Goto intro2PMH main
textman
*
/ Forum: TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 23Dec2001 / So if 1Peter was written by Peter himself, or a close disciple of his (as many scholars today propose; in an effort to surmount the plain fact that 1Peter was written well after Peter's demise), then we should expect strong links to, and parallels with, the authentic petrine tradition as it was originally expressed in the first gospel (ie. the gospel of Mark and Peter). Yet when we examine the epistle carefully, it is the similarities to the pauline tradition that stand fourth most clearly (ie. especially with the Thessalonians letters; which is precisely what we should expect if the author is who we say he is).
.
But historically, it is highly unlikely that Peter would be so "pauline" in his thinking and theology, and so this counts as evidence against Peter (or the petrine tradition) as the author. So perhaps the epistle was written in (and first circulated through) the no-man's land between Antioch and the Aegean; and as its popularity grew, it spread into the region's of the pauline and petrine churches where it was gradually accepted as an authoritative and inspired document. Later on, some bumbling scribe in Antioch noticed that the letter did not begin with a statement of the author's identity, and so he gave it one; and what better choice than the first among the apostles?
.
In this way he insured the universal acceptance of the letter by all the churches. Furthermore, it was his uninspired and deceptive addition to the text that later (3C) gave the letter its canonical title of 'The First Letter of Peter'. Here we see that the mature believer must make a clear distinction between the original inspired autograph, and all the later additions and mutations that fell upon the text (at the hands of pious, but ignorant, scribes and pharisees) in the course of its transmission from region to region, from copy to copy, and from generation to generation.
.
That the New Testament documents underwent many editorial changes (both large and small, fortunate and unfortunate) is a fact of history that no believer can afford to dismiss or ignore. In the beginning this epistle did not carry the canonical title it now bears, and did not begin with the clumsy and ill-fitting 'Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ'.
.
So if we now wish to know who is, in fact and in truth, the actual author of 1Peter, we have only to examine the evidence of the text. In particular, the closing verses of the letter are especially relevant to this question. This is where the author clearly identifies himself, by name, as the author: "By Silvanus, a faithful brother (as I regard him), I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it" (1P.5:12). Please note also that the original autograph ends here with the word 'it'. The additional verses 13 and 14 are classic examples of the self-serving editorial practices of the Romish scribes and pharisees. [See Hebrews 13:22 for a similar transmission related encrustation.]
.
Now its true that the *seemingly* awkward use of the two I's in this verse is taken (thanks to the encrustations) by most scholars as clear evidence of a direct reference to Peter. But this clever self-reference is actually nothing more than a simple rhetorical device deliberately intended to distinguish the writer from the prideful and aggressive signatures of Paulos of Damascus (which, by the way, served as the model for the scribe's ignorant addition at the start of the letter). But the mere fact that this closing signature verse contains only *one* name (the name of the writer) argues rather strongly against Peter (or anyone else) as a possible contributing author. If someone other than Silvanus (please note: not Silas) was involved in the actual composition of the letter, here is the place to mention it. So what are we to make of a letter with two signature verses? Most peculiar, I should think. Clearly, one of them was not a part of the original autograph. I trust that the reader will make the right choice, and not be swayed by silly suggestions that Silvanus was Peter's secretary, or some such nonsense like that.
.
It's true that there are some few scholars who do, in fact, recognize Silvanus as the author, but most merely regard him as an associate or companion or messenger, or even (surely the ultimate insult) a scribe. In other words, the prevailing view is that this shining knight of the faith is clearly a person of no consequence, and of very minor significance, and best dispensed with PDQ. Praise Peter, Silvanus is a scribe! And that's the way it is with these Pious Peter Pushers.
.
Poor Silvanus! Look what has become of this co-creator of the Christian epistle. This long dedicated prophet of Christ who went toe to toe with Paulos, and then went back to Asia Minor to spread the gospel without the "generous assistance" of those vain pillars Peter and Paul. Does anybody ever think of Silvanus when they make up their little lists of apostles? Hell no! And yet his contribution to the New Testament (and to the Faith in general) is easily the equal of Paul's; or even Peter's, for that matter.
.
But I mention all of this chiefly as an example of a rational post-modern hermeneutics, and in order to illustrate the innate complexity of the Word; as well as to demonstrate the necessity of not taking anything for granted. For the true believer who wants to put aside childish attitudes and easy answers, the need to question everything remains paramount. No authority has *all* the answers because our collective ignorance about the sacred texts still exceeds by far our meager knowledge of the Word. There is a whole world of truth still lurking and forgotten in those ancient texts. Indeed, a whole truck-load of secrets still waiting to be discovered. But if you're not willing to think for yourself, to dig for those hidden nuggets, to work for every scrap and minuscule bit of insight and understanding, then you might as well just bend over right now and present thyself to the tender mercies our many *many* cheerful and smiling post-modern scribes and pharisees!
