Ken Brown

Hi aa5874, when did Peter write his letters? KB

aa5874

Who are you calling Peter??

All the authors of the Canon are Fakes.

I cannot even recall any claim that there were Epistles under the name of Peter before the 4th century.

Who was the first Non-Canonical writer who named Peter as a writer of Epistles??

It would appear to me that the Epistles under the name of Peter may not have any attestation at all until the 4th century when the 2nd Epistle was admitted to be a forgery or did NOT belong in the Canon.

Church History 3 No Epistle under the name of Peter has ever been recovered and dated to the 1st century.

Ken Brown

Hi aa5874, here is a quote from wiki answers.com, which I'm not sure is a reliable source, but it at least questions some of your erroneous assertions:

KB

Toto

It is good form to provide a link:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Peter_...r_in_the_Bible

Most of the comments there appear to be more informed than the one you quoted. I don't think this quote will persuade anyone.

The wikipedia entry on Authorship_of_the_Petrine_epistles is more balanced.

No - Christian apologist have come up with what they think are answers to the earlier skeptical scholarship, but this is not the same as disproof.
This is clearly not the case. There are only a few evangelical scholars who think that Peter might have written the letters attributed to him, and they admit that they are in the minority. See Daniel Wallace

From First_Epistle_of_Peter

One theory used to support Petrine authorship of 1 Peter is the "secretarial hypothesis", which suggests that 1 Peter was dictated by Peter and was written in Greek by his secretary, Silvanus (5:12). John Elliot, however, suggests that the notion of Silvanus as secretary or author or drafter of 1 Peter represents little more than a counsel of despair and introduces more problems than it solves because the Greek rendition of 5:12 suggests that Silvanus was not the secretary, but the courier/bearer of 1 Peter

This doesn't follow. The Peter described in the Bible would not have been fluent in Greek.
This does not help your argument

There is no confirming strong internal evidence. What does this refer to?

Ken Brown

Hi Toto, as you requested, here is a link that might answer some of your objections:

http://bible.org/article/2-peter-peter%E2%80%99s

KB

Toto

Your link says: "The rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter is by far the most common opinion today. In fact, the view of the pseudonymity of the epistle is almost universal."

But some people are unable to admit any possible flaw in the Bible. Are you an inerrantist?

Ken Brown

Hi Toto, the rejection of Peter as the writer of 2 Peter was refuted by the author of the link, why would you suggest that he was in agreement with the universal opinion? KB

spin

Ken, does it hurt you to do a search such as the following?

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...2+epistlehl=en

You have a responsibility to look at the options out there rather than merely apologize for your beliefs. We generally don't care what you believe, but that you present ideas that are sound.

We do care, however, if you are attempting in some way to profess your faith. That's off limits here, a violation of the forum's rules.

jakejonesiv

I find the epistle of 2Peter to be quite interesting because of the light it sheds on New Testament pseudepigraphy. 2 Peter is missing from the Muratorian Canon. The earliest mention of 2 Peter is by Origen 6.25.8 about 225 CE, and he doubts authorship of the letter. There is no definitive mention or quotation before Origen, so why should it be dated any earlier? There is nothing internal in the document that requires an earlier date, other than the lying claim to be by the apostle Peter as an eyewitness.


This document was obviously was not by the apostle Peter, that was written long after the traditional date of Peter's death, well into the second century (probably the third century). Indeed, Peter's prediction of his own imminent death {2Peter 1:13 [cf 2Cor5:1); 2:14] is a tip of the pseudepigrapher's hat to the legendary apostle's already accomplished demise.

Yet the epistle quite plainly states that it is by the Apostle Peter. “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2Peter 1:1). The author claims to be an eyewitness to the Transfiguration (2Peter 2:16). This means we cannot depend on the text to validate itself.

The author attempts to gain legitamacy by use of a sphragis, a reference to a known work presumably by the same author. This is a well documented sign of a forger. In this case (2Peter 3:1), the author refers to 1Peter, which is also pseudepigraphical, but not by the same author.

The very fact that the author is forced to say that "we did not follow cleverly devised myths" [2Peter 1:16] means that his sect was being accused of exactly that.

It is sometimes argued that concerns of the delayed Parosia (2Peter 3:4) is indicative of only first generation Christianity. This is refuted by 2Peter who lets slip that the apostolic generation, (of which he is supposed to be a member!?) has long ago passed away, "ever since our fathers died" 2Peter 3:4. And he doesn't skimp on the apology, he takes on the failed promise in one thousand year chunks, "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day" (2Peter 3:8)

The author fumbles again when he distinguishes between himself and "your apostles." "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles." 2Peter 3:2.

The pseudepigraphal author made references to items or events that are anachronistic to the time of the purported author. “Paul … in all his epistles...” 2 Peter 3:15-16. There was no collection of Pauline epistles before the alleged death of Peter.

The author's reference to a collection of Pauline letters dates the epistle to after the appearance of Marcion, and quite likely after the catholicized version of Marcion's epistles appeared, since it is doubtful that the author of 2Peter would be promoting the Marcionite Recension. The fact that he calls Paul "our beloved brother" indicates that the "Apostle of the Heretics" had been thoroughly domesticated into a good catholic. This takes up to the time of Ireneaus, if not later. (The Paulines are "that are hard to understand" because multiple redactors have made a muddle of them).

The author is anxious to forward his own intepretation of scripture over his opponents, wh apparently were quite skillful at arguing their doctrines from scripture. "... they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also other Scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16)

The author was also facing full blown Gnosticism for the number of times he uses the words knowledge and know (epignōsis, gnosis, and oida).

The author (2Peter 2;20) seemingly takes a swipe at Montanism, another heresy that arose among the rural settlements of Asia Minor.

The author has borrowed heavily from a previous work, Jude. (Like Colossians and Ephesians).

So we know that it is impossible for the Apostle Peter to have writtten this letter. This sheds light that Silvanus(Silas) is no mere amanuensis or secratary. Silvanus is quite likely the real author of 2Peter, putting his own thoughts in an Apostolic wrapper. Not much difference between 2Peter and the Pauline epistles; all share the signs of the pseudepigrapher.

Best,
Jake Jones

Toto

I am not suggesting that he is in agreement. I am suggesting that his reasoning is so poor that he only holds his position because he is an inerrantist and cannot reach any other.