Irenaeus

[Steven Avery]

When did I complain about the list of writers? I said it was one of the most poorly attested books in the quotations of the early Christians, which is true. You're going on about how circumstantial evidence shows it was most likely known from a very early time. We're in agreement on the second point, but you are using the second point to argue I'm wrong about the first. Which is not even a valid means of arguing the point. I'm sure you'll carry on at some length with your new imaginary "Winter" argument.

All I said was that 2 Peter seems to actually be fairly well attested. About 40 early church writers, many with multiple references or sections about the book, and probably many more, since my sources were limited.

The people who emphasize poor attestation do NOT list hardly any of these references, so their comments have little value. To an extent, they are commenting in ignorance. Let them list 40 or so ECW, and then make their comment.

 

[Brianrw]

That's not a complaint. I pointed out how your argument did not touch my comment about how the book was poorly attested in the quotations of the early writers, since almost none of the examples you used to dispute that point involved actual quotations of the book. I was not talking about references. I was talking, specifically, about direct quotations.

If I were disputing the authenticity of the book (and I'm not), then what you are saying above is material to the discussion. Otherwise, it's not.

 

[Steven Avery]

That's not a complaint. I pointed out how your argument did not touch my comment about how the book was poorly attested in the quotations of the early writers, since almost none of the examples you used to dispute that point involved actual quotations of the book. I was not talking about references. I was talking, specifically, about direct quotations.

You need to go back and read the ACCS quotations.
Focus.

Plus, allusions and quotations are both part of attestation.
Look at the Mark ending evidences. Then come back.

 

[Brianrw]

The ACCS "quotations" involve a number of instances that are not quotations.

You're essentially running a search, counting the hits, but not even sifting through the data itself.

For instance, Peter 1:1 is not quoted at all in either of the writers you cite in the ACCS thread. In the case of the Chrysostom reference, 2 Peter 1:1 is referenced by the editor in a footnote who states it is remarkable that Chrysostom does not associate Simeon with the name Simon Peter in 2 Peter 1:1. In the case of the other, there is no reference in any meaningful way to 2 Peter 1:1, and it is merely a comparative ("Cf.") reference.

You have to go through these to verify verse by verse, because all these searches do is look in the footnotes for verse references. You'll see that in the first hit on to 2 Peter 1:4, the quote is actually from Genesis but the editor thought 2 Peter 1:4 was relevant for some reason or another.

By the way, what are you trying to assert here? What I said is widely stated, general knowledge. I did not say it was never quoted or referenced, only that it is so more sparsely.

The people who emphasize poor attestation do NOT list hardly any of these references, so their comments have little value. To an extent, they are commenting in ignorance. Let them list 40 or so ECW, and then make their comment.

Sift through the data, then form a conclusion.

 

[Steven Avery]

I think you are confusing ACCS and e-catena.

 

[Steven Avery]

By the way, what are you trying to assert here? What I said is widely stated, general knowledge. I did not say it was never quoted or referenced, only that it is so more sparsely.

‘It is also “widely stated” that Peter did not write 2 Peter.

There is no need to add more.

All I said was that 2 Peter seems to actually be fairly well attested. About 40 early church writers, many with multiple references or sections about the book, and probably many more, since my sources were limited.

The people who emphasize poor attestation do NOT list hardly any of these references, so their comments have little value. To an extent, they are commenting in ignorance. Let them list 40 or so ECW, and then make their comment.

E. Michael Green is decent on this:

2 Peter and Jude (2015)
https://books.google.com/books?id=n0lVCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA20

Yes, he has the obligatory “poorly attested” quote, but who has the compaison with 3 John, Jude, Revelation? First focusing on Ante-Nicene. And Green is not giving an exhaustive list, not even close.

 

[Brianrw]

‘It is also “widely stated” that Peter did not write 2 Peter.

There is no need to add more.

One statement is empirical. The other, concerning authenticity, is subjective. There's a difference.

 

[Steven Avery]

One statement is empirical.

Nope.
It is not empirical if the 40 or so ECW who reference 2 Peter are ignored and unmentioned.

