2 Peter authentic?
Ralph Nielsen nielsen@uidaho.edu
Mon, 16 Feb 1998 11:14:04 -0800 (PST) (00887678044, v0300780cb10dcfd607cf@[129.101.112.111])
Dear Reader,
I'm not sure whether I submitted this earlier. If so, please forgive me.
Ralph Nielsen
>
>To: claireoc@softdisk.com
>From: Ralph Nielsen <nielsen@uidaho.edu>
>Subject: Re: 2 Peter authentic?
>Cc:
>Bcc:
>X-Attachments:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>CLAIRE
>>Dear Ralph:
>>
>>In this day and age, we DO have "different conventions about authorship
>>and forgery". I don't find it so disturbing that 2 Peter might have been
>>written by someone else.
>>
>>What if this "someone else" had found some notes by Peter and had shaped
>>these notes into 2 Peter? (Please forgive my flight of speculation
>>here...) It is my firm belief that the Church had good reasons for
>>incorporating 2 Peter into the canon. Proof of authorship was not their
>>only criterion.
>>
>>I won't be able to persuade you that I have logical reasons for
>>"believing" in 2 Peter, but I thought I would state my beliefs. I feel a
>>compulsion to state my beliefs, since you sent a copy of your email to
>>me. If you forward my response to errancy, they will just say, "There
>>she goes again!"
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>Claire
>
>Dear Claire,
>Peter is thought to have died ca. 64, 2 Peter was written well after that
>date. Why don't you read the notes in the Catholic Study Bible (Oxford
>Univ. Press), which I presume you have.
>
>The author of the notes is reticent about the fact that many of the early
>Xians believed that Jesus was going to come again very soon. Words to that
>effect were even put in the mouth of Jesus himself (Matthew 16:28; Luke
>21:31-32; etc.). Paul's entire message was based on the imminent 'second
>coming" of Jesus. (That is why he discouraged marriage and urged slaves
>not to seek their freedom.) But Jesus didn't show up on schedule - still
>hasn't - so the spurious 2nd Peter was written. The author also copied
>most of Jude, so it was later than Jude. The name of Peter was chosen to
>give it an air of authority.
>
>This epistle was written for the purpose of ecclesiastical power. A church
>had been established, careers were based on it, and the faithful were
>drifting away. So an excuse was written, directly contradicting Paul and
>the alleged words of Jesus. And this excuse is still being used today -
>and for the same reason, too.
>
>Know what you believe,
>
>Ralph
>
>PS: I will submit this to Errancy, since it is related to what Walt, Jr.
>refuses to admit to: that Jesus was expected soon and did not show up.
>
>
>
>
>