Facts Behind The 1&2 Petrine Epistle Sunday, September 25, 2016

Not many of us, including Christians, have noticed that Peter's letters in the Bible had  secrets that has long been debated among biblical scholars since it turned out to be one amongst so many scandals of forgery in biblical history. 

Here's the explanation.

  

WRITING

The author of this letter identifies himself as Peter, so that most of traditional Christians believe that this was indeed the letter of Peter, Jesus' disciple who was also known as Simon Peter. However, modern biblical scholars, especially German scholars, questioning its authenticity for having strong reasons to believe that the letters were actually wrote by someone else who used Peter's name as a pseudonym. 

ARGUMENTS 

Pseudonymity arguments

1. This book is full of Paul's ideas and writing style.
2. Paul had already done evangelism in the areas to which the letter was addressed. This means that by sending his letters, Peter has violated the fence of the "cultivated" area of ​​Paul's church.
3. In Peter's letter, there is no personal account of Jesus' life as the reader would expect if it was really the authentic writings of Peter.

"1Peter contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." [WG Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament , p. 424]

4. The style of Greek Literature used in the writing of 1 Peter goes far beyond what an ordinary fisherman might be excellent at.

"The type of Greek found in 1 Peter reveals that whether or not the author was born a Greek, he had enjoyed some level of formal education, if not an 'advanced' education in rhetoric or philosophy, at least a 'middle' education that would have included, along with geometry, arithmetic, and music, a reading of such classical authors as Homer. While one may surely presume some facility in Greek even among Palestinian fishermen in the first century who lacked formal education, the kind of Greek found in this epistle was probably beyond such a person, and hence the language was in all likelihood not given its present form by Simon Peter." [Paul J. Achtemeier, A Commentary on First Peter,  p. 4-5]

5. The persecution spoken of in 1 Peter could not have occurred in Peter's lifetime, because the things discussed took place after his death.

The author describes himself as "sumpresbuteros" (elder fellow), a title that appeared not in Peter's time (and was unknown to Peter) but much later in the development of early Christian ecclesiology. In 1 Peter 1: 1 the writer describes himself as an apostle (identical to Paul's style in the "preamble" of nearly all of his letters), but in 1 Peter 5: 1 he claims to be a "sumpresbuteros" (elder fellow). Yet the people of the circle of the twelve disciples of Jesus, the apostles, the people to whom Jesus first visited after his resurrection, need not use the title which appeared far back in the development of early Christian ecclesiology. "   [Udo Schnelle,, p. 400]

OBJECTIVES FOR PSEUDONYM ARGUMENTS

Peter's supporting scholars responded as follows:

1. Peter was close to Paul in many aspects of theology.
2. Although Paul  may have  evangelized parts of the area where the letter was sent, Peter also evangelized parts of that area.
3. Peter  probably  did not feel the need to include a personal account of Jesus' life in his letter for various reasons. One  possible reason  is that he gave a lot of information about the life of Jesus to Mark, who later wrote the Gospel naming him.

"It further states that the writings of an apostolic author like Peter would naturally reflect a great deal regarding his closeness to Jesus and his knowledge of the teachings of the teacher. This objection cannot be taken seriously considering the same case for 2 Peter is considered by some to be object to the writings of the apostles, but no critical canon can claim the validity of both. "  [Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction]

4. It is quite possible that  Peter had the opportunity to learn much about Greek literary style during his travels. In addition, he lived his early life in the city of Bethsaida which received the status of  "the city under Philip the King."  Philip was known to be a traitor (an advocate of Greek culture) and Bethsaida  likely  had a large Greek speaking population (Thiede).
5. It is quite possible that  Peter was talking about lesser persecution in the area to which he wrote the letter. An alternative explanation is that it  may  refer to Neronian persecution which, according to traditional records, ultimately took his life.
6. Peter did not need to describe himself as an apostle. The argument for Peter's statement in 1 Peter 5: 1 is not conclusive. In fact, the term elder  may  have been used as a description of the apostles during Papias' time (c. 60-135 AD).

