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



Friday, January 18, 2008

2 Peter 2

Gorillas with big hammers

Summary:
But there are heretics out there who deny even Jesus. They will be destroyed. We know from the Old Testament that God won't spare the sinners but will rescue the righteous. They curse heavenly things, which is pretty dumb. They are full of sin and self-pleasure. They need to be rebuked by an ass.

They promise freedom, yet are slaves. They would've been better off never coming to Jesus in the first place.

Key verse:
19. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him.

My thoughts:
The word for 'hell' here is the Greek word Tartarus, which is a word I don't know much about. I'd used to Hades or Sheol, but Tartarus is a new one for me. The only thing I know about Tartarus is that it is the name of the chieftain Brute in Halo 2. So his name means hell. Interesting...

I would look up the word on the internet, but our internet is currently nerfed, so that ain't gunna happen. If someone wants to look this up and let me know what is means, then that'd be cool!

Anyway, Peter is clearly prophectically speaking of the modern American branch of the Anglican communion here.

Or maybe not.

Anyway, nothing here implies to me that this must be referring to events or groups beyond the the 60s! Slandering celestial beings is an interesting concept...

So anyway, our internet is back, so I looked up Tartarus, and it's quite interesting! Tartarus is more like our traditional view of hell than Hades or Sheol. Rather than being a place of the dead, it is truly a place of torment and punishment for sinners. It was said to be within Hades. Peter here seems to be referencing Enoch 20, however, which explicitly states that the angels who came and slept with people in Genesis 6 were sent to Tartarus. Some of Enoch was probably written after Peter's life or as his contemporary, but this chapter was written centuries ago, so could've well been part of accepted Jewish mythology that Peter was referring to in the 60s.

7 Comments:

Blogger Deane said...

All the books in 1 Enoch were written by c20BC, no later than the time of Herod the Great.

The recent blockbuster, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, provides a number of reasons for this dating, by a few scholars. There was definitely quite a variance in the dating some years ago, but the consensus nowadays is that even the Similitudes/Parables were written BC. The reasons are compelling, methinks.

* * * * *

I've gone right off pseudepigraphical writings in the New Testament. I can never find a compelling reasons for this in any of the cases. And you know I'm the most rational and objective person you've ever met. I agree, 2 Peter could be first century. The beliefs and practices of the targeted 'heretics' fit in well with the 'weak' group in Corinth and with John the Seer's anti-Nicolaitans.

5:01 pm

 
Blogger Pete W said...

Maybe I'm thinking of 4 Enoch...

So you've gone off pseudepigraphical writings? Yea, I always thought that Enoch was written by Enoch at about 4000BC.

(I'll just ignore your specification that you were referring only to the New Testament)

But yes, I generally find myself unconvinced by arguments against traditional authorship. If that's the sort of thing people were into, why isn't Mark called the Gospel of Peter? That's what I'd do. Peter's cooler. Peter's always cooler.

5:20 pm

 
Blogger Deane said...

No - that's 1 Enoch 20.

And there is no '4 Enoch'. You've confused 1 Enoch with '4 Ezra' again.

I look forward to your forthcoming blog on these 2 (also canonical) Jewish books.

11:11 pm

 
Blogger Deane said...

... again: http://achapteraday.blogspot.com/2007/07/luke-11.html

11:13 pm

 
Blogger Pete W said...

I shouldn't have conceeded so quickly. There seems to be no clear certainty, as you claim, that 1 Enoch was completely written by 20BC, so my initial comment sorta stands.

Except it doesn't, because Peter is referencing 1 Enoch 20, which was definitely much earlier than Peter. It's chapters 37-71 which could possibly have been written contemporanously to Peter.

And yes, in my second comment I once again referred to 4 Ezra as 4 Enoch. There's a 3 Enoch, so perhaps we could embark on making the fourth, so that my continuing comments look less foolish.

10:35 am

 
Blogger Deane said...

I never argue for 'certainty' in biblical studies.

However, Enoch and the Messiah Son of Man, edited by Gabriele Boccaccini, is the latest word on the issue. And the collection provides a number of compelling reasons for a dating to c 20BC. There's a few pieces that deal with dating, and the book is a very interesting read. The links between the 'son of Man' figure in the Similitudes and Jesus are very interesting, given that the Similitudes seems to be the most relevant non-Gospel source for undestanding how Jesus understood the title and person of the son of Man.

12:40 pm

 
Blogger Pete W said...

Fair enough

11:55 am

 

Post a Comment

<< Home