Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Second Epistle of Peter

2007-05-26T22:23:37Z

Englishman: /* Authorship */

The '''Second Epistle of Peter''', also abbreviated as simply '''2 Peter''', is a book of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. Written, at least in part, by the apostle Peter, the letter denounces false teachers who pervert the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Saint Peter also discusses the end of the world, employing the beautiful phrase, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8), and explaining that God, in his mercy, has delayed the Second Coming of Christ to give the opportunity for repentance and salvation for more people.

==Authorship==

Perhaps no other letter has been subject to such criticism and accusations of forgery as the second epistle of Peter. These arguments have been advanced in spite of the fact that certain unique aspects of the letter all but exclude this possibility. Here careful analysis of these positions will be made. It should be noted upfront that the letter claims to have been written by Peter, an apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and so any such accusations call into question the inerrancy of the Word of God.

The opening verse of the letter states that it has been written by “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). In many places, the author clearly presents himself as Peter the Apostle, stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (2 Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2 Peter 3:1; presumably a reference to the First Epistle of Peter), and he called Paul the Apostle “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).

The internal claim to have been written by “Simeon Peter” is unique. “Simeon” is an archaic Hebrew form of the standard "Simon", and out of all the ancient literature it appears only in Acts 15:14, and then just as “Simeon” (not “Simeon Peter”). “Simeon” is not used in any other place in the New Testament, in any of the Apostolic Fathers, or in any pseudepigraphic (forged) literature.<ref> M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. 9; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref> The First Epistle of Peter uses simply the name “Peter”, and it is unlikely that a later writer attempting to feign an original letter would use a different name than one used in the genuine text, especially an archaic and obscure naming convention like "Simeon Peter."

This is not the only characteristic that distinguishes the letter from the known forgeries of antiquity. First, the common convention in ancient forgeries, when attempting to add a sense of realism to their claims to authoritative authorship (by an apostle or the like) was to adopt a first-person narrative style. However, 2 Peter nowhere employs this convention, even in the passage concerning the Lord's Transfiguration, where it would be most expected.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref> Furthermore, the account of the Transfiguration differs in certain details from the accounts in the Holy Gospel – something unexpected of a forger. Additionally, forged documents, which are later in date than the apostolic texts, tend to added embellishments to the gospel accounts, a feature completely lacking in this letter.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'', p. 27.</ref> Also unusual is the description of Paul as “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15). Later literature referred to Paul as “the blessed Paul”, “the blessed and glorious Paul”, and “the sanctified Paul right blessed”, and thus the subdued usage in the letter is more fitting of genuine Petrine use than of a later forgery.<ref>J. B. Major, ''The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter'' (1907), p. 166; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 826; references to quotes from antiquity are 1 Clement 47.1 and Polycarp, ''Ad Phil.'' 11; Polycarp, ''Ad Phil''. 3; Ignatius, ''Ad Eph''. 12.2.</ref> Lastly, the statement that the author finds Paul’s letters difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16) runs counter to the tendency of forgers to enhance the heroic qualities of the alleged author.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 827.</ref> Hence, Donald Guthrie concluded that, if the letter were pseudepigraphy, it would be in many respects unparalleled with other such literature, so much so that it would be “of its own class”.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>

One of the main points cited by critics is the textual evidence that the author incorporated elements of the Epistle of Jude, and from this it has been conjectured than an apostle would not himself use another source (often in such arguments the authenticity of Jude is also disparaged). Before any refutations are elaborated it is worth observing that such speculation need not be accepted as definitive.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'' (1961), p. 10-11; ibid., ‘The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude’, in ''Tyndale New Testament Commentary'' (1987).</ref> Donald Guthrie stated simply that it was “a fallacious supposition” to assume that an apostle would not have made use of an earlier source, and that, though it might be unexpected, it would be equally or more unexpected for a forger to do so.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 831; on a reason for the use of Jude, see E. H. Plumptre, ‘The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude’, in ''The Cambridge Bible of School and Colleges'' (1879), p. 80.</ref> But, besides this, another possibility is that the textual evidence can be interpreted to point the other way, namely that the Epistle of Jude used 2 Peter. In this interpretation, Jude would have extracted information from 2 Peter and added a doxology, perhaps being motivated by the recent fulfillment of the prophetic statements of 2 Peter.<ref>S. T. Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' II p. 250; F. Spitta, ''Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas'' (1885), pp. 145-146; C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901).</ref> Lastly, the opinion of Ben Witherington III should be noted. The scholar argued that 2 Peter, as we have today, is a composite document including points taken from the Epistle of Jude but containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as 2 Peter 1:12-21.<ref>Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, ''Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers'' (1985), pp. 187-192.</ref> Hence, even if credence is given to some points of the critical scholarship, from this it in no sense follows that the text’s claim of Petrine authorship is an error.

