Talk:Second Epistle of Peter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Why is the Apocalypse of Peter clearly pseudonymous? Is it really so obvious? Is someone who accepts its validity really that stupid? "Modern Scholarship" bears a striking resemblence to early extreme Roman sect orthodoxy; we exclude from the canon everything we didn't get to eliminate last time around. Modern Scholarship only prunes down Scripture, it almost never argues for the inclusion of that which the Romans tossed.
Can someone explain the Simon vs Simeon point? This sounds to me like an argument that, for example, James and Jacob are different names, when they are the same name. What is the significance? --Amillar 20:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Done----eleuthero 22:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I also added in more material on historical debate, cleaned up the style, and worked on making it more NPOVish)
Contents |
[edit] POV?
The bulk of the article seems to be devoted to defending the traditional viewpoint that Peter wrote the letter. My copy of Encarta states that most scholars believe it to be pseudonymous, and that the "false teachers" comment is a reference to the gnostics. The hypothesis that the reference to a collection of Paul's letters "does not in any way have to mean a complete collection" seems suspiciously like the arguments apologists use to "harmonize" certain biblical contradictions.
- The comment: "does not in any way have to mean a complete collection" is a discription of the text, not an apologetic argument. There is indeed nothing in 2 Peter 3 that suggests a complete collection of Paul's letters. That statement represents a neutral reading of the text and should remain.
- This article is almost entirely apologetical. I've changed a bit, but it probably needs total reworking. Most scholars don't believe Peter wrote it, and this article should indicate that. john k 15:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-working of authorship section.
My primary concern here is misrepresentation of the state of scholarship. In the former version, the section opens with an argument for traditional attestation. This is misleading at best. The "vast bulk of NT scholars," as Daniel Wallace put it, agrees Peter did not write the epistle. So I have replaced it with the simple, but effective, "The author of 2 Peter is not known." This is immediately followed by a brief discussion of the differing views between evangelicals and mainstream historians. The second paragraph of my edit quotes two NT scholars, one or both of which are Christian, to show that the previous statements were not unwarranted or biased. Both authors are established authorities, and both quotes are sufficiently cited.
The remainder of the article is simply cleaned up. Sentences and phraseology are smoothed, and material has been properly organized.--Hurtstotalktoyou 20:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well that’s fine, with a couple amendments. You wrote the Kummel said that “all critical scholars…”; actually, the website itself is making the claim that “all critical scholars” believe X (based on Kummel’s arguments, apparently). Also, we cannot say “the author is unknown” so unequivocally, since that would be accepting one PoV as absolute fact against all others. Anyway, I left the references in but added a lot of information I dug up. Hope it helps. Lostcaesar 17:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Hmm. I didn't quote Kummel as saying "all critical scholars..." If you look at the article history you will see that I credited Kummel with saying that its inauthenticity is "widely acknowledged." Although I drew the quote from the ECW website, it is a legitimate and well-documented quotation from Kummel himself. It is Daniel Wallace who states that "the vast bulk of NT scholars" agrees Peter did not author it.
