FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-04-2008, 07:56 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cary, NC, USA
Posts: 42
Default Preaching of Peter: Christ resurrection ... before Jerusalem was founded

A popular document in early Christianity, the Preaching of Peter was widely
assumed by early church fathers to have been composed by the apostle Peter himself.
Most scholars today, however, think that it was written years after his death,
sometime during the first part of the second century.

The book no longer survives but is known only through the quotations of later authors,
especially Clement of Alexandria.

in the Stromata 6.15.128, Clement said:
Quote:
Peter in the Preaching, speaking of the apostles, says:
But we having opened the books of the prophets which we had,
found, sometimes expressed by parables, sometimes by riddles,
and sometimes directly (authentically) and in so many words naming Jesus Christ,
both his coming and his death and the cross
and all the other torments which the Jews inflicted on him,
and his resurrection and assumption into the heavens
before Jerusalem was founded
,
even all this things as they had been written,
what he must suffer and what shall be after him.
When, therefore, we took knowledge of these things,
we believed in God through that which had been written of him.


And a little after he adds that the prophecies
came by Divine providence, in these terms:
For we know that God commanded them in very deed,
and without the Scripture we say nothing.
This text from Montague Rhode James can be found at:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hingpeter.html
It also adds "(MS. judged)" just after 'founded'.

The translation by J.K. Elliott in 'Lost Scriptures (or via: amazon.co.uk)' by Bart D.Ehrman also has 'founded'.

While this one
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.xv.html
translates 'founded' with 'capture' to give: previous to the capture

BUT, it also says:
If we retain the reading of the text, we must translate “founding,”
and understand the reference to be to the descent of the new Jerusalem.
But it seems better to change the reading as above.

Does anyone know of this singularity ?

Since the author is clearly talking about the past
on what grounds can we interpret 'before Jerusalem was founded'
as the descent of the new Jerusalem in the future?

Can we find similarities in other ancient texts?

Thanks
Vincent Guilbaud is offline  
Old 06-04-2008, 08:36 PM   #2
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud View Post
A popular document in early Christianity, the Preaching of Peter was widely
assumed by early church fathers to have been composed by the apostle Peter himself.
A worthy post overall, but I am not certain how Ehrman knows that this text was widely assumed by the fathers to have been actually composed by Peter. Clement appears to have thought so, and Origen refrains from debating the point, but before Constantine that is pretty much all we have. After Constantine a few authors give sayings of Peter, but do not say where the sayings come from.

Quote:
This text from Montague Rhode James can be found at:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...hingpeter.html
It also adds "(MS. judged)" just after 'founded'.

The translation by J.K. Elliott in 'Lost Scriptures' by Bart D.Ehrman also has 'founded'.

While this one
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.vi.iv.vi.xv.html
translates 'founded' with 'capture' to give: previous to the capture

BUT, it also says:
If we retain the reading of the text, we must translate “founding,”
and understand the reference to be to the descent of the new Jerusalem.
But it seems better to change the reading as above.

Does anyone know of this singularity ?

Since the author is clearly talking about the past
on what grounds can we interpret 'before Jerusalem was founded'
as the descent of the new Jerusalem in the future?
Not all would place the descent of the new Jerusalem in the future. A good preterist might place it in the past, at about the same time as the destruction of the old Jerusalem.

But the notion of a scribal error probably has merit; I suspect those who favor it would amend the text from κτισθηναι (founded) to something like κτηθεναι (gotten or taken).

(Perhaps someone could check to make certain that this is the correct form of the aorist passive infinitive of κταομαι.)

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 01:03 PM   #3
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C Smith View Post
Not all would place the descent of the new Jerusalem in the future. A good preterist might place it in the past, at about the same time as the destruction of the old Jerusalem.

But the notion of a scribal error probably has merit; I suspect those who favor it would amend the text from κτισθηναι (founded) to something like κτηθεναι (gotten or taken).

(Perhaps someone could check to make certain that this is the correct form of the aorist passive infinitive of κταομαι.)

Ben.
Hi Ben

I tried to check the aorist passive infinitive of KTAOMAI using Perseus but without success.

Myself I would prefer to correct to the judgment of Jerusalem KRIThHNAI from KRINW.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 06-06-2008, 01:59 PM   #4
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
I tried to check the aorist passive infinitive of KTAOMAI using Perseus but without success.

Myself I would prefer to correct to the judgment of Jerusalem KRIThHNAI from KRINW.
Good one. That may be better than my suggestion.

Ben.
Ben C Smith is offline  
Old 06-07-2008, 08:22 PM   #5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Cary, NC, USA
Posts: 42
Default

Thanks guys.
You might be true, it can be simply a scribal error.
But you have to make the case for it.

I guess everybody would laugh if Doherty was just saying that any of these sayings :
"arose from the seed of David"
"born from a Woman", born under the law"
"that our Lord is sprung from Judah"
"born of woman, born under the Law"
simply had a scribal error,
and if he was trying to find some similar spelling words to change the meaning.

So, which word is your best guess?
What would be exactly the spelling difference?
How many Stromata manuscripts by Clement do we have?
How old are they?
Do they all exhibit this problem?
...

Otherwise, what is your best explanation to avoid the literal and most natural meaning?

Ben said:
Quote:
Not all would place the descent of the new Jerusalem in the future.
A good preterist might place it in the past,
at about the same time as the destruction of the old Jerusalem.
Can you give us evidence that:
- the text can refer to the 'new Jerusalem'?
- the descent of the 'new Jerusalem' could be seen in 70 CE?

Thanks.
Vincent Guilbaud is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 07:24 AM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincent Guilbaud View Post
So, which word is your best guess?
What would be exactly the spelling difference?
How many Stromata manuscripts by Clement do we have?
How old are they?
Do they all exhibit this problem?
...
My best guess is KRIThHNAI which differs by two letters from the text
KTISThHNAI (the differences are the presence or absence of a sigma and whether the 2nd letter is tau or rho)

We have only one manuscript for the Stromateis which http://orthodoxwiki.org/Clement_of_Alexandria dates as 11th century. It has numerous scribal errors.

On the general point of the Preaching of Peter the other passages quoted by Clement from this work eg
Quote:
In the Preaching of Peter the Lord says to his disciples after the resurrection "I have chosen you twelve disciples judging you worthy of me"
would seem to indicate that in this work the resurrection is dated in the time of the apostles rather than in the pre-Jerusalem era.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 06-08-2008, 07:41 AM   #7
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

The new and old Jerusalem is the same thing as Militant and Triumphant Rome. Rome is Rome but only our perspective of it changes depending on relation to it which during our involutionay period is Militant (yang) and is Triumphant (yin) during our Evolutionary period.
Chili is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:02 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.