Information About2 Peter |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER | |
| new testament books | |
| peter 2 | |
|
The Second Epistle of Peter is a book of the New Testament of the Bible . According to the epistle itself, it was written by the apostle Peter, an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. He criticizes "false teachers" who distort the authentic, apostolic tradition, and predicts judgement for them. He explains that God has delayed the Second Coming so that more people will have the chance to reject evil and find salvation. He calls on Christians to wait patiently for the parousia and to study scripture. The dating of this epistle has proved very difficult. Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from 60 to 160AD. Bauckham, RJ (1983), World Bible Commentary, Vol.50, Jude-2 Peter, Waco. AUTHORSHIP The letter opens by identifying the author as “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (). Elsewhere, the author clearly presents himself as The Apostle Peter , stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (), that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration (), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (; cf. 1 Peter ), and he called Paul The Apostle “our beloved brother” (). Although 2 Peter internally proports to be a work of the Apostle, a number of liberal biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle Pseudepigraphical . Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude , possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.Grant, Robert M. ''A Historical Introduction To The New Testament'', chap. 14. http://religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1234 In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (), his implication that the Apostlic generation has passed (), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (). A number of scholars, however, have disagreed with this position and forwarded reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship. The text’s claim to have been written by “Simeon Peter” is unique. “Simeon” is an archaic Hebrew form of the standard "Simon", and appears only in , and then just as “Simeon” (not “Simeon Peter”). “Simeon” is not used in any other place in the New Testament, in any of the Apostolic Fathers, or in any pseudepigraphic literature. M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. 9; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820. 1 Peter uses simply “Peter”, and it has been argued that it would be unlikely for a later writer attempting to feign an original letter to use a different name than one used in the genuine text, especially an archaic and obscure naming convention like "Simeon Peter." Concerning the relation between 2 Peter and Jude, three observations have been made. First, it could be that, conversely, Jude used 2 Peter, extracting information from it and adding a Doxology , perhaps motivated by the prophetic statements of 2 Peter having been fulfilled.S. T. Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' II p. 250; F. Spitta, ''Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas'' (1885), pp. 145-146; C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901). Second, even if 2 Peter used Jude, that does not exclude Petrine authorship.E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'' (1961), p. 10-11; ibid., ‘The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude’, in ''Tyndale New Testament Commentary'' (1987). D. Guthrie stated simply that it was “a fallacious supposition” to assume that an apostle would not have made use of an earlier source, and that, though it might be unexpected, it would be equally or more unexpected for a forger to do so.Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 831; on a reason for the use of Jude, see E. H. Plumptre, ‘The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude’, in ''The Cambridge Bible of School and Colleges'' (1879), p. 80. Third, Ben Witherington III argued that the text we have today is a composite, including points taken from the Epistle of Jude, but that it containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as .Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, ''Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers'' (1985), pp. 187-192. If the letter were pseudepigraphy, in many respects it would be unparalleled with other such literature, and it has been remarked that, if the text is pseudepigraphical, then it is “of its own class”.Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820. The common convention in pseudepigraphy, when attempting to further the verisimilitude of their claims to authorship, was to adopt a first-person narrative style; however, 2 Peter’s claims do not do so, even in the passage concerning the Transfiguration, where it would be most expected.Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820. Furthermore, the account of the Transfiguration differs in certain details from the accounts in the 47.1 and Polycarp, '' Ad Phil. '' 11; Polycarp, ''Ad Phil''. 3; Ignatius, ''Ad Eph''. 12.2. Lastly, the statement that the author finds Paul’s letters difficult to understand () runs counter to the tendency in pseudoepigraphy, which is to enhance the heroic alleged author.Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 827. On remaining points, differences in style could be explained by Peter having employed different .R. J. Bauckham, ''Jude, 2 Peter (Word)'' 1983, p. 290; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 829. Despite these arguments, the great majority of scholarship agrees that Peter could not have written this letter. For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this...perspective."http://web.archive.org/web/20031209164253/http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/2petotl.htm Werner Kummel exemplefies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged."http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html, as does Stephen L Harris , who states that " {Link without Title} irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter." Harris, Stephen L. . ''Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction'', 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. page 354. Evangelical historians D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, second edition. HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan: 2005. ISBN-10 0310238595, ISBN-13 978-0310238591. p.659. DATE Clearly the questions of authorship and date are closely related. Self-evidently if Peter the Apostle wrote this Epistle than it must have been written prior to his death in ''c'' 65-67AD. Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between ''c'' 100-150AD Chester, A & Martin, RP, (1994), The Theology of the letters of James, Peter & Jude, CUP, p.144 and so contend that it is Pseudepigraphical . For an argument for a late date see Harris Harris, Stephen L. . Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354. For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between 80-90AD as most probable Bauckham, RJ (1983), World Bible Commentary, Vol.50, Jude-2 Peter, Waco, p.158. For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger Kruger, MJ, (1999) “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.4, p.645-671 , Zahne.g. S. T. Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' II p. 250, Spitta F. Spitta, ''Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas'' (1885), Bigg C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'', and Green E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'' (1961) and other works.. CANONICAL ACCEPTENCE Acceptance of the letter into the canon did not occur without some difficulty; however, "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806. The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by , though possible use or influence has been located in the works of Clement (d. ''c''. 211), Theophilius (d. ''c''. 183), Aristides (d. ''c''. 134), Polycarp (d. 155), and Justin (d. 165).C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141. Eusebius (''c''. 275 – 339) professed his own doubts, and is the earliest direct testimony of such, though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of Jerome (''c''. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1. CONTENT This Epistle presciently declares that it is written shortly before the apostle's death (1:14). Arguments have been made both for and against this being part of the original text, but this debate largely is centered on the acceptance or rejection of supernatural intervention in the life of the writer. The epistle contains eleven references to the 's epistles, which some have identified as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11. The book also shares a number of shared passages with the Epistle Of Jude , e.g. 1:5 with Jude 3; 1:12 with Jude 5; 3:2f with Jude 17f; 3:14 with Jude 24; and 3:18 with Jude 25. . It is elaborated on in Jude 6. Jude 6 however, is a clear reference to the Book Of Enoch . NOTES REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS Online translations of the epistle
Other
|
|
|