Image via WikipediaYou may or may not be aware of a comment thread a few weeks ago between myself and Ryan Anderson regarding whether or not 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter. Anderson argued that Peter could not have written the epistle and because it says he did, the letter is a lie and unreliable. He quoted Dr. Ben Witherington III as a source and an example of a scholar who is a Christian who does not believe 2 Peter was written by the apostle. He later backed off it a little bit and conceded that Wirtherington actually believes the Peter wrote the first part of the letter. I decided to see if I could get in contact with Dr Witherington himself and see what he thought. I sent him to the following e-mail:Marcus McElhaney
Hello, Dr Witherington.
I am a great fan of your work regarding Jesus and your apologetic material. Thank you!!!
A few weeks ago I responded to a blog post that asserted that Jesus told his disciples that he would return in their lifetimes and because he didn't Jesus is no better than Harold Camping. You can see my post on that here: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/05/facepalm-of-day- 81-debunking.html
Of course I disagreed and an atheist kept the conversation going in the comments. To make the story shorter, one of the arguments I gave was that Peter in 2nd Peter explains what Jesus meant by "soon" and that he didn't understand Jesus to be saying what the atheists were saying Jesus said. The atheist argued against me by saying that most Biblical scholars, including you, don't believe that the Apostle Peter wrote most if not all of the epistles attributed to him. He then concluded that who ever wrote the letters lied and both epistles should by tossed because the author was a liar. Of course I disagree. I was wondering if you could point out any papers/books you have written about 1 & 2 Peter's authorship, reliability, and if you consider these letters scripture every bit as much as the rest the New Testament?
On another blog, there was a good article about why some Biblical scholars think that there is good evidence that Apostle Peter wrote the epistles written for them: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/good- evidence-for-2-peter-as- written-by.html
I was wondering what your take on that is? Thanks for your time and I thank God for how God has used you. You have been a blessing to me and many, many others!
Thankfully, Dr Witherington was gracious enough to respond.
I've heard of much the same argument made for authorship of Isaiah and other Old Testament texts. I think that this explanation is viable, buyt I believe I need to do more research into this. Witherington is not by any means saying toss out 2 Peter or calling it worthless as Andrerson seemed like he was trying suggest. If anyone else is interested in Dr Witherington's rebuttal of Dr. Ehrman's "Forged" use the link below.
Hi Marcus:
Thanks for this. You can always read my Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians Volume 2 on 1-2 Peter for more info. The short answer is that 2 Peter is a composite book. It contains a large chunk of Jude in it, it contains Pauline traditions in chapter three, and it contains some authentic Petrine material in Chapter One. It follows the tradition of attributing a document to its first and most famous source, in this case Peter. I think the story of the Transfiguration does go back to Peter himself. I would say this document was assembled at the end of the first century when there was actually a collection of Paul's letters circulating in the church (see 2 Peter 3). If you want to see my rebuttal to Ehrman's Forged, I posted a whole series of blog posts on this on my blog back in the spring. A composite document attributed to one of its genuine sources is no forgery. But the ancient concept of what counted as authorship is different from ours.
Blessings
Ben W.
Dr. Ben Witherington, III
Amos Professor of NT for Doctoral Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore Ky.
Doctoral Faculty St. Mary's College, St. Andrews University, Scotland
http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture?s=forged
Thank you, Dr. Ben Witherington III.
Anderson argued that Peter could not have written the epistle...
ReplyDeleteI did no such thing. Peter, monkeys or Jesus himself COULD have written it. All I said was that a majority of scholars don't think Peter is the author (for good reason), and since the text itself claims to be written by Peter, if they are right, SOMEONE is lying.
Don't misrepresent me. Although correcting misrepresentations will be the only comments you get out of me going forward, so maybe you should if you want any comments at all.
