d****a
发帖数: 655 | 1 彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。
保罗书信，有1/3基本肯定不是保罗写的。
请问有没有这方面资料的汇集。基要派就请回避吧，不好意思.... |
J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 2 请给出判定依据，谢谢。
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。
: 保罗书信，有1/3基本肯定不是保罗写的。
: 请问有没有这方面资料的汇集。基要派就请回避吧，不好意思....
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 3
=============================================
不知你用了甚么来「肯定」?
胡吹乱扯的反基....请回避吧, 不好意思
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。
: 保罗书信，有1/3基本肯定不是保罗写的。
: 请问有没有这方面资料的汇集。基要派就请回避吧，不好意思....
|
d****a
发帖数: 655 | 4 英文wiki上有很详细的论证。而且确实，即使是基督教界，这也是统一的意见了。
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: 请给出判定依据，谢谢。
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 5
=======================================--
即是你现在无详细的论证
(我又不是跟 wiki 对话中)
那么, 请 wiki 来便是, 你可以走, 可以收口矣
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 英文wiki上有很详细的论证。而且确实，即使是基督教界，这也是统一的意见了。
|
J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 6 我们先用1 Peter做例子吧。
看看wiki上有关作者的讨论。
The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle
Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1).
Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style
, and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this
letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the
author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in
rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.
请问哪里你能看出来基督教界，所谓“统一”的意见。
我认为你的话没有道理。事实是很多基督徒认为1 Peter的作者是Peter.
可以看看常用的ESV study bible上是怎么说的：
That this letter was written by the apostle Peter is explicitly affirmed by
1:1 and by the author’s claim to be an “eyewitness of the sufferings of
Christ” (5:1). The title of the letter, The First Letter of Peter,
functions as early external evidence for the view that the letter was
written by Peter. Indeed, in the early church there was no dispute over the
authenticity of the letter, for it was regularly ascribed to Peter by the
early church fathers.
Some recent scholars maintain that the letter is pseudonymous (falsely
ascribed to Peter). Thus some have argued that: (1) the cultivated Greek of
the letter could not have been written by a Galilean fisherman like Peter; (
2) the theology is too much like Paul’s to be ascribed to Peter; (3) the OT
citations come from the Greek OT (Septuagint), but the genuine Peter would
have cited the Hebrew OT; (4) the background of the letter reflects the
reign of the Roman emperors Domitian (a.d. 81–96) or Trajan (98–117), both
of whom reigned after Peter’s death; and (5) the genuine Peter would have
referred more to the historical Jesus.
None of these objections are compelling, and there are persuasive reasons
for continuing to support Petrine authorship: (1) Peter was a middle-class
fisherman who very likely knew Greek from his youth. There is significant
evidence that Greek was spoken quite commonly in Galilee. Furthermore, Peter
may have used a secretary, namely Silvanus (cf. note on 1 Pet. 5:12), to
assist him in composing the letter. (2) Although the common elements in the
theology of Peter and Paul should not be exaggerated (for there are
distinctive themes in Peter; e.g., the particular emphasis on suffering), it
should not be surprising that Peter and Paul shared the same theology. (3)
It is hardly unexpected that Peter would cite the Greek OT in writing to
Greek readers. (4) There is no clear evidence that the letter was written
under the reign of Domitian or Trajan (see Purpose, Occasion, and Background
). (5) The reader must be careful of saying what an author “must do”; i.e.
, although one cannot demand that Peter refer to the historical Jesus in a
short letter written for a specific purpose, there is significant evidence
that Peter alludes to some of the sayings of Jesus (e.g., Luke 12:35 in 1
Pet. 1:13; Matt. 5:16 in 1 Pet. 2:12; Matt. 5:10 in 1 Pet. 3:14). (6)
Finally, there is no historical evidence in early church history that
pseudonymous books, especially letters, were accepted as authoritative and
inspired. Indeed, writing in someone else’s name was considered deceptive (
cf. 2 Thess. 2:2; 3:17). On balance, there are compelling reasons to
conclude that the apostle Peter is in fact the author of 1 Peter.