Given the flurry of arguments, mostly wholly speculative, that have been made against the authenticity of the letter, it is impossible to sufficiently address every point. However, it is necessary to address the majority of them in brief. The different styles of language between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are often cited as proof that the same author (i.e. Saint Peter) could not have written them both. Very often these linguistic differences are overly stressed, and, even accepting such arguments, it is simply a fallacy to deduce, from such a tiny sample, a complete picture of the style and vocabulary of one author in a way that could exclude either of the letters. But the real difficulty with this position is that it ignores the widespread practice in antiquity of employing secretaries in drafting letters at one’s behest, and it is even explicitly stated in 1 Peter that such a secretary (Silvanus, also called Silas) has been so utilized. Moving on, other objections include a reference within the letter to the writings of Paul, which is often misinterpreted to be necessarily referring to a complete collection of all his epistles, which would not have been in circulation before Peter’s death. However, the reference in question does not in any sense imply the existence of a complete or authorized corpus of Paul’s letters.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 824.</ref> Historically, Peter and Paul can both be located in Rome around the same time, creating a plausible opportunity for Peter to become acquainted with some of Paul’s writings - writings which, whatever the case, could have been partially in circulation before Peter’s martyrdom. The penultimate objection to be addressed is the accusation that the letter's reference to “the fathers”, interpreted as a reference to a bygone generation of Christian founders, presents a perspective that Peter himself could not have had, since he would not have been far enough removed from this generation. Perhaps the most significant part of this point is the absurd position it puts the critics in, who are perfectly willing to accept that a forger was of such skill as to create a letter wholly unique amongst ancient forgeries on so many points, yet was able to make such an obvious blunder. This aside, the solution to the objection is to observe the misinterpretation of the reference in question. The phrase “the fathers” (''οι πατέρες'') is not used to refer to Christian “patriarchs”, or the first generation of Christian leaders, anywhere else in the New Testament or in the Apostolic Fathers and, given the context, is much more likely a reference to the Jewish Patriarchs of the Old Testament.<ref>R. J. Bauckham, ''Jude, 2 Peter (Word)'' 1983, p. 290; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 829.</ref>

Lastly, critics often cite the lack of early attestation amongst ancient Christian sources as evidence of the letter’s late authorship, and the (supposed) general hesitancy that the Church Fathers had in accepting the genuineness of the epistle. Though there is admittedly a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, many scholars have found evidence of possible use of the epistle, or signs of its influence, in the writings of certain early Fathers. This includes the works of Clement of Alexandria (d. ''c''. 211), Theophilus of Antioch (d. ''c''. 183), Aristides the Athenian [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aristides]] (d. ''c''. 134), Polycarp [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Polycarp_of_Smyrna]] (d. 155), and Justin Martyr [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Justin_Martyr]] (d. 165).<ref>C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref> Hence, the evidence before Origen’s time is best described as inconclusive,<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> and thus the evidence does not go nearly as far as the critics would wish to make it seem. The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by Origen (''c''. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical.”<ref> Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref> Origen himself, in another passage, would seem to have considered letter to be Petrine in authorship.<ref>M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. xix; cf. Origen, ''Homily in Josh''. 7.1.</ref> It is unfortunate that the vague comments of Origen have been taken too far. The first author of record to have professed his own doubts concerning the letter was Eusebius of Caesarea (''c''. 275 – 339), though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of Jerome (''c''. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1.</ref> Hence, the evidence from the authors may best be summed in the negative: "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>

== Notes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:New Testament]]

Justin Martyr

2007-05-26T22:21:51Z

Englishman: Addition

'''Justin Martyr''' Christian apologist and the original [[Martyr]]. Killed for his faith in 165 AD at the behest of emperor [[Marcus Aurelius]]. Is mentioned in multiple sources of antiquity and a large body of his work survives to this day.

