Major Resources for ECW use of 2 Peter - ACCS, e-catena, CCEL search engine

[Steven Avery]

=====================

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

==================

e-catena

=====================

Church Fathers Scripture Search Engine
(using the CCEL Early Church Fathers digital edition of the Philip Schaff collection)
2 Peter 1:1 (2)
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:1
2 Peter 1:4 (24)
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:4
2 Peter 1:5 (1)
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:5
2 Peter 1:9 - (1) Tertullian on Baptism
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:9
2 Peter 1:17 (4) Tertullian, Augustine, Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:17
2 Peter 1:18 (3) Hippolytus, Augustine, Apocalypse of Peter
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:18
2 Peter 1:19 - (11) - Augustine (8), Cyril of Jerusalem, Hippolytus, Apocalypse of Peter
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:19
2 Peter 1:20 (1) Tertullian - Modesty
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:20
2 Peter 1:21 - Ambrose and Hippolytus
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 1:21

2 Peter 3:6
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/2Pet 3:6

=====================

Also Available
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/2-peter/patristic-citations-of-2-peter

=====================

Also there is a new post, that is for both Clement of Rome and ECW in general.

Bible commentators show usage of 2 Peter by Clement of Rome and other ECWs
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...2-peter-by-clement-of-rome-an-other-ecw.2375/

=====================

We used these to bust the myth that there was hardly any usage of 2 Peter, with strong usage starting in the 1st century with Clement of Rome and Tertullian being especially plentiful.

 

[Brianrw]

You have to go through these to verify verse by verse, because all these searches do is look in the footnotes for verse references. For example, 2 Peter 1:1 is not quoted at all in either of the passages above. 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 part of a comparative ("Cf.") reference in the footnote.

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. For that verse. There are good hits on that verse for Tertullian, Athanasius, Jerome, and Cyril of Alexandria.

You'll also have to detail what you see in Clement and how it demonstrates knowledge of 2 Peter.

 

[Steven Avery]

Since the ACCS references are the most robust, they supply a solid mass of 2 Peter references. Knocking out.a handful from e-catena has little overall effect.

Why not acknowledge that you were unaware of the depth of ECW referencing?

 

[Brianrw]

Since the ACCS references are the most robust, they supply a solid mass of 2 Peter references. Knocking out.a handful from e-catena has little overall effect.

Why not acknowledge that you were unaware of the depth of ECW referencing?

I'm not surprised by anything I've seen thus far, and since I'm not trying to dispute the authenticity, you seem to be going on aimlessly. I have a lot more research and quotations than you are aware of for many of these topics.

I'm not trying to knock out anything, only weed out the incorrect data. If you want to support your argument, you need to make it so that someone else can't poke holes in it. Research involves a general survey, then you go and sift through the evidence and refine. You dumped raw search data, where there is irrelevant data in the set, and supported it with a conclusion before you did all the work. I'm only criticizing your methodology. I support the search, and if you turn up something I've missed I'd be quite happy to acknowledge it. But if you're going to do something, do it right.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm not surprised by anything I've seen thus far, and since I'm not trying to dispute the authenticity, you seem to be going on aimlessly.

So much blah-blah. Precept upon precept, line upon line. These were topics that were totally off my radar until very recently, and you insist I write a formal paper today. Tons of progress has been made. This is only one part of the studies of the last weeks.

Already we have shown huge gaps in the standard scholarship.

Please, think before you throw out stupid criticisms.

 

[Brianrw]

So much blah-blah. Precept upon precept, line upon line. These were topics that were totally off my radar until very recently, and you insist I write a formal paper today. Tons of progress has been made. This is only one part of the studies of the last weeks.

Already we have shown huge gaps in the standard scholarship.

Please, think before you throw out stupid criticisms.

My criticism is not "stupid," but absolutely justified. Your methodology is poor. Weed out the irrelevant data and form a strong argument. If you have a problem taking friendly criticism from someone who is actually an ally on this point, wait until you have to defend it against actual adversaries that will poke holes in it left and right and ridicule you for it afterward.

 

[Steven Avery]

My criticism is not "stupid," but absolutely justified. Your methodology is poor.

You do not understand ongoing research.