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 英文wiki上有很详细的论证。而且确实，即使是基督教界，这也是统一的意见了。
|
J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 7 再来看 2 Peter.
wiki上这样说。
Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most
biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider
the epistle pseudepigraphical.[3] [4] Reasons for this include its
linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible
allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed
parousia, and weak external support.[5]
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. Self-evidently if
Peter the Apostle wrote this epistle then it must have been written prior to
his death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so
must post-date at least some of them, regardless of authorship, thus a date
before 60 is not probable.
Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–
150AD[6] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a
late date see Harris.[7] For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a
date between 80–90AD as most probable.[8] For an early date and (usually)
for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[9] Zahn,[10]
Spitta,[11] Bigg,[12] and Green.[13] Jeremy Duff argues that the various
strands of evidence "point towards the period 60–130 CE, with some reason
to favour 80–90 CE."
wiki上声称2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most
biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author and consider
the epistle pseudepigraphical.
但是后面又说有很多学者认为2 Peter是彼得的作品。所以简单的说没有统一意见。而
常用的ESV study bible中也支持2 Peter是彼得的作品。并对某些学者的观点进行了讨
论。
Within 2 Peter itself there is strong evidence for authorship by the apostle
Peter. In 1:1 the author claims to be “Simeon Peter … apostle of Jesus
Christ.” Moreover, he claims to have been an eyewitness of the
transfiguration (1:16–18; cf. Matt. 17:1–8), an event where Peter is
featured prominently in the Gospel accounts. If someone other than Peter
wrote the letter under his name, as some scholars have claimed, it would be
a case of deliberate deception, especially given the author’s claims to
have witnessed the transfiguration. But there is no historical evidence in
support of such a theory. Furthermore, writing in another person’s name was
condemned among early Christians (cf. 2 Thess. 2:2; 3:17; see Introduction
to 1 Timothy: Author and Title).
Some have suggested that the literary style of 2 Peter, which differs from
that of 1 Peter, indicates an author other than Peter. But Peter may have
used a secretary to help write this second letter, which would not affect
the genuineness of his authorship if he ultimately approved what was written.
Scholars have also questioned Petrine authorship of 2 Peter because of the
similarities between chapter 2 of this letter and the book of Jude. But this
is not a problem for apostolic authorship, since Peter may have included in
his letter elements from Jude that he thought would be helpful for his
readers. It also could have worked the other way, with Jude using Peter’s
letter as his source. The parallels are close but almost never exact, so it
is difficult to sort out the relationship between 2 Peter and Jude with any
degree of certainty.
It is reasonable in light of all the evidence, and clearly supported by the
claims of the letter itself, to conclude that the apostle Peter wrote 2
Peter.
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 英文wiki上有很详细的论证。而且确实，即使是基督教界，这也是统一的意见了。
|
J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 8 奇怪的是，作者题目叫“问一下”新约作者的问题。
而帖子里却是一些夸张，没有根据的论断。这真是自问自答。为了反基，迫不及待啊。
生怕基督徒说出真相，抢了先。哈哈。
真不知道反对基督教的人什么时候才能说点靠谱的东西。
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。
: 保罗书信，有1/3基本肯定不是保罗写的。
: 请问有没有这方面资料的汇集。基要派就请回避吧，不好意思....
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 9
========================================
【英文wiki上有很详细的论证。而且确实】
既然讲到 wiki 上有详细论证,
又何需要在此又汇集??
自打得咀巴也歪了
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。
: 保罗书信，有1/3基本肯定不是保罗写的。
: 请问有没有这方面资料的汇集。基要派就请回避吧，不好意思....
|
d****a
发帖数: 655 | 10 神学界吧，主要指北美大多数神学院，那个老夫子雪芹什么的呢，我这是学术向的，你
们就别来添乱了....
style
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: 我们先用1 Peter做例子吧。
: 看看wiki上有关作者的讨论。
: The authorship of 1 Peter has traditionally been attributed to the Apostle
: Peter because it bears his name and identifies him as its author (1:1).
