Authorship of the Petrine epistles
Part of a series on the |
Bible |
---|
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
The authorship of the Petrine epistles (1 Peter and 2 Peter) is a question in biblical criticism, parallel to that of the authorship of the Pauline epistles, in which scholars have sought to determine the exact authors of the New Testament letters. The vast majority of biblical scholars think the two epistles do not share the same author, due to wide differences in Greek style and views between the two letters. Most scholars today conclude that Peter the Apostle was the author of neither of the two epistles that are attributed to him.[note 1]
Peter's ability to write
An issue common to both epistles of Peter, as well as various non-canonical works that claim to be written by Peter, is whether
There exist a number of possibilities whereby Peter could have been the source of the epistles attributed to him without directly writing them. The "secretary" hypothesis is the most common of these, that Peter either dictated to a literate associate or perhaps even just summarized the gist of his thoughts while the secretary turned it into a proper Greek letter. In one version of this, Peter did learn spoken Greek, but dictated the letters to a secretary capable of writing Greek. This still assumes a truly impressive leap in education for Peter late in his life; the epistle 1 Peter is in fluent Greek and the author well acquainted with the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.[13]
Another version that assumes less of Peter is that he dictated in Aramaic, while the secretary translated to Greek. An issue against this possibility is that the letters do not show signs of Aramaic speech patterns turned into Greek ones; if this occurred, then the secretary modified the message sufficiently well to turn the passage into Greek idiom and style rather than Aramaic idiom and style.[13] Another raised possibility is that a Greek-writing associate of Peter was summarizing his general thoughts yet essentially writing the letter themselves. Finally, it is possible that the author was a disciple of Peter who wrote later in Peter's honor, especially if the date of composition is believed to be well after Peter's death (such as 2 Peter). The issue with the final two is that the letters directly identify themselves as being directly from Peter; if a coauthor was involved, the letters would be more properly identified as coming from the coauthor under Peter's guidance or inspiration. Additionally, for the final possibility of a disciple writing in Peter's honor, any proof that such an unknown author indeed knew Peter closely, rather than simply giving his own personal views to Peter, has long since vanished.[13]
First epistle
Author identifies himself as Peter
The author of the
Theory of Silvanus as author
One theory is that 1 Peter was written by a secretary such as Mark[14] or by Silvanus, who is mentioned towards the end of the epistle: "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I account him, I have written unto you briefly" (5:12). In the following verse the author includes greetings from "she that is in Babylon, elect together with you," taken for the church "in Babylon", which may be an early use of this Christian title for Rome, familiar from the Book of Revelation. Some scholars argue that there is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, i.e. c. 90–96 AD and therefore conclude that Babylon on the Euphrates was intended. See also Syriac Christianity.
Use of Greek and Hebrew
Many scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death. Estimates for the date of composition range from 60 to 112 AD. Most critical scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the
Part of a series of articles on |
Peter in the Bible |
---|
In the New Testament |
Other |
Pseudepigraphy written around 70–90
If the epistle is taken to be pseudepigraphal, the majority scholarly view is that it should be dated to 70–90.[15][16][17] Stephen L. Harris, on the other hand, argues for an even later date, such as during the persecution of Domitian (c. 95) or of Trajan (c. 112).[18]
Authority associated with Peter
The author's use of Peter's name demonstrates the authority associated with Peter.
Second Epistle
Author presents himself as Peter
The
Clues in support of pseudepigraphy
Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle
The assumed theology and intellectual background is also markedly different from both 1 Peter and references to Peter elsewhere: 2 Peter features a "markedly gentile Christian theology, which is in dialogue with views of Greek philosophical cosmology," with no references to Judaism.[23]
Arguments for Petrine authorship
A minority of scholars have disagreed with this position and put forward reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship. They argue that the letter did not fit a specific pattern of what they consider pseudepigraphy. The Transfiguration lacks the embellishment which E. M. B. Green argues was common in
Relation between 2 Peter and Jude
2 Peter shares a number of passages with the Epistle of Jude, 1:5 with Jude 3; 1:12 with Jude 5; 2:1 with Jude 4; 2:4 with Jude 6; 2:6 with Jude 7; 2:10–11 with Jude 8–9; 2:12 with Jude 10; 2:13–17 with Jude 11–13; 3:2f with Jude 17f; 3:14 with Jude 24; and 3:18 with Jude 25.[27] Because the Epistle of Jude is much shorter than 2 Peter, and due to various stylistic details, the scholarly consensus is that Jude was the source for the similar passages of 2 Peter.[27][28]
Other scholars argue that even if 2 Peter used Jude, that does not exclude Petrine authorship.
