No Roman Catholic can deal with 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 3:1

It seems that no Roman Catholic can deal with this:

I left this comment twice over at Jason Stellman's blog here. (below is an expanded version of the original.)

 If apostolic succession was there from the beginning in the way that Rome defines it; why does Peter (the suppossed first bishop of Rome and suppossed first “Pope”) not mention it in his second epistle, when he should have – in 2 Peter 1:12-18 and 3:1, when he speaks of
a. knowing that he is about to die;  (verses 12-16)
b. wanting to be diligent to leave something with the believers that will enable them to “stir up their sincere minds” and “remember the truth” when he is gone? (verses 12-16 and 3:1)

Seems Peter especially would have at least mentioned the other presbyters and/ or bishops (addendum to be clear as what I meant:  presbyters/elders who would have the charism of apostolic succession and infallible teaching and able to solve all disunity problems and interpretation differences, as Roman Catholics claim that has been passed down in all history, in an unbroken chain beginning with Peter) who would take his place when he is gone; and that they would able to help the believers be able to learn truth and be reminded of the truth; and be there to help solve disunity problems and differences of interpretation. Instead, he does no such thing.  (Addendum:  I didn't mean that there were no other presbyters or teachers or pastors; sorry for that lack of clarity.  There obviously were a college of presbyters/elders - 1 Peter 5:1-5)

This a clear proof that it is the writting (Scripture alone) 2 Peter 3:1 – "this is the second letter I am writing to you", by which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder” – in other words, after I am gone (1:12-17), you will have something, somethng solid, a text, a writing, a Scripture, that you can read in order that you can stir up your minds in the truth - And that argument from 2 Peter 1:12-21 and 3:1, points to Sola Scriptura in principle.

I asked Jason Stellman, "how do you deal with that in 2 Peter?" and he and others don't seem to grasp the enormity of the supposed first Pope leaving out the teaching that his office would have successors, who would be able to teach the believers after he gets executed by Nero around 67 AD.  That is a major teaching to leave out, if it is true, it seems to me.  I think it is devasting to the whole Roman Catholic claim that Peter was the first Pope and that God intended the office of Peter in the bishop of the church in Rome to then to be succeeded by another infallible interpreter who would be able to shepherd and guide the church and give the infallible interpetation, and that that office would be passed down all through history.

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.”

see http://blogs.bible.org/bock/darrell_l._bock/ehrman_chapter_2-_forgeries_and_the_name_of_peter_apples_oranges_and_scripture

For more on 2 Peter and evidence for Peter as the author of both 2 Peter (writing it himself) and I Peter (dictating to Silvanus).

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

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.

Good Evidence for Historical Reliability for 2 Peter as written by Peter Himself

2 Peter is constantly being attacked by Muslims and liberals and skeptics as not an authentic book of the NT and not written by Peter, the disciple of Jesus Christ. Shabir Ally makes this one of his main points in debates. We believe that 2 Peter was inspired by God, God-breathed ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17) and written by the apostle Peter around 64-66 AD, before his martyrdom by Nero, and we have good and reasonable evidence to back up that faith.

Dr. James White has a little article with an excellent graphic of an ancient manuscript of P-72
which has both I and 2 Peter (and Jude) in it. One of the pages of this manuscript shows the end of 1 Peter and the beginning of 2nd Peter and this manuscript called P-72 is dated at around 200 AD. That is very good early dating for a copy of one of the most attacked books of the NT by skeptics, atheists, and Muslims and others, sometimes by good scholars. (the Muslims like to use Bruce Metzger as authoritative evidence that 2 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter. But many other conservative scholars and all Christians who believe in inerrancy believe that 2 Peter is "God-breathed" and was written by Peter. ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

Dan Wallace makes an excellent case for Peter himself being the author of 2 Peter, before his death at the hands of Nero sometime around 64-65 AD. Dan Wallace on 2 Peter.
-->I Peter was authored by Peter, but Silvanus actually wrote it for Peter, because Silvanus' Greek was excellent. ( I Peter 5:12) This also explains why the Greek of I Peter is so excellent and the Greek of 2 Peter is not as polished. It is reasonable, based on the evidence that Peter, a Hebrew Galilean, wrote 2 Peter, and used Silvanus as his secretary or amanuensis for I Peter.

