My daily exploration of the Bible, taking it one chapter at a time. If I do it everyday, it'll take 1189 days.

Thursday, January 17, 2008

2 Peter 1

Two Peter or not two Peter

From Peter. God's given us everything we need. His promises make us godly. To be productive we need to add love and godly lifestyles to our faith. Make your calling a sure thing!

I know you know this, but I'll keep reminding you until I die. I didn't make this up! I heard God's voice speak to Jesus on that mountain during the transfiguration. Remember that prophecy and our scripture comes from God, not from people.

Key verse:
16. We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

My thoughts:
So yea. Most 'people' don't think that Peter actually wrote 2 Peter, and even as early as Origen there was doubt, and 2 Peter isn't even mentioned much before him (Origen was third century). Petrine authorship is almost universally rejected.

2 Peter is not a core book of the New Testament. It is one, unlike Paul's letters and the gospels, which was, in early times, sometimes found within lists of canonical books and sometimes not.

The main reasons why Petrine authorship is rejected is because, from memory, a) the greek is poor and completely different to 1 Peter, b) it speaks to second century issues, c) it is just so darn Christian! (eg. it talks of the authority of Paul's letters).

Meh, there's probably more. Anyway, I'm not going to try and say that it's clearly actually written by Peter, but I would say that the evidence I've seen or heard of doesn't seem to prove to me that Peter didn't write this. It certainly puts the letter into doubt, but I think people on liberal and conservative sides often want to pretend that things are concluded when they're clearly not.

Arguments for Petrine authorship is that he dictated 1 Peter to Silas, a scribe, so it was written better, and quite simply that the thoughts and ideas in 2 Peter which may seem 2nd century are in fact able to be placed within Peter's lifetime.

Anywho... Peter's assertions of the sheer reality of Jesus and his glory I think are absolutely fundamental to orthodoxy. Many have tried to expand Christianity beyond the historical and actual events, or derive it in some sort of overly spiritual or metaphorical sense, but this is completely against the first heart of the Church. Implications like this lead me to believe (amongst other things) that the Apostles weren't talking about some internal, mental, spiritual, or metaphorical thing when referring to Christ's resurrection. They were talking about a very real thing they had seen with their eyes and touched with their hands.

This passage also quotes the New Testament, which is pretty unique within the New Testament! This of course points a bit towards non-Petrine authorship, but if Peter did write this, then phwoar! Those gospels were well distributed and known early! True eye-witness stuff here, folks!


Post a Comment

<< Home