Monday, August 08, 2011

Not Even Mentioning the best Evidence

Popular skeptic and agnostic Bart Ehrman (professor at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC) and Darrell Bock, NT professor at Dallas Theological Seminary discuss Ehrman's book Forged on the August 6, 2011, Unbelievable Radio Program with Justin Brierley.

http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable

I was absolutely amazed that neither one of these men even mentioned I Peter 5:12, which gives evidence that Peter wrote 1 Peter through Silvanus (or Silas) as his secretary or amanuensis. I was especially surprised that Darrell Bock did not at least mention this, as evidence for Peter writing I Peter. 2nd Peter's style is different and not as polished, and so fits with the evidence of Peter as a Galilean fisherman, not as educated as Paul or Silas or Luke or the writer of Hebrews (Barnabas ?), but able to write in rough Greek. Since Peter used Silas for I Peter and it is a higher literary style than 2 Peter, there is no good reason for doubting that Peter himself wrote 2 Peter.

"By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it." I Peter 5:12, ESV
"Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God." I Peter 5:12, NASB
"By Silvanus, our faithful brother as I consider him, I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God in which you stand." I Peter 5:12, NKJV
Greek:
διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ὡς λογίζομαι, δι’ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα, παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ· εἰς ἣν στῆτε


Bock has written several blog articles on Ehrman's book, Forged. One of them is here, focusing on I and 2 Peter. Ehrman, on the radio show and in his book, tries to make it seem impossible for Peter to have known any Greek at all. In the article by Darrell Bock, linked above, these two paragraphs stand out:
“Now again we seem to ignore certain things we know about the culture and Peter. Apparently Peter was literate enough to lead and help launch a religious movement that spanned continents by his death. This means he must have been a solid oral communicator at the least, making him potentially capable of expressing himself in letters. Some of this communication took place outside the land in a diaspora context where Greek would have been important. In an oral culture, he need only be able to dictate in order to compose his letters. Ehrman's argument seems trapped in a literary model of communication, not the predominantly oral world of the first century. I make this point to observe, even if Ehrman is right about literacy and Peter, a point I am about to challenge, his conclusion about what Peter is capable of does not follow in an oral context.
So was Peter illiterate and can we know he did not know Greek? These claims can also be challenged in light of Peter's role as a merchant tradesman and what may be happening with education in the first century among Jews. Evidence does exist of extensive commerce and knowledge of Greek in Tiberias and Sepphoris, both of which are located close to Capernaum and Nazareth respectively. In fact, these larger Sea of Galilee communities are seen as so important that John Dominic Crossan, hardly a conservative interpreter of Scripture, argues that Jesus would have almost certainly practiced carpentry in Sepphoris and engaged in a kind of international trade and exchange of ideas. All of this assumes some level of linguistic and cultural engagement.”
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/good-evidence-for-2-peter-as-written-by.html
Addendum:
Thank you Dr. Bock, for commenting here and for standing up to Bart Ehrman. I should have stated that except for that one complaint I have; I should have noted that otherwise Dr. Bock did an excellent job of standing up to Dr. Ehrman.

I wrote in comment box "
Wow - that's really cool, and an honor, that you came here to comment - I greatly appreciate your work and books and scholarship. (I have some of them and have benefitted from them greatly.)

Yes, you talked about how secretaries were used in interacting with Ehrman, but, still, with all due respect, I still don't understand why you say "I could not mention Silvanus" - skeptics and agnostics should not be allowed to tie our hands in apologetic debate. (in my opinion) It seems to me you could have at least mentioned that issue and verse, no matter what the debate is on how secretaries were used.

It would have been nice to have more discussion of that and how an Evangelical believing student (like myself) and scholar like yourself deals with the issue of connecting the issue of "how the secretaries are used" with the actual verse there in I Peter 5:12.

Thanks for your comment!