Scholars are divided on this issue. Those who put aside the idea of  Peter authorship switched to the  possibility  that the author of the letters of Peter is one amongst  Peter's disciples who uses the name of his mentor. It is likely that  this author was reminded of things that Peter said, or perhaps from several written sources. While those who like Peter's way of writing have no theory whatsoever about the style of the letter.

LOCATION 

Despite the disputes that arise among biblical scholars as to who really wrote 1 Peter, there seems to be a general consensus as to where the letter was written. Because of the internal reference to "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5.13, most scholars agree that the letter was written from the city of Rome. Some scholars argue that some scholars refer to Babylon literally and others believe Babylon refers to a kind of spiritual exile. However, the scholarly consensus seems to prefer Babylon to be some sort of code name for Rome.

TIME

Estimating when Peter's first letter was written is a difficult task for scholars. One of the strongest reasons is the question,  was the persecution mentioned in the letter local persecution that occurred in Asia Minor, or persecution throughout the empire?  The way in which one determines when epistles were written is often directly related to the thoughts the author has devoted to responding to a situation at some point in his writing.

Those who support Peter as the author of the letters estimate their date to be shortly before Peter's own martyrdom.

• The pro-Petians set the time between 63 and 64 AD This is because it refers to Silvanus at the end of the letter which seems to indicate the same time as Paul's arrival in Rome, although this is by no means certain.

Those who support the Pseudonym theory (authors use pseudonyms) estimate the letters were written around AD 57.The more specific, and slightly broader range, is between 72 and 92 AD The reasons for this estimate of time are as follows:

1. It has taken a long time to spread Christianity since Paul's mission began.
2. The provincial boundary sequence mentioned in 1 Peter 1: 1 was founded by Emperor Vespasian in AD 72.
3. A certain distance to Paul's period is assumed to be due to a lack of debate about the law of Moses and responses to the persecution that occurred.

ORIGINAL RECIPIENT

The original recipients of this letter lived in Asia Minor - particularly the eastern and central regions - as well as the regions bordering the black sea. Some scholars believe that Peter's first introduction indicates that the recipients were Jews who saw themselves as God's chosen people. Yet most scholars agree that the original recipients included a large (if not exclusively) Gentile element. The letters are thought to be circular letters sent to the church in the first place on the list, then re-copied, then sent to the churches on the next list.

However, it seems that the recipients of Peter's letters were experiencing various persecutions that caused them to consider leaving "Paul's way" and returning to their previous lives.

HISTORICAL REVIEW
The biblical scholars who disagree about Peter's epistles are Christians, so regardless of the severity of the dispute, it is quite understandable if by common sense they had to agree to "keep the corps" saved by not exposing this embarrassing issue to the public domain. Because in addition to adversely that affecting the faith of church congregations in various parts of the world, it will also extend the list of facts about the profanity of Christian scriptures, which in Indonesia we know it as the Alkibul! Therefore, there has never been a "fatwa" from any supreme church authority that explicitly announces to its congregation that Peter's letters in their book are not actually written by Peter! 

Ironically, consider the example of the above arguments which are clearly not based on facts and empirical evidence, but mainly based on hypothesis which is full of theories such as quite possible, likely, may be, most probably, and all kinds of probabilities as self-proof that in fact none of those arguments valid!

The Bible proves that apart from Paul - he is not part of the twelve disciples of Jesus - who remarkably often referred to himself as an "apostle", none of Jesus' twelve disciples ever made a point of claiming to be "apostle" except Peter. This of course attracts attention, and becomes extraordinarily astonishing when even a lay reader, if one takes a close look at the contents of the letters of Peter "the fisherman", will soon find that his writing - from many perspectives - is identical to Paul's writing style. It is therefore not surprising when a very strong conjecture then arises that Peter's letters are actually Paul's writings using the name of Peter.

Paul did have many interests for himself, and for that he never hesitated to lie to anyone, so that the issue of "pseudonymity" has become a familiar thing for most biblical observers and scholars. 

While on the other hand, Peter had strong reasons not to write any letters to the non-Israelites whose contents could be partly interpreted as statements - representing the twelve disciples of Jesus - justifying Paul's "apostleship". 

