/ Forum: TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 12Dec2001 /.
The good Bible reader must therefore always be the careful Bible reader. And the careful Bible reader must always be wary and watchful; taking nothing for granted, and questioning everything. For example, one question that should always be softly itching at the back of your mind whenever reading the New Testament is this: Is this passage, or verse, or word, a true and faithful rendition of the author's intentions as they are expressed in the original Greek texts? One should never automatically assume that the answer is 'yes'; for all current English translations are deliberately designed to be as inoffensive as possible to the delicate sensibilities of easily offended (but bible-buying) post-modern Christians, such that accuracy in translation often takes a back seat to theological biases and political correctness.
.
4X: In many bibles the word 'slave' is rejected in favor of 'servant' or 'bondservant' or some such idiotic nonsense; words that are in no way equivalent to the *Christian* meaning of the word 'slave' (cf. James 1:1a; Jude 1:1a; 2Peter 1:1a). Sadly, the reason why there are so many grossly inadequate translations today is that the bible-makers are far more interested in selling bibles than in actually producing accurate renditions of the Greek texts. Of course, one would never suspect this was the case from reading the self-praising introductions to these supposedly superior modern translations.
.
Because of these deliberate distortions of the Word (so typical of the scribes and pharisees), a primary guiding principle of any sound and sensible post-modern hermeneutics is that the Reader should never take anything at face value. And it is almost easy to demonstrate the necessity and value of this hermeneutical tactic. There are many examples from the scriptures that I could use to illustrate, but few could be as weighty as the opening verse of First Peter: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1P.1:1a). In some ways, these six words are the most important verse in the entire epistle; at least in terms of coming to an adequately reality-based understanding of the letter in general; and its historical and theological relationships to the other early Christian documents in particular.
.
So who wrote the famous and esteemed epistle called 'The First Letter of Peter'? Seems a no brainer, eh? But wait a minute, dear reader. What did I just say about easy answers and taking nothing at face value? If we wish to know who authored this epistle, we cannot simply stop at the title and first verse (neither of which formed any part of the original autograph of this late first-century letter), and consider the question answered; rather, it behooves us to first examine *ALL* the relevant evidence (about its author) that the epistle provides. That is, the letter as a whole offers various clues and pointers about the author, and about how the letter came to be (ie. its social and historical context). One must thereafter consider also the evidence of other New Testament documents that may have a direct bearing on any pertinent questions about this letter (4X: the Thessalonian letters).
.
Besides the letter's close relationship to particular documents [4X: 1P.2:4-8 corrects the rather obvious theological errors of Mt.16:18], one must also take into account the transmission history of the text; by which I mean the long journey of the text through the ages from the original inspired autograph direct from the author's hand to the mass-produced, modern, black and white pages of our fancy post-modern English versions. Now that is a long and fascinating journey, to be sure, and it has a vital significance to all questions of authorship.
.
So if we assume (safely, I think) that First Peter originated in the area of Asia Minor, sometime in the years between 75-85 of the first century CE, then we can cobble together a rough sketch of the early history of the text, and how it came to be included within the growing collection of early Christian literature that attached itself to the core collection of early Pauline epistles. In short, it was the uninspired addition of the opening and closing verses (foreign encrustations) that caused the letter to gain its current title, and thereby assure it a place in the canon.
.
Let the reader understand that this epistle entered the NT not on the strength of its own intrinsic merits, but chiefly because it was known (erroneously) to be a document from the hand of the first apostle. Such were the priorities of the early Christian scribes and pharisees. The really disconcerting aspect of all this is that little has changed in the intervening centuries. Christians even now would much rather believe that Peter is the author, simply because ANY alternative is entirely unacceptable! The love of truth, it seems, forms no part of our faith whenever it conflicts in any way with our pious idolization of the scriptures and the early heroes of the Faith. More than anything else, it is this conspicuous lack of love for the truth that forces us to question everything, and take nothing at face value.
.- one who looks behind the words - textman ;> X
INTRODUCTION TO POST-MODERN HERMENEUTICS 7. The Five New Testament Traditions
/ Forum: TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 18Dec2001 /
In the decades following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70CE, there were four main traditions of Faith in four major areas around the east coast of the Mediterranean Sea:
.
(1) The Petrine tradition: in the area between Asia Minor and Palestine, centered in the cosmopolitan city of Antioch, and around the apostle Simon-Peter (who died, it is generally assumed, some few years before the Fall of Jerusalem). This area was the birthplace of the gospels of Mark (c.68CE) and Matthew (c.80-85CE).
.
(2) The Pauline tradition: in the area around the Aegean Sea, centered in Corinth and Ephesus (and other major cities). This region was the adopted home and mission-field of the pharisee-prophet Paulos of Damascus, and the birthplace of his influential letters, as well as the later documents written under his name (eg. Eph & Col). Thus we see already that we must be very careful about assigning authorship to any document, as there was very early on a strong tendency to attribute authorship to someone other than the actual writer (as was the custom in those days). This area was the birthplace of the following books: 1&2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Philippians, Galatians, 1&2 Corinthians, Romans, Ephesians, Colossians, and Revelation (via Patmos).
.
(3) The Johannine tradition: in the area of northern Egypt, centered on the major city of Alexandria. This area was the home of the early Christian prophetic tradition which gave rise to documents such as the misnamed "epistle" called Hebrews, the Gospel of John, 1,2,&3John, James (and 1Clement), Jude, and 2Peter (the last NT document to be written, c.140CE).
.
(4) The Roman tradition: the Latin church of Italy centered in Rome. Major documents from this region include Luke-Acts (c.115CE) and other early second century documents (eg. the so-called pastoral epistles 1&2Timothy, and Titus).
.
So it is upon these four pillars that the New Testament was built, and it is to one or another of these tradition-streams that every NT document (but one) belongs. The sole exception is First Peter, which while clearly related to both the Petrine and Pauline traditions, is actually an independent offshoot tradition stemming directly from the author and his local churches (in NE Asia Minor). The significance of these five tradition-streams for better understanding the meaning of, and interrelationships between, the NT documents can hardly be overstated.
.- one who arranges the NT into five regions - textman ;> .
P.S. "It is held that drink and petting are the gateways to joy, so
people get drunk quickly and try not to notice how much their
partners disgust them" (B.Russell, The Conquest of Happiness).
x