2 Peter

[MrMacSon]

The following is gleaned or quoted from a 22 minute video presentation by David Litwa on his patreon

• https://www.patreon.com/mdavidlitwa

---

2 Peter chronologically follows 1 Peter because it refers to 1 Peter. But they don't seem to be written by the same person. Who wrote each one is unknown.

2 Peter adapts much of the Epistle of Jude, essentially using modified, borrowed phrases, etc. Much of 2 Peter 2 is E.Jude transformed.

But the author of 2 Peter doesn't repeat the quote from 1 Enoch. And they also cut out the episode about the archangel Michael debating with the devil about the body of Moses from the Assumption of Moses.

This indicates that these texts and traditions were becoming more and more disputed in the time and seen as apocryphal rather than scriptural.

While both are highly polemic, invective letters, reflecting a Greco-Roman genre, the opponents in 2 Peter don't seem to be the opponents in E.Jude.

The opponents in 2 Peter seem to be doubting or even attacking either the physical return of Jesus from heaven or a proposed, unpredictable and perhaps falsified timeline of the Second Coming : the Parousia (but not doubting Jesus spiritual or real presence on earth and in their own social formation).

Re 2 Peter 3:3 -

.“in the final days, scoffers [will come] with scoffing: walking according to their own desires”

- the situation that's perhaps most close to this is in Irenaeus's Against Heresies 3.15.2 where Irenaeus also polemicizes against “scoffers ('contempores'), as if they are already perfect, live irreverently and contemptuously. They call themselves 'spirituals' and assert that they already know the place of refreshment, which is in their Fullness,” unquote.

This accusation of Irenaeus is against Valentinians, though we don't know definitively that they were who the author of 2 Peter was opposing or addressing.

But it's interesting that the author of 2nd Peter and Irenaeus both think that, because their opponents don't have a definite timeline for the end of the world, that they take liberty to walk according to their own desires: that is to do things like, as Irenaeus says, go to cultural parades, sporting events and banquets in honor of other Greco-Roman deities.

Interestingly, the author of 2 Peter knows of a collection of Pauline letters. And he claims that his opponents, whom he defines as uneducated and unstable, interpret these Pauline letters in ‘an incorrect way’, to put it nicely.

"What we do know is that the earliest interpreters of Paul, the earliest serious interpreters of Paul, were groups like Valentinian, Basilidian, and Carpocratian Christians ... all three of these groups were reading platonically.

"And that means that, philosophically, they would have denied the stoic position that the world comes to an end in a fiery conflagration.

"[But] the author of 2 Peter disagrees and more or less takes the stoic position that the end of the world will be a cosmic bonfire in which the very elements melt.

"... this is interesting because, in a sense, it's sort of Platonist Christians versus Stoic Christians; and the author of 2 Peter takes a stoic view where his opponents, his opponents we surmise or hypothesize, are more of a platonic bent; not really interested in pinpointing the end of the world and certainly not expecting a cosmic bonfire which would be outside of the character of a good god."

Litwa says the things he notices when he reads this letter in Greek is an emphasis on gnosis or (epi-)gnosis: those terms being used very similarly.

He notes this focus on gnosis or epi-gnosis, both translated as ‘knowledge’, of course, is mirrored by Clement of Alexandria, the Naassene Preacher and Origen.

The other thing Litwa notes is 2 Peter provides the first clear notion of deification in a New Testament letter: in 2 Peter 1:4 where we learn of the human being taking on a divine nature. This sort of language, an emphasis on deification, is mirrored in Clement, the Naassene Preacher, and later in Athanasius (all of them Alexandrians).

Litwa also notes:

• Wolfgang Grünstäudl's argument for use of or even a dependence on the Apocalypse of Peter.

• the quotation of Psalm 90:4 in 2 Peter 3:8, which is -
  
  
  .“a day and the sight of the lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day”
  
  - is paralleled in Barnabas 15:4.

• Use of 'false teachers' : ψευδο.διδάσκαλος : pseudo-didascalos in 2 Peter 2:1, a compound-word term which first appears in Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 82.1

• the use of haeresis in 2 Peter 2:1 parallels Justin's use of the word to refer not just to an opinion or a choice, but to an ostracized Christian sect (an innovation first noticed by the French scholar Alain Le Boullluec).

Grünstäudl has noted that other phrases employed by Justin are found in 2 Peter, but Justin does not seem to know 2 Peter. These phrases include

• the phrase ‘holy mountain’, from Isa 65:25, in Dial. 81.2 and 2 Peter 1:18;

• ‘new heaven’ and ‘new earth’, from Isa 65:17, in Dial. 81.1 and 2 Peter 3:13; as well as

• "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years", from Psalm 90:4, in 2 Peter 3:8 as noted above, is also referred to in Justin [Dial. 80 (end) & 81 (a few times)]

Although 2 Peter doesn't quote a passage from 1 Enoch as E.Jude does, it still reflects Enochic traditions, something Clement of Alexandria was also doing.

