I don’t spend a lot of time in James since it includes very little about people going to hell, but noticed this today: πρὸ πάντων τὴν εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀγάπην ἐκτενῆ ἔχοντες, ὅτι ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν – 1 Peter 4.8 γινωσκέτω ὅτι ὁ ἐπιστρέψας ἁμαρτωλὸν ἐκ πλάνης ὁδοῦ αὐτοῦ σώσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ ἐκ θανάτου καὶ καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν. – James 5.20 Achtemeier has this… The most puzzling part of the verse consists in the final four words (ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν). While the notion that love covers sin is common in the Bible and early Christian literature, the closeness
I really want to do some work on intentional canonization by John, but will have to do other things first. Anyway, in the meantime, I just wanted to point out that 2 Peter (c. 100 CE) has a canon, or a set of works deemed authoritative. What are they? 2 Peter 1.16-21 defends at least one Gospel (Compare Matthew 17.1-5, Luke 9.31-2. As far as Mark, I would need to dig deeper for intertextual clues) 2 Peter 3.1 defends 1 Peter 2 Peter 3.15-6 defends the writings of Paul. Anyway, just some thoughts.
And no, it did not come from a “post-modern” scholar but from St. Jerome: “He [Peter] wrote two letters, which are called general, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him” (De vir. ill. 1; see Ep. Hedib. 120 Quaest. 11). There are plenty of reasons not to accept 2 Peter as authentic to a pre-68 authorship. The archaeological evidence of both text and tradition display a letter written in the early to mid-second century. Both Origen and Eusebius expressed doubts as to the authorship and these were long
First, read this post. Second, understand that I think that Frank Viola‘s Pagan Christianity isn’t the best book to read, considering that it has it’s own issues, one of them, is that it doesn’t investigate the various believes in the New Testament and early Church, which they would consider pagan. Stoicism. It was prevalent in the time in which Christianity was birthed. It is in the DNA if you will. Part of that, I believe, is found in 2 Peter’s cosmology, But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away
I can’t find the Greek text, and I really don’t want to spend any more time on it, but this is what we hear Irenaeus say: “And after their [Peter’s and Paul’s] departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing the things preached by Peter” Several scholars suggest that the word here translated as departure, ἔξοδος, simple means that Peter and Paul left Rome, only to return later and die. By rights, they may be correct to some extent, unless we can supply a better lexicographical meeting. There is a canonical source which does
A friend was reading my recent paper arguing for creation ex deo, which cough cough to the friendly publishers who read this book and maybe would like to see it, and suggested that ex nihilo is not supported by the author of 2nd Peter. Admittedly, as scholars have argued, ex nihilo is not really prohibited by Scripture, but is not required either. So, I was reading 2nd Peter to find out what my friend was talking about. First, this verse: and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He
Are we still that community? Early Christian interpretation of 1 Peter begins with Hermas. Hermas was connected to the church at Rome, or at least Tradition tells us this. In this, he would have no doubt had a long standing access to Peter’s letter. While this may not be an exact interpretation of 1 Peter 3.18-4.6, Hermes most diffidently has a certain strain of Tradition in mind which may help us understand how the early Church thought of the ‘preaching to the dead.’ In 16:5-7 we find a description of the Harrowing of Hell in which Christ (and by