What does the world’s most famous conservative evangelical scholar Tom Wright have to say about the authorship of 2 Peter in the newly published The New Testament in Its World: An Introduction to the History, Literature, and Theology of the First Christians?
2 Peter explicitly claims to be authored by the apostle Peter himself. If it is not by Peter then many people will doubt the trustworthiness of the New Testament to speak the truth about itself.
Wright and Bird conclude:
“Postulating the apostle Peter as the author of this letter feels to us like pushing a big rock up a steep hill; the indications of post-Petrine authorship appear overwhelming.”
To put the matter more polemically: for the reasons itemised by Wright and Bird it is overwhelmingly likely that Peter is not the author of 2 Peter, even though the letter claims to be authored by an eyewitness to events in the life of Jesus, by a disciple who was actually present with Christ.
Does this matter?
Evangelical New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham calls the letter a “fiction”. If so then it is a letter designed to deceive its readership into thinking it is by Peter when it is not. And it has been remarkably successful. Virtually all Christians throughout history have heard this letter as first person testimony from the Chief of the Apostles himself. This puts a huge question mark against the trustworthiness of the New Testament:
Of what value for faith is invented testimony to the life of Jesus?
And it is not the only case of its kind in the Bible!
See my article about 2 Peter as a forgery.
Categories: Bible, Dr Tom Wright, Islam
Sam Shamoun rails against leading Evangelical scholars calling them “a joke”.
I sympathise.
It must be difficult holding on to faith when your own top scholars undermine it so openly.
Not as much of a joke as Allah and his pedophile profit. When will you invite me on your stream so I can do to you what Jay Dyer did to you? I will be very nice in decimating you and your satanic god. I promise.
Email me to set up our discussion.
How about you go on the EFdawah streams you scumbag? You’ve been running your mouth for years how you are willing to debate people on their own platforms. You said you are even willing to debate greg stafford and you were okey with him muting you if he wanted to. So you got no excuse. But everyone knows you’ll be a no-show and bring up JAI (the evil JAI!!!) who makes it magically impossible for you to debate all of a sudden. Pathetic. Man up and go on the livestreams after Ramadan and we’ll see what happens. But I know and you know that you’re a loser who will be a no-show. Prove me wrong. You’ll get burried along with your comicbook and we’ll see if you’ll get resurrected after three days and three nights, something your diapergod couldn’t do.
Sam the anti-christ 3 god worshipping polytheist. When will you unblock me on your channel, live chats and comments so i can decimate you and your mythical idol tri-gods. I promise.
Unblock me to allow me to expose what a 3 god worshipping polytheist joke you truly are.
This puts a huge question mark against the trustworthiness of the New Testament
This doesn’t logically follow. If 2 Peter is not authored by Peter how does that demonstrate that Paul didn’t author Romans?
I think the point is that the NT contains some forgeries. Several letters attributed to Paul are also likely forged too eg 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus. The NT can no longer be considered inspired or the Word of God.
you’re mixing historical and theological claims here- trustworthiness and inspiration are different things. And I know you know this because it’s in the footnotes (see footnote 68) . You’ve asserted your case but you have not shown why it’s true.
Added to that- this standard drives your own position onto the ground as to paraphrase;
“the Hadith and Sira contain forgeries. Many hadith attributed to Muhhamed are forged the Hadith the Quran and the Sira can no longer be considered inspired or the Word of God.”
“the Hadith and Sira contain forgeries. Many hadith attributed to Muhhamed are forged the Hadith the Quran and the Sira can no longer be considered inspired or the Word of God.”
The analogy doesn’t work because we are talking about the canonization process. Is that inspired by God ?
no Paul’s talking about trustworthiness. It’s a historical question not a theological one. Besides the collections of Hadith and Quran went though a canonisation process.
If (and it is an If) 2peter is a forgery and if (and it is an if) you think that it is then precluded from inspiration (and Baukham and Wright importantly don’t!) it still says nothing about John or Matthew of Paul’s letters.
The question of is a text inspired is a theological one the question of who was the human author is a historical one. I try to apply that consistantly to the Quran and the Bible.
You may as well ask what does a Shakespearian Sonnet taste like?
Please note Samuel Green’s response in the com-box (and Paul’s responses to those points).
It was good of you Paul to put the link to your article from Oct. 2020. ( I missed that at the time)
https://bloggingtheology.com/2020/10/03/review-of-new-book-by-n-t-wright-and-michael-f-bird-the-new-testament-in-its-world-an-introduction-to-the-history-literature-and-theology-of-the-first-christians/#comment-47431
notice Paul also grants that Samuel Green makes good points.
One of the strongest points for Peter as the author of 2nd Peter, is that Peter used an amanuensis (like a secretary that had authority to put the person’s oral dictation into better grammar & different language & use his own style of writing) (Paul also used amanuenses in some of his letters). See 1 Peter 5:12
“Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it!” 1 Peter 5:12
Since Peter knows he is about to die (2 Peter 1:12-18), he was probably dictating orally to someone while in prison, and that person was a Greek disciple who could craft Peter’s thought from Aramaic into Greek. (same for Jude, which has some similarities)
Peters Greek is very strange but the use of amanuenses in the early church is an area of growing scholarly interest and the consensus is that the early church (pre AD100) was incredibly literate and that amanuenses were frequently used.
It’s going to likely be the topic of my MA thesis
yes indeed
lol … good luck pushing a big rock up a steep hill ryan, … share your thesis when you’re done 🙂