Talk:Second Epistle of Peter

Re-working of authorship section.

For the sake of readability and usability of this page, I've removed a long and very old (2007) discussion, but preserved the conclusion below Matruman (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2014 (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)

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.

(snip)

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.

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)

"not in any catholic bible I've ever seen" I was using the New Jerome Biblical commentary A Georgian (talk) 02:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

"Pseudonymous" (sic)

..widely regarded as pseudonymous. The category of Pseudegrapha suitably describes works given as if by a famous author. A pseudonym is another story. Perhaps the difference is imperfectly understood. Or perhaps it's intentional obfuscation. --Wetman (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

"vast bulk"?

Awkward writing! 98.245.121.56 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This article belongs to a different entry

This article really should belong to an entry call "Authorship of Second Epistle of Peter" since this is all it is talking about. Even in the "Content" section it still focus on this topic. The only place you can learn what is in the "Second Epistle of Peter" is in the Outline section, and it only contains five incomplete sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qeff254 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

removed "2 Peter quotes from Jude"

that's a good removal that's only a theory among many in sources and the tenses of the one quote in Jude of 2 Peter appear to show the reverse if anything. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

• • I disagree with removal; add other sourced opinion for balance, but don't delete RS cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A Georgian (talk • contribs) 04:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is a POV mess

Guthrie, and all others who continue to uphold Petrine authorship for this letter are WP:FRINGE authors who only uphold this view for theological, not historical, reasons. We should only citing such remote fringe works very carefully, if at all, and should be emphasizing that this work is the most-widely accepted as a forgery of any book in the New Testament. It is almost universally considered to post-date Jude, another very late work, but this article treats it like a II Thessalonians disputed work... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Minority, yes. "Remote fringe", maybe not. What makes you think Guthrie only uphold the view for theological reasons? And what is wrong with that, anyway? StAnselm (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the New Testament text with the broadest, best-supported view against its traditional authorship claim. General consensus is that it was likely the last of the texts to be written (the Pastorals could theoretically be later, but there's more evidence putting this one later). "Remote fringe" is an accurate description of the view that it was written by Peter the Apostle. Admittedly, I think I may have been wrong in pointing the finger at Guthrie, since looking more closely the article just cites him in regards to the text's acceptance among later early church fathers, not in relation to the actual authorship. But I'm still concerned about the general tendency in articles on biblical textual issues (such as Jesus and the woman taken in adultery) to include two opposing sections "for" and "against" originality (which in many cases is a view only taken by fundamentalists), as though the two sides had equal support among scholars, and citing non-sequitur arguments by apologists in order to pad out the "for" sections. This article is better now, though. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

Someone has just rewritten (and ruined) the "Authorship and Date" section. It used to be lean and objective. The sentence, "Reasons for this [the opinion that Peter did not write it] 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", was wonderfully concise. Now the section goes on and on with far too much detail, as if it was a transcript of an hour-long lecture.68.196.10.68 (talk) 00:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)captcrisis