He was a philosopher who had experimented with Stoicism, Pythagoreanism and Platonism. Justin was converted to Christ after being urged to turn to the Jewish scriptures. In his apologies to the emperor Antoninus Pius and the Roman Senate, he argued that the truth found in Greek philosophy prefigured some of the teachings of Christ. He also wrote Dialogue with Trypho, a debate between Justin and a Jew arguing that Christianity was the fulfilment of Judaism.

[[Category:Christianity]]
[[Category:Church fathers]]
[[Category:Martyrs]]

Athenegoras

2007-05-26T22:20:06Z

Englishman: New entry on Athenegoras

Athenegoras (mid-2nd Century) was a converted Platonist philosopher from Athens whose ''Intercession on behalf of the Christians'' to emperor Marcus Aurelius in AD 177 sought to disprove various false accusations against the Christians.

Second Epistle of Peter

2007-05-26T22:17:42Z

Englishman: Link

The '''Second Epistle of Peter''', also abbreviated as simply '''2 Peter''', is a book of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. Written, at least in part, by the apostle Peter, the letter denounces false teachers who pervert the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Saint Peter also discusses the end of the world, employing the beautiful phrase, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8), and explaining that God, in his mercy, has delayed the Second Coming of Christ to give the opportunity for repentance and salvation for more people.

==Authorship==

Perhaps no other letter has been subject to such criticism and accusations of forgery as the second epistle of Peter. These arguments have been advanced in spite of the fact that certain unique aspects of the letter all but exclude this possibility. Here careful analysis of these positions will be made. It should be noted upfront that the letter claims to have been written by Peter, an apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and so any such accusations call into question the inerrancy of the Word of God.

The opening verse of the letter states that it has been written by “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). In many places, the author clearly presents himself as Peter the Apostle, stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (2 Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2 Peter 3:1; presumably a reference to the First Epistle of Peter), and he called Paul the Apostle “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).

The internal claim to have been written by “Simeon Peter” is unique. “Simeon” is an archaic Hebrew form of the standard "Simon", and out of all the ancient literature it appears only in Acts 15:14, and then just as “Simeon” (not “Simeon Peter”). “Simeon” is not used in any other place in the New Testament, in any of the Apostolic Fathers, or in any pseudepigraphic (forged) literature.<ref> M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. 9; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref> The First Epistle of Peter uses simply the name “Peter”, and it is unlikely that a later writer attempting to feign an original letter would use a different name than one used in the genuine text, especially an archaic and obscure naming convention like "Simeon Peter."

This is not the only characteristic that distinguishes the letter from the known forgeries of antiquity. First, the common convention in ancient forgeries, when attempting to add a sense of realism to their claims to authoritative authorship (by an apostle or the like) was to adopt a first-person narrative style. However, 2 Peter nowhere employs this convention, even in the passage concerning the Lord's Transfiguration, where it would be most expected.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref> Furthermore, the account of the Transfiguration differs in certain details from the accounts in the Holy Gospel – something unexpected of a forger. Additionally, forged documents, which are later in date than the apostolic texts, tend to added embellishments to the gospel accounts, a feature completely lacking in this letter.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'', p. 27.</ref> Also unusual is the description of Paul as “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15). Later literature referred to Paul as “the blessed Paul”, “the blessed and glorious Paul”, and “the sanctified Paul right blessed”, and thus the subdued usage in the letter is more fitting of genuine Petrine use than of a later forgery.<ref>J. B. Major, ''The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter'' (1907), p. 166; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 826; references to quotes from antiquity are 1 Clement 47.1 and Polycarp, ''Ad Phil.'' 11; Polycarp, ''Ad Phil''. 3; Ignatius, ''Ad Eph''. 12.2.</ref> Lastly, the statement that the author finds Paul’s letters difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16) runs counter to the tendency of forgers to enhance the heroic qualities of the alleged author.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 827.</ref> Hence, Donald Guthrie concluded that, if the letter were pseudepigraphy, it would be in many respects unparalleled with other such literature, so much so that it would be “of its own class”.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>