Given that we believe that "all Scripture is God-breathed", and Peter used Silvanus as a secretary/ amanuensis, and that God used people to write Scripture and that 2 Peter is also written by Peter himself, can you write a believing article (from an Inerrancy perspective) on the issue of "how secretaries are used" and connect it to I Peter 5:12? Maybe you already have done this, but I confess I haven't read it or seen it; and I am limited in my overall understanding of all the issues.
11:47 AM, August 08, 2011
Delete
Blogger Ken said...
Rhology posted 2 comments while I was typing.
I hope Dr. Bock will see my comment to him.

Thank you Dr. Bock for coming here and commenting.
i agree with Rhology on all else - you did a good job of standing up to Bart Ehrman.

16 comments:

Darrell Bock said...

Ken:

I could not mention Silvanus because how secretaries were used was a part of the debate. (That was treated and I did note that would make a difference for all of these disputed letters where a secretary was in play)
Darrell Bock

Rhology said...

Dr Bock,

I have listened to many people take on Dr Ehrman on the airwaves and in debate. I believe that Dr James White has handled him well, and Dr William L Craig also. Dr Licona, sometimes.
I had low expectations in the Unbelievable program, not because of you but because of how most people I hear interact with Dr Ehrman roll over and play dead.
I was therefore quite encouraged to hear the way you dealt with him. I was cheering! :-)
Thank you for not letting him steamroll you with his half-truths and red herrings. I thought you quite ably responded to him, and because of your performance I count it as one of the more entertaining and helpful editions of Unbelievable that I've heard, and I've heard many dozens.

I asked Dr Ehrman about the amanuensis issue during the public Q&A when he spoke at Univ of Okla on his Forged book tour. He dismissed it with a few lame irrelevancies, and I thought that it was illustrative of the foundation of many begged questions on which his case rests.

Grace and peace,
Rhology

Rhology said...

On the issue of the post, Dr Ehrman assumes that Peter couldn't have written.

I am left shaking my head - not only does Dr Ehrman assume such w/o evidence, but he also apparently thinks that Peter's life was one snapshot. Like he's a literary character, static, unchanging.
People can learn to read and write. Even if he WAS illiterate, who says he didn't learn later in life?

Ken said...

Wow - that's really cool, and an honor, that you came here to comment - I greatly appreciate your work and books and scholarship. (I have some of them and have benefitted from them greatly.)

Yes, you talked about how secretaries were used in interacting with Ehrman, but, still, with all due respect, I still don't understand why you say "I could not mention Silvanus" - skeptics and agnostics should not be allowed to tie our hands in apologetic debate. (in my opinion) It seems to me you could have at least mentioned that issue and verse, no matter what the debate is on how secretaries were used.

It would have been nice to have more discussion of that and how an Evangelical believing student (like myself) and scholar like yourself deals with the issue of connecting the issue of "how the secretaries are used" with the actual verse there in I Peter 5:12.

Thanks for your comment!

Given that we believe that "all Scripture is God-breathed", and Peter used Silvanus as a secretary/ amanuensis, and that God used people to write Scripture and that 2 Peter is also written by Peter himself, can you write a believing article (from an Inerrancy perspective) on the issue of "how secretaries are used" and connect it to I Peter 5:12? Maybe you already have done this, but I confess I haven't read it or seen it; and I am limited in my overall understanding of all the issues.

Ken said...

Rhology posted 2 comments while I was typing.
I hope Dr. Bock will see my comment to him.

Thank you Dr. Bock for coming here and commenting.
i agree with Rhology on all else - you did a good job of standing up to Bart Ehrman.

James Swan said...

I'm somewhat at a loss with my blog entries because Luther can't stop by and comment when I mention him!

Darrell Bock said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Darrell Bock said...

The book on secretaries by Reynolds is a solid treatment. I have nothing to add to it.

Ken said...

I googled "Reynolds and Secretaries" but nothing that looks that what you are referring to is coming up.

