Thank you.
Can you also please check the intros to 2 Peter, Daniel, and Jonah to see if it mentions anything about historicity or authorship? It would be much appreciated.
-God bless
I have the Ronald Knox study bible; There are no introductions in them. Ronald Knox has footnotes to individual sentences where his scholarship is being used – but he doesn’t tend to make whole book comments.
The footnote on 2Pete 2:22, however, says
Cf. Prov 26. II; it does not appear, however, that St Peter is quoting Scripture, and it may be that there was a current saw of this kind. There is no reference, in the book of Proverbs, to the sow wallowing in the mire.
Emphasis,mine; Knox does not dispute the authorship of II Peter, and considers it Peter’s work.
The imprimatur in the book I have is 1954, so it is fairly clear that Knox wrote after the source hypothesis issues were being discussed; but I haven’t seen anything in Knox’s notes which indicate that he cared to entertain any of these source hypothesis.
IMHO, that’s just as well. Most of Quelle theory, etc, is based upon the temple falling in 70A.D.; And Josephus makes it clear that the military orders to destroy Jerusalem and the temple were known long before that time and long before Titus became involved.
eg: There was a failed military attempt to send troops at a much earlier date than 70AD that had to be recalled before it reached Jerusalem – however, that earlier
order, which was recorded by Flavius Josephus, is sufficient evidence that Q. Theory is completely speculative. There is no legitimate reason, even granting higher criticism’s need for “no actual miracles”, that the Gospel’s prediction of Jerusalem’s fall needed to be post 70A.D.
The earlier dating of the Gospels is quite logical, even against historical criticism’s complaints to the contrary. The reasoning is simply faulty in more than one way.
Knox was quite prudent.
