# Book on Petrine Authorship of 2 Peter



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 2, 2009)

Can anyone point me in a correct direction?

(Also a book on Authorship issues in the NT from a scholarly, evangelical position)


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 2, 2009)

Interesting question. I did not realize that the authorship was even an issue given the first verse of the book?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 2, 2009)

Unfortunately everything is up for grabs in modern scholarship.


----------



## PresbyDane (Feb 2, 2009)




----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 2, 2009)

brianeschen said:


> Interesting question. I did not realize that the authorship was even an issue given the first verse of the book?



The Petrine authorship of 2 Peter has been questioned throughout church history - from the days of the fathers to the present. 

In modern times, most New Testament scholars deny the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Carson and Moo sum up the situation when they say, "[M]ost 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."

Of course when they say "most scholars" it must be remembered that "most scholars" are liberal. 

Here is a link to a decent article defending Petrine authorship of 2 Peter: Click here.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Feb 2, 2009)

Here is another article on the Petrine authorship issue from Bible.org. Also includes a good list of references.

Bible.org: The Authorship of Second Peter


----------



## Hippo (Feb 2, 2009)

A less Liberal denial of pure Petrine authorship suggests that the letter was written under his direction but not directly by him.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 2, 2009)

The problem that I have with the kind of "scholarship" that tries to look back and question Petrine authorship after the Church has received it as such is the thin evidence on which this is based. The idea that one would look for "writing patterns" and the like has been shown to be unreliable even for contemporary works where we know the same author wrote works that, by some of the "tests", would fail that test.

I imagine some scholarship would look at things I had written 5 years ago and compare it to my writing style today and question whether it's the same person much less if I had a scribe writing it for me as I dictated the contents.

We need to remember that the Church settled on the Canon years back on the basis of letters that the Churches possessed tested against the collective memories of those who were only a few generations removed from the receipt of those letters. I've had heirlooms from the Civil War passed down to me.

Also, the Church didn't merely accept everything that had been passed down but evaluated the Apostolic authority on the basis of its consistency with Apostolic teaching or that the Apostles had received it. Thus, even though _The Shepherd_ was viewed as inspired by some in the Church the broader consensus of the Church was that it was not.

Fundamentally, I just can't see what good it does to move off the Church's receiving of the Canon and give the ground to scholars who believe they have the autonomy to declare that which is or isn't apostolic. For many Scholars, this is simply an academic curiosity and they have no concern for the weightiness of the matter they're playing around with.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 2, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The problem that I have with the kind of "scholarship" that tries to look back and question Petrine authorship after the Church has received it as such is the thin evidence on which this is based. The idea that one would look for "writing patterns" and the like has been shown to be unreliable even for contemporary works where we know the same author wrote works that, by some of the "tests", would fail that test.
> 
> I imagine some scholarship would look at things I had written 5 years ago and compare it to my writing style today and question whether it's the same person much less if I had a scribe writing it for me as I dictated the contents.
> 
> ...



Rich, I understand what you're saying. But the questions concerning Petrine authorship are NOT modern and more importatly, they're not silly. Contrary to what you said here, textual criticism has helped time and again in the centuries since it was "created" in the early days of the Renaissance. Textual criticism is not infallible, of course... but it isn't junk science either. 

The reason we have to engage the scholars with more than, "This is the testimony of the church..." Is that ultimately it looks like we're ignoring facts and, in short, that we're stupid. That may not bother you. But it bothers those of us who realize the powerfully destructive effect of liberal thought on the well-being of Christians.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 2, 2009)

Ben,

Is it possible to have a discussion about a concern without pushing my concern into the snake handling crowd?

I may have expressed my concern poorly but my main concern is that scholarship can construct a theory where every bit of orthodoxy has to be pulled through its knot hole and the only thing that comes out is what fits that theory.

I'm not suggesting that certain scholarly studies don't yield fruit but there are people that insist that good scholarship would lead all reasonable men to the conclusion that John copied Luke who copied Matthew who copied Mark and each elaborated on the other building a stronger case for Christ's divinity.

My main concern are those that simply take for granted that you can question Petrine authorship on style. I recognize that the issue has been debated but, in the 21st Century, we are at a distinct disadvantage to those who were only separated by a few generations from its record. We don't possess some of the memories and other resources they would have used within the Church to authenticate some of these documents.

