Ben C. Smith wrote:gmx wrote:Contrary to Ehrman, I think the intent to deceive is a pretty bold criticism of a document written two millennia ago, that we have very little data on with respect to its production.
What do you think of the Epistle of the Apostles, written in the first person plural as if penned by them? What about the gospel of Peter, written in the first person in the name of the prince of apostles and accepted as genuinely Petrine in various quarters? What about 3 Corinthians, written as if by Paul? If these texts were not intended to deceive, what was their intent?
Thanks Ben, I wanted to really think this one through. I admit to being less familiar with the texts you mention, so I'll try not to over-reach.
The Gospel of Peter is a great example of the problems inherent in determining the intent of a writing two millenia after its creation. The suggested range for its date of composition is a century, anywhere from pre-dating the canonical gospels to being conspicuously "2nd gen". How could one possibly determine the intent behind the first person literary device in a writing that we have no understanding of with respect to its date of composition or its Sitz im Leben?
There are possible explanations that do not involve deceit:
- it was written by Peter
- it was collated by followers of Peter after his death using first-person stories he had passed onto them orally.
- there was never any such person as Peter, which the intended audience understood... ie the name "Peter" was itself a literary device that was understood by both the author and audience
- Peter is a genuine historical figure but the document was written so far after the time of the historical Peter that its author and audience understood the usage as a literary device, rather than as an appropriation of identity & credentials
Ehrman is right in saying that for 1800 years these writings were taken on trust, at face value, on the authority of the church, as genuine & historically trustworthy documents written by apostles. However, his "certainty" that they are now
clearly deceitful literary forgeries is no better. Both views are primarily based on supposition. No one knows when the document was written, where it was written, or for what purpose (other than that it is Christian). So evidentially, we have no external clue as to the intent of the author. We know very little other than it was either unknown or discarded by those responsible for the canon.
That's my view.
I saw a Naked girl ,Slowly emerge in front of me，Greek hairstyle，Very beautiful，She has a beautiful [fine] profile.; She is fine in profile. the view of profile,hard to tell.
