Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
Glenn claims, “If Peter only had Genesis, then I don’t think that he could have said some of the things that he said,” especially that Lot’s soul was “vexed/tormented” in Sodom; how does this challenge the way you think about the apostles’ use of received tradition/history, and what does it imply about how early Christians expected Scripture to be read alongside communal memory?
Another way to ask: If Peter needed more than Genesis to say Lot was “tormented” in Sodom, what does that suggest about how the apostles used shared history and tradition? How might early Christians have expected Scripture to be read along with the community’s memory?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Glenn’s point challenges a “Bible only, no shared memory” expectation by suggesting Peter likely drew on received historical tradition that sat alongside Genesis; early Christians may have expected Scripture to be read with an inherited communal understanding, not as isolated text with no interpretive or historical background.
- Glenn argues Genesis “doesn’t give commentary on the morality of Lot… it tells the events,” so Peter’s moral description raises the question: “how did Peter know that?”
- He says it’s “quite likely” Peter was “familiar with these other texts,” and Peter’s statement about Lot being “vexed or tormented” is “borne out in the ancient texts prior to Peter.”
- Glenn says Peter was not treating this as mere rumor: “Peter considered it to be history.”
- He notes the significance: Peter “quote[s] from some of these sources,” and “what he states there becomes part of the canon.”
- Glenn uses this to argue these texts have “value,” though not canonical authority.