2 Peter is a fascinating book,
both for its content and for its place in the canon of the New Testament. Since
you can read the content for yourself, I thought I might share something today
about the place of 2 Peter in the canon. Here is what one of my favorite Bible
commentators, William Barclay, had to say about it….
For long it [2
Peter] was regarded with doubt and with something very like misgiving. There is
no trace of it until after A.D. 200. It is not included in the Muratorian Canon
of A.D. 170 which was the first official list of New Testament books. It did
not exist in the Old Latin Version of the Scriptures; nor in the New Testament
of the early Syrian Church.
The great scholars
of Alexandria either did not know it or were doubtful about it. Clement of
Alexandria, who wrote oulines of the books of Scripture, does not appear to
have included Second Peter. Origen
says that Peter left behind one epistle which is generally acknowledged;
“perhaps also a second, for it is a disputed question.” Didymus commented on
it, but concluded his work by saying: “It must not be forgotten that this
letter is spurious; it may be read in public; but it is not part of the canon
of Scripture.”
Eusebius, the great
scholar of Caesarea, who made a careful investigation of the Christian
literature of his day, comes to the conclusion: “Of Peter, one Epistle, which
is called his former Epistle, is acknowledged by all; of this the ancient
presbyters have made frequent use in their writings as indisputably genuine; but
that which is circulated as his second Epistle we have received to be not
canonical although, since it appeared to be useful to many, it has been
diligently read with the other Scriptures.”
It was not until
well into the fourth century that Second
Peter came to rest in the canon of the New Testament.
THE OBJECTIONS
It is well-nigh the
universal judgment of scholars, both ancient and modern, that Peter is not the
author of Second Peter. Even John
Calvin regarded it as impossible that Peter could have spoken of Paul as Second Peter speaks of him (3:15,16),
although he was willing to believe that someone else wrote the letter at
Peter’s request. What, then, are the arguments against Peter’s authorship?
1.
There is the extreme slowness, and even
reluctance, of the early church to accept it….
2.
The contents make it difficult to believe that
it is Peter’s….
3.
It is wholly different in character and style
from First Peter….
4.
Certain things within Second Peter point well-nigh irresistibly to a late date….
IN PETER’S NAME
How, then, did it
become attached to the name of Peter? The answer is that it was deliberately attached. This may seem to
us a strange proceeding but in the ancient world this was common practice.
Plato’s letters were written not by Plato but by a disciple in the master’s
name. The Jews repeatedly used this method of writing. Between the Old and the
New Testament, books were written under the names of Solomon, Isaiah, Moses,
Baruch, Ezra, Enoch and many another. And in New Testament times there is a whole
literature around the name of Peter—The Gospel of Peter, The Preaching of
Peter, The Apocalypse of Peter….
There is nothing
either unusual or discreditable in a book being issued under the name of Peter
although Peter did not write it. The writer in humility was putting the message
which the Holy Spirit had given him into the mouth of Peter because he felt his
on name was unworthy to appear upon the book.
And there Barclay makes the most
important point. We must always remember that simply because a book in the New
Testament was not written by an apostle that does not mean that God cannot
speak to us through it.
Comments