Witherington on authorship of 2 Peter

Ben Witherington in his recent book on 1-2 Peter argues that 2 Peter is clearly dependent upon Jude (following R. Bauckham, D. Watson, and M. Gilmour [pp. 260-72]). He surmises that 2 Peter is a composite document based on genuine Petrine testimony (2 Pet. 1.12-21), Jude, and interaction with Paul's letters. According to Witherington, 2 Peter exhibits a form of grandiose Asiatic Greek rhetoric and he considers it unlikely that a fisherman had picked up such "bookish Greek" and there is no reference to an amaneuensis being used. 2 Peter is a truly "catholic" letter in that it is an attempt at mass communication to all Christians in the empire. Witherington is quick to add that 2 Peter is not a pseudepigraphon and he rejects Bauckham's view that 2 Peter follows the "testament" genre. Witherington urges a way beyond the impasse of Petrine vs. pseudepigraphal: "But it is equally surprising that many scholars today do not seem to realize that there are other options besides declaring this document to be a pseudepigraphon or a letter composed by Peter himself" (p. 269). Unlike the pseudepigrapha, 2 Peter has no special axe to grind and no unique doctrine to promulgate. He concludes that: (1) 2 Pet. 1.12-21 (and perhaps 2 Pet. 3.1-3) must be seen as the testimony of Peter passed on orally at Rome before his martyrdom; (2) It uses Jude and is good Hellenistic rhetoric but not bombastic; (3) we should see 2 Pet. 3.3-11 as a summary of apostolic teaching written in asiatic Greek; (4) It is likely that this document was written up after Peter's (and Paul's?) death by someone in the Petrine circle, a colleague, probably not an understudy. Witherington gives tacit approval to Baukham's suggestion of Linus the second bishop of Rome (2 Tim. 4.21; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3.13, 21). Thus: "Second Peter is a composite document that draws on material from both Peter and Jude, two earlier apostles, and reflects some knowledge of Paul as well. It bears neither the form nor character of a pseudepigraphon, and since it includes some genuine Petrine material, it is understandably attributed to tis first and most famous contributor' (p. 271).

On a side note, I had a wry smile on my face when I read the CT interview with Tom Schreiner concerning his recent NT Theology (which looks like a very fine book indeed). When asked about possible objections to his volume,  Tom replied: "Peter affirms Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 3:15-16). Of course, the standard view in critical scholarship is that Peter did not write 2 Peter, but I argue in my commentary on that letter that there are solid grounds for affirming Petrine authorship. At the end of the day, those who think the NT contradicts itself buy into a philosophical worldview opposed to the NT message. Adolf Schlatter rightly observed that too many do NT scholarship from atheistic presuppositions." The irony is that Schlatter himself did not believe in Petrine authorship of 2 Peter! Go ye and read the end of his book The Theology of the Apostles.

Whatever one's view of 2 Peter, this all makes for good conversation over a bottle of Spanish vino!

Calvin on the Authorship of 2 Peter

About the doubts of many of the Fathers concerning Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, Calvin wrote this:

"The doubts respecting this Epistle mentioned by Eusebius, ought not to keep us from reading it. For if the doubts rested on the authority of men, whose names he does not give, we ought to pay no more regard to it than to that of unknown men. And he afterwards adds, that it was everywhere received without any dispute. What Jerome writes influences me somewhat more, that some, induced by a difference in the style, did not think that Peter was the author. For though some affinity may be traced, yet I confess that there is that manifest difference which distinguishes different writers. There are also other probable conjectures by which we may conclude that it was written by another rather than by Peter. At the same time, according to the consent of all, it has nothing unworthy of Peter, as it shews everywhere the power and the grace of an apostolic spirit. If it be received as canonical, we must allow Peter to be the author, since it has his name inscribed, and he also testifies that he had lived with Christ: and it would have been a fiction unworthy of a minister of Christ, to have personated another individual. So then I conclude, that if the Epistle be deemed worthy of credit, it must have proceeded from Peter; not that he himself wrote it, but that some one of his disciples set forth in writing, by his command, those things which the necessity of the times required. For it is probable that he was now in extreme old age, for he says, that he was near his end. And it may have been that at the request of the godly, he allowed this testimony of his mind to be recorded shortly before his death, because it might have somewhat availed, when he was dead, to support the good, and to repress the wicked. Doubtless, as in every part of the Epistle the majesty of the Spirit of Christ appears, to repudiate it is what I dread, though I do not here recognize the language of Peter. But since it is not quite evident as to the author, I shall allow myself the liberty of using the word Peter or Apostle indiscriminately."

