation. The scroll of Isaiah that Jesus used in the synagogue in Nazareth may have been of a similar length.​—Luke 4:16, 17.
  https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008246#h=7

  While Peter it's true was a ordinarily working man, he spent more than three years in intimate aquaintence with the remarkable Jesus of Nazareth. if If the book of Acts is to be believed his three year "apprentiship" with someone who was arguably one of the most knowledgable and eloquent teachers of his time left it's mark. There is no reason not to believe the comment of the Religious leaders at the Senheddren that the men were "uneducated" neither meant they were illiterate nor ignorant, simply that they (like Jesus) had not attended any of the schools of higher learning.

CONCLUSION Even at the beginning of the Christian movement, the book of Acts portrays Peter as an eloquent and forceful man, in short a man with enough of a command of language to hold his audience, so it would not be unreasonable to speculate from such a starting point towards the the end of his ministry he would have acquired an outstanding ease of expression in spoken and written Greek.

RELATED POSTS

What was the literacy level of first century Jews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 743#972743

Did the Apostle Peter have written the Eplistles that bear his name?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 785#976785

For further reading go to


THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BIBLE AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

* bible interpretation

[JehovahsWitness]

continued from post #64 by JehovahsWitness


DOES ACTS 4:13 INDICATE PETER AND THE APOSTLE WERE ILLITERATE AND IGNORANT?

ACTS 4:13

Now when they saw the outspokenness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and ordinary men, they were astonished. And they began to realize that they had been with Jesus.

Some take the Pharisitical designation of "uneducated" (Greek "ἀγ�άμματοί" ) as meaning Peter at the time was illiterate or ignorant. While the Greek term used here (a·gramʹma·tos) can mean illiterate, in this context it likely refers to those not educated in rabbinic schools.

“These terms are probably not to be taken literally as though Peter [and John] were unschooled and could not write or read. They simply recognize the profound difference in social class between those sitting in judgment and the apostles.� - The New Interpreter’s Bible

The immediate context indicates that their listeners were amazed by their oratory skills, so at the very least the men did not fit what the religious leaders would have expected from people of their humble origins. Further the historical and cultural contestant the time indicates that the religious leaders of the day viewed anyone that had not studied at recognised schools of higher learning as "uneducated" and unqualified to teach on religious matters so it is likely that the Apostles could indeed at least know how to read and write*

* It appears that most Jews in the first century could read and write; for more on this please see post above : What was the literacy level of first century Jews?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 743#972743

The categorisation of the Peter of the gospels as "uneducated" also doesn't mean that Peter had no training in rhetoric, only that they considered his training insignificant. As has already been pointed out, by the time the ex-fisherman stood before the Senhedren he had had just over three years training, the bulk of which was full time, with someone that had left the best of their religius teachers speechles. Indeed the opening two chapters of Acts demonstrates that Simon Peter the fisherman had an extraordinary knowledge of scripture and rhetoric.

CONCLUSIONActs 4:13 indicates that the Religious leaders of the time knew Peter and his associates had not attended one of their institutes of higher learning and that they were from an "ordjnary" working class, non-academic background, this does not mean however that the Apostles could not read or that they showed themselves ignorant. Indeed they evidently displayed extraordinary poise and confidence.

[JehovahsWitness]

Some have argued that the letters of Peter could not possible have been written by the Apostle since Galatians 2:9 indicates the Apostle would minister to Jewish Christians. They suppose that Peter would thus forever more be prohibited from addressing matters of interest to the Christian commjnjty as a whole. Is this position reasonable?

DO PAUL'S COMMENTS AT GALATIANS 2:9 INDICATE THE APOSLE WOULD HAVE HAD NO CONTACT WITH GREEK CULTURE?

GALATIANS 2:9

and when they recognized the undeserved kindness that was given me, James and Ceʹphas* and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave Barʹna·bas and me the right hand of fellowship,* so that we should go to the nations but they to those who are circumcised

Firstly, a decision to concentrate ones ministry mainly on one ethnic sector doesn't prohibit any address to another. This would be especially true of someone of the Apostle Peter's position, reputation and authority. Arguably Peter's having been given from Jesus special assignment that involved the acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian community he would be well placed to address the community as a whole if / when needed (compare Matthew 16:19; 2 Peter 3:15).

Further, Paul's testimony has the Apostle Peter 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. Nor does it indicate he would never address issues to the community as a whole.