The ACCS "quotations" involve a number of instances that are not quotations.

You're essentially running a search, counting the hits, but not even sifting through the data itself.

For instance, Peter 1:1 is not quoted at all in either of the writers you cite in the ACCS thread. In the case of the Chrysostom reference, 2 Peter 1:1 is referenced by the editor in a footnote who states it is remarkable that Chrysostom does not associate Simeon with the name Simon Peter in 2 Peter 1:1. In the case of the other, there is no reference in any meaningful way to 2 Peter 1:1, and it is merely a comparative ("Cf.") reference.

I used ACCS to show many quotes from 2 Peter.

Here is Chrysostom on 2 Peter 1:8 on ACCS.
https://books.google.com/books?id=MOUd-wSZ4hEC&pg=PA134

Your are not understanding ACCS.

 

[Brianrw]

Nope.
It is not empirical if the 40 or so ECW who reference 2 Peter are ignored and unmentioned.

I used ACCS to show many quotes from 2 Peter.

Those search engines are great, but they operate by running a search on references contained in footnotes. I think you're missing my points that the 40 or so hits you got from your searches include a large number of instances where the passage is cited in a footnote, but the passage is not quoted or referenced in the text itself. Sometimes, they involve a comment by the editor or translator of the works. I even sifted some of it for you, but you seem to not want to be bothered with that.

 

[Steven Avery]

Those search engines are great, but they operate by running a search on references contained in footnotes. I think you're missing my points that the 40 or so hits you got from your searches include a large number of instances where the passage is cited in a footnote, but the passage is not quoted or referenced in the text itself. Sometimes, they involve a comment by the editor or translator of the works. I even sifted some of it for you, but you seem to not want to be bothered with that.

ACCS is not a search engine.
Look at the pic.
Go to the url.

I'm a bit surprised you are not familiar with the ACCS series of books.

First, please get that straight.

Thanks!

 

[Brianrw]

ACCS is not a search engine.
Look at the pic.
Go to the url.

I'm a bit surprised you are not familiar with the ACCS series of books.

First, please get that straight.

I'm referring to the search engines. Apologies, but I don't see what ACCS is. Whatever it is, I was referring to the searches you were running which produced hits that need to be sifted.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm referring to the search engines. Apologies, but I don't see what ACCS is. Whatever it is, I was referring to the searches you were running which produced hits that need to be sifted.

ACCS on 2 Peter
https://books.google.com/books?id=MOUd-wSZ4hEC&pg=PA129

About 30 ECW listed

Irenaeus

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 16) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103316.htm 3. Paul, when writing to the Romans, has explained this very point: Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy Scriptures...

www.purebibleforum.com

So my estimate of 40 remains very conservative, even after you show a few from e-catena as not 2 Peter references. And there is plenty, including Ante-Nicene, to refute those who go on and on about the poor attestation while not informing the readers about the robust ECW usage and support.

 

[Brianrw]

ACCS on 2 Peter
https://books.google.com/books?id=MOUd-wSZ4hEC&pg=PA129

Thanks for clarifying. I actually am familiar with that series, I just didn't recognize them by the acronym ACCS. You'll have to weed out the ones that say "Catena" but don't make a quote of the verse. I was already aware of Hilary, Theophylact, and Oecumenius having a commentary.
https://books.google.com/books?id=MOUd-wSZ4hEC&pg=PA129

About 30 ECW listed
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/irenaeus.2287/#post-9234
So my estimate of 40 remains very conservative, even after you show a few from e-catena as not 2 Peter references. And there is plenty, including Ante-Nicene, to refute those who go on and on about the poor attestation while not informing the readers about the robust ECW usage and support.

It wasn't just a "few" from e-catena, it was almost all of the ones I sifted through, though I did mention the good hits (and one really good hit from Irenaeus). And on your second set from the search engine, my results were about the same. I didn't have time to go through all of them, so I feel you have a long way to go before making assertions as you do above.

I support your endeavor in this one, so don't get me wrong. But it has to be done rightly.

For now, we can close this side note which has gone way off topic.