Further Reading

Wolfgang Grünstäudl and Tobias Nicholas, “Searching for Evidence: the History of Reception of the Epistle of Jude and 2 Peter“, in Reading 1-2 Peter and Jude: a Resource for Students, Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014, pp. 215-18.

2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter: Toward a New Perspective, edited by Jörg Fry, Leiden: Brill, 2019.

---

Ben Smith's table comparing 2 Peter and E.Jude

[Sinouhe]

The following is gleaned or quoted from a 22 minute video presentation by David Litwa on his patreon

• https://www.patreon.com/mdavidlitwa

---

2 Peter adapts much of the Epistle of Jude, essentially using modified, borrowed phrases, etc. Much of 2 Peter 2 is E.Jude transformed.

Adapting and transforming are politically correct terms for saying that 2 Peter is a shameful plagiarism of the epistle of jude

[MrMacSon]

Adapting and transforming are politically correct terms for saying that 2 Peter is a shameful plagiarism of the epistle of jude

Sure, though, Interestingly, Litwa actually said

Both are highly polemical letters, invective letters.

And that's a particular Greco-Roman genre: you'll find letters of invective or speeches of invective taught in the Greco-Roman world.

And what this author has done, in the days before plagiarism, is essentially refashion
the invective of an earlier letter but to direct it against slightly different opponents

I guess he was referring to the days before plagiarism was recognised as a bad thing or even as 'a thing'.

[Sinouhe]

Adapting and transforming are politically correct terms for saying that 2 Peter is a shameful plagiarism of the epistle of jude

Sure, though, Interestingly, Litwa actually said

Both are highly polemical letters, invective letters.

And that's a particular Greco-Roman genre: you'll find letters of invective or speeches of invective taught in the Greco-Roman world.

And what this author has done, in the days before plagiarism, is essentially refashion
the invective of an earlier letter but to direct it against slightly different opponents

I guess he was referring to the days before plagiarism was recognised as a bad thing or even as 'a thing'.

Thanks for the additional comments from Litwa.

It's not an exhaustive list :

11B18DBE-BF87-470F-B66D-3419E173E519.jpeg (250.44 KiB) Viewed 915 times

I find it amusing that a text whose author presents himself as an eyewitness of Jesus is in fact a plagiarism. And that this same text is canonical. This sums up the catastrophic quality of the sources on Jesus.

[perseusomega9]

and as Trobisch notes in his First Edition of the NT, the original NT mss order was Acts, then the general epistles, then the Paulines, with 2 Peter as the segue to the Paulines...to be read after framing Paul in Acts and the general epistles.

[Ken Olson]

I haven't watched Litwa's video, but I would add that 2 Peter 3.16 not only assumes Paul's letters have been collected, but they have been accepted in the churches as scripture to be interpreted alongside the other scriptures, presumably the scriptures of Israel (i.e., the Old Testament):

2 Peter 3.15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

The letter asks us to accept that Peter, the eyewitness to Jesus, accepted Paul's letters as scripture during their lifetimes.

Two other perhaps interesting points:

(1) 2 Peter is unusual in the New Testament in that the author makes a direct claim to have been an eyewitness to Jesus, in this case, not just that he is Peter, but that he was present at the transfiguration:

2 Peter 1.16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

While the wording is not exactly the same, the author seems to be following Matthew's version of the words spoken by the voice at the transfiguration rather than the Markan (or Lukan) one:

Matthew 17.5 He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe.

Mark 9.7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.”

Luke 9.35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!”

Greek text:

Matt 17.5:5ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος ἰδοὺ νεφέλη φωτεινὴ ἐπεσκίασεν αὐτούς, καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῆς νεφέλης λέγουσα· οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα· ἀκούετε αὐτοῦ.

2 Peter 1.17 λαβὼν γὰρ παρὰ θεοῦ πατρὸς τιμὴν καὶ δόξαν φωνῆς ἐνεχθείσης αὐτῷ τοιᾶσδε ὑπὸ τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης· ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός μου οὗτός ἐστιν εἰς ὃν ἐγὼ εὐδόκησα

If one accepted that 2 Peter was actually written by Peter (as relatively few NT scholars do), I suppose that one could use this as an argument for Matthean priority. More commonly, scholars suppose that the authors of Matthew and 2 Peter had access to independently circulating traditions. I think, however, that the mostly likely explanation is that 2 Peter is aware of Matthew's redactions to Mark because he has Matthew's gospel.

