Who Wrote 2 Peter?
29/01/14 10:19 Filed in: New Testament
Even if there is a direct statement of authorship in the letter (1.1), the authorship of 2 Peter is contested by many scholars on the grounds of style, the existence of fixed tradition, and the pseudepigraphical phenomenon in antiquity. However, these grounds are not conclusive.
The quality of language in the letter itself can be explained by Peter’s thirty years of ministry in Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome. It is a fact of life that humans change. All writers have their own style which they continue to improve throughout their lives. We would expect such a thing from one of the most prominent leaders in early Christianity.
The references to ‘our fathers’ (3.4), the ‘command of Jesus’ (3.2), and the letters of Paul (3.15-16) do not point to the existence of a ‘fixed tradition’ somewhere at the beginning of the second century AD. These statements show an author linked to the ancestors of Israel, to Jesus Christ, and to other apostles. They are better explained by this concept of shared communion than that of later stages in the development of early catholic Christianity.
The pseudepigraphical phenomenon is found in antiquity, but not as something accepted by that society. When a document is known to be a forgery nobody will accept it. Based on these arguments, the direct statement from 1.1 claiming Peter’s authorship is valid.
The references to ‘our fathers’ (3.4), the ‘command of Jesus’ (3.2), and the letters of Paul (3.15-16) do not point to the existence of a ‘fixed tradition’ somewhere at the beginning of the second century AD. These statements show an author linked to the ancestors of Israel, to Jesus Christ, and to other apostles. They are better explained by this concept of shared communion than that of later stages in the development of early catholic Christianity.
The pseudepigraphical phenomenon is found in antiquity, but not as something accepted by that society. When a document is known to be a forgery nobody will accept it. Based on these arguments, the direct statement from 1.1 claiming Peter’s authorship is valid.
blog comments powered by Disqus