One of the main points cited by critics is the textual evidence that the author incorporated elements of the Epistle of Jude, and from this it has been conjectured than an apostle would not himself use another source (often in such arguments the authenticity of Jude is also disparaged). Before any refutations are elaborated it is worth observing that such speculation need not be accepted as definitive.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'' (1961), p. 10-11; ibid., ‘The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude’, in ''Tyndale New Testament Commentary'' (1987).</ref> Donald Guthrie stated simply that it was “a fallacious supposition” to assume that an apostle would not have made use of an earlier source, and that, though it might be unexpected, it would be equally or more unexpected for a forger to do so.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 831; on a reason for the use of Jude, see E. H. Plumptre, ‘The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude’, in ''The Cambridge Bible of School and Colleges'' (1879), p. 80.</ref> But, besides this, another possibility is that the textual evidence can be interpreted to point the other way, namely that the Epistle of Jude used 2 Peter. In this interpretation, Jude would have extracted information from 2 Peter and added a doxology, perhaps being motivated by the recent fulfillment of the prophetic statements of 2 Peter.<ref>S. T. Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' II p. 250; F. Spitta, ''Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas'' (1885), pp. 145-146; C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901).</ref> Lastly, the opinion of Ben Witherington III should be noted. The scholar argued that 2 Peter, as we have today, is a composite document including points taken from the Epistle of Jude but containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as 2 Peter 1:12-21.<ref>Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, ''Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers'' (1985), pp. 187-192.</ref> Hence, even if credence is given to some points of the critical scholarship, from this it in no sense follows that the text’s claim of Petrine authorship is an error.

Given the flurry of arguments, mostly wholly speculative, that have been made against the authenticity of the letter, it is impossible to sufficiently address every point. However, it is necessary to address the majority of them in brief. The different styles of language between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are often cited as proof that the same author (i.e. Saint Peter) could not have written them both. Very often these linguistic differences are overly stressed, and, even accepting such arguments, it is simply a fallacy to deduce, from such a tiny sample, a complete picture of the style and vocabulary of one author in a way that could exclude either of the letters. But the real difficulty with this position is that it ignores the widespread practice in antiquity of employing secretaries in drafting letters at one’s behest, and it is even explicitly stated in 1 Peter that such a secretary (Silvanus, also called Silas) has been so utilized. Moving on, other objections include a reference within the letter to the writings of Paul, which is often misinterpreted to be necessarily referring to a complete collection of all his epistles, which would not have been in circulation before Peter’s death. However, the reference in question does not in any sense imply the existence of a complete or authorized corpus of Paul’s letters.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 824.</ref> Historically, Peter and Paul can both be located in Rome around the same time, creating a plausible opportunity for Peter to become acquainted with some of Paul’s writings - writings which, whatever the case, could have been partially in circulation before Peter’s martyrdom. The penultimate objection to be addressed is the accusation that the letter's reference to “the fathers”, interpreted as a reference to a bygone generation of Christian founders, presents a perspective that Peter himself could not have had, since he would not have been far enough removed from this generation. Perhaps the most significant part of this point is the absurd position it puts the critics in, who are perfectly willing to accept that a forger was of such skill as to create a letter wholly unique amongst ancient forgeries on so many points, yet was able to make such an obvious blunder. This aside, the solution to the objection is to observe the misinterpretation of the reference in question. The phrase “the fathers” (''οι πατέρες'') is not used to refer to Christian “patriarchs”, or the first generation of Christian leaders, anywhere else in the New Testament or in the Apostolic Fathers and, given the context, is much more likely a reference to the Jewish Patriarchs of the Old Testament.<ref>R. J. Bauckham, ''Jude, 2 Peter (Word)'' 1983, p. 290; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 829.</ref>