(2) Also, as Richard Bauckham notes in his Word Biblical Commentary on the epistle, it seems to be of the testamentary genre. The real author takes on the persona of a revered figure from the past who is nearing death and issues a testament that addresses a situation that has not yet taken place but will in the future. This is a device by which the real author of the letter can address the real audience of the letter in the voice of a figure from the past and yet still let them know he is addressing an issue taking place in their present, not some past situation that might not apply to them directly.

Best,

Ken

[ABuddhist]

If one accepted that 2 Peter was actually written by Peter (as relatively few NT scholars do), I suppose that one could use this as an argument for Matthean priority. More commonly, scholars suppose that the authors of Matthew and 2 Peter had access to independently circulating traditions. I think, however, that the mostly likely explanation is that 2 Peter is aware of Matthew's redactions to Mark because he has Matthew's gospel.

Best,

Ken

Not that I am accusing you of being a mythicist, but the mythicist Earl Doherty has a model of this letter's origins which could be true even once mythicism is rejected: that 2 Peter predates the Gospel of Matthew. The author of GMatthew would have been taking the words from 2 Peter.

[Ken Olson]

If one accepted that 2 Peter was actually written by Peter (as relatively few NT scholars do), I suppose that one could use this as an argument for Matthean priority. More commonly, scholars suppose that the authors of Matthew and 2 Peter had access to independently circulating traditions. I think, however, that the mostly likely explanation is that 2 Peter is aware of Matthew's redactions to Mark because he has Matthew's gospel.

Best,

Ken

Not that I am accusing you of being a mythicist, but the mythicist Earl Doherty has a model of this letter's origins which could be true even once mythicism is rejected: that 2 Peter predates the Gospel of Matthew. The author of GMatthew would have been taking the words from 2 Peter.

I don't see how that would amount to accusing me of being a mythicist in any event . There are a lot of things on which I disagree with Doherty. One more doesn't surprise me.

I was making a statement of what I consider the likelihood to be. There are, of course, other possibilities. It's rare in the field of history, even rarer in ancient history, rarer still in literary interpretation, for conclusions to be inarguable. Any time we say A is dependent upon B, someone can say, 'Ah! but could it not be the reverse case that B is dependent on A. Once we accept that there is a direct literary relationship between two texts, the question still remains which way the dependency runs. This does not mean that all arguments are of equal strength.

I have an ebook of Doherty's Jesus, Neither God Nor Man (2009) and he claims that 2 Peter does not assume a historical Jesus, but rather that 2 Peter 1.16-18 describes a vision of what was to come (p. 82; there's a link to a web page, but I can't bring it up and it mo longer be active). I think this is a poor reading of the text, which I'll repeat here:

1 Peter 1.16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

My argument was that 2 Peter know the Matthean form of the text as it agrees with Matthew against Mark and, on the theory of Markan priority, shows knowledge of Matthean redaction (i.e., Matthew's changes to Mark): 'with whom I am well pleased'.

Doherty's theory entails that 2 Peter is not only earlier than Matthew, but earlier than all the synoptics, including Mark. Further, Doherty accepts the
Two-Source Theory (both Markan priority and the hypothetical Q source known by Matthew and Luke). That would mean Mark knows the story in 2 Peter and then Matthew knows the story not only in its Markan version, but then adds 'with whom I am well pleased' from 2 Peter which Mark had omitted. So first off, my theory is redactionally simpler.

But then there's also the problem of the delay of the parousia that we find throughout the New Testament, from (on conventional dating of the documents commonly disputed on the forum) 1 Thessalonians to 2 Peter. I think this is probably the main problem that 2 Peter was written to deal with, though I do not deny the existence of others. In 1 Thess, which I take to be an authentic epistle written by the real Paul, Paul seems to think the second coming is going to occur within his lifetime and the lifetime of his Thessalonian converts, though some have fallen asleep (i.e., already died) (1 Thess. 4.13-17).

2 Peter is also dealing with the delay of the parousia, but in that letter, while the parousia is still coming, it seems to have been postponed to an indefinite time after Peter's death:

2 Peter 3.1 This is now the second letter that I have written to you, beloved, and in both of them I have aroused your sincere mind by way of reminder; 2 that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. 3 First of all you must understand this, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own passions 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago, and an earth formed out of water and by means of water, 6 through which the world that then existed was deluged with water and perished. 7 But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist have been stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about his promise as some count slowness, but is forbearing toward you,[a] not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and the works that are upon it will be burned up.

I think the issue of the delay of the parousia may be the reason, or one of the reasons, that the author of the letter chose the transfiguration as the single event to mention out of all possible events in Jesus' life of which Peter was a witness in the gospels. Immediately prior to the transfiguration in Mark and Matthew we have this saying of Jesus:

Mark 9.1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.”