One has to ask if Calvin is drawing the concept of Petrine authorship so widely and broadly that we have to ask if Peter is really the author any more. If all that Peter provided was the instigation, inspiration, or reminiscences for the letter, and it was (as Calvin suggests) penned by a disciple in a style of Greek altogether different from 1 Peter, does Peter still constitute its author? Is conformity to the Apostolic message more important than authorship in determining canonicity? Can one have and entertain doubts about the authorship of certain NT documents and still possess a high and orthodox view of Scripture? These are questions which I think that Calvin's remarks raise.

2 Peter & Jude Interview - Thomas R. Schreiner

Thomas R. Schreiner is James Buchanan Harrison Professor of New Testament Interpretation at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the author of several volumes including Paul, Apostle of God's Glory in Christ, Romans (BECNT), and 1-2 Peter, Jude (NAC).

MB: Earlier on in your career you worked on the Synoptics but have specialized for the most part on Paul. How hard was it moving from Paul to 1-2 Peter, Jude? What did you learn in the process?

TS: One of my goals was to respect the distinctive contribution of Peter and Jude, and hence I tried to explain the argument in the letters instead of reading Pauline theology into the letters. Reading is hard work, and it is always difficult to discipline ourselves to follow the line of thought that an author pursues. 1-2 Peter and Jude emphasize that believers are to live a transformed life, and that God judges those who give themselves over to evil. Such themes are a helpful corrective for those who misunderstand Paul’s theology of grace, and it seems from 2 Pet. 3:15-16 that some of Peter’s readers fell prey to that very mistake.

MB: In your view, what are the best arguments for and against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter? Where do you come out on that one?

TS: Perhaps the best arguments against Petrine authorship are the Hellenistic terms used in 2 Peter and a style that differs from 1 Peter. The most significant argument supporting Petrine authorship is the self-claim of the letter (2 Pet. 1:1, 16-18). Indeed, the claim of the author that he heard God’s voice on the mountain and was with Jesus on the mountain amounts to deception if the author is not Peter. Further, as I argue in my commentary, evidence is lacking that pseudonymous writings (especially epistles) were accepted as authoritative during the NT era. The difference in style and terminology between 1 and 2 Peter may be explained by an amanuensis (either in 1 or 2 Peter or in both) or the particular situation Peter faced. Finally, arguments from style are notoriously subjective when we are testing 2 Peter against 1 Peter since the books are exceedingly brief. Some scholars also argue that the theology of 2 Peter is early catholic and departs from 1 Peter which is often seen as more Pauline. I don’t have space to defend my view here, but I argue in my commentary that the introduction to 2 Peter (1:1-4) demonstrates that the new life demanded by believers is rooted in God’s gracious work in their lives.

MB: Does postulating 2 Peter as a ‘Testament’ or as ‘pseudonymous’ adversely affect one’s view of biblical inspiration and the canonization of the New Testament?

TS: The question needs to be answered carefully. If the author of 2 Peter practiced deception in writing his letter so that he could dupe the readers into thinking Peter wrote the letter, then biblical inspiration and canonicity are both threatened. Others argue that pseudonymity was well-accepted during the NT age, or that 2 Peter is a testamentary writing, so that it was clearly evident to the original readers that the author who wrote the letter was not genuinely Peter. If such a view could be demonstrated historically, then the inspiration and canonicity of the NT are not called into question, for everyone would have recognized that the author was not truly claiming to be Peter. The problem with such views, however, is the lack of evidence that pseudonymous writings were accepted as authoritative. Further, it cannot be substantiated from early church history that 2 Peter was accepted as authoritative or recognized as a ‘transparent fiction.’ Ultimately, then, testamentary or pseudonymous views of 2 Peter undercut its authority and inspiration, for there is no evidence in the NT era that pseudonymous writings were accepted as authoritative, or even that was acceptable to write in someone else’s name.

