Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Bible study
Farmer Geddon

1 Peter.

Scholars have long noted that the book of 1 Peter is written in elegant Greek, and that it seems highly unlikely that an Aramaic-speaking fisherman of the lower classes (which Peter must have been), who is called “unlettered” (literally, “illiterate”) in Acts 4:13 "When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realised that they were unlettered, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus".

It begs the question: Would Peter have been able to write this letter?  

Does this mean that Silvanus, mention at the end of this letter was the real author?
Quote:
1Peter 5:12 With the help of Silvanus whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.


Which also brings up an interesting notion that the Gospel of "Mark" should have been called the gospel of Silas instead.

Papias claims:
Quote:
"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements." [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark according to Eusebius].


Mybe Papias, or more importantly Eusebus got it wrong?
Jim

Re: 1 Peter.

Whether Peter wrote the letter himself is a moot point. My opinion, for what it's worth, is that Silvanus acted as secretary for an ageing Peter, and possibly 'tidied up' the style of the document. At any rate, it seems to have been accepted at a very early date as genuine my the vast majority of Christian communities.
Paul

Well, there are some that would argue the Greek in this epistle isn't quite as polished as some would have us believe and that it show signs of having been written by a Semitic speaker. I do believe this was written by St.Peter (but then I believe that all the books were written by those whose names are associated with them).
Jim

Would "written by a sectretary for..." count as written by?
I ask because it is clear from one, or probably more than one, of Paul's Letters, that he dictated the letter to someone, who then wrote it for him.
(IMO, this was because, toward the end of his second Journey - or even when he was before the Sanhedrin - he had severe visual problems.
Paul

I have no problem with "dictated by". It's essentially the same as "written by".
Farmer Geddon

Cummon Ad o

"Dictated to" means, especially 1600 years ago, that there is a hell of a lot more scope for changing what was actually said.

If it was "written by" means it was a recognised text, that may have be copied much later, you don't like what you hear, the dude relating can't read - you change it to fit what you think it should say...

You read the text written by ..  a 'father', you don't like what it claims. you change it to fit your theology..

Happened all the time during the battle for supremacy..
Farmer Geddon

If Papias was right then could the young man in Mark 14:51 "A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind", have been 'Silas/Silvanus", or the author of "Mark" himself?
Farmer Geddon

I'm guessing this is NOT how "Bible study" is supposed to work... Are we not allowed to question the bible in this so-called study?

Are we just supposed to accept what was agreed upon 1,000 odd years ago??
Paul

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Cummon Ad o

"Dictated to" means, especially 1600 years ago, that there is a hell of a lot more scope for changing what was actually said.

If it was "written by" means it was a recognised text, that may have be copied much later, you don't like what you hear, the dude relating can't read - you change it to fit what you think it should say...

You read the text written by ..  a 'father', you don't like what it claims. you change it to fit your theology..

Happened all the time during the battle for supremacy..


St. Peter could well have learnt to write. He preached in the Greek speaking world. He was from Galilee, a Helenised province considered by the Jews in Jerusalem as half pagan; so it's not beyond possibility that he also learned how to write Greek pretty well. As for dictating, I don't understand your point.

The canon and authorship came from custom. This is what was received by the whole Church. That's not to say there was never any debate but custom, quite rightly, won the day. Custom is not contrived.
Farmer Geddon

Umm seriously... so why the thanking OF "Silas" at the end of the story?

1Peter 5:12 With the help of Silvanus whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.

Read it again, Silvanius is obviously crowing about writing about being the 'editor' of the letter..  if Silas is the 'editor' of the letter, then ain't it conceivable that he is the author of the Gospel called "Mark"?
Paul

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Umm seriously... so why the thanking OF "Silas" at the end of the story?

1Peter 5:12 With the help of Silvanus whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.

Read it again, Silvanius is obviously crowing about writing about being the 'editor' of the letter..  if Silas is the 'editor' of the letter, then ain't it conceivable that he is the author of the Gospel called "Mark"?


That's nothing but wild conjecture.
Farmer Geddon

Paul - I have given you my arguments..

YOU are trying to arguing against them..


"nothing but wild conjecture." doesn't cut it.

You have to prove why they are "wild conjecture".
Jim

Regardless of who wrote it - and the majority opinion is that it was, in fact, Peter, assisted by Silvanus; the letter was accepted at a very early stage of canon development by all the churches as genuine and inspired Scripture. There is nothing there which conflicts with either Gospel or Pauline theology, and much which is both inspirational and uniquely valuable in the letter.

( Note: I am not arguing here that Peter wrote both letters. There is some dispute over the authorship of 2 Peter, which is nevertheless a valuable part of Scripture. )
Paul

St. Peter wrote that too.
Jim

I'd tend toward agreeing with you, Paul; however, one look at the history of the formation of the NT canon would suggest that, by the mid second -early third centuries, there was some doubt on the matter.
I'm not relegating the letter on that issue, though - it, too, forms a valuable part of the NT Canon.
Honey 56

Paul wrote:
I have no problem with "dictated by". It's essentially the same as "written by".


