Monday, June 20, 2011

Dr Ben Witheringing III on "Who Wrote 2 Peter"

The key as symbol of St. PeterImage via WikipediaYou may or may not be aware of  a comment thread a few weeks ago between myself and Ryan Anderson regarding whether or not 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter. Anderson argued that Peter could not have written the epistle and because it says he did, the letter is a lie and unreliable. He quoted Dr. Ben Witherington III as a source and an example of a scholar who is a Christian who does not believe 2 Peter was written by the apostle. He later backed off it a little bit and conceded that Wirtherington actually believes the Peter wrote the first part of the letter. I decided to see if I could get in contact with Dr Witherington himself and see what he thought. I sent him to the following e-mail:

Hello, Dr Witherington.

I am a great fan of your work regarding Jesus and your apologetic material. Thank you!!!

A few weeks ago I responded to a blog post that asserted that Jesus told his disciples that he would return in their lifetimes and because he didn't Jesus is no better than Harold Camping.  You can see my post on that here: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/05/facepalm-of-day-81-debunking.html


Of course I disagreed and an atheist kept the conversation going in the comments. To make the story shorter, one of the arguments  I gave was that Peter in 2nd Peter explains what Jesus meant by "soon" and that he didn't understand Jesus to be saying what the atheists were saying Jesus said. The atheist argued against me by saying that most Biblical scholars, including you, don't believe that the Apostle Peter wrote most if not all of the epistles attributed to him. He then concluded that who ever wrote the letters lied and both epistles should by tossed because the author was a liar.  Of course I disagree. I was wondering if you could point out any papers/books you have written about 1 & 2 Peter's authorship, reliability, and if you consider these letters scripture every bit as much as the rest the New Testament?

On another blog, there was a good article about why some Biblical scholars think that there is good evidence that Apostle Peter wrote the epistles written for them: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/good-evidence-for-2-peter-as-written-by.html
  I was wondering what your take on that is? Thanks for your time and I thank God for how God has used you. You have been a blessing to me and many, many others!
Marcus McElhaney
Thankfully, Dr Witherington was gracious enough to respond.

Hi Marcus:

Thanks for this.   You can always read my Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians Volume 2 on 1-2 Peter for more info.  The short answer is that 2 Peter is a composite book.  It contains a large chunk of Jude in it, it contains Pauline traditions in chapter three, and it contains some authentic Petrine material in Chapter One.  It follows the tradition of attributing a document to its first and most famous source, in this case Peter.  I think the story of the Transfiguration does go back to Peter himself.  I would say this document was assembled at the end of the first century when there was actually a collection of Paul's letters circulating in the church (see 2 Peter 3).    If you want to see my rebuttal to Ehrman's Forged, I posted a whole series of blog posts on this on my blog back in the spring.   A composite document attributed to one of its genuine sources is no forgery.  But the ancient concept of what counted as authorship is different from ours.

Blessings

Ben W.

Dr. Ben Witherington, III
Amos Professor of NT for Doctoral Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore Ky.
Doctoral Faculty St. Mary's College, St. Andrews University, Scotland
I've heard of much the same argument made for authorship of Isaiah and other Old Testament texts. I think that this explanation is viable, buyt I believe I need to do more research into this. Witherington is not by any means saying toss out 2 Peter or calling it worthless as Andrerson seemed like he was trying suggest. If anyone else is interested in Dr Witherington's rebuttal of  Dr. Ehrman's "Forged" use the link below.


http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture?s=forged

Thank you, Dr. Ben Witherington III.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama impersonator crosses the line - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com

Did comedian Reggie Brown cross the line?




This is a wake up call for me. Had a white republican said such things, I'd be incensed. However when George Bush was President the jokes were coming fast and furious.  I think there is a double standard.  Just like black people can call each other the "N-Word" but white people can't use it. Fair? No. I think the best way to handle this just like the. N-Word, no one should use it. You can criticize another person's policies and opinions, and decisions without personally attacking their race and character. It seems like our society has forgotten how to do that.

Obama impersonator crosses the line - Jonathan Martin - POLITICO.com
Enhanced by Zemanta

FacePalm of the Day #93 - Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig: "This is a Delightful Brainteaser"

FACEPALM Dean WinchesterSo what is the confusion here? Okay, before I get ahead of myself read John Loftus' post

Craig agrees with and "wholeheartedly endorses the bizarre...conclusion that the universe had a beginning and yet there was no time at which the universe did not exist.” What is this delightful brainteaser?

In his weekly Q & A is this question he seeks to answer:
The Law of Contradiction states that two mutually exclusive statements cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect. The statements "God exists and the universe does not exist" and "God exists and the universe exists" are mutually exclusive statements and do not differ in respect. The only way to avoid a contradiction, if both are to be asserted, is to assert that each is true at a different time. But if we take the word "universe" to mean both space and time, and affirm that time itself had a beginning, then time only exists provided that the statement "God exists and the universe exists" is true, and time does not exist provided that the statement "God exists and the universe does not exist" is true. And if time does not exist, provided that the statement "God exists and the universe does not exist" is true, then there is no time at which that statement is true. But if that is the case, then must we not conclude that each of these statements cannot be true at different times, and so that to maintain that God existed at a time before the universe existed is self-contradictory? Would it not also lead to the conclusion that if God is the cause of the universe, the universe must co-exist eternally with Him and therefore has no beginning? Or would that only lead one to the bizarre but not necessarily self-contradictory conclusion that the universe had a beginning and yet there was no time at which the universe did not exist?

Travis
USA

Link.
Here is the confusion. Of course there was no time at which the Universe did not exist because Time itself has a beginning. Space and Time came into being simultaneously. God is not subject to Time. How can you be subject to that which you created? Remembering this will avoid such mistakes in the future.


Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig: "This is a Delightful Brainteaser"
Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Killed Goliath? | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament

Dr. Mariottini has begun a discussion on who was it that killed Goliath. He discusses multiple theories to explain the Biblical texts. This is part 1. I can't wait for part 2!

Who Killed Goliath? | Dr. Claude Mariottini – Professor of Old Testament
Enhanced by Zemanta

Same Sex Marriage Is Destroying Marriage…… | The Angry Black Woman


I agree that Charlie Sheen, Kelsey Grammer, Larry King, Britney Spears, Jesse Jams, and Tiger Woods profane and denigrate marriage. They and all who fail to live up to the responsibilities of their marriages should be forced to give an account and held responsible. They certainly fail to meet the standard. However, just because we, as a society, have failed does that mean we should lower the bar? Is the standard so high that people can't stay committed to their spouses? I don't think so. So for what reason, and I have never seen a good reason for doing it, is there for changing the definition of a "marriage"? And further where do we stop? Is it okay to marry a sibling? Multiple people simultaneously? Pets? Children? If not why not? What is to keep "marriage" to be redefined by who ever has enough money and political power? Nothing.
 
Same Sex Marriage Is Destroying Marriage…… | The Angry Black Woman
Enhanced by Zemanta