MB: How does 2 Peter 1.10, ‘make your calling and election sure’ relate to the Reformed view of election?

TS: In context Peter argues that one must practice the godly virtues listed in 2 Pet. 1:5-7 to make one’s calling and election sure. Peter does not focus here on one’s subjective assurance regarding one’s calling and election. Rather, the point is that one must practice such virtues in order to obtain a final reward (eternal life) on the last day. Still, if believers are not living in a godly way and have given themselves over to evil, they should (by implication from 2 Pet. 1:10) examine themselves to see if they are truly believers.

MB: When Jude quotes 1 Enoch, does he think of Enoch as Scripture and did Jude really believe that Enoch uttered the prophecy that he is purported to have?

TS: It is unlikely that Jude thought 1 Enoch was part of inspired scripture. We need to remember that 1 Enoch is not considered to be canonical scripture by Judaism, Roman Catholicism, the Greek or Russian Orthodox, or Protestantism. Citing a quotation from another source does not indicate that the entire work is inspired, even if the saying drawn upon is true. For instance, Paul quotes Aratus (Phaenomena 5) in Acts 17:28, and he does not intend to teach that the entire work is inspired scripture. Similarly, he quotes Epimenides in Titus 1:12, without any notion that he accepted the truth of the whole work. It is difficult to see how Jude could be citing an actual oral tradition from the historical Enoch since the book of Enoch was in circulation in Jude's day and was well known in Jewish circles. Jude almost certainly derived the citation from the book of 1 Enoch, and the latter is clearly pseudepigraphical. We would be faced with having to say that Jude knew that this specific quotation from 1 Enoch derived from the historical Enoch. It is better to conclude that Jude quotes the pseudepigraphical 1 Enoch, and that he also believes that the portion he quoted represents God's truth.

MB: Who were the ‘false-teachers’ in Jude?

TS: In the history of scholarship the opponents have usually been described as Gnostic or as representing some kind of incipient gnosticism. Evidence for full-fledged Gnosticism is clearly lacking in Jude. If we restrict ourselves to the letter, we can say that the opponents came from outside Jude’s community and that they were libertines. Perhaps they distorted Paul’s theology of grace as in 2 Pet. 3:15-16.

MB: If you had to preach one passage on 2 Peter and one passage from Jude, which passages would they be and why?

TS: That is a hard question to answer! I think I would preach 2 Pet. 1:5-11, for Peter emphasizes that those who enter the kingdom live a new kind of life. Good works are necessary for eternal life. Then I would probably preach Jude 1-2, 24-25, so that God’s people would understand that God keeps those whom he calls, so that we would have confidence that the God who called us will give us strength to do his will.

MB: I understand that you are currently working on a New Testament Theology. What contribution do Jude and 2 Peter make to the theology of the New Testament?

TS: I just turned in my manuscript for my NT Theology, but it will not appear until June 2008. Jude and 2 Peter remind us of a truth that is very unpopular today. God judges evil, and those who give themselves over to evil will not enjoy an eternal reward. Any theology of grace which teaches that it doesn’t matter how Christians live has forgotten about Jude and 2 Peter (and other parts of the NT as well!). Both Jude and 2 Peter also remind us that believers must persevere to the end in order to be saved, but at the same time they comfort us with the truth that the God who called us will strengthen us to do his will.

MB: Thanks Tom!

2 Peter & Jude Interview - Peter H. Davids

Peter Davids is another Candadian scholar and he is Professor of Biblical Theology, St. Stephen’s University, New Brunswick, Canada. He is the author of commentaries on James (NIBC, NIGTC) and 1 Peter (NICNT), co-editor of the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments, and recently published a commentary on 2 Peter and Jude for the Pillar series.

MB: Most New Testament scholars focus around the Gospels or Paul, and yet your academic writing career seems to have centred upon the Catholic Epistles including commentaries on James, 1-2 Peter, and Jude. What has led you into the study of the Catholic Epistles?