Hi Paul,
Jordan/Katy Price does it all the time, or so I'm told!  

Honey
Jim

Wot - writes letters about God and stuff?


Sorry.....
Farmer Geddon

Honey 56 wrote:
Paul wrote:
I have no problem with "dictated by". It's essentially the same as "written by".


Hi Paul,
Jordan/Katy Price does it all the time, or so I'm told!  

Honey


Honey - sweet as you are, you are treading in big-boy territory, where those who have more knowledge than you are talking..

I suggest thus:


Link
Honey 56

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Honey 56 wrote:
Paul wrote:
I have no problem with "dictated by". It's essentially the same as "written by".


Hi Paul,
Jordan/Katy Price does it all the time, or so I'm told!  

Honey


Honey - sweet as you are, you are treading in big-boy territory, where those who have more knowledge than you are talking..

I suggest thus:


Link



How awfully funny, I love soft furry littlle things too!!!!

Flutters eyelashes demurely.  
Farmer Geddon

LOL.

Glad you took it in the way it was intended..  oooerrr missus!
Honey 56

Farmer Geddon wrote:
LOL.

Glad you took it in the way it was intended..  oooerrr missus!


Yes it made me


I love those H.E. 40s/50s skits, it makes me hanker after the good old days when men were men and women knew thier place (NOT)  

 
Farmer Geddon

My personal favorite Mr Cholmondley-Warner skit:


Link
Honey 56



People used to speak like that, no really they did, well some of 'em, mainly on the BBC. And those lovely wee shorts    it's a wonder they didn't trip over the hems!!! but if the shorts didn't get 'em the cigs would!!
bnabernard

S*d this, just as I got something to say we go into a commercial break,  
Honey 56

bnabernard wrote:
S*d this, just as I got something to say we go into a commercial break,  





Honey
cyberman

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Umm seriously... so why the thanking OF "Silas" at the end of the story?

1Peter 5:12 With the help of Silvanus whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.

Read it again, Silvanius is obviously crowing about writing about being the 'editor' of the letter..  if Silas is the 'editor' of the letter, then ain't it conceivable that he is the author of the Gospel called "Mark"?


Yes it is conceivable. Do you think it is significant?
Farmer Geddon

I dunno what I think, but it is "Q.I." that the book of 1 Peter is written in elegant Greek, but according Luke in his "Acts", "Peter" was just an Aramaic-speaking fisherman of the lower classes, who is called “illiterate” in Acts 4:13.

Which shows that Peter could not have written it, so it must have been down to the scribe "Silvanus", mentioned in 5:12, to be the actual author of the letter….

I was just postulating when Papias claims that:

Quote:
..Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. .. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark according to Eusebius]
.  

Which suggests to me that the author of "1 Peter" might just have been expanding on the Gospel of Mark, so it made more sense to his much later audience!!

Is Mark silus/silvanus?
Lexilogio

Farmer Geddon wrote:
I dunno what I think, but it is "Q.I." that the book of 1 Peter is written in elegant Greek, but according Luke in his "Acts", "Peter" was just an Aramaic-speaking fisherman of the lower classes, who is called “illiterate” in Acts 4:13.

Which shows that Peter could not have written it, so it must have been down to the scribe "Silvanus", mentioned in 5:12, to be the actual author of the letter….

I was just postulating when Papias claims that:

Quote:
..Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. .. [This is what is related by Papias regarding Mark according to Eusebius]
.  

Which suggests to me that the author of "1 Peter" might just have been expanding on the Gospel of Mark, so it made more sense to his much later audience!!

Is Mark silus/silvanus?


But Silvanus could have written as Peter asked him to? Just as a Greek lawyer today would turn the demotikh words of a local into Katharevousa.
Farmer Geddon

I guess the point is Silas could have written what the smeg he wanted. Peter being illiterate wouldn't have had a clue whither what was written was what he said or not...

Also it could be argued that it may have been written by someone more intelligent, who was using "Mark" as a reference point.

Isn't the 2nd epistle regarded as older to the 1st according to "The church"?

The possibilities are endless!!
Farmer Geddon

bnabernard wrote:
S*d this, just as I got something to say we go into a commercial break,  


The programme has restarted - quick, get in there and have your say before the advert for "The Jeremy Kyle show" starts..
bnabernard

Farmer Geddon wrote:
If Papias was right then could the young man in Mark 14:51 "A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, 52 he fled naked, leaving his garment behind", have been 'Silas/Silvanus", or the author of "Mark" himself?


http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apopet.html

Could pick the bones out of this if u like, innit  

bernard (hug)

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Bible study
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum