homepage
  ship of fools rowers  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  New poll  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Things we did   » Chapter & Worse   » 1 Peter 2:18... Slaves, submit to your masters (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: 1 Peter 2:18... Slaves, submit to your masters
Simon

Editor
# 1

 - Posted      Profile for Simon   Author's homepage   Email Simon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Verse nominated by Ian Abernethy

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." (1 Peter 2:18, in context)

Ian comments: It condones the cruelty of slavery and suggests that to resist such cruelty is ungodly.

How much of a problem is this verse? Click "Vote Now" to cast your vote!

[ 31. July 2009, 10:57: Message edited by: Simon ]

Poll information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 50 user(s) have voted.
You can't view the results of this poll without voting.

Vote now     View poll results


--------------------
Eternal memory

Posts: 3787 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Isn't the point of the verse to make the best of a bad situation? After all, it's not like the slave is in a position to alter his master's behavior. The verse is addressed to slaves, not to bystanders or activists. Paul's advice to them might have been quite different.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333

 - Posted      Profile for infinite_monkey   Email infinite_monkey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But the pairing of "with all respect" to "but also to the cruel" is a bit troubling.

Submitting to a situation because there's not much else to do for it is one thing; giving "respect" to that situation is something else. Even though I'm assuming the original word had a different shade of meaning, it still implies to me something beyond making the best of a bad situation and more into the territory of condoning injustice.

--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.

--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com

Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I take the "with all respect" to mean "salute the uniform, not the wearer." This person IS your master, more's the pity, therefore treat him as such and avoid mouthing off, etc. etc. I don't think a victim can condone anything by resolving to behave with dignity and respect in a bad situation. There is even a faint chance the cruel master may be led to repentance as a result of having his worldview shaken up (when said victim persists in returning good for evil).

It's like that canard about "you can't change the situation, but you can change your attitude." It may take supernatural help, but that's one of the reasons we have the Holy Spirit.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Paul's is a more specific injunction, but isn't it basically what Christ said (Matthew 5:yada yada): "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well"?

And then, of course, comes the kicker: ""You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."

Don't ya just love the Sermon on the Mount?

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Real answer to a rhetorical question: No. [Biased]

I consider the Sermon on the Mount to be the religious equivalent of thumbscrews. Once God gets you safely locked into the commandments, he turns up the pressue without mercy. Auggghhh!!!!

I might feel differently if I had a hope in hell of keeping them!

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Paul's is a more specific injunction, but isn't it basically what Christ said (Matthew 5:yada yada): "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well"?

And then, of course, comes the kicker: ""You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven."

Don't ya just love the Sermon on the Mount?

"Paul's is a more specific injunction..." Peter's, dammit, Peter's! [brick wall]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I love how everyone's just assuming Peter actually thought slavery was bad, and was only giving this advice by way of minimising any harm. What a very 21st Century reading that is.

What about the perfectly reasonable idea that he thought slavery was perfectly fine and dandy, and this verse meant no more or less than "know your place and don't talk back to your masters"? You know, the plain reading of the text?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
1. But it isn't the plain reading of the text. Sorry!

2. Because if Peter really thought the whole thing was fine and dandy, surely he'd slap those whiny slaves down so fast their heads would spin? not call the master "cruel"--that implies the slave has a point.

3. Because it doesn't fit with the tone of other NT passages dealing with slavery, where the arrangement is recognized and tolerated, but never praised--and where there are very strong hints that a Christian master ought to consider freeing a fellow believer who belonged to him (Philemon).

4. Because the early Christians WERE largely slaves, women, the poor, the foreigners--and if your church is made up mainly of such people, your leadership (Peter) is fairly likely to see the world the way the members do. Not the way their oppressors do.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Also, while slavery of any form pretty much sucks, if I am not mistaken under Jewish law slaves had a specific tenure and some (limited) rights. Not sure if Paul might have been speaking to slavery from a uniquely Jewish standpoint or not.

Not that it sucks any less. My guess is Paul was being political-- the last thing he wanted his new church to be accused of was encouraging a faith-based slave rebellion. That would get them some very bad attention.

(on a sort of related note-One of the things that came out in the 18th century Amistad trial in the U.S. was that the defendants (mutinous slaves that had commandeered a vessel and took it to the New England coast) had a different idea of what the word "slave" meant. The question was played by the prosecution-- you keep slaves yourselves, they said, so you know perfectly well what is going on. One of the defendants responded (in a nutshell, through translators) "Yeah we have slaves, but we just don't treat people the way you all do."

