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.

The Phony Decree of Damasus or Gelasius

A Catholic writer named Michael Gormley, who may have showed up here at Beggars All, has peppered my other blogs with some comments. Most recently he said this:

One example from ancient times of the Catholic Church officially deciding which books belong in the Bible, I'll quote the second part of the DECREE of Pope Damasus I (r. 366-384). The document was a decree of the Council of Rome which met under Damasus' presidency in AD 382.

The text of the DECREE as re the Scriptures was copied from page 406 of Volume 1 of THE FAITH OF THE EARLY FATHERS, edited/translated by William A. Jurgens (Collegevlle, The Liturgical Press: 1970).

"[2] It is likewise decreed: Now, indeed, we must treat of the divine Scriptures: what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she must shun. The list of the Old Testament begins: Genesis, one book; Exodus, one book; Leviticus, one book; Numbers, one book; Deuteronomy, one book; Jesus Nave [Joshua], one book; of Judges, one book; Ruth, one book; of Kings, four books; Paralipomenon, two books; One Hundred and Fifty Psalms, one book; of Solomon, three books: Proverbs, one book; Ecclesiastes, one book; Canticle of Canticles; one book; likewise, Wisdom, one book; Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], one book. Likewise, the list of the Prophets: Isaias, one book; Jeremias [Baruch was often considered part of Jeremiah], one book, along with Cinoth, that is, his Lamentations; Ezechiel, one book; Daniel, one book; Osee, one book; Amos, one book; Micheas, one book; Joel, one book; Abdias, one book; Jonas, one book; Nahum, one book; Habacuc, one book; Sophonias, one book; Aggeus, one book; Zacharias, one book; Malachias, one book. Likewise, the list of histories: Job, one book; Tobias, one book; Esdras, two books; Esther, one book; Judith, one book; of Maccabees, two books.

"Likewise, the list of the Scriptures of the New and Eternal Testament, which the holy and Catholic Church receives: of the Gospels, one book according to Matthew, one book according to Mark, one book according to Luke, one book according to John. The Epistles of the Apostle Paul, fourteen in number: one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Ephesians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Galatians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to Timothy, one to Titus, one to Philemon, one to the Hebrews. Likewise, one book of the Apocalypse of John. And the Acts of the Apostles, one book. Likewise, the canonical Epistles, seven in number: of the Apostle Peter, two Epistles; of the Apostle James, one Epistle; of the Apostle John, one Epistle; of the other John, a Presbyter, two Epistles; of the Apostle Jude the Zealot, one Epistle. Thus concludes the canon of the New Testament."

Alert readers should note how this list includes as fully canonical the Deuterocanonical books which the founders of Protestantism erroneously purged from their editions of the Bible after 1517.

Genuinely alert readers should note that Jurgens is somewhat famous for passing along forged and fake documents like this one as if they were real. The document he cited, as from "Pope Damasus," is also known as the Decree of Gelasius, but it's not written by him, either, but was probably composed by an anonymous source in the sixth century.

In truth, "the Roman Catholic Faith" was shaped by very many incidents such as this, in which a false or forged document is believed as genuine. I've already written about "Pseudo-Dionysius," a neoplatonist writer who purported to be the convert of Paul from Acts 17. Nevertheless, the great Thomas Aquinas thought that he, and other fake sources, was genuine, and Aquinas has a somewhat foundational place in Roman Catholic theology and doctrine today. Much of what is now Marian dogma also had its roots in forged or spurious documents.

So we have the spectacle of Roman Catholic apologists running around telling us how difficult God's own Scriptures are, in the name of having a "living Authority" that passes along spurious documents as foundational for its faith. It truly is a sad situation.

How Confession became a Divinely Instituted Sacrament

More Paul Johnson today. I’m headed into the Inquisition from Augustine, but as I look through Johnson to pick up a place to make the connection, I’m coming across all sorts of, uh, interesting facts. I’ve been looking at forgeries about Peter in the early church, and this one ties in nicely – forgeries about Peter lead to overblown theories about “the Power of the Keys” which “develop” directly into the sacrament of Penance (Confession), which is then used in a cynical way to control “the masses” – through a misuse of this mutant “sacrament”; the use of indulgences then first fueled the crusades, which, in time, were then co-opted to fight (and in Augustinian style, destroy) heresy. This proved too vulgar for the “conscience” of the Church, and these practices were later channeled into the Inquisition.

I’ve broken up long paragraphs and added some bolding to facilitate reading, but from here on, (except for my comments in [square brackets]), you’re reading Johnson:

Above all, however, what the peasant wanted from the Church was some hope of salvation. This was the overwhelming reason why Christianity replaced paganism: it had a very clear-cut theory of what happened after death, and of how eternal happiness could be gained. The appeal was to all classes: it was the one thing which enabled the Church to hold society together.

Yet this aspect of Christianity, too, was subtly changed over the centuries, and balanced in favour of the possessing classes: indeed, it became the central feature of mechanical religion. As we have seen, baptism was originally regarded as the prelude to an imminent parousia. Only gradually, as the parousia receded, did the Church have to grapple with the problem of sin after baptism, and the second (or third and subsequent) repentance.

Moreover, it is fair to say that the problem was never satisfactorily resolved. It was agreed that a post-baptismal sin had to be confessed in some form. Ambrose thought it might be done publicly, to a priest, or privately to oneself. If confession took place to a priest, he would try to intercede with God; but the confessors [priests to whom confessions might be said] (here Ambrose quoted Origen) had no power to do anything except pray and advise. The Church’s actual formularies were framed only for public confession, and penance. But an exception was introduced in the case of adulteresses, who might risk their lives if they confessed publicly; and these exceptions, or concessions, multiplied.

In 459, Leo 1 forbade reading confessions in public; he said it sufficed to confess to God, and then to a priest or bishop, who would pray for the sinner. By the time of Gregory the Great it was accepted that confession was necessary for the forgiveness of sin, and that it was in sacerdotal hands; but it was apparently accompanied by a public ceremony. Auricular confession, in its mature form, was probably a byproduct of the conversion of the Germanic tribes; it was established much more slowly in southern Europe.

Of course most people preferred it to public humiliation; the chief brake on its expansion was the shortage of priests. The Council of Chalons, 813, laid down that confessions in private to God or to a priest were equally effective; and delayed, or death-bed confessions were popular – as [deathbed] baptism had once been. Auricular confession as a standard, and as a sacrament, developed pari passu with papal and clericalist theory in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, and it was clearly connected with them. The first formulation of the sacramental basis was by the Paris schoolmen, especially by Peter Lombard, who relied on a forged Augustinian tract (Augustine did not in fact deal with the problem). Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries played a major role in the evolution of the related “Power of the Keys” theory. The salient forgery was in the Capitularies of Benedict the Levite, a supposed document of Clement 1, reciting his ordination as Bishop of Rome, in which Peter formally transmitted to him the power of the keys; Peter was made to say that bishops were the keys of the Church since they have the power to open and close the gates of Heaven.

Hence, in the twelfth century, confession to a priest in private was the only form still used in the West, except in certain monasteries where the earlier tradition of public confession lingered on for a time. The Council of Paris, 1198, published the first synodical code of instructions for confessors; and at the Lateran Council in 1216 Innocent III made auricular confession compulsory for all adult Christians. There remained an unresolved argument through the Middle Ages whether confession was a human or divine institution; then, in the sixteenth century, the denial of the Reformers that it was a sacrament at all hardened opinion among the papalists, and the council of Trent declared it divine.

Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, © 1976 Athenium, pgs. 229-230.