Matt 16.28 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

The author of Peter is saying that he, Peter, was there, and you can't just go and interpret prophecy yourself because

no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God

So Peter has already answered those those scoffers who are going to arise later, after Peter's death, questioning when the second coming is going to arrive. They shouldn't be trying to interpret scripture themselves anyway.

TL;DR version: Mark 9.1 and Matthew 16.28 have the second coming foretold to arrive within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses to Jesus; second Peter postpones it to the indefinite future after Peter's death (2 Peter 3.3-4, 8). 2 Peter has found it necessary to delay the second coming to a point later than Mark and Matthew had it; 2 Peter is later Mark and Matthew.

Best,

Ken

[gryan]

I have an ebook of Doherty's Jesus, Neither God Nor Man (2009) and he claims that 2 Peter does not assume a historical Jesus, but rather that 2 Peter 1.16-18 describes a vision of what was to come (p. 82; there's a link to a web page, but I can't bring it up and it mo longer be active). I think this is a poor reading of the text, which I'll repeat here:

1 Peter 1.16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word made more sure. You will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

My argument was that 2 Peter know the Matthean form of the text as it agrees with Matthew against Mark and, on the theory of Markan priority, shows knowledge of Matthean redaction (i.e., Matthew's changes to Mark): 'with whom I am well pleased'.

Doherty's theory entails that 2 Peter is not only earlier than Matthew, but earlier than all the synoptics, including Mark.

My current working hypothesis is simpler: that the author of GMatt (the last written of the synoptics) read 2 Peter's "'with whom I am well pleased'" and added it. As for 1 Thes., every time I read some part of it or another I find myself agreeing with what's his name--Bower:

"Ferdinand Christian Baur accepted only four of the letters bearing Paul's name as genuine, which he called the Hauptebriefe (Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... e_epistles


To those four, I would add Phil, and maybe Philemon.

1 Thes. seems to me like a later elaboration of the ideas in 1 Cor 15. (eg, sown in weakness, raised in power), but given an objectified twist that I don't consider authentic to Paul. The second coming event in 1 Thes. would be unmistakable to any observer if it were to happen objectively, and obviously, it will never happen objectively. The whole point is to quell an authentic Pauline style of realized eschatology that I find in Galatians to occur "now in the flesh" (meaning the church becoming the flesh of Christ in the present age).

[MrMacSon]

(1) 2 Peter is unusual in the New Testament in that the author makes a direct claim to have been an eyewitness to Jesus, in this case, not just that he is Peter, but that he was present at the transfiguration:

2 Peter 1.16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we heard this voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

While the wording is not exactly the same, the author seems to be following Matthew's version of the words spoken by the voice at the transfiguration rather than the Markan (or Lukan) one:

Matthew 17.5 He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him.” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe.

Mark 9.7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came out of the cloud, “This is my beloved Son; listen to him.”

Luke 9.35 And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!”

As Ken points out, Matthew 17:5 is part of the Matthean reference to the Transfiguration - Matt 17:1-8 - as are Mark 9:2–8 and Luke 9:28–36 - which occurs on a mountain top: ie. an unnamed mountain top.

As noted by Wolfgang Grünstäudl the phrase ‘holy mountain’ in 2 Peter 1:18 is also in Isaiah 65:25 and Dial. 81.2 (before v. 25, Isaiah 65 has the Lord referring to 'burned sacrifices on the mountains' in v.7; bringing "forth descendants from Jacob, and from Judah those who will possess my mountains" in v.9; and,
"for you who forsake the Lord and forget my holy mountain (& who spread a table for Fortune and fill bowls of mixed wine for Destiny), [the Lord] will destine you for the sword" in vv.11-12a.

There's also the feature of a mountain in the Sermon of the Mount, of course, in Matt 5-7 (also unnamed) (the Sermon on the Plain in Luke 6:17–49 also features Jesus heading up a mountain, but giving the sermon on the way down at a level spot).

There is the biblical Mount Sinai where Moses received the Ten Commandments, in Exodus 19-24 (named in 19:2 and 24:16), the location of which, afaik, remains disputed. A number of sites in Sinai, Arabia (Saudi Arabia), Jordan and even Lebanon have been considered (including Mount Sinai in South Sinai).

The Greeks had a number of mountains that were considered to be homes of Gods including Mount Olympus, Mt Othrys, Mts Ida (one in Asia Minor & one on Crete), and Mt Athos, on one of three peninsulas extending into the Agean Sea from Thessaloniki, also referred to as the holy mountain, Ἅγιον Ὄρος : Agion Oros, and associated with Poseidon and Alexander the Great.