Kata Markon

[JFAlward AT aol.com]

In a message dated 3/20/01 9:03:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
larry.swain AT wmich.edu writes:

Gibson wrote:


 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.
 >   >>
=========
Alward responded:

 >
 > 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.
 >
========
Swain adds:
 
 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
 
===========
Alward has the last word :)

Jeffrey clearly assumed without good evidence that I believed that Simon 
Peter was the author of 1 and 2 Peter, and based on that he all but called me 
incompetent.  His own rules call for collegial behavior, so before he went 
public with his most offensive accusation, he should have contacted me 
privately first to determine the facts; it would have been the 
professional--not to mention courteous or kind--thing for a moderator to do, 
don't you think?

Regards,

Joe Alward