Lastly, critics often cite the lack of early attestation amongst ancient Christian sources as evidence of the letter’s late authorship, and the (supposed) general hesitancy that the Church Fathers had in accepting the genuineness of the epistle. Though there is admittedly a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, many scholars have found evidence of possible use of the epistle, or signs of its influence, in the writings of certain early Fathers. This includes the works of Clement of Alexandria (d. ''c''. 211), Theophilus of Antioch (d. ''c''. 183), Aristides the Athenian [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aristides]] (d. ''c''. 134), Polycarp [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Polycarp_of_Smyrna]] (d. 155), and Justin Martyr (d. 165).<ref>C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref> Hence, the evidence before Origen’s time is best described as inconclusive,<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> and thus the evidence does not go nearly as far as the critics would wish to make it seem. The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by Origen (''c''. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical.”<ref> Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref> Origen himself, in another passage, would seem to have considered letter to be Petrine in authorship.<ref>M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. xix; cf. Origen, ''Homily in Josh''. 7.1.</ref> It is unfortunate that the vague comments of Origen have been taken too far. The first author of record to have professed his own doubts concerning the letter was Eusebius of Caesarea (''c''. 275 – 339), though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of Jerome (''c''. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1.</ref> Hence, the evidence from the authors may best be summed in the negative: "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>

== Notes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:New Testament]]

Louis the Pious

2007-05-22T10:39:17Z

Englishman: New entry

When Charlemagne died in 814 his son Louis the Pious became Holy Roman Emperor. During his reign, he sought to continue reform of the monastries by appointing Benedict of Aniane (750-821) as his adviser on church affairs. Some of the great theological disputes began to rear their heads, including the controversy over predestination stirred up by Gottschalk of Orbais (805-869) amongst others, and the dispute between Paschasius Radbertus (785-860) and Ratramnus of Corbie (died 868) over whether the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper were miraculously converted into the flesh and blood of Christ.

Second Epistle of Peter

2007-05-22T10:19:43Z

Englishman: /* Authorship */

The '''Second Epistle of Peter''', also abbreviated as simply '''2 Peter''', is a book of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. Written, at least in part, by the apostle Peter, the letter denounces false teachers who pervert the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Saint Peter also discusses the end of the world, employing the beautiful phrase, “one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8), and explaining that God, in his mercy, has delayed the Second Coming of Christ to give the opportunity for repentance and salvation for more people.

==Authorship==

Perhaps no other letter has been subject to such criticism and accusations of forgery as the second epistle of Peter. These arguments have been advanced in spite of the fact that certain unique aspects of the letter all but exclude this possibility. Here careful analysis of these positions will be made. It should be noted upfront that the letter claims to have been written by Peter, an apostle of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and so any such accusations call into question the inerrancy of the Word of God.

The opening verse of the letter states that it has been written by “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). In many places, the author clearly presents himself as Peter the Apostle, stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (2 Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2 Peter 3:1; presumably a reference to the First Epistle of Peter), and he called Paul the Apostle “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).

The internal claim to have been written by “Simeon Peter” is unique. “Simeon” is an archaic Hebrew form of the standard "Simon", and out of all the ancient literature it appears only in Acts 15:14, and then just as “Simeon” (not “Simeon Peter”). “Simeon” is not used in any other place in the New Testament, in any of the Apostolic Fathers, or in any pseudepigraphic (forged) literature.<ref> M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. 9; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref> The First Epistle of Peter uses simply the name “Peter”, and it is unlikely that a later writer attempting to feign an original letter would use a different name than one used in the genuine text, especially an archaic and obscure naming convention like "Simeon Peter."

This is not the only characteristic that distinguishes the letter from the known forgeries of antiquity. First, the common convention in ancient forgeries, when attempting to add a sense of realism to their claims to authoritative authorship (by an apostle or the like) was to adopt a first-person narrative style. However, 2 Peter nowhere employs this convention, even in the passage concerning the Lord's Transfiguration, where it would be most expected.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref> Furthermore, the account of the Transfiguration differs in certain details from the accounts in the Holy Gospel – something unexpected of a forger. Additionally, forged documents, which are later in date than the apostolic texts, tend to added embellishments to the gospel accounts, a feature completely lacking in this letter.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'', p. 27.</ref> Also unusual is the description of Paul as “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15). Later literature referred to Paul as “the blessed Paul”, “the blessed and glorious Paul”, and “the sanctified Paul right blessed”, and thus the subdued usage in the letter is more fitting of genuine Petrine use than of a later forgery.<ref>J. B. Major, ''The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter'' (1907), p. 166; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 826; references to quotes from antiquity are 1 Clement 47.1 and Polycarp, ''Ad Phil.'' 11; Polycarp, ''Ad Phil''. 3; Ignatius, ''Ad Eph''. 12.2.</ref> Lastly, the statement that the author finds Paul’s letters difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16) runs counter to the tendency of forgers to enhance the heroic qualities of the alleged author.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 827.</ref> Hence, Donald Guthrie concluded that, if the letter were pseudepigraphy, it would be in many respects unparalleled with other such literature, so much so that it would be “of its own class”.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>

One of the main points cited by critics is the textual evidence that the author incorporated elements of the Epistle of Jude, and from this it has been conjectured than an apostle would not himself use another source (often in such arguments the authenticity of Jude is also disparaged). Before any refutations are elaborated it is worth observing that such speculation need not be accepted as definitive.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'' (1961), p. 10-11; ibid., ‘The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude’, in ''Tyndale New Testament Commentary'' (1987).</ref> Donald Guthrie stated simply that it was “a fallacious supposition” to assume that an apostle would not have made use of an earlier source, and that, though it might be unexpected, it would be equally or more unexpected for a forger to do so.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 831; on a reason for the use of Jude, see E. H. Plumptre, ‘The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude’, in ''The Cambridge Bible of School and Colleges'' (1879), p. 80.</ref> But, besides this, another possibility is that the textual evidence can be interpreted to point the other way, namely that the Epistle of Jude used 2 Peter. In this interpretation, Jude would have extracted information from 2 Peter and added a doxology, perhaps being motivated by the recent fulfillment of the prophetic statements of 2 Peter.<ref>S. T. Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' II p. 250; F. Spitta, ''Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas'' (1885), pp. 145-146; C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901).</ref> Lastly, the opinion of Ben Witherington III should be noted. The scholar argued that 2 Peter, as we have today, is a composite document including points taken from the Epistle of Jude but containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as 2 Peter 1:12-21.<ref>Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, ''Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers'' (1985), pp. 187-192.</ref> Hence, even if credence is given to some points of the critical scholarship, from this it in no sense follows that the text’s claim of Petrine authorship is an error.

Given the flurry of arguments, mostly wholly speculative, that have been made against the authenticity of the letter, it is impossible to sufficiently address every point. However, it is necessary to address the majority of them in brief. The different styles of language between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are often cited as proof that the same author (i.e. Saint Peter) could not have written them both. Very often these linguistic differences are overly stressed, and, even accepting such arguments, it is simply a fallacy to deduce, from such a tiny sample, a complete picture of the style and vocabulary of one author in a way that could exclude either of the letters. But the real difficulty with this position is that it ignores the widespread practice in antiquity of employing secretaries in drafting letters at one’s behest, and it is even explicitly stated in 1 Peter that such a secretary (Silvanus, also called Silas) has been so utilized. Moving on, other objections include a reference within the letter to the writings of Paul, which is often misinterpreted to be necessarily referring to a complete collection of all his epistles, which would not have been in circulation before Peter’s death. However, the reference in question does not in any sense imply the existence of a complete or authorized corpus of Paul’s letters.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 824.</ref> Historically, Peter and Paul can both be located in Rome around the same time, creating a plausible opportunity for Peter to become acquainted with some of Paul’s writings - writings which, whatever the case, could have been partially in circulation before Peter’s martyrdom. The penultimate objection to be addressed is the accusation that the letter's reference to “the fathers”, interpreted as a reference to a bygone generation of Christian founders, presents a perspective that Peter himself could not have had, since he would not have been far enough removed from this generation. Perhaps the most significant part of this point is the absurd position it puts the critics in, who are perfectly willing to accept that a forger was of such skill as to create a letter wholly unique amongst ancient forgeries on so many points, yet was able to make such an obvious blunder. This aside, the solution to the objection is to observe the misinterpretation of the reference in question. The phrase “the fathers” (''οι πατέρες'') is not used to refer to Christian “patriarchs”, or the first generation of Christian leaders, anywhere else in the New Testament or in the Apostolic Fathers and, given the context, is much more likely a reference to the Jewish Patriarchs of the Old Testament.<ref>R. J. Bauckham, ''Jude, 2 Peter (Word)'' 1983, p. 290; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 829.</ref>