Where and how did I misrepresent you? You said that Peter did not write 2 Peter. And that it was a lie. Therefore there was no reason to take anything in it seriously. Oh you did back pedal a little and agree that doesn't make the text false. IF your problem is that I said you said that Peter could not have written it and you didn't mean that then I apologize. But you spent several days trying to prove Peter didn't write it to the point of insulting me and misrepresenting your conclusions as Dr. Witherington's conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering when you are going to apologize for making it seem like Witherington thinks that 2nd Peter shouldn't be used to understand how Jesus' contemporaries understood him. I don't think that is what Witherington thinks at all.
Where and how did I misrepresent you?
ReplyDeleteDid you not read my comment?
IF your problem is that I said you said that Peter could not have written it and you didn't mean that then I apologize.
Oh, you did read it. OK apology accepted. Cute how your pride required two sentences of posturing prior to the apology though.
I'm wondering when you are going to apologize for making it seem like Witherington thinks that 2nd Peter shouldn't be used to understand how Jesus' contemporaries understood him.
Never said that. Never made any claim to how Witherington thinks except that he is part of the majority that thinks Peter 2 is pseudepigrapha. Any opinions on the implications of that are my own. You should reread the posts.
Where did Witherington say 2 Peter is pseudepigrapha? He explained what. He meant and why he comes to very different conclusions than you. Your comments (not posts) were in direct conflict with my comment that 2 Peter can be used to understand how Jesus' contemporaries understood him. If you are saying that you don't disagree with that, they you wasted a lot of time and completely confused the point of the conversation. That's called posturing. You just like disagreement and not really interested in any kind of conclusion.
ReplyDeleteOh and thanks ever so much for admitting that your implications are your own opinions and not based on a consensus of experts.
ReplyDeleteWhere did Witherington say 2 Peter is pseudepigrapha?
ReplyDeleteHere. ""The short answer is that 2 Peter is a composite book. It contains a large chunk of Jude in it, it contains Pauline traditions in chapter three, and it contains some authentic Petrine material in Chapter One. It follows the tradition of attributing a document to its first and most famous source." Emphasis mine.
See your original post. I assumed you knew what a pseudepigraph was.
Regardless of what he thinks the author/editors/copyists motives were or what he feels the implications are or whether he tries to excuse the pseudepigraphia due to "ancient tradition", in any case he confirms the position that the majority of biblical scholars hold, that Peter is not the author of 2nd Peter (in Witherington's case, most of 2nd Peter). Something you seemed dead set against even considering until this post (good for you). Again, I made no comment on what Witherington thought the motives or implications were, only on the position he (and many others) hold. Read more carefully and definitely be more careful about misrepresenting what people say.
Oh and thanks ever so much for admitting that your implications are your own opinions and not based on a consensus of experts.
Was that ever a contention? Maybe in your addled brain... If you go back, you'll notice I only ever claim most scholars believe 2nd Peter is a pseudopigraph (which is true). You really need to learn how to read more closely.
Enough.
You didn't just leave it there. You made way more conclusions based on the fact that may scholars do not think that the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter.And you did not emphatically claim those opinions as your own. You said that Peter did not write 2 Peter - not possibly. You said that it was a lie. I guess all that is your opinion too, because it's not what all scholars have concluded.
ReplyDeleteSee your original post. I assumed you knew what a pseudepigraph was.
See your original post. I assumed you knew what a pseudepigraph was.
My original comment on this was that 2 Peter gives us the context of what "soon" means in regards to the 2nd coming. You disagreed saying that Peter did not write it. You did not say that Peter most like did not writ it - and you had many chances to clarify yourself and you didn't until I said that you said that Peter could not have written 2 Peter in this post. You have misrepresented and waved and back pedal and can't admit that you overstated your case.
You made way more conclusions based on the fact that may scholars do not think that the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter.
ReplyDeleteYes, I did. But I made no claims that those scholars shared those conclusions.
Reread the rest of the comments. You are an idiot.
I said
ReplyDeleteYou made way more conclusions based on the fact that may scholars do not think that the Apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter.
You said
Yes, I did. But I made no claims that those scholars shared those conclusions.
Then we agree that your conclusions are your own and should be ignored. Experts don't share them. Nice talking to you. Finally a point of agreement.