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Kid Who Cracked
Shipmate
# 13963

 - Posted      Profile for Kid Who Cracked   Email Kid Who Cracked   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Also, while slavery of any form pretty much sucks, if I am not mistaken under Jewish law slaves had a specific tenure and some (limited) rights. Not sure if Paul might have been speaking to slavery from a uniquely Jewish standpoint or not.

Not that it sucks any less. My guess is Paul was being political-- the last thing he wanted his new church to be accused of was encouraging a faith-based slave rebellion. That would get them some very bad attention.

I'm very doubtful that Peter wrote the book, but I'm pretty much certain Paul didn't.

Just being pedantic. [Biased]

[ 01. August 2009, 04:30: Message edited by: Kid Who Cracked ]

Posts: 532 | From: Texas | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
They did, and even in the non-Jewish Roman Empire slavery was quite a different thing than the kind familiar from America pre-Civil War. For one thing, it was not racially based (I understand the U.S. started this way too, though it changed later). Most slaves ended up that way as prisoners of war or as a result of debt. This meant that almost anyone could become a slave if their luck was bad enough, so there were highly educated slaves and even slaves originally of high status. Some slaves ran businesses on the side; some held positions of great trust. And I'm pretty sure slavery did not normally continue through multiple generations of a family. In many (most?) cases a slave had a decent hope of being free before the end of his own life, never mind his children's.

Obviously slavery was and is a great evil; but this is just to point out that in Peter's day it was much more of a mixed bag. Whether one got a cruel or kind master was probably pretty random--much like job hunts today, I think.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kid Who Cracked:
I'm very doubtful that Peter wrote the book, but I'm pretty much certain Paul didn't.

Just being pedantic. [Biased]

Apostles. They all look alike...

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And I'm pretty sure slavery did not normally continue through multiple generations of a family. In many (most?) cases a slave had a decent hope of being free before the end of his own life, never mind his children's.

It depends what era of Roman history you're talking about. Admittedly by Paul's time things had improved a bit for slaves - owners were no longer allowed to kill or mutilate them, but they could still lead a pretty rough life. People are clearly thinking about household slaves here, but slaves were often used for the rougher jobs that you couldn't pay free men to take. They worked in galleys, in mines - including salt mines where the life expectancy was a few years at most - on building sites, dockyards, gladiatorial arenas (backstage as well as in the ring), in the countryside - anywhere that hard labour was required, and a lot of them simply died well before their time and never achieved their freedom, let alone the chance to have a relationship that led to raising a family. If a child had been born from a female slave to a male slave - and there were more male slaves than female - then it was legally the master's property. Whether the master wanted to spare a slave to look after small children, and pay for the food and clothes for a second generation of slaves growing up in his household who would be useless for employment for some years, was his decision.

A slave could save money to purchase his freedom, although the chances of his getting enough together, as he wasn't normally involved in paid labour, were fairly remote. It would be more likely for a master to mention in his will that he was setting certain slaves free than to give them freedom during his lifetime when they were still useful. Also, in later days there was a legal limit on how many slaves could be set free this way - this was a preventative measure against a master being forced into it by his slaves.

Some were certainly freed out of gratitude by their masters, but they had to deserve it; and IIRC, they had to be over 30.

Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And the last time the slaves in Rome tried to resist in an organized way...

How many people were crucified?

IIRC, there's also a line to the masters saying explicitly that are every bit as indebted to God as their slaves are to them, which seems to negate the whole situation in a sense.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Again, my issue with this verse is the use to which it has been put rather than the verse itself.

As Lyda*Rose has said, in context this is a worked example of turning the other cheek. It is also addressed to Christians who happen to be slaves -- because of their belief, this is how they should live in that situation. However, it has been used as a blanket instruction for slaves -- they should obey their masters however they are treateed and whether they are Christians or not. A verse about grace has become law.

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
They did, and even in the non-Jewish Roman Empire slavery was quite a different thing than the kind familiar from America pre-Civil War. For one thing, it was not racially based (I understand the U.S. started this way too, though it changed later). Most slaves ended up that way as prisoners of war or as a result of debt. This meant that almost anyone could become a slave if their luck was bad enough, so there were highly educated slaves and even slaves originally of high status. Some slaves ran businesses on the side; some held positions of great trust. And I'm pretty sure slavery did not normally continue through multiple generations of a family. In many (most?) cases a slave had a decent hope of being free before the end of his own life, never mind his children's.

