Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hatsoff · 04-09-2007, 12:43 PM

From Daniel Wallace's Introduction (emphasis added):

Quote:

Three conclusions seem justified.

1. The possibility clearly exists that 2 Peter is reflected in several passages in the Apostolic Fathers. …real possibility obtains in at least twenty-two places, the level of likelihood ranging from merely possible to highly probable. The strongest possibilities have been found in 1 Clement, Pseudo Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas, with at least reasonable possibilities in Ignatius and the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

Among possible objections to this is that these allusions are not direct quotations. But such writings usually allude to biblical passages only indirectly, quoting from memory or paraphrasing the general thought. ...

Another possible objection is that Peter is not named as the source of these allusions. But this also is typical. For example, the Lake edition cites 1 Peter twenty-nine times in the Fathers (as compared to four for 2 Peter); in not one of these is Peter named. Romans is cited thirty-one times, and not one names Paul.

2. One thing has been proved, even if negative: one cannot dogmatically affirm that there certainly are no allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers; the common material is too obviously there.

Of course one can still debate the reason for that common material. The fact that it was there does not by itself show what the relationship between 2 Peter and the Fathers was. [Some argue that 2 Peter used the apostolic fathers; others that both the fathers and 2 Peter used a common source.] . . .

So be it; but those who choose either of these two explanations will have at least proved that their conviction of 2 Peter’s lateness is based on some grounds other than lack of possible allusions.

3. Following from the first two conclusions is this final one: the authenticity of 2 Peter will have to be debated on grounds other than whether the Apostolic Fathers knew it and alluded to it.4

In other words, a number of apostolic fathers (as well as others, such as Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus) seem to allude to this letter. If so, then the external evidence for 2 Peter is not nearly as weak as has been supposed. In the least, Picirilli’s evidence needs to be given a full hearing by NT scholars, even if it might turn over the apple cart of one the assured results of higher criticism.

I'd like to take a closer look at these "allusions"--especially those of 1 Clement and Barnabas. Does anyone know where I might find specific citations?

John Kesler · 04-09-2007, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Does anyone know where I might find specific citations?

Go to Peter Kirby's site, e-Catena: Compiled Allusions to the NT in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and click on 2 Peter.

hatsoff · 04-09-2007, 02:48 PM

Thankyou. That is exactly what I needed!

rob117 · 04-09-2007, 09:24 PM

Most of the alleged parallels on Kirby's site are a little too general for us to say they are directly related to Peter. According to encarta, 2 Peter refers to the gnostics, who were first active around 140. According to wikipedia (for whatever that's worth), see here, the letter is first attested by Origen (early third century).

Steven Avery · 04-10-2007, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

I'd like to take a closer look at these "allusions"--especially those of 1 Clement and Barnabas. Does anyone know where I might find specific citations?

Hi hatsoff,

Probably the best start is to spring for $1.40 from Tren.

Allusions to 2 Peter In The Apostolic Fathers - Robert E. Picirilli
http://tren.com/e-docs/search.cfm?oi...itle=Apostolic

Also available on SAGE
http://jnt.sagepub.com/cgi/content/c...0/33/57?ck=nck

Michael Kruger references Picirilli.

http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/...5-671_JETS.pdf
Ther Authenticity of 2 Peter

I put references (including Peter Kirby ecatena urls) at:
http://forum.bible.org/viewtopic.php?t=3054&start=45

It could be a good discussion. Probably the most interesting "allusion"
discussions I have seen have been on 2 Peter, 1 Timothy 3:16 and the
ending of Mark.

Shalom,
Steven

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-09-2007, 02:48 PM	#3
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Thankyou. That is exactly what I needed!

04-09-2007, 09:24 PM	#4
rob117 Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: New York State Posts: 440	Most of the alleged parallels on Kirby's site are a little too general for us to say they are directly related to Peter. According to encarta, 2 Peter refers to the gnostics, who were first active around 140. According to wikipedia (for whatever that's worth), see here, the letter is first attested by Origen (early third century).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.