Introduction to the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Introduction to the Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Introduction to the Epistle of Paul to the Philippians. Introduction to the Epistle of Paul to the Colossians.
Introduction to the First Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians. Introduction to the Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians.
There is a likely allusion to the book in 1 Clement, which was written about AD If this is correct, then this certainly moves the date of writing into the first century and, given the use of the first person and the early date, almost certainly makes Peter the author. As a general statement, the books of the New Testament were accepted by the 2nd century church because of a consensus that they had apostolic authority.
Clearly the second century church assigned apostolic authority to this book, but not with absolute unanimity. Bottom line, you will have to accept at least some ambiguity on the evidence for 2 Peter.
What we can say is that it is reasonable to conclude it was written AD 68 or earlier by the apostle Peter, but the honest view on this is that this is not proved. You can respond to your friend that the preponderance of the evidence puts 2 Peter in the first century and that it is likely liberal bias rather than the evidence which attempts to move it into the second century. However, the honest truth is that we do not know with absolute certainty.
Trusting the integrity of those who pieced together the New Testament and perhaps even more importantly, trusting that God had his hand in the formation of the New Testament, I am personally very confident that 2 Peter was indeed written by Peter somewhere between AD John Oakes I am copying and pasting a short article on the matter I copied and pasted from the web site below.
He uses the first person singular pronoun in a highly personal passage —15 and claims to be an eyewitness of the transfiguration —18 [see note on ]; cf. Mt —5. Although 2 Peter was not as widely known and recognized in the early church as 1 Peter, some may have used and accepted it as authoritative as early as the second century and perhaps even in the latter part of the first century 1 Clement [a.
Eusebius — placed it among the questioned books, though he admits that most accept it as from Peter. In recent centuries, however, its genuineness has been challenged by a considerable number of interpreters. One of the objections that has been raised is the difference in style from that of 1 Peter. But the difference is not absolute; there are noteworthy similarities in vocabulary and in other matters.
In fact, no other known writing is as much like 1 Peter as 2 Peter. The differences that do exist may be accounted for by variations in subject matter, in the form and purpose of the letters, in the time and circumstances of writing, in sources used or models followed, and in scribes who may have been employed. Perhaps most significant is the statement in 1Pe that Silas assisted in the writing of 1 Peter.
No such statement is made concerning 2 Peter, which may explain its noticeable difference in style see Introduction to 1 Peter: Author and Date.
This grace, introduced in —4 , serves as the foundation for the whole book. The indwelling Holy Spirit produces virtuous qualities in followers of Christ — This results in fruitful lives. In doing so, Peter must also combat the false teachers who were apparently exerting pressure on the churches to depart from the true knowledge of Christ see esp.
The false teaching is not only a theological challenge but also a moral one, promoting some form of sexual permissiveness as a legitimate Christian lifestyle.
0コメント