: Although the text identifies Peter as its author the language, dating, style
: , and structure of this letter has led many scholars to conclude that this
: letter is pseudonymous. Many scholars are convinced that Peter was not the
: author of this letter because the author had to have a formal education in
: rhetoric/philosophy and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language.
: 请问哪里你能看出来基督教界，所谓“统一”的意见。
|
|
|
d****a
发帖数: 655 | 11 我是指其他章节的情况....看看有没有直接的前人成果....
【在 J*******g 的大作中提到】
: 奇怪的是，作者题目叫“问一下”新约作者的问题。
: 而帖子里却是一些夸张，没有根据的论断。这真是自问自答。为了反基，迫不及待啊。
: 生怕基督徒说出真相，抢了先。哈哈。
: 真不知道反对基督教的人什么时候才能说点靠谱的东西。
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 12
=============================================
帖过三巡了,
未见学术论据
咀炮响不了
无需论据的话,
那说圣经是由一只黑猩猩随笔涂鸦而成也可以
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 我是指其他章节的情况....看看有没有直接的前人成果....
|
t*******r
发帖数: 2940 | 13 wiki 也只是说 Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.
没有说：“彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。”
“英文wiki上有很详细的论证。”Jason 引用的ESV study bible有详细的回应。贬低
ESV study bible contributor就没有意思了，可以肯定一点他们一定比你qualify,请
看：
Executive Editor
Lane T. Dennis
Ph.D., Northwestern University
Chair of the ESV Translation Oversight Committee, President, Crossway Books
and Bibles
General Editor
Wayne Grudem
Ph.D., University of Cambridge
Research Professor of Bible and Theology, Phoenix Seminary
Theological Editor
J. I. Packer
D. Phil., University of Oxford
Professor of Theology, Regent College (Vancouver, Canada)
Old Testament Editor
C. John Collins
Ph.D., University of Liverpool
Professor and Chair of the Old Testament Department, Covenant Theological
Seminary
New Testament Editor
Thomas R. Schreiner
Ph.D., Fuller Theological Seminary
James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament, The Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary
。。。
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 英文wiki上有很详细的论证。而且确实，即使是基督教界，这也是统一的意见了。
|
d****a
发帖数: 655 | 14 嘛，无所谓了，你可以举例啊，我也可以举ets啊，事实在这里了，这个问题上，又不
是我跟基要派PK，PK的是自由派，加主流福音派....嘛，你们看不顺眼，可以继续论证
，我没空。我发帖目的是找明白人，又不是找你们这帮动辄心灵受伤的教徒PK....
再问一遍，有没有对新约作者做比较完整考证，叙述的文章或者书....
Books
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: wiki 也只是说 Ultimately, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.
: 没有说：“彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。”
: “英文wiki上有很详细的论证。”Jason 引用的ESV study bible有详细的回应。贬低
: ESV study bible contributor就没有意思了，可以肯定一点他们一定比你qualify,请
: 看：
: Executive Editor
: Lane T. Dennis
: Ph.D., Northwestern University
: Chair of the ESV Translation Oversight Committee, President, Crossway Books
: and Bibles
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 15
====================
無實又無據的胡扯，
你臉皮厚得可以說：「事實在這裡了」？
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 嘛，无所谓了，你可以举例啊，我也可以举ets啊，事实在这里了，这个问题上，又不
: 是我跟基要派PK，PK的是自由派，加主流福音派....嘛，你们看不顺眼，可以继续论证
: ，我没空。我发帖目的是找明白人，又不是找你们这帮动辄心灵受伤的教徒PK....
: 再问一遍，有没有对新约作者做比较完整考证，叙述的文章或者书....