Obviously slavery was and is a great evil; but this is just to point out that in Peter's day it was much more of a mixed bag. Whether one got a cruel or kind master was probably pretty random--much like job hunts today, I think.

I can't quite buy that Roman slavery was "less cruel" than early American slavery.

But I do think there is a significant difference between Christians in 18th/19th c. America and Christians in 1st c. Roman empire. American Christians in the 18th/19th c. are living in a democracy, Christians in 1st. c. occupied Roman empire are not. Big difference. 18th/19th c. American Christians (well, white ones anyway) could DO something about slavery-- they had a choice in the matter. 1st. c. Christians really did not.

What would be the point of Paul (or Peter for that matter) writing a treatise on the immorality of slavery (note that elsewhere Paul advocates that slaves take their freedom if the opportunity arises). Would that change the emperor's mind? Is he apt to release them all because Paul says it's wrong?

The pastoral epistles are really rather practical. Paul and Peter both deal with the situation as it is, not as it should be. The question at hand for them was not "is slavery moral?" (no one was asking that), but rather, how should we (slaves) then live?

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the position of slaves in Rome may actually have been worse up until the Spartacus incident.

And if that's what it took to make situations better, maybe there's a reason Peter and Paul advocated a less obvious strategy.

Also, there's the underlying argument (in Peter at least) that he's making that resistance doesn't work when you're being unjust yourself. If you want to be justified, you can't do it by fighting back, by returning violence with violence. It seems to me that if you read the rest of the passage closely, Peter implicitly accepts that the situation is unjust and says that the way out of it isn't to be an asshole to your masters even if they're being assholes to you. It's the strong side of turning the other cheek. If you really want to win them over, don't give them any reason to think you're being unjust yourself.

I strongly disapprove of the way some have used this text, but I'm not sure I'm willing to cede scriptural authority to the ones who've made the greatest mess of it.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402

 - Posted      Profile for Custard   Author's homepage   Email Custard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's also the whole issue of clerical slaves - a lot of the bureaucracy was run by slaves - in some cases well-educated ones with a very good chance of getting freedom and reasonable status before retirement age.

But yes - this is the instruction to people who are slaves as to how they should act in their position. Masters are meant to treat their slaves as brothers, and we certainly get hints elsewhere in the NT (e.g. Rev 18:13, 1 Cor 7:21-23, Philemon) that the apostles would have ended slavery if they'd been in power rather than a tiny, persecuted minority.

“The apostle Paul's letter to Philemon was like a time bomb, awaiting its future moment of detonation through Christian reformers such as Wilberforce and Shaftesbury.” - Richard Bewes

--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.


Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Kelly Alves

Bunny with an axe
# 2522

 - Posted      Profile for Kelly Alves   Email Kelly Alves   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I think the position of slaves in Rome may actually have been worse up until the Spartacus incident.

And if that's what it took to make situations better, maybe there's a reason Peter and Paul advocated a less obvious strategy.

Also, there's the underlying argument (in Peter at least) that he's making that resistance doesn't work when you're being unjust yourself. If you want to be justified, you can't do it by fighting back, by returning violence with violence. It seems to me that if you read the rest of the passage closely, Peter implicitly accepts that the situation is unjust and says that the way out of it isn't to be an asshole to your masters even if they're being assholes to you. It's the strong side of turning the other cheek. If you really want to win them over, don't give them any reason to think you're being unjust yourself.

I strongly disapprove of the way some have used this text, but I'm not sure I'm willing to cede scriptural authority to the ones who've made the greatest mess of it.

[Overused]

--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.

Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a lot of speculation here as to what St. Peter (or St. Paul...) thought about slavery. But we cannot presume to know what they thought on the matter. What we know is that their master, Christ, was opposed to it. (This is not inconsistant with tolerating it. One cannot enjoy freedom if one is killed as a result of 'talking back,' etc.) Christ Himself said, reading from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah:
quote:
He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written:

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

And he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him. Then he began to say to them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:17b-21; NRSV)

But I highly doubt that He would condone violence as a means to that. To build on this point, we could perhaps see the relationship between the slave and his master sort of analogous to the relationship between the Palestinian Jews and the Romans. It seem from the Gospel that Christ didn't condone the Roman actions (as it would seem from His words from Luke 4). But it also seems that he opposed the violence solution of the Zealots.

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
BWSmith
Shipmate
# 2981

 - Posted      Profile for BWSmith     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You have to roll your eyes at anyone who thinks that God or the Bible is pro-slavery.