.- the one always searching for nuggets - textman ;>
INTRODUCTION TO POST-MODERN HERMENEUTICS 9. A Logos-Based Hermeneutics
/ Forum: TOL - Philosophy & Theology / 1Jan2002 /
"When the world began, the Word was already there. The Word was with God, and the nature of the Word was the same as the nature of God. The Word was there in the beginning with God. It was through the agency of the Word that everything else came into being. Without the Word not one single thing came into being." - John 1:1 / Barclay's NT.So then there are various basic elements built into a rational and faithful post-modern hermeneutics. Not least of these is the need to make distinctions at various levels within the text (eg. identifying the earlier and later layers or traditions within a given passage), and also not to confuse biblical teaching and theology with current Christian beliefs (4X: that the text doesn't change over time), and doctrines (4X: the absolute inerrancy of the scriptures), and many assumptions that are taken for granted as established (and even divinely ordained), but yet have no expression in scripture (4X: that the Bible we hold in our hands was more or less finished and complete by 100AD at the very latest please).
.
Another difficult distinction that must be made relates to the difference between the narrative history (what the text says happened) and the underlying historical context of the document (which may or may not agree as to the historical details). This latter is a part of the larger historical process encompassing the entire race and planet; and it is this sub-textual history that provides the meanings and values that the narrative history refers to (and constantly assumes). Needless to say, it is this sub-textual history that joins to the larger historical realities that lead directly to the present (and to all of us). Historical realities, in other words, must always take priority over the narrative history as regards a critical interpretation of the text.
.
There is a vital difference between, say the story of the early history of the Faith as presented in the two part Christian history called Luke-Acts, and the actual course of historical events in the first century. Thus a constant attentiveness to the fluid and finite nature of the scriptures is the best antidote to the juvenile preconceptions and theologies of the scribes and pharisees (and their equally childish spawn of ignorance, those pious and passionate Bible-idolizers). "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" does not mean that we are free to project divine attributes and qualities into the Good Book.
.
All of the biblical documents, from the least to the greatest, although inspired, are very much the products of human energies, passions, and imagination; and they are as intertwined within the fabric of historical processes as any other material entity. Love of the Logos of God demands much of every believer, including an unswerving dedication to the truth of things. Post-modern hermeneutics must therefore be itself an authoritative guide, and it can only do so validly if its methodology remains unswervingly reality-based, truth-based, and history-based.
.
Given the complexity and multiplicity of the post-modern world, and the post-modern scriptures, the search for an adequate Christian hermeneutics demands at the very least a methodology that derives its validity from an aggressively rational and critical approach to the Sacred Text. In practice this means, 4X, that the evidence of the texts is primary, and a logical analysis of the primary facts must always supersede all traditions and theologies of a contradictory nature.
.
What all of the other old and new varieties of interpretation have in common is an almost complete absence of passion, and a chronic case of constipation of the imagination. These two qualities are so strong in Christian thought owing to the lingering dominance of the scribes and pharisees (a part of their legacy, as it were), but also to the innate conservatism of human nature in general (as well as the persistence of stupidity in particular).
.
All of these things are contrary to the truth, and so must be overcome or abandoned by any hermeneutical methodology that proceeds primarily from the evidence provided within the sacred texts, while remaining firmly anchored in reality, truth, and history. The dearth of adequate commentaries on so many of the biblical books and documents shows just how difficult it is to make all of these necessary distinctions while maintaining all of the required attitudes and dispositions demanded of the reader. Faith and reason must both have a share in any Christian reading of the Word; but if these are not kept in perfect balance, and constrained by our hermeneutical first principles, all manner of foreign influences will eventually contaminate our reading, and ultimately impede the believers quest for truth.
.
As you can plainly see, our collective efforts at reading the Bible well is by no means a simple and straightforward affair that leads to the instant recognition of all revealed truth. Yet how many believers know that, for themselves at least, reading the Bible is easy? Yes. That's how strong are the chains that imprison us in one tiny (but solid) hermeneutical box or another. But post-modern hermeneutics acknowledges that reading the Bible well demands constant effort and discipline, as well as a determination to see past the easy answers and comforting illusions offered to the pomo-Bible-reader through the sad legacy of the scribes and pharisees.
.
So the bad news for today's Bible-readers is that the hermeneutical legacy of dominance, ownership, and arrogance has put all believers under the power of the scribes and pharisees such that a truly faithful and rational approach to the scriptures is everywhere hampered and diverted and rendered null and void by the very faith and piety that should sustain a Logos-centered hermeneutics, but instead rejects all new ideas outright (simply because they just don't fit easily into the grand superstructure of ideologies imposed upon the texts) with, dare I say, extreme prejudice.
.
Thus the main problem in post-modern hermeneutics is not that the average believer is incapable of comprehending the awesome depth and complexity of the Word of God, but rather that the pomo Bible-reader is his own worst enemy; owing to innate ideas, attitudes, and convictions that pretty much rule out any possibility of a valid and rational approach to the scriptures. That's the bad news. On the other hand, the good news is that the Good News of salvation through faith in Christ Jesus is still as potent and as approachable as it ever was.
.
- one who sets off in new directions - textman ;>
x
Goto intro2PMH main