Two different authors
Most scholars believe that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were not written by the same author(s). 1 Peter is essentially traditional, drawing on key Psalms, key chapters of Isaiah, and wisdom sayings, some of which are found elsewhere in the New Testament. 2 Peter, however, favors a more allusive style and is dependent on more obscure sources.[1]
Issue of authorship of 2 Peter already settled for most scholars
The great majority of scholars agree that Peter has not written this letter.
Other Petrine literature
Various other works of New Testament apocrypha claim to be written by Peter. In early Christianity, Peter's authority on matters of doctrine was unquestionable, so attributing favored theological views to Peter was reasonably common as a way to buttress arguments that the writer's version of Christian doctrine was the correct one. Some other works attributed to Peter include the Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, the Letter of Peter to Philip, the Arabic Apocalypse of Peter, and the lost Kerygma of Peter which survives only as quoted fragments.[23] For these, there is no debate: both scholars and traditionalist Christians believe that none of them were written by Peter.
Notes
References
- ^ ISBN 978-0-567-08199-5.
- ISBN 978-1-55934-083-0.
Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.
- ISBN 978-0-87484-472-6.
Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
- YouTube. Yale University. Accessed 22 July 2013. Lecture 24 (transcript)
- ISBN 978-0-310-53209-5. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
Despite the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholarship in rejecting Petrine authorship [...]
- ISBN 978-1-4674-6061-3. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
the consensus of modern scholarship is that this letter cannot cannot have been written by Peter himself
- ISBN 978-0-664-23044-9. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
In recent years, however, the emerging consensus is that the letter had its origin in a Petrine circle that revered the teaching and memory of Peter.2
- ISBN 978-0-8254-4362-6. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
Most scholars flat out reject Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, while a goodly number doubt 1 Peter.
- ISBN 978-1-4408-4138-5. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
However, authentic Petrine authorship is widely disputed, with most scholars agreeing that Peter likely did not actually write either of the letters named for him in the New Testament—especially II Peter.
- ISBN 978-1-5359-3476-3. Retrieved 21 May 2023.
Almost all non-evangelical scholars claim Peter did not write the letter, and some who identify themselves as evangelicals agree.
- ISBN 978-0-19-992803-3. Retrieved 22 May 2023.
It is widely held today that the book was not written by Simon Peter. Boring claims that this is the general opinion among critical scholars, outside the ranks of those who disallow forgery in the New Testament on general principle.5
- ISBN 978-1-6667-3133-0. Retrieved 22 May 2023.
Although most scholars seem to suspect that both 1 and 2 Peter are pseudonymous, 1 Peter receives more kindness from interpreters in general.
- ^ OCLC 639164332.
- ISBN 978-0-8132-0100-9. Retrieved 22 May 2023.
- ^ Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 722
- ^ Quotations from these scholars are given in "1 Peter". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved 22 May 2023.
- ^ Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
- ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
- ^ "Pseudonymity does not lessen the importance of this writing as a witness to Peter, If anything, it enhances its importance since it implies that some 20 or 30 years after his death Peter's name could still be thought to carry weight and be invoked to instruct Christian churches, especially in the area of Asia Minor (...) addressed is not Petrine Territory."Anchor Bible Dictionary (David Noel Freedman, ed) vol 5, ("O-Sh"), p. 262.
- ^ Lane, Dennis; Schreiner, Thomas (2016). "Introduction to 1 Peter". ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. p. 2401.
- ^ What are they saying about the Catholic Epistles?, Philip B. Harner, p. 49 [1]
- ^ Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction To The New Testament, chap. 14 Archived 2010-06-21 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ ISBN 978-90-429-5208-9.
- ^ E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered, p. 27.
- ^ Michael J. Kruger, The Authenticity of 2 Peter, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.4 (1999), pp. 645–71.
- Ad Phil.11; Polycarp, Ad Phil. 3; Ignatius, Ad Eph. 12.2.
- ^ a b T. Callan, "Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter", Biblica 85 (2004), pp. 42–64.
- ^ The Westminster dictionary of New Testament and early Christian literature, David Edward Aune, p. 256
- ^ E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered (1961), pp. 10–11; ibid., ‘The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude’, in Tyndale New Testament Commentary (1987).
- ^ Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1985), pp. 187–92.
- ^ Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 303–07.
- ^ The majority position of scholarship that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraph is apparent from the quotations given in the remainder of the paragraph, namely the comments by Daniel Wallace, Werner Kümmel, Stephen Harris, Douglas Moo and D.A. Carson.
- ^ Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
- ^ "2 Peter". Early Christian Writings. Retrieved 22 May 2023.
- Harris, Stephen L.Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354.
- ISBN 978-0-310-23859-1. p. 659.
- ^ "Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter," Evangelical Quarterly 73 [2001]: 291–309).
- ^ "Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon," BBR 5 (1995): 105–23
- ^ Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, second edition. HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan: 2005. p. 663