A good example on this forum is the studies about early New Testament dating, including the Theophilus proposal and much more. It has taken years just to put together many of the major aspects, and hopefully they can be put into paper(s) at a later time. Meanwhile, the info is easily available, not buried in my personal notes in the cloud or a note program.

If there is counterpoint (e.g. my discussions with Dean Furlong about the Johannine dating), I can put it right with the info.

Your tweaks have sometimes been helpful, and you gave them because I had the raw data visible. Thus I generally comment when you give a tweak. Sometimes I feel they are accurate, sometimes I feel you are missing fundamentals (like with Clement of Rome and 2 Peter.)

===========================

So please stop the silly (better word than stupid) whining. On a project that has been weeks.
Obviously I would do more checking before placing it in a rigorous paper.

Putting down the raw data, when it is available, is the first step. Later steps may be a week later, or a year, depending on time, significance, import, feedback, etc.

============================

And I am still waiting for you to take a stance on the grammar of the heavenly witnesses.
Who is right?
Steven Avery or "Greek expert" Barry Hofstetter? (supported by James Snapp, Bill Brown, and other contras.)

 

[Brianrw]

Putting down the raw data, when it is available, is the first step. Later steps may be a week later, or a year, depending on time, significance, import, feedback, etc.

I'm aware of that. But you posted it as evidence of your position and formed a conclusion before sifting the data. You also did it by forming an unnecessary attack impugning (again) my credibility, which put me in the position where I had to respond. Don't complain, then, when I urge you to sift through the data before forming a conclusion.

I could save you a lot of time by sharing what I have, but so far your overall approach has me providing information more sparingly, since your responses are erratic. For instance, in one place I put "LXX" after a verse from the Greek OT (whether it's a misnomer or not, I don't really care. That's what it's called) and that set you off on a tirade.

You do not understand ongoing research.

Yes, I do. Which is precisely why I don't posit conclusions before I've had a chance to sift through all the data, but if I do post it publicly I note specifically that I am only looking at raw data that needs to be sifted and may require further correction. Usually, this anticipates anyone reading it to offer correction. I did for you what I would expect of myself.

And I am still waiting for you to take a stance on the grammar of the heavenly witnesses.
Who is right?
Steven Avery or "Greek expert" Barry Hofstetter? (supported by James Snapp, Bill Brown, and other contras.)

It's not changed at all, which is why I was upset when you recently misrepresented me as though I had changed my position. I can't read Hofstetter's remarks, I'm not part of that group. I believe you could lift my support verbatim from the BVDB, though I might want to double check it. I just said you should not criticize someone's Greek aptitude (including my own) when you don't know the language itself. You have no anchor that really allows you to discern between the good and the bad, so you always have to take someone's word for it. This has resulted in you posting at least a couple completely nonsensical attempts at Greek translations by others and you didn't even realize why they were so bad. Even the one, which was downvoted to -3, you unhesitatingly posted.

 

[Steven Avery]

I could save you a lot of time by sharing what I have, but so far your overall approach has me providing information more sparingly, since your responses are erratic. For instance, in one place I put "LXX" after a verse from the Greek OT (whether it's a misnomer or not, I don't really care. That's what it's called) and that set you off on a tirade.

You misunderstood. The issue is not using LXX. LXX and GOT are hopelessly jumbled even in scholarship circles, this is a paper on that issue.

"The Use and Abuse of the Term 'LXX' and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship," (1987)
Leonard Greenspoon
https://ixtheo.de/Record/163825110X

PBF
LXX and Septuagint name confusions
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ogus-textual-theories-got-and-old-greek.1134/
LXX and Septuagint name confusions
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/lxx-and-septuagint-name-confusions.1364/

The points were:

1) there are various "LXX" editions, and they differ.
2) none of them has authority
3) their Greek can be misued in NT comparisons

 

[Brianrw]

You misunderstood. The issue is not using LXX. LXX and GOT are hopelessly jumbled even in scholarship circles, this is a paper on that issue.