Dr. Bock, could you give a little more bio information on that?

Thanks for taking time to help us!

Ken said...

I'm somewhat at a loss with my blog entries because Luther can't stop by and comment when I mention him!

Yeah, too bad also John Lennon can't stop by and clear up the controversy on him either.

Ken said...

Dr. Bock answered at his blog - my question about the book he was meaning:

It was not Reynolds, but see the following:

"My bad. Wrong last name.


Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection [Paperback]

E. Randolph Richards"

PeaceByJesus said...

Ehrman, on the radio show and in his book, tries to make it seem impossible for Peter to have known any Greek at all.

Perhaps that was because Peter had no access to the Internet.

What common language would Peter have used to address the people from a multiplicity of nations in Acts 2? Or did he use Google translate?

From "New Testament Greek For Beginners," a Greek textbook by J. Gresham Machen:

"When the Romans, in the last two centuries before Christ, conquered the eastern part of the Mediterranean world, they made no attempt to suppress the Greek language. On the contrary, the conquerors to a very considerable extent were conquered by those whom they conquered. Rome herself had already come under Greek influence, and now she made use of the Greek language in administering at least the eastern part of her vast empire. The language of the Roman Empire was not so much Latin as it was Greek. Thus in the first century after Christ Greek had become a world language. The ancient languages of the various countries did indeed continue to exist, and many districts were bilingual – the original local languages existing side by side with the Greek. But at least in the great cities throughout the Empire – certainly in the East – the Greek language was everywhere understood. ....

This new world language which prevailed after Alexander has been called not inappropriately "the Koine." The word "Koine" means "common"; it is not a bad designation, therefore, for a language which was a common medium of exchange for diverse peoples. The Koine, then is the Greek world language that prevailed from about 300 B.C. to the close of ancient history at about A.D. 500. ...

The New Testament writers have used the common, living language of the day. ... The cosmopolitan popular language of the Graeco-Roman world served its purpose in history well. It broke down racial and linguistic barriers..." - http://www.lettersofchrist.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=290&sid=6e1e2873537919f970fa4b0bbfa3f290

See also http://www.ntgreek.org/answers/nt_written_in_greek.htm#Language_of_Jesus. Excerpt:

A word often used by Jesus, "hypocrite," in describing the Pharisees and Sadducees, comes from the Greek word hypokrites, a compound word with the Greek preposition hypo for "under" and krites, meaning "judgment." This form is wholly lacking in Semitic languages. The word hypokrites basically means, "one who answers" (i.e., one who always has an answer, or excuse), but came to mean over time not only "expounder" or "interpreter," but "orator," "actor," stage actor, or one who spoke from behind a dramatic mask on stage. From this it came to mean "pretender," "dissembler." But this Greek word, so familiar in the denunciations of Christ, has no counterpart in Hebrew or Aramaic.

Ken said...

Good comments from J. Greshem Machen; thanks for that -

geoffrobinson said...

I have to listen to the podcast. There is one question I want to ask Ehrman: why does 1 Clement quote 1 Peter and Pauline books who think are forged and why do you think you know better than Clement?

I asked him another question he side-stepped which I pray you all will find interesting and edifying, Lord willing: http://libwww.freelibrary.org/podcast/media/20110331-bartd.e.mp3

Go to minute 45.

Btw, in that audio he contradicts his reasoning for why he is writing these books. At least according to my recollection.

Ken said...

Geoff,
Thank you for your comment and the link!
Very interesting indeed.

I have listened to it once and want to listen again more carefully and take notes before commenting on specifics.

Generally, there does seem to be some very important differences (contradictions ?) in his lecture here, than when an Evangelical debates him.

Oh for more time to study all these things in depth and write blog articles on them!

geoffrobinson said...

Yes, there are some differences between Ehrman of the friendly audience and Ehrman of the debate. Obviously, that means one of them isn't really Ehrman.