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 ministering to gentiles (as was the case) what impedes Peter from mirroring that?

CONCLUSION The Simon Peter of the book of Acts and Galatians is one who is reported not only to be knowledgeable of Greek language and culture but someone that had sufficient authority to participate on theological judgements related to hellenization. It seems reasonable then to conclude that if Galatians 2:9 reflects a general division of focus and responsibility between Paul and Peter. Nothing therein implies Simon Peter originally from Galilee and one of the formost leaders of the community according to Paul, didnt have or could not have aquired in 30 years, the level of familiarity with Hellenistic culture to write the epistles that bear his name.

RELATED POSTS

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles that bear his name?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 785#976785

Would the Aposle Peter have been capable of produceing the polished rhetoric in sophisticated Greek evidenced in the Epistles?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 787#976787

Should Acts 4:13 be taken to mean Peter and his associates were illiterate?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 788#976788

Does Galatians 2:9 indicate the Apostle could not have addressed the issues raised in the Epistles?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 800#976800

Did Paul cut off all further contact with the Apostle Peter after their recorded disagreement?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 599#933599

[Difflugia]

So we have documented external evidence not only of its the authorship but that it was accepted as authentic and authoritive very early in Christian history.

I'm going to be pedantic here, but the letter itself claiming to have been written by Paul is internal evidence.

I also recommend that you read, if not the accounts themselves, at least a description of what the fathers actually claimed. None of the men that you name actually presents an argument for why 1 Peter was actually written by Peter; they simply quote from it as authoritative (interestingly, both Irenaeus and Origen express doubt about 2 Peter, though). Since there's no argument to even agree with, the "evidence" you present is the purest form of argument from authority. This represents a nearly circular argument as well, since the writings of these men were preserved specifically because they agree with what became the orthodox (lowercase "o") Christian church. It's like asking a Catholic bishop what he thinks about Papal infallibility and claiming it's evidence that the Pope actually is infallible. It technically is evidence, but it's very poor evidence.

Bruce M. Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament contains a chapter that summarizes the contributions and opinions of each of the fathers to the development of the NT canon. Translations of the various writings are in the public domain and can be read at or downloaded from Google Books.

It stretches credibility to breaking point to suppose that the writer of the Letters, that later had the authority to endorse that same Paul's writings in his letter, was another Peter, so was it an unidentified unauthorized individual writing under a pseudonym?

You're right. That's why it's called "pseudonymous."

The Pauline Epistles and catalogues from early "church fathers" document how vigorously the leading men in the first and early part if the second centuries fought to protect their communities from emerging false stories, rumour and unauthorized letters.

Do you have any quotations that demonstrate this vigilance? When the early fathers argued for or against a particular author, it was at best on doctrinal grounds.

At worst (or at least funniest), the arguments were nonsensical. Irenaeus of Lyons, for example, argued that there could only be four gospels, no more, no less, because there are four regions of the world, four winds, and cherubim have four animal faces. Evidence!

It therefore begs disbelief to assume that a letter written by who knows who cirulated under the name of the famed Apostle Peter, got past Paul and the other leading men of the Christian community, who were according to documented accounts, actively fighting against the circulation of unauthorized material. especially under the name of so prominent a member.

What do you mean by got past? The pseudonymous letter was composed after both men were dead. Perhaps you have a reference to these documented accounts?

[JehovahsWitness]

The pseudonymous letter was composed after both men were dead.

Can you prove this to be so? If so please be so kind as to present uour evidence.

Thanks,


JW

[Difflugia]

The pseudonymous letter was composed after both men were dead.

Can you prove this to be so? If so please be so kind as to present uour evidence.

From Reading 1-2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students by Eric F. Mason (pp. 16-17)

There are good reasons for thinking that Simon Peter did not write 1 Peter. The portrait of Peter in both the Gospels and Paul portrays a Palestinian Jew whose native language is Aramaic, who was imbedded in the controversy about Jewish and Gentile Christians and the status of the law, who focused his ministry on Jews and Jewish Christians, and who, as one of the so-called Twelve, knew Jesus firsthand. The letter of 1 Peter, however, is written in a Greek style beyond what many scholars can imagine for Simon Peter. Furthermore, in 1 Peter, there is no reference to the historical life of Jesus; no interest in debates about the law; the audience seems to be former Gentiles, not Jews; the cosmic Christology of 1 Peter has little relation to that of the Gospels; and when the author refers to himself, he names himself surprisingly as “fellow elder� (1 Pet 5:1). Furthermore, the image of widespread persecution seems unlikely during the life of Peter. The brief household codes are hard to imagine as coming from the Peter of the Gospels. All in all, the theology, the language, and the overall historical context of the letter fit awkwardly into the time and life of Simon Peter but easily into later Christian history. In fact, the letter fits more easily into the postapostolic world of the late first century. Thus, many historians conclude that the letter is more likely to be pseudepigraphical.

From Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings by F. Lapham (pp. 141-142)

The one inescapable reality, however, is that despite the unease of the Christians in Asia Minor, as 'temporary sojourners in a strange land', the Church is represented in 1 Peter as well-established, and Christianity as being widespread. The writer's frequent appeals to loyalty and faith are unlikely to be addressed to new Christians, unless the enthusiasm of their conversion had waned more rapidly than might be imagined; and the admonitions to the various social groupings, whatever might be the origin of these passages, suggest a more settled ecclesiastical situation, at least for this region, than would probably have obtained before the end of the first century.

Few exegetes would be prepared to deny that the nuances of 1 Peter with regard to the persecutions are more reminiscent of the circumstances described by Pliny than of any other period after the time of Nero. If we add to this the probability that the author of 1 Peter borrowed from Ephesians, and might also have been familiar with many of the writings which later formed the New Testament, we could hardly rule out a date in the first quarter of the second century. Three additional factors tend to corroborate such a dating: the well-developed baptismal theology, the more cautious approach to eschatological expectation, and the historical perspective in relation to Trajan's military activities in the east.

You said that such a pseudonymous letter wouldn't "get past" Paul. The traditional date of Paul's death is around 64 A.D. If the letter is pseudonymous, then it very likely dates to sometime after Paul's death ("late first century" to "first quarter of the second century") and Paul wasn't around for it to "get past."

I also previously mentioned Metzger's The Canon of the New Testament. Unfortunately, the Google Books preview doesn't include the necessary pages, but here are the relevant passages in the order that they appear in Metzger (my ebook copy doesn't have page numbers):

Clement of Alexandria:

In fact, according to Eusebius (Hist. eccl. VI. xiv. 1), Clement’s Hypotyposes contained concise comments on all the canonical Scriptures (πάσης τῆς �νδιαθήκον γ�αϕῆς, literally ‘all the testament-ed Scripture’), ‘not omitting even the disputed books—that is, the Epistle of Jude and the other Catholic Epistles, and the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Apocalypse of Peter’.

...

By way of summary, one can say that, though Clement felt free to use unwritten tradition as well as to quote from a broad spectrum of Christian and pagan literature, it was the fourfold Gospels and the fourteen Epistles of Paul (including Hebrews), along with Acts, 1 Peter, I John, and the Apocalypse, that were regarded as authoritative Scripture.

Origen:

In a statement quoted by Eusebius (Hist. eccl. VI. xxv. 8) from the fifth book of Origen’s Commentary on John (written perhaps during a trip to the East in 230–1), Origen says that ‘Peter… has left one acknowledged (�μολογομένη) Epistle; possibly also a second, but this is disputed’ (ἀμϕιβάλλεται).

Irenaeus of Lyons:

In his Adversus Haereses he quotes 1,075 passages from almost all of the books of the New Testament: 626 from the Gospels, 54 from Acts, 280 from the Pauline Epistles (but not from Philemon), 15 from the Catholic Epistles (but not 2 Peter, 3 John, or Jude), and 29 from the Book of Revelation.

Tertullian:

He quotes several passages from 1 Peter, though without explicitly identifying the epistle (Scorp. 12).

It's now your turn, or perhaps past your turn. You ignored my requests to document your own claims and in case you forgot, you wrote that "early 'church fathers' document how vigorously the leading men" defended the canon from "unauthorized letters" and that "Paul and the other leading men of the Christian community, who were according to documented accounts, actively fighting against the circulation of unauthorized material." In each case, you made the positive statement that your assertion was "documented." I'm not aware of this documentation. Where would one find it?

[JehovahsWitness]

The pseudonymous letter was composed after both men were dead.

Can you prove this to be so? If so please be so kind as to present your evidence.

Thanks,


JW

I see no answer here to my request. Could you perhaps highlight in you answer PROOF pertaining dating the death of Peter.


Thank you,

JW