-
- Now then, as for my proposed opening statement ("The author of 2 Peter is not known.") being POV, I have to say I do not agree it is such. Indeed, not only do most scholars agree that the author is unknown, but they discount Petrine authorship as a reasonable possibility at all. However, such conclusions can be inflammatory to Christians, which is why I softened the idea from "not Peter" to "not known." If you dislike the wording of my opening statement, that's fine, but you have to substitute an appropriate alternative. As stated above, opening the article with an argument in favor of authenticity when the great majority of experts agree it is inauthentic is patently misleading, and therefore demonstrably POV. This cannot be allowed to stand if NPOV is to be approached.--Hurtstotalktoyou 17:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I think we can do without the reference to "forgery." It's inflammatory. It's true (judging by the same standards applied to any other ancient text) that this book actually claims to be written by someone who didn't write it, unlike books (such as Mark) that were attributed to false authors by others. But there's no reason to get up in people's faces with it. If you've got a legitimate point to make, don't mess up your position by being provocative. Is there room to say something to the effect of "When historians question the authorship of, say, the gospel of Mark, they're questioning church tradition. But when they question the authorship of 2 Peter, they're questioning the Bible itself"? Jonathan Tweet 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think JT's changes to the lead help. I don't see a problem with "forgery", since that what pseudoepigraphy is. My points above were, we cannot say point blank that the author is not known, since there is no scholarly concensus there, though we can certainly represent the current state of schlarship, which is mostly against genuinness but not wholly. Lostcaesar 18:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except that there is a scholarly consensus, and I think I've shown that with two clear quotations by three *evangelical* scholars, as well as a third supporting quotation by Kummel (I'm not sure whether he was Christian or not). Now, as to the word "forgery," I'm not convinced it's inflammatory, but it's certainly not necessary, so we could easily remove it (which has been done, already). I have made some new changes, trying to incorporate Lostcaesar's changes with my own; I have yet to evaluate JT's additions.--Hurtstotalktoyou 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I cited four works that hold 2 Peter is genuine; hence, there is no concensus. Seems obvious enough. I'm just here to get the facts right. If some NT scholars publish a position that the text is genuine, then that's a fact. Now, its fine to quote all the scholars you have mentioned. I commend you for research and adding the info. But we have to be accurate. I appreciate your working in my edits, but I may wish to tone down the somewhat acerbic sections. Trust me, we have to get this right, or someone will come and make a mess of it (if you see what I mean). Lets be detatched and just report info. Now, I understand wanting to state the majority scholarly position upfront, but, thanks to JT, we say that in the intro, so I think we can take a more steady approach to the authorship section, giving internal attributions first, followed by critical analysis. Lostcaesar 19:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- Except that there is a scholarly consensus, and I think I've shown that with two clear quotations by three *evangelical* scholars, as well as a third supporting quotation by Kummel (I'm not sure whether he was Christian or not). Now, as to the word "forgery," I'm not convinced it's inflammatory, but it's certainly not necessary, so we could easily remove it (which has been done, already). I have made some new changes, trying to incorporate Lostcaesar's changes with my own; I have yet to evaluate JT's additions.--Hurtstotalktoyou 18:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think JT's changes to the lead help. I don't see a problem with "forgery", since that what pseudoepigraphy is. My points above were, we cannot say point blank that the author is not known, since there is no scholarly concensus there, though we can certainly represent the current state of schlarship, which is mostly against genuinness but not wholly. Lostcaesar 18:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think we can do without the reference to "forgery." It's inflammatory. It's true (judging by the same standards applied to any other ancient text) that this book actually claims to be written by someone who didn't write it, unlike books (such as Mark) that were attributed to false authors by others. But there's no reason to get up in people's faces with it. If you've got a legitimate point to make, don't mess up your position by being provocative. Is there room to say something to the effect of "When historians question the authorship of, say, the gospel of Mark, they're questioning church tradition. But when they question the authorship of 2 Peter, they're questioning the Bible itself"? Jonathan Tweet 18:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- A consensus can coexist with dissent. I'm sure there are many more than four individual experts who believe 2 Peter to be genuine, but it's the overall state of scholarship which is in question in this encyclopedic setting. Even those folks generally acknowledge how far in the minority they are. Anyway, I really don't see my edits as being "acerbic," and certainly this is not true of the collaborative product, which devotes more material to defending authenticity than discussing the reason for the scholarly consensus to the contrary.--Hurtstotalktoyou 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- In my mind, a concensus means "all agree". Am I mistaken? If you think we need more information from one point of view, then please add it. As for "acerbic", I meant nothing offensive in any way, just that the text was a little "on edge", a little excited to push a point, if you see - I think a more detached commentary is better. Lostcaesar 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- A consensus can coexist with dissent. I'm sure there are many more than four individual experts who believe 2 Peter to be genuine, but it's the overall state of scholarship which is in question in this encyclopedic setting. Even those folks generally acknowledge how far in the minority they are. Anyway, I really don't see my edits as being "acerbic," and certainly this is not true of the collaborative product, which devotes more material to defending authenticity than discussing the reason for the scholarly consensus to the contrary.--Hurtstotalktoyou 19:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
First of all, a consensus does not simply mean "all agree." To quote the entry on wikipedia, even in a consensus, "a high degree of variation is still possible among individuals." However, if you object to the use of that word, I would be fine with something like "great majority." I think that simply calling it "majority" does not do justice to the state of critical scholarship, which overwhelmingly rejects Petrine authorship. Second, despite my repeated objections, you insist on opening the authorship section with an argument in favor of authenticity. To use an analogy, this is much like beginning an article on Jesus with an argument for ahistoricity: it's highly misleading and thus completely inappropriate. It *needs* to be fixed. Third, I think we should leave out quotations of Peter Kirby (author of ECW), as he has no formal credentials. Conversely, we should leave *in* the Kummel quote. The way it reads now, the claim sounds dubious--and it is not. Fourth, why have you removed my Carson/Moo quote? It's probably the most important of the three I added.
