Authenticity of 2 Peter

[Pursuing_Truth]

Some of the arguments against the authenticity of 2 Peter seem pretty convincing but, in the end, I think they fall short. If Peter used an amanuensis for 1 Peter and wrote 2 Peter himself, then many of the arguments against Petrine authorship seem to fade away. Does anyone buy into a particularly convincing argument against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter that you want to share with me before I turn my paper in tomorrow?

[James Peter]

Basically the social context of 2 Peter rightly places it well into the second century. It wasn't written by the person who wrote 1 Peter but as 1 Peter probably wasn't written by Peter anyway that doesn't prove anything. The idea that there was a collection of Pauline letters that was widely circulated and considered authoratitive before Peter died is pretty laughable (this coming from a Pauline scholar). 2 Peter certainly could be post-Marcion but we really don't know when it was written other than that there really is no reason at all to attribute it to the 60s.

[Pursuing_Truth]

The idea that there was a collection of Pauline letters that was widely circulated and considered authoratitive before Peter died is pretty laughable (this coming from a Pauline scholar).

Would it have to be the entire corpus? Could the reference not be to a portion?

Are you familiar with this article: Young Kyu Kim, “Palaeographical Dating Of 46 to the Later First Century,” Biblica 69 (1988) 24857? His findings don't seem to be correct but I was curious what you thought of it.

[Pursuing_Truth]

Also, wouldn't the familiarity of the author's description of Paul as "our beloved brother" be unlike the norm for pseudepigraphical works where those of Paul's stature are commonly referred to in high terms?

And what about the self-deprecating nature of the author's description of Paul's letter as difficult to understand? Wouldn't this sort of admission also go against what would be typically be expected with pseudepigraphical works?

Thanks.

[James Peter]

Also, wouldn't the familiarity of the author's description of Paul as "our beloved brother" be unlike the norm for pseudepigraphical works where those of Paul's stature are commonly referred to in high terms?

And what about the self-deprecating nature of the author's description of Paul's letter as difficult to understand? Wouldn't this sort of admission also go against what would be typically be expected with pseudepigraphical works?

Thanks.

That all depends on what the author of 2 Peter thinks about Paul. He is clearly writing against a particular understanding of Pauline theology (and arguably the theology he is putting forward conflicts heavily with what Paul would say). If 2 Peter is writing against Marcionesque groups then you'd actually expect pretty much the sort of letter 2 Peter is - not being too negative about Paul but not being too positive either.

As for that article, no I haven't read it. Should I?

[Pursuing_Truth]

As for that article, no I haven't read it. Should I?

You might find it interesting even if you end up disagreeing with his arguments. He believes that NT scholars have not dated 46 correctly and believes that it was written before the reign of Domitian. One of my Greek profs, Dan Wallace, says that he quizzed Metzger, G. Fee, Ehrman, Eldon Epp, Michael Holmes, Thomas Geer, and J. K. Elliott about Kim's evidence and he says that none of them had any real arguments against it. But then he said that an Oxford PhD student presented a paper at SBL that pretty much refuted Kim's claims. As for me, I don't get as much of a charge out of some of this stuff as some people do I usually so I end up reading these things when I have to for papers or research rather than leisure reading.

[rogue06]

...If Peter used an amanuensis for 1 Peter and wrote 2 Peter himself, then many of the arguments against Petrine authorship seem to fade away...

How so? 2 Peter is still dependent upon Jude, which is inexplicable if Peter was the author. Why would an eyewitness be reliant on someone else's account? Peter wouldn't need secondary sources being a primary source himself. If anything, it would seem that Peter wrote the first whereas an amanuensis wrote the second. Of course, he may have employed different secretaries when they were written.
Still, like James Peter, I think the telling evidences against Petrine authorship is the familiarity with a collection of Pauline epistles and the author's concern with explaining the delay in the Second Coming. Both of these seem more consistent with Christianity as it was at the end of the first, beginnng of the second, centuries AD, than it was in Peter's lifetime.

