2 Peter a "forgery"
Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk
Tue, 3 Mar 1998 06:01:04 +0000 (00888926464, N3zcACAgy5+0EwLb@bowness.demon.co.uk)
In message <34FB3382.26AB@softdisk.com>, Claire E. O'Connor
<claireoc@softdisk.com> writes
>CLAIRE
>In 2 Thess. 2:2, Paul is concerned more about false teachings than
>"forgeries". If using someone else's name when writing was always
>regarded as wrong, then why were other books of the Bible written that
>way? Four different authors of the Pentateuch have been identified, yet
>there was a tradition that Moses was the author of these books. There
>are three authors of the Book of Isaiah. I disagree with your statement
>that it was regarded as "wrong" simply to use someone else's name. There
>was already a tradition of doing so long before Peter's and Paul's time.
CARR
Of course,everybody realised that the Pentateuch was the work of 4
different authors and that 3 people wrote Isaiah. Nobody thought it was
wrong that Isaiah was the work of 3 people or that Daniel was not by
Daniel, because they had got away with it. Nobody thought it was wrong
because nobody realised it had happened.
>CLAIRE
>Steven, I have not seen 'Acts of Paul', but I think it could have been
>regarded as "wrong" simply because Paul's converts thought that Paul's
>teachings were misrepresented in it.
CARR
No, Tertullian regarded it as wrong not because of the teachings in it,
but because the author was trying to pass himself off as somebody who
was alive in the time of Paul.
--
Steven Carr steven@bowness.demon.co.uk
Visit the UK's leading atheist Web page
http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/