Redaction Criticism of the Bible

With all due respect, we do not know that, at all, absent that assumption starting out. Some have made that guess. I don't happen to be one of them.
Ed </font>[/QUOTE]Let’s at least be honest enough to acknowledge that we are not here dealing with a "guess," but the conclusion drawn from very careful analysis of the data by the large majority of both conservative and liberal Petrine scholars dating back at least to Eusebius and Jerome in the third and fourth centuries. And of course you either knew this and deliberately misrepresented the facts, or you posted without first verifying your facts. What an abomination!

</font>[/QUOTE]I am going to refrain from commenting on the twice posted Graemlin here, but do admit to being sorely tempted!

I acknowledge that there are a number of so-called, self-styled 'scholars' who claim that Simon Peter did not write the second Epistle. The document was questioned as to its genuineness, by some, and even by some few, as to its theology, in the early days of the church, with some questioning its inclusion in the canon. The book is characterized and identified as one of the 'Antilegomena', the disputed books, which made up a fouth of the Canon. One of the reasons for this was the above mentioned. Certain of scholars today cite the above, and more.

Let's hold on a second, here. I have a few questions that I believe are valid.
1.) What exactly are the qualifications for a 'scholar'?
2.) Is there a list of these qualifications, somewhere?
3.) Who decided on what were the qualifications? And which of these were valid?
4.) Assuming (I don't) there are certain academic qualifications, who decides which ones are to be accepted and which ones are not? Who decided that the academics, analyses of data, and conclusions of von Soden, Harnack, and Chase are superior to those of Warfield, Alford and Zahn, to name a few? Who decides that 'doctorates' from Chicago and Princeton are somehow superior to those from Westminster and Dallas? Again, what is the standard for differentiation?

So, no, I do not accept that-

"the conclusion drawn from very careful analysis of the data by the large majority of both conservative and liberal Petrine scholars dating back at least to Eusebius and Jerome in the third and fourth centuries. " is an accurate analysis, necessarily.

Even if this were the case, the Epistle argues for itself, as to its author.
1.) Its author claims to be Peter.
2.) He claims to have been at the transfiguration.
3.) He claims personal knowledge of Paul, and at least some of Paul's epistles.
4.) He claims to be, not only a servant of Christ, but an apostle.
5.) He claims that his soon forthcoming departure was revealed to him by Christ.

Many of these same arguments are used by "both sides" to defend their views. The first claim and assumption of ANY document is that it is 'written' by the purported author it claims, if such a claim is made. It is.

[It is NOT legitimate, for example, to argue that I did not "write" this response, because I, in fact, "typed" it on a computer. (Who do I look like to you? John Gill? C.S.Lewis? F.F.Bruce?) I used the three examples, for they all usually wrote their voluminous works out in longhand, Gill using a quill pen, even!]

The burden of proof, that this claimed authorship is not in fact the case, rests with and is contingent on disproving the document's claim. I contend that that burden of proof has not here been met.

In His grace,
Ed

 

Craig, since you first mentioned "scholars", without definition, I thought maybe I should list my own academic credentials. You may, or may not be interested, as this is a 'Baptist' forum, to know something of them. I am not particularly interested in "tooting my own horn" for the sake of getting any attention, but think it is a fair statement to give one's credentials.

As one who was a longtime 'professional student', I happen to have more college and post college education than John Gill, John L. Dagg, Richard Fuller, and P. H. Mell combined. Do I think I'm a Gill or a Dagg? Get serious!. I could not shine one, let alone both the shoes of any of them on my best day.

Another comparison might be regarding some later individuals. I have more college and post-college eduaction than Oliver B. Greene, Harold Sightler, and H.A. Ironside combined. I'd offer that they were fair Bible teachers and preachers. Maybe on a good day, I could type their Sermon notes, if they were dictated to me, although I'd suggest that any could 'out-preach' me five to one, on one lung.

And I have more post-bachelor degree work than all the above seven combined.
These happen to be some of my 'heroes' of the faith, and of whom I know a bit more about than I do some others, which is one reason I mentioned them, by name.

I also assure you that my own Academics pale by comparison to non-Baptist theologian John Warwick Montgomery, who has 10 earned degrees, with three earned Doctorates. (If he's so smart, how come he isn't a Baptist? But I digress.). BTW, he accepts the early date of and Petrine authorship of II Peter, I believe, if memory serves.

Just giving an overview of my own credentials.

In His grace,
Ed

Ed Sutton- B.A.(hcl), and N.D. from S.B.P.

 

As for the canonicity of 2 Peter, I cite the following from Geisler's Systematic Theology. He goes into more detail in his work "General Introduction to the Bible"

The following named 2 Peter as a book some people disputed:
1. Origen (who taught heresy, by the way)
2. Eusebius
3. Cheltenham
4. Council of Nicea

The following directly quoted 2 Peter as scripture:
--Psuedo-Barnabas
--Clement of Rome (95-97 AD)

The following listed 2 Peter as cannonical:
1. Cyril of Jerusalen
2. Jerome
3. Augustine
4. The Apostolic Canon (c.300)
5. Athanasius
6. Council of Hippo
7. 1 Council of Carthage
6. 2 Council of Carthage


The telltale sign for me is that Clement cited it before 100 AD.