:
: Books
|
t*******r
发帖数: 2940 | 16 看得出来你分不清什么是基要派，自由派或主流福音派
你甚至连你提出的wiki也misquote
“即使是基督教界，这也是统一的意见了。”这种话张嘴就乱讲？
希望指出这些不会让你心灵受伤。其实不必，我们都不是这方面的专家，最多只能借鉴
专家的成果，只是希望尽可能准确，有依据。
你说你是：“我这是学术向的”，支持，但至少要有一点学术的态度，你看你讲几句话
就完全不靠谱，你怎么学术下去?
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 嘛，无所谓了，你可以举例啊，我也可以举ets啊，事实在这里了，这个问题上，又不
: 是我跟基要派PK，PK的是自由派，加主流福音派....嘛，你们看不顺眼，可以继续论证
: ，我没空。我发帖目的是找明白人，又不是找你们这帮动辄心灵受伤的教徒PK....
: 再问一遍，有没有对新约作者做比较完整考证，叙述的文章或者书....
:
: Books
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 17
===========<=<=========
借尿循的先兆
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 嘛，无所谓了，你可以举例啊，我也可以举ets啊，事实在这里了，这个问题上，又不
: 是我跟基要派PK，PK的是自由派，加主流福音派....嘛，你们看不顺眼，可以继续论证
: ，我没空。我发帖目的是找明白人，又不是找你们这帮动辄心灵受伤的教徒PK....
: 再问一遍，有没有对新约作者做比较完整考证，叙述的文章或者书....
:
: Books
|
d****a
发帖数: 655 | 18 嗯，你可以在wiki上peter书信作者的条目的链接上点一下，转到彼得书信作者这个专
门条目，然后你可以看到这样一段话：
Most scholars today conclude that Peter was not the author of the two
epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two
different authors.
【在 t*******r 的大作中提到】
: 看得出来你分不清什么是基要派，自由派或主流福音派
: 你甚至连你提出的wiki也misquote
: “即使是基督教界，这也是统一的意见了。”这种话张嘴就乱讲？
: 希望指出这些不会让你心灵受伤。其实不必，我们都不是这方面的专家，最多只能借鉴
: 专家的成果，只是希望尽可能准确，有依据。
: 你说你是：“我这是学术向的”，支持，但至少要有一点学术的态度，你看你讲几句话
: 就完全不靠谱，你怎么学术下去?
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 19
===================================
笑了,
一句出自维基的 " most scholars..."
相比 taoseeker 在#13,
认为彼得书信是出自彼得的学者名单
有名, 有姓, 有学历, 在那著作中提及...
你认为那个较强?
高低立见矣
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 嗯，你可以在wiki上peter书信作者的条目的链接上点一下，转到彼得书信作者这个专
: 门条目，然后你可以看到这样一段话：
: Most scholars today conclude that Peter was not the author of the two
: epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two
: different authors.
|
d****a
发帖数: 655 | 20 嗯，这句有注释，下面有出处，你也可以把出处作者名单列一下.....整个条目里列举
的学者也不少，著作也不少，把作者列一下，估计多出个数量级应当够了....
【在 b*****n 的大作中提到】
:
: ===================================
: 笑了,
: 一句出自维基的 " most scholars..."
: 相比 taoseeker 在#13,
: 认为彼得书信是出自彼得的学者名单
: 有名, 有姓, 有学历, 在那著作中提及...
: 你认为那个较强?
: 高低立见矣
|
|
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 21
============================================
这是你应做的,
不是我代你做
因为是你在首先说彼得书信是伪托而写的,
应该是你先举出证据
不是 "most scholars" 便是交代了
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 嗯，这句有注释，下面有出处，你也可以把出处作者名单列一下.....整个条目里列举
: 的学者也不少，著作也不少，把作者列一下，估计多出个数量级应当够了....
|
t*******r
发帖数: 2940 | 22 这显然不是你说的：彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。
而且你也不应该只看简介。
比较学术的说法应该是根据wiki：Most** scholars today conclude that Peter was
not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they
were written by two different authors.