Lastly, critics often cite the lack of early attestation amongst ancient Christian sources as evidence of the letter’s late authorship, and the (supposed) general hesitancy that the Church Fathers had in accepting the genuineness of the epistle. Though there is admittedly a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, many scholars have found evidence of possible use of the epistle, or signs of its influence, in the writings of certain early Fathers. This includes the works of Clement of Alexandria (d. ''c''. 211), Theophilus of Antioch (d. ''c''. 183), Aristides the Athenian[[http://www.conservapedia.com/Aristides]] (d. ''c''. 134), Polycarp (d. 155), and Justin Martyr (d. 165).<ref>C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref> Hence, the evidence before Origen’s time is best described as inconclusive,<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> and thus the evidence does not go nearly as far as the critics would wish to make it seem. The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by Origen (''c''. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical.”<ref> Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref> Origen himself, in another passage, would seem to have considered letter to be Petrine in authorship.<ref>M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. xix; cf. Origen, ''Homily in Josh''. 7.1.</ref> It is unfortunate that the vague comments of Origen have been taken too far. The first author of record to have professed his own doubts concerning the letter was Eusebius of Caesarea (''c''. 275 – 339), though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of Jerome (''c''. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1.</ref> Hence, the evidence from the authors may best be summed in the negative: "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>

== Notes ==
<div class="references-small">
<references/>
</div>

[[Category:Bible]]
[[Category:New Testament]]

Aristides

2007-05-22T10:16:29Z

Englishman: New entry

Aristides (also known as "Aristides the Athenian") lived in the mid-2nd Century. He was converted philosopher from Athens who wrote an apology for the Christian faith to Emperor Antoninus Pius in AD 140.

Irenaeus of Lyons

2007-05-16T20:23:30Z

Englishman: New page: A student of Polycarp_of_Smyrna, Irenaeus (active AD 175-95) was born into a Christian family in the early 2nd Century in Asia Minor. He moved to Lyons in France as a young man where C...

A student of [[Polycarp_of_Smyrna]], Irenaeus (active AD 175-95) was born into a Christian family in the early 2nd Century in Asia Minor. He moved to Lyons in France as a young man where Christians from Asia Minor had already planted churches. After persecution took the life of the Bishop of Lyons in 177 Irenaeus was elected in his place. His lengthy refutation of Gnosticism marks him out at the most significant 2nd Century church father.

Polycarp of Smyrna

2007-05-16T20:18:28Z

Englishman:

Polycarp (AD 70-156) was Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor. His martyrdom by the Romans is one of the most famous of the 2nd Century. His Letter to the Philippians [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.html] gives a good indication of what mainstream Christianity was like at the time.

Polycarp of Smyrna

2007-05-16T20:18:03Z

Englishman:

Polycarp (AD 70-156) was Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor. His martyrdom by the Romans is one of the most famous of the 2nd Century. His Letter to the Philippians [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.iv.ii.html]gives a good indication of what mainstream Christianity was like at the time.

Polycarp of Smyrna

2007-05-16T20:17:35Z

Englishman: New entry on Polycarp of Smyrna

Papias

2007-05-16T20:11:20Z

Englishman: New entry on Papias, 2nd century churchman

Papias (active AD 110-130) was Bishop of Heiropolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor. He sought to collect together sayings attributed to Christ that were not recorded in the Gospels.

Ignatius of Antioch

2007-05-16T19:36:36Z

Englishman: New page: Ignatius (died AD 110) was Bishop of Antioch at the beginning of the 2nd Century. On his way to execution in Rome, he wrote seven letters to the churches and a personal letter to Polycarp ...

Ignatius (died AD 110) was Bishop of Antioch at the beginning of the 2nd Century. On his way to execution in Rome, he wrote seven letters to the churches and a personal letter to Polycarp of Smyrna urging unity in the church under the bishops.

Clement of Rome

2007-05-16T15:58:47Z

Englishman:

Clement of Rome (active AD 90-100) is regarded as “The first Christian scholar”. As a Bishop or Elder of the Church in Rome, he wrote a letter in about AD 96 to settle a dispute in the Corinthian church. The church had replaced its leaders with new, more youthful men. Clement argued that there was a ‘chain of command’ in the church: God the Father sent Christ, Christ appointed the apostles and the apostles commissioned the bishops. Though at his time there was clearly some truth in this, those who came after him developed this argument into the Roman Catholic doctrine of succession.