PD: It was really quite a happenstance. I had arrived in Manchester for Ph.D. study and discovered that my thesis topic was already being researched at Cambridge. I reflected on what could be a new topic that had to do with biblical ethics and came up with James, having remembered that I had trouble finding material for a paper on James back in seminary, so the field had to be more open. Some years later after my thesis and a commentary on James, F.F. Bruce, who knew of the commentary project and that it was about finished, wrote to ask me to write on 1 Peter in the NICNT, since the person who had had the topic for 25 years had finally admitted that he would not finish it.And the rest is, as they say, history.

MB: In your view, what are the best arguments for and against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter? Where do you come out on that one?

PD: The best argument for Petrine authorship of 2 Peter would be that we know so little of the biography of Peter. Thus it could be that he somehow got a very good Hellenistic education and was thoroughly enculturated in that world. Against it would be that 2 Peter not only is so Hellenistic, but it also uses scripture totally differently than 1 Peter. It is hard to see the same person writing both, not just because the Greek is different, but because the handling of scripture is different. I personally take something of an agnostic stance. I can describe the author and then I let the reader decide whether Peter could fit that picture.

MB: Does postulating the 'Testament' genre for 2 Peter adversely affect one'sview of biblical inspiration and the canonization of the New Testament?

PD: In my view, no, not if, as Bauckham does, one argues that the genre was transparent. There would be no deception in that case. Likewise another evangelical who has written on the topic argues that 2 Peter is a transparent collection, just as Proverbs collected material from previous writers. This collection is designed to preserve Peter (some sections he argues are genuine traditions from Peter), Jude (2 Peter 2), and in a way Paul (the reference to Paul). Of course canonization would not be affected in any case, for it was a decision that this book was to be read in church. One can hold that the justification was not sound, but the final judgment was good - it is a book that is worth reading in the church (which meant that it would instruct the faithful, since most of them could not read and depended on what was read in church).

MB: What problems concerning eschatology had to be addressed in 2 Peter bythe author?

PD: The denial of final judgment. That was the big issue. And if there is no final judgment, then Jesus could not be returning.

MB: When Jude quotes 1 Enoch, does he think of Enoch as Scripture and did Jude really believe that Enoch uttered the prophecy that he is purported to have?

PD: I cannot get into the mind of Jude so I do not know what he thought. But I do know that he cites 1 Enoch as the only scripture that he quotes. Now does that mean that it was canonical for him? To ask that question is to ask ananachronistic question. Jews did not have a fixed canon when Jude was writing - that would come a century or so later. So all we know is that Jude considers it part a prophetic scripture worth quoting.

MB: Who were the 'false-teachers' in Jude?

PD: People from outside the communities he addresses who had entered them and were promoting lifestyles that Jude believes are unethical.

MB: What do you think is the significance of 2 Peter and Jude for Christians today?

PD: Both works remind us that to deviate ethically from the standards of Jesusis to abandon Jesus as Lord, to apostatize. Both books warn us of the consequences of such an act. Jude shows us how not to cut off from such people, but to be compassionately reaching out to them. 2 Peter teaches us that Jesus is already the reigning Lord and that he will indeed return to purify the earth, judging the deeds of people. This reminds us that we must live every day in the light of that judgment. That is much more, but that outlines the main points.

MB: What publishing plans do you have for the future?

PD: I am planning to start a Greek text commentary on 2 Peter and Jude, which will examine the Greek grammar in detail, a sort of a cross between Zerwick and a traditional commentary, perhaps more in the direction of Zerwick.

MB: Peter, thanks!

2 Peter & Jude Interview - Bob Webb

Dr. Robert L. Webb is a Canadian scholar who specializes in both the Historical Jesus and the Catholic Epistles. Bob was also Michael Bird's associate supervisor for his Ph.D thesis (so blame him!) and Bob has written or edited several volumes including John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Sociohistorical Study (1991), Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible (1993), Jesus and Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ (2004), and Reading James with New Eyes (2007). He is also editor of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus.

MB: You have chosen two areas of specialization in your research, historical Jesus and the Catholic Epistles, what prompted your interest in these two areas?

BW: My interest in historical Jesus was spawned by a desire to round out my study of the NT, for I had focused on Paul in my M.Div. thesis and on 1Peter in my Th.M. thesis. I wanted to do something in the Gospels, and the subject of historical Jesus was (and still is) a hot topic. It sparked my interest and has held it ever since. My interest in the General Letters arose out of my Th.M. thesis. I find these "more neglected" books provide abreadth of diversity to NT studies that is lacking if one only focuses on Paul.