但是：
对于彼得前书： On the other hand, some scholars argue that there is not
enough evidence to conclude that Peter did not write 1 Peter. For instance,
there are similarities between 1 Peter and Peter's speeches in the Biblical
book of Acts,[8] and the earliest attestation of Peter's authorship comes
from 2 Peter (80–90 CE) and the letters of Clement(70-140ce).[3] Ultimately
, the authorship of 1 Peter remains contested.
对于更受怀疑的彼得后书：
A minority of scholars have disagreed with this position and forwarded
reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship. They argue that the letter
did not fit a specific pattern of what they consider pseudepigraphy.
Certain details in the Transfiguration account differ from the synoptic
gospels and that passage lacks embellishment which E. M. B. Green argues was
common in apocryphal books.[11] An uncommon title, “our beloved brother,”
is given to Paul, where later literature used other titles.[12]
肯定不是：”即使是基督教界，这也是统一的意见了。”
Jason诚恳地提供了也是学者的意见，怎么就被你划入非学术的夫子一类？这是学术的
观点？
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 嗯，你可以在wiki上peter书信作者的条目的链接上点一下，转到彼得书信作者这个专
: 门条目，然后你可以看到这样一段话：
: Most scholars today conclude that Peter was not the author of the two
: epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two
: different authors.
|
d****a
发帖数: 655 | 23 差不多吧，有些原教旨的永远不可能认账的....你们要觉得most scholars可以接受也
可以.... |
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 24
======================================
taoseeker 已很清楚地指出,
你连看维基, 也是看前不看后,
维基原文也并不是说彼得书信作者是另有其人是结论。
你只看开头便自下结论.
你是错误的源头
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 差不多吧，有些原教旨的永远不可能认账的....你们要觉得most scholars可以接受也
: 可以....
|
b*****n
发帖数: 4976 | 25
========================================
彼得书信作者是谁,
是学术上的问题, 不是信仰问题
学术是较客观的, 讲证据的....
不是 "most scholars", 「差不多吧」便可以是结论
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 差不多吧，有些原教旨的永远不可能认账的....你们要觉得most scholars可以接受也
: 可以....
|
J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | 26 我不认为你有资格说谁是自由派，谁是主流，你只是一个反对基督教的人。这点版上的
基督徒已经非常清楚了。版上基督徒有天主教的，有新教的，而且教派也不见得是一样
的。据我所知版上原教旨的还真不多。而且还真没见过哪个反基能成功辨识出谁是哪个
新教的派别的。
我不是看你不顺眼，你说的要是有道理也行啊，上来就自问自答，还好意思自立牌坊，
下次不要演的这么拙劣。
自己看看study bible,wiki就好了，上面有很多关于圣经作者的文献。
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 嘛，无所谓了，你可以举例啊，我也可以举ets啊，事实在这里了，这个问题上，又不
: 是我跟基要派PK，PK的是自由派，加主流福音派....嘛，你们看不顺眼，可以继续论证
: ，我没空。我发帖目的是找明白人，又不是找你们这帮动辄心灵受伤的教徒PK....
: 再问一遍，有没有对新约作者做比较完整考证，叙述的文章或者书....
:
: Books
|
t*******r
发帖数: 2940 | 27 真不知道你怎么有胆量写手册，到 现在还不知道什么是原教旨。你这学术搞得...
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 差不多吧，有些原教旨的永远不可能认账的....你们要觉得most scholars可以接受也
: 可以....
|
y****n
发帖数: 1397 | 28 我有个收藏，不知是否有用。
http://biblicalauthorship.blogspot.com/2011/07/library.html
【在 d****a 的大作中提到】
: 彼得前后书，肯定不是彼得写的。
: 保罗书信，有1/3基本肯定不是保罗写的。
: 请问有没有这方面资料的汇集。基要派就请回避吧，不好意思....
|
J*******g
发帖数: 8775 | |
d****a
发帖数: 655 | |