Fifth, and finally, I think the point-by-point arguments are treated in too much detail for this article. Consider my version of the summary of arguments in support of pseudepigraphy:
Reasons for this include the epistle's linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support. In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16, his implication that the Apostlic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2).
You see how all the main points are mentioned while maintaining the "detatched" tone we both agree this article should reflect. Here the arguments are explained but not pushed; anyone interested in a more persuasive approach can investigate the cited sources and external links.
In light of these considerations, I must continue to try to amalgamate our edits. The way it reads now is unacceptable.--Hurtstotalktoyou 20:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- If added material was lost, it was because you tend to add things en mass so that it is impossible to see individual changes, and stuff is bound to be lost. But I am sorry if this is so, and by no means do I mean to cut cited info. As for the Kummel quote, I believe that the actual quote is from the website, not Kummel. Also, I am not trying to put arguments in favour first. I am putting (in the intro) the overview first, with critical majority position first followed by minority; then, in the authorship section internal claims first, followed by majority criticism, then followed by minority. We have to say what the claims are before we can list the objections. Its just a matter of readibility. As for "concensus", its safe to say that we will probably never have a concensus view when it comes to NT scholarship, this much I know. Strangely, I think we agree more than disagree, and what we are talking about is not so much content as presentation. I will repeat, though, that the way forward is to add content, not purge relevant points. Lostcaesar 20:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you take another look, you will see that almost none of the original material has been removed--just re-arranged. As for the consensus, it is not impossible even within NT scholarship. If you go out and try to find material describing the state of scholarship, rather than collecting individual opinions on the object of that scholarship, you will find that the *vast* majority--that is, a consensus--of historians and other experts agree that Peter didn't write 2 Peter. We now have four direct quotes by credentialed scholars to that effect. It is not POV to highlight that fact.--Hurtstotalktoyou 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot "look", because in an edit synopsis I see all red. I do notice that you tucked important text into a footnote, though. I'm sure we can come to an agreement here, especially since I concur with much of what you have said. But, again, please, I mean please, edit in bits so that I can see the changes in an edit synopsis. Please, revert your edits, and return it in pieces so the changes can be reviewed. Lostcaesar 20:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you take another look, you will see that almost none of the original material has been removed--just re-arranged. As for the consensus, it is not impossible even within NT scholarship. If you go out and try to find material describing the state of scholarship, rather than collecting individual opinions on the object of that scholarship, you will find that the *vast* majority--that is, a consensus--of historians and other experts agree that Peter didn't write 2 Peter. We now have four direct quotes by credentialed scholars to that effect. It is not POV to highlight that fact.--Hurtstotalktoyou 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Date section
I felt that, given the wide range of scholarly dates gvien for this epistle, a summary statement followed by a discussion section considering the (inconclusive arguments) for the actual date seemed the most balanced approach. In line with 'good pratice' i aim to edit a 'step at a time' to allow for easier review - see comments above. Mercury543210 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
