Kata Markon

["L. J. Swain" <larry.swain AT wmich.edu>]

JFAlward AT aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 3/20/01 7:55:09 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> jgibson000 AT home.com writes:
>
> <<
>  First, as far as I know,  Peter was not the author of a Gospel nor were the
>  Epistles attributed to him written with an awareness of, or reference to, 
> our
>  canonical Gospels. If one wants to make a case based upon the view that 
> they
> were,
>  then this will first have to be argued.
>
>  Second, given the academic nature of this List,  members are expected, if 
> not
>  required, to be conversant with NT scholarship. To accept, without further
> ado, as
>  is done here, that 1 Peter, let alone 2 Peter, is Petrine (that is, as from
> the
>  disciple Peter) betrays a fundamental lack of acquaintance with what the
> scholarly
>  consensus is with respect to the date and authorship of these works, and 
> will
>  result in the poster being recognized as being unqualified to post.
>   >>
>
> I never believed for a single moment that 1 or 2 Peter was written by the
> "Peter" described in the gospels, and I challenge Jeffrey to show where I
> gave the slightest indication that I held that belief.  If he cannot do so,
> he should apologize to me.
>

This was implied, though not actually stated when you wrote that your take on 
I
Peter 1:16 was that Peter was defending himself and the gospel writers.  That
sounds very like Peter of the gospels knows the gospels, the gospel writers, 
and
is the writer of the epistles attributed to him, especialy since you cite I 
Peter
to explain II Peter.  So I see where he developed the impression.

One should also not forget that Jeffrey is the moderator.

Larry Swain