[Jaltus]

Basically the social context of 2 Peter rightly places it well into the second century. It wasn't written by the person who wrote 1 Peter but as 1 Peter probably wasn't written by Peter anyway that doesn't prove anything. The idea that there was a collection of Pauline letters that was widely circulated and considered authoratitive before Peter died is pretty laughable (this coming from a Pauline scholar). 2 Peter certainly could be post-Marcion but we really don't know when it was written other than that there really is no reason at all to attribute it to the 60s.

Wow, you really need to read up on the field. I suggest reading The Pauline Canon edited by Stanley Porter. There are a few essays dating the collection of the Pauline letters to VERY early, well before 70 AD (Peter's death being anywhere from 64-68, depending on whom you believe).

As for your arguments for the dating of 2 Peter, there is no substance listed to any of them. The "social context" argument is based upon supposition of place of origin and of what occurred in that origin at that time, in other words very hypothetical.

The problem I have with this post, JP, is that it is essentially handwaving and regurgitatiing other peoples' theories without any facts.

[Jaltus]

How so? 2 Peter is still dependent upon Jude, which is inexplicable if Peter was the author. Why would an eyewitness be reliant on someone else's account? Peter wouldn't need secondary sources being a primary source himself. If anything, it would seem that Peter wrote the first whereas an amanuensis wrote the second. Of course, he may have employed different secretaries when they were written.
Still, like James Peter, I think the telling evidences against Petrine authorship is the familiarity with a collection of Pauline epistles and the author's concern with explaining the delay in the Second Coming. Both of these seem more consistent with Christianity as it was at the end of the first, beginnng of the second, centuries AD, than it was in Peter's lifetime.

I really doubt 2 Peter was dependant upon Jude or vice versa. None of the words are parallel nor are the structures of the arguments. I think Bauckham is correct in saying both drew on a similar background without drawing on each other. There is just no internal evidence for direct literary dependance.

[themuzicman]

Yeah, there is actually greater evidence for "sharing" between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, than there is between 2 Peter and Jude.

Michael

[rogue06]

I really doubt 2 Peter was dependant upon Jude or vice versa. None of the words are parallel nor are the structures of the arguments. I think Bauckham is correct in saying both drew on a similar background without drawing on each other. There is just no internal evidence for direct literary dependance.

IMHO, 2 Peter's reliance on Jude is fairly evident. While the author of 2 Peter doesn't simply copy Jude verbatim, he instead thoroughly reworked Jude to serve his own purposes. Of the 25 verses that make up the Epistle of Jude, 15 of them appear in whole or in part in 2 Peter (primarily in 2:1-3:3). This section could well be described as a free paraphrase of Jude 4-18, similar to the relationship noted by Biblical scholars between 1 Clem 36:2-5 and Hebrews 1:3-13.

To cite but one of numerous reasons most scholars beleve that 2 Peter is dependent upon Jude as a source is that 2 Peter betrays a literary strategem in that the false teachers that were characterized by Jude as being in the present are portrayed in 2 Peter as being in the future (and are supposedly predicted by Peter in 2:1; 3:3). Yet, despite this, the false-teachers are also described in the present tense (2:10, 12 ff, 20), and indeed even the past tense is used (2:15, 22). This indicates that the author of 2 Peter was almost certainy utilzing Jude as a source but was attempting to make it appear that he was "predicting" the arising of false teachers which was obviously already occuring.


But even if (a mighty big if) it were true that the authors of Jude and 2 Peter were relying on the same unknown source and not one upon the other, that "solution" still avoids the question of why would the Apostle Peter have to depend on secondary material?


P.S.: Hope you did well with your paper PT!

[James Peter]

Yeah, there is actually greater evidence for "sharing" between Matthew, Mark, and Luke, than there is between 2 Peter and Jude.

Michael

But nobody disputes that Matthew and Luke copied heavily from Mark (Well, except those few souls who claim that Mark copied from Matthew). What is your point? That because 2 Peter is less dependent on Jude than Luke is on Mark it wasn't copied? Thats pretty rubbish as arguments go.

Wow, you really need to read up on the field. I suggest reading The Pauline Canon edited by Stanley Porter. There are a few essays dating the collection of the Pauline letters to VERY early, well before 70 AD (Peter's death being anywhere from 64-68, depending on whom you believe).

As for your arguments for the dating of 2 Peter, there is no substance listed to any of them. The "social context" argument is based upon supposition of place of origin and of what occurred in that origin at that time, in other words very hypothetical.