(It's only through the selective passage-citing in the 1850s American South that this is even an issue.)

Stated simply, if God liked slavery, he would have left Israel in Egypt. End of discussion.

Posts: 722 | From: North Carolina, USA | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Nicolaas
Apprentice
# 15325

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolaas   Email Nicolaas   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I dont see what the big problem is with slavery myself its way better then wasting so much on keeping people in jail besides those people are often their because theyv had no good influence in their life and the like and with the proper laws could be a very productive part of society its like marriage it can be twisted in so many diffrent ways yet when it works under christian rules it works great.

[ 05. December 2009, 00:11: Message edited by: Nicolaas ]

Posts: 7 | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290

 - Posted      Profile for Jahlove   Email Jahlove   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
you're not a nutter by any chance, i suppose?

--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain

Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Nicolaas
Apprentice
# 15325

 - Posted      Profile for Nicolaas   Email Nicolaas   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
if by a nutter your implying im nuts then yes some people do think that myself im torn on the issue sometimes i do think so sometimes not regardless though that has nothing at all to do with my post(unless your implying im nuts because im promoting slavery which im beggining to suspect)
Posts: 7 | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362

 - Posted      Profile for Hamp   Email Hamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What you have to understand is slavery was not Peter's agenda, saving the slave's soul was, for Jesus and John the Baptist("the axe is at the root of the tree")had told Peter the coming of the new order is near. Ask yourself what would your priority have been if you were Peter? If you take the Bible out of context like most things you will not get the full understanding.
Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362

 - Posted      Profile for Hamp   Email Hamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This may be a case of taking material out of context. I would like a consensus of Bible scholars best guess when it was written and if Peter could have written it. Peter was illiterate and like Jesus did not speak Greek, was the oldest copy we have in good Greek and refer to things that would have happen after Peter's death and so on?
Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
a. Peter was almost certainly not illiterate. I'm sure as the son of a wealthy fishing family he went to Hebrew school and all that. And how do you suppose he kept accounts?
b. Both Jesus and Peter almost certainly spoke some Greek. It was the language of the marketplaces throughout the Roman empire. For them NOT to speak any Greek would have been rather like a Tijuanese with no English at all--rather unlikely.
c. 1 Peter is not one of the antilegoumena, the books about which some churches had doubts. The early church (who were closest to the scene, after all) did accept it was written by the apostle Peter. That puts the burden of proof on anyone who wants to say otherwise today.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
churchgeek

Have candles, will pray
# 5557

 - Posted      Profile for churchgeek   Author's homepage   Email churchgeek   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And even if Peter were illiterate (which we have no reason to think apart from a prejudice against fishermen), he could have dictated a letter.

--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.

My article on the Virgin of Vladimir

Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362

 - Posted      Profile for Hamp   Email Hamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lamb Chop/Churchgeek

No disrespect intended, but I will have to go along with the Bible scholars on this one rather than what you imagine to be true.

Most scholars think Peter was dead long before II Peter was written, and even I Peter is often regarded at best as from his school of thought. That he personally penned it in Greek seems a stretch.
Along the same line, that Peter did not write a gospel but (at best) had Mark write down his story, gives us the impression that he was not literate. Not to speak ill of him, for during his life-time he had to deal with his native Aramaic and later with Greek and Latin. But that's all the more reason to think that he was not master of any of the three to do the writing in any of those languages. Please don't drop a which scholars on me like that settles the issue. Get out on the Internet and find the pros and cons and let them speak for them self.

hamp

P.S.

I notice some people on this Ship have the idea that citing a passage in the Bible is some how proof in itself of what they are trying to prove.

Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Believe me! I have experts! Don't ask me who they are! [Killing me]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hamp darling,

No disrespect intended, but I will have to go along with the early Church Fathers on this one rather than what you imagine to be true.

Not to mention my Greek and Hebrew degree and my doctorate. Oops, I did, didn't I? Crap.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362

 - Posted      Profile for Hamp   Email Hamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lamb Chopped,

Your credential sound great! Now give us some meat. Which Church Fathers? Did they talk to Peter about his writings? When did they talk to him? Where did they talk to him? Did he say Mark ghost wrote it for him in Greek? What is the earliest copy we have of it? Please share your research into this subject so I can stop imaging my own. Give us a break.

Hamp

Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hamp, did your experts, of whom you're too ashamed to name, talk with Peter? Surely that's a smoke screen if there ever was one. Are you incapable of engaging, or just choosing not to?