Merrill Unger (who by the way has more degrees than me) says in "Unger's Bible Handbook" that "The epistle is orthodox, advancing no new teaching. It tells nothing new of Peter, in contrast to the spurious Gospel of Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter. The autobiographical allusions are true to fact . . . in contrast to the valueless products of those who forged the name of an apostle, argue for the genuineness of 2 Peter. Jude apparently alludes to 2 Peter."


(P.S. I wonder how many degrees Peter had?)

 

The Holy Spirit said ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God. Craigbythesea, you need to be rebuked sharply for denying the perfect inspiration of scripture and speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after you. Are you saved? Examine yourself before it is eternally too late.

 

Thank you for your input. It is not, however, completely accurate. Neither Pseudo-Barnabas nor Clement of Rome either quoted or cited 2 Peter, although there are possible allusions to it in their writings, allusions which both Alford and Westcott questioned, and which are continuing to this day to be questioned. Without question the attestation for the genuineness of 2 Peter is weaker than any other book in our New Testament.

Michael J. Kruger, a doctoral student at New College, The University of Edinburgh, Scotland, wrote in his paper, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.4 (1999):645-671,

The article in its entirety, which supports the theory that the Apostle Peter is the author of 2 Peter, can be read here,

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/2peter_kruger.pdf

</font>[/QUOTE]So what seems to be the problem, Craigbythesea?? We live in an age where Truth gives way to "theory"!!

Search the Scriptures, folks! "And they are they which testify of Me"--John 5:39 And that includes 2Peter!

 

Craig:
At some point I will chase down the citations of 2 Peter to verify them.

Interesting article. But, uh..., I'm not clear on why you cited it. You quoted the opening paragraph, which sets up the problem that he spends the rest of paper refuting. To wit:

"Therefore, this essay will take a fresh look at 2 Peter’s pseudonymous label. I hope to
demonstrate that the case for its pseudonymity is simply too incomplete and insufficient to
warrant the dogmatic conclusions issued by much of modern scholarship. Although 2 Peter
has various difficulties that are still being explored, we have no reason to doubt the epistle’s
own claims in regard to authorship."


So I guess I agree that we can all benefit from unbiased scholarship, and that we should not be afraid to open questions of redactions or anything else. But when I see phrasing like "scarcely anyone nowdays doubts that..." then I get a lot skeptical of such broad-brush statements. I have no doubts that, from a sheer headcount, the liberal scholarship is more numerous than conservative. But the claim "scarcely anyone" depends on the crowd one hangs around. It has been my experience that the conservatives are better at reading the liberals than the liberals are at reading the conservatives.

Bottom line with me for 2 Peter: Peter likely dictated to a secretery, which he apparently did in 1 Peter (5:12) and Paul did on several occasions (Rom 16:22, etc.) Further, while I admit I have not read extensively in the extra-cannonical books, the ones I have read, such as the Gospel of Thomas, are quite easy to spot as non-inspired and doctrinally unsound.

Tell you what......I'll make a deal with you. I'll agree to read the positions of the redactors if you will read the conservatives that speak against it. I gave you a couple earlier.

 

This is another deliberate misrepresentation of the truth on your part. If you continue to do this, I shall be obligated to count you among the infidels and refuse to fellowship with you on this board!
</font>[/QUOTE]Ed thinks he was mischaracterized, and does not want to be falsely labeled as an infidel, so he allowed me to speak for him. Let me introduce myself. I'm known as 'Language Cop'. I am his alter-ego, whose primary job is to patrol against the many misspellings and misuses of language, and to insure language is used correctly. My usual identifying mark is (sic) where Ed has 'sicced' me on some obvious misuse or misspelling. Although 'theological' and 'Biblical' discussions are not my usual purview, I am going to do something out of character, and 'weigh in' on this one.

How, and again, by what standard, do you (for the second time) accuse Ed of mis-representing the truth? He has not done that in any way. You, he, Humblesmith, Blackbird, or whoever, obviously can come to any conclusion you wish about an issue. How did he misrepresent anything? I do believe he asked what were the standards and characteristics of scholars, who decided on these, what is the authority to make these determinations, and who pronounced them, thus. I did not see an answer to any of the questions. Perhaps I overlooked this, and Ed did as well, so I'll repeat the questions on his behalf. Absent the criteria, his characterization of "so-called, self-styled scholar" for any seems appropriate for anyone, of any theological stance. The contusions of any un-defined and un-numbered 'scholarship' are not reason for the threat of anyone being named an infidel.

Language Cop

PS. 'Contusions' in the last sentence is NOT a misspelling. (LC)

L.C.

 

I cited it because it is a very good article on the subject. My purpose on this message board is not to win debates but to help us come to a fuller knowledge of the truth.

</font>[/QUOTE]How can we come to a fuller knowledge of the truth when that truth is being perverted by "theory"-----Special note: I am NOT accusing YOU of perversion---rather the loose translations/interpretations/explainations of what has been supplied through the various links on this thread.

 

2 Peter certainly is part of scripture and as such is authoritative for believers.

Regarding authorship it is true that most scholars doubt Peter really wrote it. But that really doesn't matter for us. God spoke what He wanted us to have and he did it through various human authors.

 

Hey Craig:

Two questions, if you will:

Who would you consider to be the best defender of redactionism? What would you consider to be the best text that proves or defends it?

and

Where did you learn this? In what school?

Thanks