Steven Carr

How does finding a work in p72 show anything *at all* about its authenticity?

P72 contains Jude and 1 and 2 Peter and various non-canonical works, such as The Nativity of Mary,the eleventh Ode of Solomon,Melito's Homily on the Passover,the Apology of Phileas etc.

All of these are in p72 , and so are 'primary external evidence', according to Stephen.

P72 is interesting.

It is often claimed that no textual variation is important for Christian doctrines. However, it seems that p72 does not like the orthodox Christian doctrine that God the Father is distinct from Jesus the Son of God.

In 2 Peter 1:2, other manuscripts read "May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of our Lord Jesus." p72 drops the "and' to read "God, our Lord Jesus".

This is no accident. p72 altered Jude 5 to say that the saviour of the people from Egypt was "the God Christ".

p72 altered 1 Peter 5:1 to say that Peter was a witness to the "sufferings of God", and not the "sufferings of Christ", as all later manuscripts read.

Yet Stephen claims p72 is important evidence that 2 Peter was written by Peter!

Steven Avery

Oh, you can be sure if no papyri (and especially one or both of Aleph and B as well) had 2 Peter, then it would be a major hue and cry of those who are claiming it was late and a forgery. "Look, it's not even in the papyri, which are early texts".

As to how P72 contains 2 Peter, I believe that is covered in the Kruger article, apparently there are notations or placement and such involved that place it as more than just another book, but indicate special/scriptural status.

Not by me. I consider all the alexandrian manuscripts and papyri as generally corrupt, however they are still witnesses to the early usage of a book, (and can be auxiliary evidence for a verse reading).

Steven with a "v", Prax is fine too..

P72 is simply one of a large number of evidences of early usage of 2 Peter, and acceptance of 2 Peter as scripture. The fact that you dodge around on auxiliary aspects of the discussion is itself a demonstration of the main issue.

Of course, Peter Kirby omitted tons of stuff other than P72.
I just found that especially glaring.

Shalom,
Steven
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Carr

So finding a text of 2 Peter in a work containing lots of late forgeries helps to prove that 2 Peter is not a late forgery?


In other words, there is not the slightest shred of real evidence that 2 Peter was written by Peter. Kruger himself concedes that p72 contains late forgeries.

Only Christians apologists could come up with the idea that a work which was fooled by late forgeries is evidence that the work could tell the difference between genuine works and late forgeries.

And the earliest appearance of the work , 2 Peter, is , according to Prax, a work that was corrupted by the people who wrote it. More proof that the earliest Christians would change what Prax tells us they regarded as scripture.



If 2 Peter really was written by an inspired author, just a few years before Jesus prophecy about Jerusalem was about to come true, why did the inspired author not shove Jesus prophecy into the faces of the people who scoffed that nothing was changing?

Steven Avery

Fair enough. And a lot of times a wrong point of view is simply the unexamined view, the 'accepted as taught' view, and not the dishonest view. However that is often hard to apply to the propagaters themselves.

Yes, he did a short and sweet section.
And I appreciate that you gave it some attention.

Note the Glenn Miller articles, including ..
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/pseudox.html
Pseudonymity? Pseudepigraphy? Pseudo*.*?
- --could the New Testament letters be such?

And I placed a summary of his major points on an exegesis forum.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibexegesis/message/4607

Well if one agrees that writings when the person is alive are simply forgeries to be condemned and not scripture, when does that change ? 2 years after death ? 10 years ? 50 years ? Many folks of integrity would simply say never, and early praxis as indicated by Tertullian et al supports this view. Agreed however that the Thessalonians reference is simply one component to the discusion, since it is revolving on a doctrinal aspect.

There are a number of good writings on the question. Kruger simply was succient and to the point, and combines it nicely with the current topic of 2 Peter.

Basically true, although we really dunno what writings of Peter and Paul and others were not lasting. (Since they didn't last :-) Remember Paul also references a verse from Luke as graphe/scripture as well, fitting this idea nicely.

Well I dunno about the 'other sources', however exegesis of Acts and the epistles is often in the eye of the beholder. One can see the tensions as early and a constructive dissonance, leading to the fullness of the Gospel outreach, or one can see them as a thorn against any idea of early scriptural New Testament Christianity. My beholding is more to the former.

Yes, but letters by people very much alive after their death, pretending to be the martyrs, appearing long after their death, would be very lowly regarded, and even the subject of sanctions and discipline. And in fact such spurious writings were actively and emphatically rejected, as pointed out in the articles above.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

One problem (rather typical) is that we are mixing the early usage and canonical issues. At the same time frame as P72, and earlier, there were lots of references to 2 Peter as scripture. These references are misreferenced by Kirby and of course are not even on Carr's radar here, as per the usual (somewhat tiresome) modus operandi.

For forum readers, here is the Kruger reference about P72 and 2 Peter

"Some dispute this papyrus as evidence for 2 Peter’s canonicity due to the fact that it is listed along with several non-canonical works, such as the Nativity of Mary, the apocryphal correspondence of Paul to the Corinthians, the Apology of Phileas, etc. (see W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament [London: SCM, 1984] 433–434). However, it must be noted that 1 Peter and Jude were also included in the list and, as Edwin A. Blum comments, “p72 shows acceptance of 2 Peter as canonical, for in that manuscript 2 Peter shares with 1 Peter and Jude a blessing on the readers of these sacred books and receives even more elaborate support than the other two epistles�
(Edwin A. Blum, “2 Peter,� in Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 12, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981] 257). See also R. H. Gundry, A Survey of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970) 353"

In fact, I generally do not use alexandrian manuscripts as evidence of anything canonical, Aleph and B have similar problems. However they do indicate early circulation and usage of a book, more so the papyri than Aleph and B since they will often will predate the Eusebius work.

Steven, I have no idea what your standard of "real evidence" is. You would probably say the same about each and every NT book, so the statement can be passed over as inconsequential.

Again, you could use this argument against most any NT book, and in other circumstances you probably do.

Well probably more like 10 years. Anyway, the prophecies of Jesus in the Gospels would be well known to the readers of Peter's letter (which was addressed to the believers) so your point here simply makes no sense.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Mabus_Zero

If you take the line literally, it substantiates a bit more the theory that Christianity was a 'meme virus' invoked on the one true weakness of the Roman empire (a conglomerative conquest of other cultures, by absorption), by Paul, as a final revenge for the destruction of the temple at Jerusalem, and the subsequent near genocide of the Isreali nation, in that time period.

As the Jews were most certainly experiencing an atrocity that was equivalent to the world ending around them, it could only be expected that such a mythology would be perpetuated.

And as was said of humanity in Lovecraftian lore, Christians 'were never meant to travel far...'

http://www.bidstrup.com/virus.htm

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columni...756747,00.html

A weak argument, I know, but I figure someone else who has better sources of information then I, and more time by which to substantiate this with some references could do so, it would make this debate a great deal more interesting.

And now for a quote that speaks measures of the inference I stated above, as pertaining to the Romans attempting to consume Christianity:

"That which the flame does not consume, consumes the flame"

[-Child, 'Aeon Flux' (1995)]

Also, I found the bit on the status of divinity of the text coming from the post-humous nature of Paul and Peter in 60 A.D a very nice twist. Interesting alignment with the operations and opinions of art-collectors, no?