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Actually I'm beginning to suspect he wants us to do his homework for him. Hamp, mon ami, no can do. Get your buns down to a decent research library (screw the Internet, you think you're going to find Great Thots™ there?) and do your own bloody reading. I suggest you start with the formation of canon and dip into the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Then a side of Kittel for some word study. Get going, dude, you got a lot of work to do.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
Lamb Chopped,

Your credential sound great! Now give us some meat. Which Church Fathers? Did they talk to Peter about his writings? When did they talk to him? Where did they talk to him? Did he say Mark ghost wrote it for him in Greek? What is the earliest copy we have of it? Please share your research into this subject so I can stop imaging my own. Give us a break.

Hamp

Have you got an essay on the authorship of 1 Peter to do?
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
What you have to understand is slavery was not Peter's agenda, saving the slave's soul was, for Jesus and John the Baptist("the axe is at the root of the tree")had told Peter the coming of the new order is near. Ask yourself what would your priority have been if you were Peter? If you take the Bible out of context like most things you will not get the full understanding.

If you are starting with this point, that Peter was only concerned with the saving of the slave's soul, not slavery as an institution (a valid argument IMO), why did you immediately jump to this:
quote:
This may be a case of taking material out of context. I would like a consensus of Bible scholars best guess when it was written and if Peter could have written it. Peter was illiterate and like Jesus did not speak Greek, was the oldest copy we have in good Greek and refer to things that would have happen after Peter's death and so on?
I think you ought to get your premises straight before arguing you case.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362

 - Posted      Profile for Hamp   Email Hamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lyda*Rose

You caught me! My mistake, when I wrote my first reply I thought it came form one of the Gospels. I did not pay close enough attention to see it came from first Peter, sorry for the confusion. I am still waiting for Lamb Chop's reply. I assume he is still looking to see which Church Father said what. If you really want to know I recommend a course by the Teaching Company. It is by a well known professor of religion at the University of North Carolina Bart Ehrman(reads Greek and Hebrew too). The title is something like "The Church Fathers", 30 minute lectures on DVD. You can find the Teaching Company by doing a search on the Internet.
Hamp

Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lamb Chopped is a she. Just so you know.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Lamb Chopped is a she. Just so you know.

Oh crap, Mousethief, did you have to let the cat out of the bag? Now he's going to realize there are females with doctorates in the world. [Eek!]

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hamp, darling, it's so kind of you to think of my welfare. I rather think my seminary colleagues would prefer me to do my second doctorate where I teach, thanks.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Come on, Hamp, Lamb Chopped, let's get beyond "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours". I know I'm undereducated compared to you two. Would you be kind enough share a little of the strongest and possibly earliest arguments for your positions? Who indicated that Peter was a redneck bumpkin all his life? Who admired Peter's thinking and intellect? Personally, I keep thinking that reading and especially writing was a marketable skill back then. Just because you couldn't read, didn't mean you were a dunce*; it just wasn't your skill.

Although some of Peter's pre-Resurrection statements made him seem like he was making a mighty personal effort to look like one. [Roll Eyes]

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362

 - Posted      Profile for Hamp   Email Hamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Lyda*Rose

Lambchopped is right you cannot do what you want here. My best suggestion is:

If you really want to know I recommend a course by the Teaching Company. It is by a well known professor of religion at the University of North Carolina Bart Ehrman(reads Greek and Hebrew too). The title is something like "The Church Fathers", 30 minute lectures on DVD. You can find the Teaching Company by doing a search on the Internet.
Hamp

Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think there's a line somewhere in Acts that refers to Peter as being less than educate, specifically Acts 4:13. Of course, Acts isn't exactly the model of unbiased reporting... [Biased] Plus that verse is being used for rhetorical purpose, not a "just the facts, ma'am" report.

I've also heard it said that he was a fisherman, though that tends to go the other way since that more accurately means he was an entrepreneur.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hamp
Apprentice
# 15362

 - Posted      Profile for Hamp   Email Hamp   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LambChopped

Sorry about the gender mix up! As to library work, over the last three years I have logged up about 100 university course hours in and around the religious subject. The results is I am concerned that the future will require your students to work with the work of people like Bart Ehrman and Amy-jill Levine and they will not prepared. If you ignore there work and prepare them with "yes we know about them they just don't matter" just will not wash with future christians. Most of us old people just sit and stare politely at the religious 3rd century jargon from the pulpit knowing we will soon know what everyone wants to but we can't come back and tell you all.
Hamp

P.S.

