Cold Case Christianity

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
arnoldo
Posts: 969
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:10 pm
Location: Latin America

Re: Cold Case Christianity

Post by arnoldo »

FWIW,
. . . Most puzzling of all, in my judgment, is the omission of the (first) epistle of Peter entirely (though omission of the second epistle of Peter is par for the course). By this time in Christian history authorities both from the east and from the west were quoting from this epistle approvingly and by name. In the west Irenaeus cites it under the name of Peter in Against Heresies 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2. Likewise Tertullian in On Prayer 20; Antidote for the Scorpion 14. In the east Clement of Alexandria cites it under the name of Peter in The Instructor 1.6; 3.11; 4.12; Miscellanies 3.11; 3.18; 4.7. That the Muratorian canon should pass over the epistle of Peter in silence is at least a bit perplexing. Perhaps there is a lacuna in the text somewhere in the vicinity of lines 68-71. Or perhaps, since this list seems to be part of a longer polemical work and not a list compiled for its own sake, the omission of 1 Peter is simply an oversight.
http://www.textexcavation.com/canonicallists.html

andrewcriddle
Posts: 2852
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Cold Case Christianity

Post by andrewcriddle »

arnoldo wrote:FWIW,
. . . Most puzzling of all, in my judgment, is the omission of the (first) epistle of Peter entirely (though omission of the second epistle of Peter is par for the course). By this time in Christian history authorities both from the east and from the west were quoting from this epistle approvingly and by name. In the west Irenaeus cites it under the name of Peter in Against Heresies 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2. Likewise Tertullian in On Prayer 20; Antidote for the Scorpion 14. In the east Clement of Alexandria cites it under the name of Peter in The Instructor 1.6; 3.11; 4.12; Miscellanies 3.11; 3.18; 4.7. That the Muratorian canon should pass over the epistle of Peter in silence is at least a bit perplexing. Perhaps there is a lacuna in the text somewhere in the vicinity of lines 68-71. Or perhaps, since this list seems to be part of a longer polemical work and not a list compiled for its own sake, the omission of 1 Peter is simply an oversight.
http://www.textexcavation.com/canonicallists.html

It is possible that the passage
71...apocalapse etiam Iohanis et Pe-
72.tri tantum recipimus, quam quidam ex nos-
73.tris legi in eclesia nolunt...
71 ...We also receive only the apocalypses of John
72.and of Peter, though some from among us
73.do not wish them to be read in the church...
Originally referred to the Apocalypse of John and the Epistle of Peter but has been corrupted.

Andrew Criddle
Post Reply