Is 2 Peter clearly a forgery?

Page 1 of 5 [ 65 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Feb 2011, 6:20 pm

I argue that there's no conclusive evidence for that.

Note that I don't necessarily believe that Peter himself penned down 2 Peter. I believe he "authorized" a man or two to write it.

Discuss.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

28 Feb 2011, 6:27 pm

MCalavera wrote:

I argue that there's no conclusive evidence for that.

Note that I don't necessarily believe that Peter himself penned down 2 Peter. I believe he "authorized" a man or two to write it.

Discuss.

pick one 1 peter or 2 peter
one of them was not writen by peter.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

28 Feb 2011, 6:50 pm

The Conservapedia gets on this

http://www.conservapedia.com/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

Natty_Boh
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Dec 2010
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 756
Location: Baltimore County

28 Feb 2011, 6:58 pm

pandabear wrote:

The Conservapedia gets on this

http://www.conservapedia.com/Second_Epistle_of_Peter

The ones who did the "Conservative Bible"? :wall:

_________________
For men are homesick in their homes,
And strangers under the sun,
And they lay their heads in a foreign land
Whenever the day is done."

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

28 Feb 2011, 8:54 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

I argue that there's no conclusive evidence for that.

Note that I don't necessarily believe that Peter himself penned down 2 Peter. I believe he "authorized" a man or two to write it.

Discuss.

pick one 1 peter or 2 peter
one of them was not writen by peter.

Basis?

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Feb 2011, 8:57 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

I argue that there's no conclusive evidence for that.

Note that I don't necessarily believe that Peter himself penned down 2 Peter. I believe he "authorized" a man or two to write it.

Discuss.

pick one 1 peter or 2 peter
one of them was not writen by peter.

Why should I agree with you on such a false dilemma?

And you did pay attention to what I said in the OP, did you?

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

28 Feb 2011, 9:10 pm

MCalavera wrote:

JakobVirgil wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

I argue that there's no conclusive evidence for that.

Note that I don't necessarily believe that Peter himself penned down 2 Peter. I believe he "authorized" a man or two to write it.

Discuss.

pick one 1 peter or 2 peter
one of them was not written by peter.

Why should I agree with you on such a false dilemma?

And you did pay attention to what I said in the OP, did you?

its not a trick the two books just don't seem to be written by the same person.
and since I have no dog in the race not being a xtian and all.
the burden of proof is on the one who wants to say they have the same author.
This is my opinion
-Jake

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

28 Feb 2011, 9:15 pm

1 Peter begins

Quote:

From: Peter, apostle of Jesus Christ

To: God's chosen people who live as refugees scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. You were chosen according to the purpose of God the Father and were made a holy people by his Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be purified by his blood.

RE: May grace and peace be yours in full measure.

2 Peter begins

Quote:

From: Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ”

To: those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have been given a faith as precious as ours

RE: May grace and peace be yours in full measure through your knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord.

They're two different guys--in the first letter, the author is a dude named Peter. The second letter is written by a bloke who goes by Simon Peter.

Hence, no forgery. Possible confusion, due to being labed as 1 Peter and 2 Peter in the Table of Contents. But, just a simple mix up that is easily explained by looking at the mast head.

Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 82
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

28 Feb 2011, 9:23 pm

Fair enough as lit crit goes.

Given even the Pauline epistles specify amanuenses, given the Mark allegations, given what we are told about Peter - the Galileans were the hillbillies of choice, and he is NOT the type you think of as scholarly - it would be no surprise if the style came from different hands, whencever the content.

I definitely want the crack about Paul to have come from Peter's mouth, though, whoever wrote it down.

91
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

28 Feb 2011, 9:48 pm

MCalavera wrote:

I argue that there's no conclusive evidence for that.

Note that I don't necessarily believe that Peter himself penned down 2 Peter. I believe he "authorized" a man or two to write it.

Discuss.

Recent scholarship backs up what you are saying (mostly in the past 20 years). There is a case against the book's authorship. However that case cannot support the claim that it is a forgery. There are several claims against the book, I will wait for them to be discussed here. So far only this one has been raised:

JakobVirgil wrote:

Its not a trick the two books just don't seem to be written by the same person.

They were not written by the same person; the traditional view is that one was written by Silas as Peter's Amanuensis the second Epistle was most likely written by Peter himself or another Amanuensis.

@Philologos

You are correct.

_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

28 Feb 2011, 10:08 pm

2 peter 2:1-22
seems to be talking about 2nd century gnostics

2 Peter 3:4 (King James Version)

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

sleeping father = dead apostles?
strange usage for a man that is one of them.

2 Peter 3:16 (King James Version)

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

the author of second peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture?
were they canonized at this point ?

that is for everyone but Max.

for Max there is no way this could be a forgery.

-Jake secret liberal Christian :lol:

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

28 Feb 2011, 10:36 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

the author of second peter refers to Paul's letters as scripture?
were they canonized at this point ?

Quote:

Scrip·ture /ˈskrɪptʃər/ Show Spelled
[skrip-cher] Show IPA

–noun
1. Often, Scriptures. Also called Holy Scripture, Holy Scriptures. the sacred writings of the Old or New Testaments or both together.
2. ( often lowercase ) any writing or book, especially when of a sacred or religious nature.
3. ( sometimes lowercase ) a particular passage from the Bible; text.

By definition 2, the term "scripture" doesn't necessarily mean "canonized."

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Feb 2011, 10:43 pm

pandabear wrote:

1 Peter begins

Quote:

2 Peter begins

Quote:

They're one and the same. Read John 1:42.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

28 Feb 2011, 10:44 pm

91 wrote:

Honestly, Bart Ehrman's most recent book is arguing exactly that it is a forgery. So... the claim that it doesn't seems false if scholars actually make the claim.

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Feb 2011, 10:45 pm

Philologos wrote:

Given even the Pauline epistles specify amanuenses, given the Mark allegations, given what we are told about Peter - the Galileans were the hillbillies of choice, and he is NOT the type you think of as scholarly - it would be no surprise if the style came from different hands, whencever the content.

Exactly.

Did Bart Ehrman take note of that?

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

28 Feb 2011, 10:48 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

fathers means "ancestors" and "scriptures" means as understood by the Apostles.

Page 1 of 5 [ 65 posts ] Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Is 2 Peter clearly a forgery? Post Reply New Topic

Is 2 Peter clearly a forgery?