2 Peter: Authorship

Thinking maturely about the Christian faith
Search

// you’re reading...
Theology

2 Peter: Authorship

By Rowland Croucher and others ⋅ January 5, 2003 ⋅ Post a comment
From:  (Nigel B. Mitchell)
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Graeme's 6 points - was The Apocrypha
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 07:24:28 GMT

On Sun, 09 Aug 1998 16:50:57 GMT, g, (Graeme)
wrote:

>But note what Peter says in his second epistle. 

Hi, Graeme

I am still doing some work on 2 Peter 1:20-21, and will post it
on the newsgroup early this week. Would you like me to write your
reply as well? - I have a feeling I know what it will be. I am
tremendously amused that you and AJ are singing 'why are we
waiting', given that you think I am an uneducated liberal, and AJ
just wants to punce on another of his mice.

In the meantime, I wonder if you would like to comment on the
fact that Biblical scholars are, so far as I can see, just about
unanimous in ascribing pseudonymous authorship to the letter we
know as 2 Peter. It is generally considered to have been written
in the second century, and by an unknown author.

I am sure that you will fulminate once more about 'liberals' and
'rationalists', but like scholar and exegete worthy of the name,
I have looked up the provenance of my text before beginning work
on exegesis and exposition. W.G. Kummell, in his Introduction to
the New Testament (SCM 1975) gives a good sumary of the evidence
against Petrine authorship of this letter (see pages 430-434).
The main points are:

1. 2 Peter quotes from and alludes to the letter of Jude in a
number of passages - but omits Jude's references to the
Assumption of Moses and 1 Enoch. Given that Jude speaks of the
teaching of the apostles as something of the past (Jude 17), it
is generally held that Jude was written late in the 1st century,
and 2 Peter is even later than that..

2. The conceptual world and rhetorical language of 2 Peter is
hellensitic, not Jewish.

3. The letter writes against the denial of the Parousia (second
coming) (3:3), and the 'clever myths' and 'knowldege' of the
gnostics (1:6 et al) - all of which emerged in the Church early
in the second century, according to Clement and others.

4. 2 Peter refers to the letters of Paul as "scripture" (3:16) -
which points to authorship at a time when the collected writings
of Paul were already beginning to circulate together and achieve
similar stature amongst Christians to the Hebrew scriptures.
There is no evidence that this happened during Paul's lifetime,
or Peter's. 

5. The fact that the letter claims to be written by the Apostle
Peter, and even contains what purport to be eyewitness accounts,
does not definitively answer the question. Whereas today such
pseudonymous authorship would be considered a 'lie', 'cheating' a
breach of copyright, etc. in the ancient world it was commonplace
and considered quite proper.

6. 2 Peter is not contained in the earliest lists of canonical
books. In fact, no list of canonical books surviving from the
second century includes 2 Peter. Origen includes it in his list,
but as 'doubtful'. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria,
Cypran, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about 2
Peter. One third century codex includes 1&2 Peter and Jude, but
alongside other non- canonical books, and even down to the 4th
century, 2 Peter is virtually unknown. Eventually, in the 4th
century under the influence of Athanasias, Augustine and others,
the letter was accepted by the Western church. It is still not
regarded as canonical by the Syrian church.

Graeme, in our discussions about John 8 you decided that John
8:1-11 is not canonical because it is not included in the
earliest manuscripts, and shows all the signs of a late addition
to the scriptures. According to the same criteria, 2 Peter would
have to be considered equally doubtful. 

Let me state that I have no problem regarding 2 Peter as
canonical - because it is the Church that sets the canon, not
Biblical scholars or papyrologists, and it is not a matter of
personal opinion. 

But what do you think, Graeme? Does the above tally with your
research? I expect that you will consider points 1-5 above as the
ravings of liberal rationalists, but given that in the past you
have cut passages out of scripture on the grounds listed in point
6, it is your response to that part of this post that is likely
to be most illuminating.

Cheers

2.
N+

Nigel B. Mitchell