MB: In your view, what are the best arguments for and against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter? Where do you come out on that one?

BW: Well, to answer you first question, I'll say, "See my commentary when it is out." But on the second one, I do conclude that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphic text.

MB: Does postulating 2 Peter as a 'Testament' or as 'pseudonymous' adversely affect one's view of biblical inspiration and the canonization of the NewTestament?

BW: Not in the least. I view this somewhat simply: The reason the books of the NT are considered authoritative and therefore canonical is because they are understood to be inspired by the Spirit of God. It is on the basis of their divine origin that they are authoritative, and not on the basis of the particular human author that was the inspired instrument. While these texts are fully inspired they are also fully human, in that human processes--including language, style, rhetoric, etc., but also pseudepigraphy--could be used in the process.

MB: What is your take on the reference to the transfiguration in 2 Peter 1.16-18?

BW: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with this question, but my understanding of these verses is contrary to most modern commentators. Most understand the phrase in v. 16, "the power and coming" of Christ (better translated "powerful coming") as referring to the yet-future coming of Christ. In this view, then, the author uses the transfiguration in vv. 17-18 as proof of this claim about "the powerful coming", and so the transfiguration must then interpreted as somehow proleptically anticipatingthe yet-future coming of Christ. In contrast, my view is that the referentof the phrase "the powerful coming" of Christ (v. 16) is to the first coming of Christ; that is, to the past life of Jesus understood as a "powerful coming" in which God manifests himself as coming to his people in the ministry of the earthly Jesus. In this view, then, the transfiguration in vv. 17-18 supports this claim: the glorification and the heavenly voice demonstrate what God was doing in the ministry of the earthly Jesus, and in this view the transfiguration does not need to be 'transformed' (bad pun) into a proleptic anticipation of Christ's yet-future coming. Again, for full argumentation I'll refer you to my commentary.

MB: When Jude quotes 1 Enoch, does he think of Enoch as Scripture and did Jude really believe that Enoch uttered the prophecy that he is purported tohave?

BW: I'm not sure that it is quite as cut-and-dried as your question implies, for it depends on how one is using the term "scripture." So I'll answer but without using the term. Jude views Enoch as a text that has weight/authority in his community and was understood to convey truth. And so he cites it. Did he think it actually went back to Enoch? No. I think most literate people in his day would understand the genre characteristics of pseudepigraphic texts of apocalypses like 1 Enoch.

MB: What benefits are there to a socio-rhetorical interpretation of 2 Peter and Jude?

BW: A socio-rhetorical reading (as per Vernon Robbins' understanding) provide a inter-woven tapestry of ways of understanding how texts convey meaning. Thus a full socio-rhetorical interpretation provides an opportunity to explore a text from these various perspectives. It helps one to surface elements that might be missed otherwise.

MB: What do you think is the significance of 2 Peter and Jude for Christians today?

BW: The significance(s) will vary depending upon the context of today's readers. But to make one, rather general observation, truth still matters, whether doctrinal or ethical.

MB: You are the head of the Methodological Reassessments of the Letters ofJames, Peter, and Jude section at SBL. What has that seminar done in the past and what are they doing in the future?

BW: We are actually a "consultation" which has a three-year mandate: examine each of these letters in light of recent methodological developments thatare most often applied first to either the Gospels or to Pauline literature. So, we are exploring such methods as socio-rhetorical readings, post-colonial readings, narrative readings, etc. These are showing the riches that can be gleaned from fresh readings of these texts. We are going into the third of our three years. We intend to follow up with an application to become a full-blown section with a longer mandate. We will probably drop the "Methodological Reassessments" element in our name and simply focus continued study on these letters. We have not yet developed any particular themes yet.

MB: You are currently writing a commentary on 2 Peter and Jude, any idea on a possible publication date?

BW: [Sigh!] Writing a good commentary has proven far harder than I had ever thought! Knowing what it takes to write a good one has helped me understand why there are so many poor commentaries on the market. I hope to be finished within the next two years.

MB: Thanks Bob!