Dr. White did us a great service by blowing up the lines of this manuscript so we can see the Granville-Sharp rule and the use of scribes in those days to save space by using a short-hand for God's name, called using the "nomina-sacra" (Sacred Name). God, (Theos) θεος is shortened. ιησου χριστου (Jesus Christ) is also shortened here.



Here is a clearer typed out Greek text line of the part that Dr. White has blown up for us:


--> λαχουσιν πειστιν εν δικεοσυνη του θυ̅ ημων και σωτηρος ιη̅υ χρ̅υ
It says, "to those who have received a faith by/in the righteousness of the God of ours and savior Jesus Christ." It is saying that Jesus Christ is both "God and Savior".
_ _ _ _
You can see the θυ and ιηυ and χρυ more clearly now. (with the lines over them indicating they are abbreviations for the "sacred name" (nomina sacra). θυ is the "nomina-sacra" short for "Theos" θεου (Theou is the genitive form of Theos) and ιηυ is short for Ιησου (easou = Jesus) and χρυ is the short form for Christ ( χριστου). (with the lines over the last letters indicate these are nomina-sacra.) [as I preview this, the lines are not coming out over the letters I want them to; so I needed to point that out. Blogger moved the lines to the far left.]

-->
Dr. White explains the Granville-Sharp rule.
This a clear teaching of the Deity of Christ, "the God of ours and Savior, namely Jesus Christ". when only the first noun has the definite article ( του = tou = "the") it points to the definite article functioning for both "God and Savior". Titus 2:13 also has this Granville Sharp construction, more evidence of the Deity of Christ - "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ".
By the way, did you know that Granville Sharp, the man whom this Greek syntax structure was named after, not only was an excellent scholar, and studied the Greek text, but also helped William Wilberforce get the slave trade abolished in England? A true Christian, both in mind and heart and life and action. Certainly, these are fruits of the Holy Spirit!

From the Wikipedia article about Granville Sharp:
"One of Granville's letters written in 1778 (published in 1798), propounded what has come to be known as The Granville Sharp Rule (in actuality only the first of six principles involving the article that Sharp articulated):

“When the copulative kai connects two nouns of the same case, if the article ho, or any of its cases, precedes the first of the said nouns or participles, and is not repeated before the second noun or participle, the latter always relates to the same person that is expressed or described by the first noun or participle ...”^[4]

This rule, if true, has a profound bearing on Unitarian doctrine, which led to a ‘celebrated controversy’, in which many leading divines took part, including Christopher Woodsworth.
Daniel B. Wallace says about Sharp:

“His strong belief in Christ’s deity led him to study the Scriptures in the original in order to defend more ably that precious truth ... As he studied the Scriptures in the original, he noticed a certain pattern, namely, when the construction article-noun-και-noun involved personal nouns which were singular and not proper names, they always referred to the same person. He noticed further that this rule applied in several texts to the deity of Jesus Christ.”^{[5] "}

Turretinfan also has an excellent article on 2 Peter showing that some ancient Christians had Bibles and how the α on the page stands for 1st Peter and the β (beta or letter B, used for 2nd) shows where 2nd Peter starts.

Here is an interesting web-site [August 8, 2013 - Addendum:  I just noticed, that, unfortunately, all of those excellent clear photos of many Greek manuscripts is no longer there. ]  that shows very clear photos of many of the ancient Greek manuscripts that give us more and more evidence for the reliability of the NT. It has the same photos of 1 and 2 Peter that Dr. White showed and even more extensive.

And here is an excellent lecture on the reliability of the NT from scholar Peter Williams.

And here is another lecture by Dr. White on the general reliability of the NT.

The Bible has not been hopelessly corrupted. Puny man cannot change the word of God. For Muslims: "No one can change the word of Allah"! The Injeel is reliable! The Bible is reliable. And we are honest and open about the few textual variants. And 2nd Peter was written by Peter, a disciple of Jesus the Messiah, and eye-witness of His life, miracles, teachings, death, resurrection, and ascension.