"The Use and Abuse of the Term 'LXX' and Related Terminology in Recent Scholarship," (1987)
Leonard Greenspoon
https://ixtheo.de/Record/163825110X

PBF
LXX and Septuagint name confusions
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ogus-textual-theories-got-and-old-greek.1134/
LXX and Septuagint name confusions
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/lxx-and-septuagint-name-confusions.1364/

The points were:

1) there are various "LXX" editions, and they differ.
2) none of them has authority
3) their Greek can be misued in NT comparisons

You missed the point that I don't care whether LXX is a misnomer or not. It's a fast and universal reference. You honestly don't even know what you're talking about with the Greek, so please spare me the time of trying to tell me how to read it. It's literally foolishness, and you sound absolutely silly when you do it, and you're spreading the nonsense left and right.

 

[Steven Avery]

You missed the point that I don't care whether LXX is a misnomer or not.

Do you even know the "LXX" widely differing editions?

 

[Steven Avery]

You honestly don't even know what you're talking about with the Greek, so please spare me the time of trying to tell me how to read it. It's literally foolishness, and you sound absolutely silly when you do it, and you're spreading the nonsense left and right.

You are whining again.
Especially as I did not even give any Greek analysis in this discussion.

 

[Steven Avery]

I can't read Hofstetter's remarks, I'm not part of that group.

Start here.

The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/08/the-comma-johanneum-and-greek-grammar.html

I just said you should not criticize someone's Greek aptitude (including my own) when you don't know the language itself. You have no anchor that really allows you to discern between the good and the bad, so you always have to take someone's word for it.

Catch up on Hofstetter. (followed by Snapp, Brown et al) on the heavenly witnesses. Then we can review your critique here.

Since they are fighting against two world-class Greek scholars, it should be interesting whose word should be taken.

This has resulted in you posting at least a couple completely nonsensical attempts at Greek translations by others and you didn't even realize why they were so bad. Even the one, which was downvoted to -3, you unhesitatingly posted.

Specific would make this meaningful.

btw, I do not often critique your Greek. I tell you that you are weak in English, as we see again and again, so I have little reason to trust your Greek. Plus you use lots of circular argumentation, and say what is convenient to support your doctrinal text claims, hoping it won't be challenged. We saw this with your apposition claims, starting way back insisting on a hyphen to the recent stuff where you absurdly believe that the AV text must be an apposition.

 

[Steven Avery]

I believe you could lift my support verbatim from the BVDB, though I might want to double check it.

I did exactly that, and pointed out that I was essentially using the same argumentation to refute the bogus contra claims, by the supposed Greek experts. And I am specifically referencing when they give supposed analogy verses that are not masculine (or feminine) grammar with neuter nouns.

It would be wonderful to see you actively defending the AV text, and that on the most central and salient Bible verse, the key to the Battle of the Bible.

 

[Brianrw]

You are whining again.
Especially as I did not even give any Greek analysis in this discussion.

No, not at all. You must have forgot your comments at http://purebibleforum.com/index.php...cs-e-catena-ccel-search-engine.2374/post-9453, slightly above, which refers to a larger discussion.

 

[Steven Avery]

No, not at all. You must have forgot your comments at http://purebibleforum.com/index.php...cs-e-catena-ccel-search-engine.2374/post-9453, slightly above, which refers to a larger discussion.

Huh? Are you talking about the Hofstetter discussion? You should come up to speed, first, else your claims are silly.

And I am still waiting for you to take a stance on the grammar of the heavenly witnesses.
Who is right?
Steven Avery or "Greek expert" Barry Hofstetter? (supported by James Snapp, Bill Brown, and other contras.)

 

[Brianrw]

Huh? Are you talking about the Hofstetter discussion? You should come up to speed, first, else your claims are silly.

At this point, I'm going to have to ask you politely to back off. Neither of these (about Hofstetter or the LXX) are discussions I particularly want to have at this point. Use your energy somewhere else. I thought I was already making myself clear.

 

[Steven Avery]

At this point, I'm going to have to ask you politely to back off. Neither of these (about Hofstetter or the LXX) are discussions I particularly want to have at this point. Use your energy somewhere else. I thought I was already making myself clear.

Your refusal to look at the heavenly witnesses, even after asking for a Hofstetter text link, is very curious.

You have no business whining about my correcting Greek experts so-called if you deliberately avoid my correcting Hofstetter on the HW.