The problem I have with this post, JP, is that it is essentially handwaving and regurgitatiing other peoples' theories without any facts.

Its mostly just handwaving because the guy says he has already read up on it and pretty much any 'Introduction to the New Testament' type work will deal with why 2 Peter is so late. I'm arguing for the academic consensus and so the burden of proof is with the one who will take the minority opinion. If somebody gives reasons why 2 Peter should be seen as early I'll deal with them, for now I'll just say 'I'm with everyone else'.

The 'Social Context' argument deals with the state of the Church in the 60s and the state of the Church in the 120s. 2 Peter fits far more neatly into the second context than the first. If 2 Peter was authentic it has to be dated to about the same time as 1 Peter and its quite difficult to explain why 1 Peter circulated much more widely than 2 Peter which was pretty much unknown for a very long time. At the very least 1 Peter was known and accepted much more widely than 2 Peter much earlier.

And yes, a few will argue for an early collection of Paul's letters but in my opinion they do this because of 2 Peter rather than because there is actually any evidence for such a collection this early. Its entirely conceivable that some of Paul's letters would have circulated together (and I'm inclined to say that 2 Corinthians is such an example of two letters being joined together) but considering how little Paul's letters seem to have been known I find it very hard to believe that any such 'collection' was widely circulated. Certain communities obviously held Paul as being authoratitive as otherwise you wouldn't have got the Pastorals but that doesn't really prove your point.

I'm still off sick so I don't know when I'll be able to get a copy of those essays to skim so please provide a summary of the arguments. It would be nice if you could also name a mainstream (i.e. non-evangelical) Pauline scholar who endorses such a view.

[Pursuing_Truth]

2 Peter is still dependent upon Jude,

How do you know this?

which is inexplicable if Peter was the author. Why would an eyewitness be reliant on someone else's account? Peter wouldn't need secondary sources being a primary source himself.

Why would it be inexplicable? I suppose you hold to Matthean priority then since Matthew the eyewitness wouldn't need "secondary" sources such as Mark since he was a primary source himself, right? If you do hold to Matthean priority, I'd like to hear why. Suppose that's for another thread though.

If anything, it would seem that Peter wrote the first whereas an amanuensis wrote the second.

Hmm, this is the first I've seen this claim. The critical commentaries I've read claim the reverse. What is the reason for claiming the Peter wrote 1 Peter while an amanuensis wrote 2 Peter?

Still, like James Peter, I think the telling evidences against Petrine authorship is the familiarity with a collection of Pauline epistles and the author's concern with explaining the delay in the Second Coming. Both of these seem more consistent with Christianity as it was at the end of the first, beginnng of the second, centuries AD, than it was in Peter's lifetime.

You hold to the old early catholicism view, eh? If you reject Petrine authorship based on these two points then I suppose you reject the authenticity of several other NT books then. Luke & Acts, Ephesians, Jude, the Pastoral Epistles, 2 Peter, 2 Thessalonians...pseudonymous writings? I'm not expert in this field so I'm not really trying to be overly dogmatic one way or the other.

[Pursuing_Truth]

P.S.: Hope you did well with your paper PT!

Thanks! I basically just cranked it out since it was one of many current assignments but the research was interesting.

[Pursuing_Truth]

I'm arguing for the academic consensus and so the burden of proof is with the one who will take the minority opinion. If somebody gives reasons why 2 Peter should be seen as early I'll deal with them, for now I'll just say 'I'm with everyone else'.

I'm not trying to be an ass by asking this but...is this a commonly used tactic when dealing with such matters? I ask because this approach puts much greater weight on the present-day consensus than, for instance, the consensus of the first few centuries of the church. Is the present-day academic consensus the majority opinion of the past 2,000+ years or just the last 50-100? It would seem that if book claims Simon Peter as its author and the early church fathers agreed, the burden of proof would lie with those who disagree. This is why I am asking if what you mentioned is how this is typically approached.

mainstream (i.e. non-evangelical) Pauline scholar

I suppose none of my profs are mainstream then (Darrell Bock, Dan Wallace, Harold Hoehner). Oh well, some of us have to settle for the JV squad, I suppose.