Firstly, Peter would not betray Jesus who strictly forbade his twelve disciples to preach the gospel to "gentiles", or non-Israelites, as on the other hand, was entirely done by Paul. Even though some lay Christians would contest this argument with Jesus' Great Commission based on the record in Matthew 28:19 , it is still irrelevant because Peter would have known better that for the twelve disciples, the Great Commission was precisely what was recorded in  Matthew 10: 5 . Moreover, based on the copy of the original Hebrew Bible manuscript of  Matthew,  which is well preserved in Israel, it is confirmed that  Matthew 28:19 is a false verse  that Jesus never uttered.  

Secondly, In real life, Paul and Peter are not two friends, but on the contrary, like Paul and the other twelve disciples of Jesus, they tend to be enemies. Paul's own writings indicate this for example in  Galatians 2: 6,7,9 and Galatians 2: 11-14.

Thirdly,  even though the highest authority of the churches in the world has tried to hide this scandal, or shut it down tightly, it still does not change the fact that for centuries, ordinary Christians have been fooled by Paul.  [Gus Mendem, Paul and  his thoughts ]

CONCLUSION

The Epistles of Peter are not written by Peter, but are part of  the forged letters attributed to Jesus' disciples.

Sources:

• Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome by Carsten P. Thiede
• The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5 by Ed Davis
• IVP Dictionary of the Later NT and its Developments edited by Ralph Martin and Peter H. Davids
• IVP New Testament Commentary: 1 Peter by Howard Marshall
• Scott Nelson ,  Jesus and Judaism vs Paul and Christianity
• Mizanul Adyan, Fake letters attributed to Jesus' disciples

Source of comparison

• 1 & 2Peter And Jude Mc Arthur New Testament Commentary Set

Authorship of the Petrine Epistles Thursday, October 15, 2015

The authorship of the Petrine epistles (First and Second Peter) is an important question in biblical criticism, parallel to that of the authorship of the Pauline epistles, since scholars have long sought to determine who were the exact authors of the New Testament letters. Most scholars today conclude that Saint Peter was not the author of the two epistles that are attributed to him and that they were written by two different authors.^[1][2][3]

First epistle

Author identifies himself as Peter

The author of the First Epistle of Peter identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus", and the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number of Church Fathers: Irenaeus (140–203), Tertullian (150–222), Clement of Alexandria (155–215) and Origen of Alexandria (185–253). If Polycarp, who was martyred in 156, and Papias alluded to this letter, then it must have been written before the mid-2nd century. However, the Muratorian Canon of c. 170 did not contain this, and a number of other General epistles, suggesting they were not yet being read in the Western churches. Unlike The Second Epistle of Peter, the authorship of which was debated in antiquity (see also Antilegomena), there was little debate about Peter’s authorship of The First Epistle of Peter until the advent of biblical criticism in the 18th century. Assuming the letter is authentic and written by Peter, who was martyred c. 64, the date of this epistle is probably between 60 and 64.

Theory of Silvanus as author

One theory is that 1 Peter was written by a secretary such as Mark 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. "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," say the editors of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, who 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 Sea of Galilee, actually wrote the epistle, because of the urbane cultured style of the Greek and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The letter contains about thirty-five references to the Hebrew Bible, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle, but appropriate for a Hellenized audience; thus the use of the Septuagint helps define the audience. The Septuagint was a Greek translation that had been created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh, and for proselytes. A historical Jew in Galilee would not have heard Scripture in this form, it is argued.hy written around 70–90[edit]

If the epistle is taken to be pseudepigraphal, the majority scholarly view, according to Raymond E. Brown^[4] is that it should be dated to 70–90, an opinion shared by scholars such as Eric Eve (Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263), John H. Elliott (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "First Epistle of Peter"),^[5] and by Bart D. Ehrman.^[6] Stephen L. Harris, on the other hand, holds that most scholars argue for an even later date, such as during the persecution of Domitian (c. 95) or of Trajan (c. 112).^[7]

Authority associated with Peter

The author's use of Peter's name demonstrates the authority associated with Peter.^[8] The author also claims to have witnessed the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 5:1) and makes allusions to several historical sayings of Jesus indicative of eyewitness testimony (e.g., compare Luke 12:35 with 1 Peter 1:13, Matthew 5:16 with 1 Peter 2:12, and Matthew 5:10 with 1 Peter 3:14).^[9]

Second Epistle

Author presents himself as Peter

The Second Epistle of Peter opens by identifying the author as “Simon Peter (in some translations, ‘Simeon’ or ‘Shimon’), a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2Peter 1:1) (spelling the name differently from 1 Peter or the rest of the New Testament, except for Acts 15:14). Elsewhere, the author clearly presents himself as the Apostle Peter, stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (2Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration (2Peter 1:16–18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2Peter 3:1; cf. 1 Peter), and he called Paul the Apostle “our beloved brother” (2Peter 3:15).

