2 Peter authentic?

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

DOUG LARSON

>A while back, Walt Sr. asked me what I knew of the "real authorship" of 2

>Peter.  I told him that I only believed what was taught within confessional,

>conservative Lutheranism and really nothing more.


	<snip>


>This amounts to acknowledging the many problems with the authorship's

>validity, based on the "Reformed Perspectives" own admission, however the

>"Reformed Perspective" completely shrugs it's shoulders and gives way by

>saying, "SO WHAT!"  The Catholic & Protestant scholarly investigations and

>acknowledgments of contextual problems existing within many NT books, is

>just as sincere as trying to hang an elephant on a spider's web and

>expecting (believing) that the web will hold the weight of the elephant.


RALPH NIELSEN
This is from the notes to 2 Peter in the New Jerusalem Bible (Regular
edition), an excellent British Catholic translation, eg., it says Yahweh
instead of LORD. I quote from p. 1995:

... there is no sure evidence that the letter was accepted at all before
the third century, and some, according to Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome,
explicitly refused to accept it. Most critics nowadays also reject the
Petrine authorship.... This is what we should call FORGERY [my caps], but
the ancients had different conventions about authorship and pseudonymity.

• Previous message: Walt Sr., Dave C., Pat V., 2 Peter 2:4, & the Calvinistic Ivy Tower's, "So What!"
• Next message: 2 Peter authentic?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]