I have no position on this issue. I am just asking the question. It seems that a considerable number of scholars think someone else wrote the letter under Peter's name ---- and they give reasons for their opinion. If you are at all interested in investigating this matter, here is a link which gives reasons for both positions (i.e. Petrine and non-Petrine authorship).
The Second Letter of Peter
Is Second Peter pseudonymous?
Is Second Peter pseudonymous?
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Is Second Peter pseudonymous?
I guess no one wanted to tackle this one. I guess the thinking is, "If a writing is in the Bible in our day, then it must be the 'Word of God', and I don't dare question that!"
I can't blame anyone for thinking like this; we've all been brought up to so think. Nevertheless, the link I gave in the previous post may be well worth considering, if no more than to "get out of the box" of our ingrained mode of thinking.
In relation to this topic we might consider the new heaven and earth which God will prepare as recorded in Isaiah 65 and compare it to that described in 2 Peter.
For there shall be a new heaven and a new earth: and they shall not at all remember the former, neither shall they at all come into their mind. But they shall find in her joy and exultation; for, behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and my people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and will be glad in my people: and there shall no more be heard in her the voice of weeping, or the voice of crying. Neither shall there be there any more a child that dies untimely, or an old man who shall not complete his time: for the youth shall be a hundred years old, and the sinner who dies at a hundred years shall also be accursed: and they shall build houses, and themselves shall dwell in them; and they shall plant vineyards, and themselves shall eat the fruit thereof. They shall by no means build, and others inhabit; and they shall by no means plant, and others eat: for as the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people, they shall long enjoy the fruits of their labours. My chosen shall not toil in vain, neither shall they beget children to be cursed; for they are a seed blessed of God, and their offspring with them. Isaiah 65: 17-23 a translation from the Septuagint
If we take this passage just as it reads without attempting any "spiritualization' of it, we would conclude that these events take place right here on earth — albeit a restored earth. There will be no more weeping and crying in Jerusalem, no more children dying, nor old people who will die earlier than expected. People at age 100 will still be in their youth (as in the beginning of mankind) . There will still be sinners. People will build houses and live in them. Others will not take their houses away from them, nor will other people take advantage of their labours. Their children will not be cursed, but they, together with their children, will be blessed by God .
Yes, it really sounds like a this-world scenario.
On the other hand, the new heaven and earth in second Peter are depicted quite differently:
First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation."
They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 2 Peter 3:3-13
Are the two accounts in conflict, as they appear to be? Why would that be the case? Could it actually be that 2 Peter was written by a later writer pretending to be Peter? Was it a mistake to include 2 Peter in the canon when it was never recognized or quoted by the second-century fathers?
Or is there some ingenious way to harmonize the two accounts of the new heaven and earth which the Lord will prepare?
I can't blame anyone for thinking like this; we've all been brought up to so think. Nevertheless, the link I gave in the previous post may be well worth considering, if no more than to "get out of the box" of our ingrained mode of thinking.
In relation to this topic we might consider the new heaven and earth which God will prepare as recorded in Isaiah 65 and compare it to that described in 2 Peter.
For there shall be a new heaven and a new earth: and they shall not at all remember the former, neither shall they at all come into their mind. But they shall find in her joy and exultation; for, behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and my people a joy. And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and will be glad in my people: and there shall no more be heard in her the voice of weeping, or the voice of crying. Neither shall there be there any more a child that dies untimely, or an old man who shall not complete his time: for the youth shall be a hundred years old, and the sinner who dies at a hundred years shall also be accursed: and they shall build houses, and themselves shall dwell in them; and they shall plant vineyards, and themselves shall eat the fruit thereof. They shall by no means build, and others inhabit; and they shall by no means plant, and others eat: for as the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people, they shall long enjoy the fruits of their labours. My chosen shall not toil in vain, neither shall they beget children to be cursed; for they are a seed blessed of God, and their offspring with them. Isaiah 65: 17-23 a translation from the Septuagint
If we take this passage just as it reads without attempting any "spiritualization' of it, we would conclude that these events take place right here on earth — albeit a restored earth. There will be no more weeping and crying in Jerusalem, no more children dying, nor old people who will die earlier than expected. People at age 100 will still be in their youth (as in the beginning of mankind) . There will still be sinners. People will build houses and live in them. Others will not take their houses away from them, nor will other people take advantage of their labours. Their children will not be cursed, but they, together with their children, will be blessed by God .
Yes, it really sounds like a this-world scenario.
On the other hand, the new heaven and earth in second Peter are depicted quite differently:
First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions and saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation."
They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.
Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of persons ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be kindled and dissolved, and the elements will melt with fire! But according to his promise we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. 2 Peter 3:3-13
Are the two accounts in conflict, as they appear to be? Why would that be the case? Could it actually be that 2 Peter was written by a later writer pretending to be Peter? Was it a mistake to include 2 Peter in the canon when it was never recognized or quoted by the second-century fathers?
Or is there some ingenious way to harmonize the two accounts of the new heaven and earth which the Lord will prepare?
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Is Second Peter pseudonymous?
Sir, I read through the paper you posted and found it pretty balanced. I agree with Jerome's conclusion that the style and vocabulary differences are probably the result of using different interpreters, since we know Peter had at least two. The fact that 2 Peter was held as suspect by the early fathers does hold some weight and I find it to be the strongest argument. I wish this were more conclusive because I find the book edifying and wish it were from Peter. If that's not the case then I'll just have to deal with it. For now I'm somehwat undecided but lean toward Peter's authorship since, after the dust (arguments) had settled, it was accepted by the church. There must've been a good reason.
Regarding your second post, I see no reason why Isaiah 65 can't be taken in a spiritual way. There are other verses in Isaiah that we all take spiritually so it wouldn't be some kind of special exception. Doesn't Steve take this verse to be about the Old and New covenants? I forget.
Regarding your second post, I see no reason why Isaiah 65 can't be taken in a spiritual way. There are other verses in Isaiah that we all take spiritually so it wouldn't be some kind of special exception. Doesn't Steve take this verse to be about the Old and New covenants? I forget.
Re: Is Second Peter pseudonymous?
I can't see the problem with the amanuensis view.Paidion wrote:I have no position on this issue. I am just asking the question. It seems that a considerable number of scholars think someone else wrote the letter under Peter's name ---- and they give reasons for their opinion. If you are at all interested in investigating this matter, here is a link which gives reasons for both positions (i.e. Petrine and non-Petrine authorship).
The Second Letter of Peter
Last edited by dean198 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is Second Peter pseudonymous?
I think the answer is that Peter wasn't referring to the promise in Isaiah, but to the promise in Revelation.Paidion wrote: Are the two accounts in conflict, as they appear to be? Why would that be the case? Could it actually be that 2 Peter was written by a later writer pretending to be Peter? Was it a mistake to include 2 Peter in the canon when it was never recognized or quoted by the second-century fathers?
Or is there some ingenious way to harmonize the two accounts of the new heaven and earth which the Lord will prepare?
Last edited by dean198 on Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Is Second Peter pseudonymous?
Not sure about that - it was later accepted by the Greek and Roman churches - correct me if I'm wrong but I think it's still rejected by the East Syrian church (Peshitta version) and West Syrian ('Nestorian') church.Jason wrote:For now I'm somehwat undecided but lean toward Peter's authorship since, after the dust (arguments) had settled, it was accepted by the church. There must've been a good reason.