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 pseudepigraphical.^[10] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.^[11] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15–16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).

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 apocryphal books.^[12] Michael Kruger argues that the voice of God in the Transfiguration is similar but not identical to the synoptic gospels, as if Peter was recalling from memory, and notes that the epistle uses similar language to Peter's speeches in Acts.^[13] An uncommon title, “our beloved brother,” is given to Paul, where later literature used other titles.^[14]

Relation between 2 Peter and Jude

2 Peter shares a number of shared 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.^[15] 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.^[15][16]

Other scholars argue that even if 2 Peter used Jude, that does not exclude Petrine authorship.^[17] On remaining points, Ben Witherington III argued that the text we have today is a composite, including points taken from the Epistle of Jude, but that it contains a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as 2Peter 1:12–21.^[18] Finally, some scholars have proposed that differences in style could be explained by Peter having employed different amanuenses (secretaries) for each epistle, or if Peter wrote the second letter himself, while using Silvanus (Silas) as an amanuensis for the first.^[19]

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 already settled for most scholars

The great majority of scholars agree that Peter has not written this letter.^[20] For example, textual critic Daniel Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopt this perspective without much discussion"^[21] Werner Kümmel exemplifies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that 2 Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged",^[22] as does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter."^[23] Evangelical scholars D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."^[24] Despite this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars, other scholars view the arguments of the majority to be largely inconclusive.^[25] Likewise, Stanley Porter points to the fact that 2 Peter's acceptance to the canon by early Christians presumes that they were sure that Peter wrote it.^[26] In the end, Carson and Moo point to the controversy reflective of this issue, stating, "We are therefore left with the choice of accepting the letter's prima facie claim to have been written by the apostle Peter or viewing it as a forgery hardly deserving of canonical status."^[27]

💥 Read scholars commentaries regarding this issue here. 

References

1. ^ 
   Jump up to:
   ^a b Old Testament in the New, Steven Moyise, p. 116
2. ^ 'Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.' Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 352
3. ^ '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.' Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354.
4. ^ Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 722
5. ^ Quotations from these scholars are given in Early Christian Writings.
6. ^ Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
7. ^ Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
8. ^ "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.
9. ^ Lane, Dennis; Schreiner, Thomas (2016). "Introduction to 1 Peter". ESV Study Bible. Wheaton, IL: Crossway. p. 2401.
10. ^ What are they saying about the Catholic Epistles?, Philip B. Harner, p. 49 [1]
11. ^ Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction To The New Testament, chap. 14Archived 2010-06-21 at the Wayback Machine.
12. ^ E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered, p. 27.
13. ^ Michael J. Kruger, The Authenticity of 2 Peter, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.4 (1999), pp. 645–71.
14. ^ i.e. “the blessed Paul”, “the blessed and glorious Paul”, and “the sanctified Paul right blessed”, cited in:
    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.
15. ^ 
    Jump up to:
    ^a b T. Callan, "Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter", Biblica 85 (2004), pp. 42–64.
16. ^ The Westminster dictionary of New Testament and early Christian literature, David Edward Aune, p. 256
17. ^ 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).
18. ^ Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers (1985), pp. 187–92.
19. ^ Paul Barnett, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 303–07.
20. ^ 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.
21. ^ Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
22. ^ 2 Peter
23. ^ Harris, Stephen L.. Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354.
24. ^ Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, second edition. HarperCollins Canada; Zondervan: 2005. ISBN 0-310-23859-5, ISBN 978-0-310-23859-1. p. 659.
25. ^ "Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter," Evangelical Quarterly 73 [2001]: 291–309).
26. ^ "Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon," BBR 5 (1995): 105–23
27. ^ Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament, second