Vincent Guilbaud

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:
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

Ben C Smith

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.

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.

andrewcriddle

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

Ben C Smith

Good one. That may be better than my suggestion.

Ben.

Vincent Guilbaud

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:
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.

andrewcriddle

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 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

Chili

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.