I just weary of the modern hubris that we have better clarity on authorship than those that were closer to the record. That doesn't mean I accept everything with wild-eyed "the Church said it so it is so" but, at a basic level, one has to accept some issues of Providence or all of orthodoxy is up for grabs.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 2, 2009)

We are in a bit of a straight jacket with 2 Peter due to the claim of authorship in the body of the text, I think that textual concerns can be discussed within an orthodox framework but in doing so we will always have to part company with those who see no problem in asserting contradictions in the biblical text rather than considering if such apparant contardictions can in fact be reconciled with the text.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 2, 2009)

Benjamin,

It's been awhile since I read through it, but I believe that Carson and Moo handle these questions fairly well in the 2nd ed. of their "Introduction to the New Testament". They include a bibliography relevant to the scholarship of each NT book at the end of the chapter, so you may also be able to find some more detailed reference works listed there.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 2, 2009)

As always Calvin is concise yet thoughtful on this point:

*The Argument on the Second Epistle of Peter*

The doubts respecting this Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, ought not to keep us from reading it. For if the doubts rested on the authority of men, whose names he does not give, we ought to pay no more regard to it than to that of unknown men. And he afterwards adds, that it was everywhere received without any dispute. What Jerome writes influences me somewhat more, that some, induced by a difference in the style, did not think that Peter was the author. For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death, because it might have somewhat availed, when he was dead, to support the good, and to repress the wicked. Doubtless, as in every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears, to repudiate it is what I dread, though I do not here recognize the language of Peter. But since it is not quite evident as to the author, I shall allow myself the liberty of using the word Peter or Apostle indiscriminately.

Calvin, John: Calvin's Commentaries: 2 Peter : Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles. electronic ed. Albany, OR : Ages Software, 1998 (Logos Library System; Calvin's Commentaries), S. 2 Pe 1:1


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 2, 2009)

I'm not sure I understand why questioning the authorship of a book would automatically call into question its canonization.



> ... and they have no concern for the weightiness of the matter they're playing around with.



So true! It's scary how little concern many have for truth or for the constraints of fearing God.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 2, 2009)

jwithnell said:


> I'm not sure I understand why questioning the authorship of a book would automatically call into question its canonization.



The problem is that IF the text of the book in question claims to have been writen by the Apostle Peter then if this is held not to be the case the document may contain an incorrect statement, to be in error and therefore could not be holy cannon i.e. inerrant.


----------



## GD (Feb 2, 2009)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Can anyone point me in a correct direction?



Kistemaker, Grudem, and Schreiner provide a detailed defense of Petrine authorship of both epistles in their commentaries. However, Kistemaker thinks Peter dictated 1 Peter to an ammanuensis who had some latitude in the vocabulary used. Although I respect S.K. very much, I think he’s mistaken to give that much up.

I did a research paper in my M.Div. on the Greek of 1 Peter and thought that the position of much of modern scholarship was ironic. Many today claim that Peter wrote 2 Peter but not 1 Peter because “_the Greek of 1 Peter is too good for Peter!_” Scholars 100 years ago claimed Peter wrote 1 Peter but not 2 Peter because “_the Greek of 2 Peter isn’t good enough for Peter!_” None of the evidence has changed - just the trends that I suppose even very sharp people are susceptible to.


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 2, 2009)

Guess I overlooked the obvious on that one!


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 2, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Ben,
> 
> Is it possible to have a discussion about a concern without pushing my concern into the snake handling crowd?
> 
> ...



Rich,

Please forgive me for making you think that I was relegating you or your concerns to the status of "snake-handling fundamentalism." 

Many of the early liberal scholars were pious men who thought, unfortunately, they were doing the church a service by their efforts. They were to blinded by principles such as academic freedom to really think through the consequences of their ideas on the faith and practice of subsequent generations. So I agree that with too many scholars things like this can become an academic exercise based more on personal discovery rather than on the health and well-being of the Spirit-led church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 2, 2009)

No problem Ben. I'm trying to be the irenic, encouraging Rich anyhow. 

I'm taking a class on Inspiration and Revelation right now so my thoughts above were summaries of an article I read in _The Infallible Word_, which dealt with the history of how the Church came to recognize the New Testament Canon. It's an interesting Redemptive Historical process.

Tonight, my Pastor quoted something from Machen that was speaking of Pauline theology and mentioned that, if you remove the events that are recorded in Paul's life you mar or even destroy the theology of Paul. I think what I'm trying to get at above is that we don't want to ignore critical scholarship but the real danger of it is that it tries to separate the story from the message and when you do that you actually destroy everything in the process. 

People think they can just look at word choices and style choices and decide whether or not Peter wrote the Epistle but I guess what I'm saying is that you have to be standing in the Church, the Bride of Christ, in the stream of revelatory and redemptive history and ask the question with the eyes of faith in the God who reveals rather than the blind eyes of autonomy.

I hope that makes some sense.


----------