He is known for resisting Gnostic heresies and also for his belief that truth is found amongst the teachings of all men - thus paving the way for two millennia of apologetic writings in which believers have appealed to what men know by their own philosophies in order to help them come to a knowledge of the true God.

Clement of Rome

2007-05-16T15:58:39Z

Englishman:

Clement of Rome (active AD 90-100)is regarded as “The first Christian scholar”. As a Bishop or Elder of the Church in Rome, he wrote a letter in about AD 96 to settle a dispute in the Corinthian church. The church had replaced its leaders with new, more youthful men. Clement argued that there was a ‘chain of command’ in the church: God the Father sent Christ, Christ appointed the apostles and the apostles commissioned the bishops. Though at his time there was clearly some truth in this, those who came after him developed this argument into the Roman Catholic doctrine of succession.

He is known for resisting Gnostic heresies and also for his belief that truth is found amongst the teachings of all men - thus paving the way for two millennia of apologetic writings in which believers have appealed to what men know by their own philosophies in order to help them come to a knowledge of the true God.

Clement of Rome

2007-05-16T15:58:07Z

Englishman: New page: '''Bold text'''Clement of Rome (active AD 90-100)'''Bold text''' Clement is regarded as “The first Christian scholar”. As a Bishop or Elder of the Church in Rome, he wrote a letter in...

'''Bold text'''Clement of Rome (active AD 90-100)'''Bold text'''
Clement is regarded as “The first Christian scholar”. As a Bishop or Elder of the Church in Rome, he wrote a letter in about AD 96 to settle a dispute in the Corinthian church. The church had replaced its leaders with new, more youthful men. Clement argued that there was a ‘chain of command’ in the church: God the Father sent Christ, Christ appointed the apostles and the apostles commissioned the bishops. Though at his time there was clearly some truth in this, those who came after him developed this argument into the Roman Catholic doctrine of succession.

He is known for resisting Gnostic heresies and also for his belief that truth is found amongst the teachings of all men - thus paving the way for two millennia of apologetic writings in which believers have appealed to what men know by their own philosophies in order to help them come to a knowledge of the true God.

Charlemagne

2007-05-16T15:51:03Z

Englishman: Correction of dates

Charlemagne (Charles the Great) was the second leader of the [[Carolingian Dynasty]] and ruled the [[Franks]] from AD 768 to 814. He was a Christian and did much to expand both his kingdom and Christianity. He promoted education, starting palace schools, and attempted to reestablish the Roman Empire.
==Early life==
He was the grandson of [[Charles Martel]] the powerful Mayor of the Palace. When King [[Childeric III]] was deposed at Soissons and replaced with his father he became the Heir Apparent to the Frankish throne.
==Song of Roland Depiction==
He is depicted in the epic poem "[[Song of Roland]]" as being significantly above human height, and 200 years old. The exaggerations are obvious markers of the [[oral tradition]] common to the era. The poem begins with a description of the Emperor:

:: Carlon the king, our emperor Charlemayn,
:: Full seven years long has lived abroad in Spain,
:: He's won the highlands as far as the Main,
:: City nor wall is left for him to break,
:: Save Sargossa in its high mountain place.
:: Marsilion holds it, the King who hates God's name.
:: Mahoud he serves, and to Appolyon prays.
:: He'll not escape the ruin that awaits.<ref>''Song of Roland,'' trans. Dorothy Sayers, available [http://www.amazon.com/Song-Roland-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140440755/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6896887-5284101?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174767907&sr=8-1 here]</ref>

Careful readers notice markers of typical medeival Christian anti-Muslim [[polemic]] - characterization of Muslims as worshiping [[Mohammed]] rather than [[God]], and praying to [[Apollo]]. The poem dramatizes Charlemagne's attempt at reconquering [[Spain]] from the [[Moors]], a process begun by his grandfather [[Charles Martel]], but attributed in the poem to Charlemagne.

== References ==
<references/>
[[category:history]]