I think Peter was dead before the Church Fathers came on the scene. By the way in Paul's letter to the Romans why didn't he mention his association with Peter if he was the Bishop of Rome and founded the Roman Church?

Posts: 47 | From: Winston Salem NC | Registered: Dec 2009  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
LambChopped

Sorry about the gender mix up! As to library work, over the last three years I have logged up about 100 university course hours in and around the religious subject. The results is I am concerned that the future will require your students to work with the work of people like Bart Ehrman and Amy-jill Levine and they will not prepared. If you ignore there work and prepare them with "yes we know about them they just don't matter" just will not wash with future christians. Most of us old people just sit and stare politely at the religious 3rd century jargon from the pulpit knowing we will soon know what everyone wants to but we can't come back and tell you all.
Hamp

P.S.

I think Peter was dead before the Church Fathers came on the scene. By the way in Paul's letter to the Romans why didn't he mention his association with Peter if he was the Bishop of Rome and founded the Roman Church?

I have my issues with Ehrman.

Where in Romans did he say that? I thought the RC Church garnered that more from post-biblical letters and the whole "Keys to the Kingdom" thing...

Peter was dead, but not long-dead. I think the letter that refers to him dates pretty close to 100.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lyda*Rose

Ship's broken porthole
# 4544

 - Posted      Profile for Lyda*Rose   Email Lyda*Rose   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
Lyda*Rose

Lambchopped is right you cannot do what you want here. My best suggestion is:

If you really want to know I recommend a course by the Teaching Company. It is by a well known professor of religion at the University of North Carolina Bart Ehrman(reads Greek and Hebrew too). The title is something like "The Church Fathers", 30 minute lectures on DVD. You can find the Teaching Company by doing a search on the Internet.
Hamp

Okay, I can do what I want here (within the Ten Commandments), but you don't want to do what I'd like you to do, which is give me just a little evidence for your assertions. Fine. If I want to really delve into the whole subject, I know I can do so by studying various books, journals, and even your suggested teaching series.

This is just a fricking discussion board, and I'm rather interested in this subject. All I am asking is for something beyond "My sources are better than your sources! Nyah!". I'm not going to make a final, personal judgment on who's right, your experts or Lamb Chopped's based on a few posts. Why would you care about what some religion site dilettante thinks about it anyway? And it's not that I'd argue with you on the subject. Obviously I'm not equipped. I'm beginning to think you get some royalties from sales of this Teaching Company material.

Lamb Chopped, will you do a little better for me? I think I'd be easy to please.

--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano

Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490

 - Posted      Profile for k-mann   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hamp:
If you really want to know I recommend a course by the Teaching Company. It is by a well known professor of religion at the University of North Carolina Bart Ehrman(reads Greek and Hebrew too). The title is something like "The Church Fathers", 30 minute lectures on DVD. You can find the Teaching Company by doing a search on the Internet.

So, by 'scholars' you mean one scholar talking for 30 minutes on a DVD? Oh, my...

--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich

Katolikken

Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Come on, Hamp, Lamb Chopped, let's get beyond "I'll show you mine, if you show me yours". I know I'm undereducated compared to you two. Would you be kind enough share a little of the strongest and possibly earliest arguments for your positions? Who indicated that Peter was a redneck bumpkin all his life? Who admired Peter's thinking and intellect?

I don't mind, though I'm going to be late for work if I don't get off my butt now. Later?

Though I'm almost thinking I ought to PM you, since I rather hate to spoil Hamp's illusions. So enchanting, to receive recommendations like his. [Killing me] It gives me a warm glow.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
sanityman
Shipmate
# 11598

 - Posted      Profile for sanityman   Email sanityman   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, there's an object lesson in assuming you're more of an expert than everyone else on the board!

At the same time: it does appear from a brief look-around that there's some disagreement about 1 Peter's authorship. Wikipedia cites The early Christian world by Philip Esler:
quote:
the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number of Church Fathers: Irenaeus (140-203), Tertullian (150-222), Clement of Alexandria (155-215) and Origen of Alexandria (185-253). Most scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death.
Also cited is Raymond E. Brown An Introduction to the New Testament which states that "the majority scholarly view" is that 1 Peter is pseudepigraphal.

Anyway, unlike LC I've not studied this field, and would welcome the thoughts and opinions of those who are, assuming that we're not doing Hamp's homework for him [Biased] .

- Chris.

--------------------
Prophesy to the wind, to the wind only for only the wind will listen - TS Eliot

Posts: 1453 | From: London, UK | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  New poll  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools