Thanks p018. I’m wary of modern scholarship as well because too often modern scholars reflect their own perspectives into their research. However, I don’t want to totally reject the historical critical method & all the value it can bring to the table.
My understanding is that the majority of scholars tend to argue 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical. Not just a handful, but most critical scholars. They make a compelling case but it’s not air-tight. The case that it was written by Peter himself (or assistant) holds some weight as well.
Regardless, do you think the Church can faithfully argue God used a writer who was falsely attributing his work to an apostle to write an inspired work?? Since 2 Peter is already part of the canon, the Church would have to explain how 2 Peter could be falsely attributed (assuming one day it wanted to recognize it was falsely attributed to Peter) but it failed to accept other falsely attributed texts into the canon of scripture.
What do you think?
The demonstrable effect of entropy applies to everything in the physical realm, as well as matters of the intellect. Moderns assume that, the further away from an event they are, the more they know about it. As someone who was involved in the investigative process for three decades, I can assure you that this is rarely the case.
As well, the living tradition of the Church saw that this letter was preserved and perpetuated. The first challenges to the letter occurred about two hundred years after its appearance. It was never placed among the apocryphal books. In Peter’s lifetime, its authenticity was certainly known, as it was not a “lost” forgotten" or “hidden” epistles that suddenly appeared after Peter’s martyrdom.
As to it being challenged, Christ Himself was vociferously challenged since the date of His birth! Challenges (human doubt or envy) have no bearing on the truth of a matter, and reflect more the nature of those harboring the doubt or envy. Danger lurk in our attempts at intellectualizing the faith. We hold to mysteries by both faith and reason.
We know from the Gospels that Peter received revelations that none of the others did - witness
1 Peter 3:18-20 and
1 Peter 4:6 about Christ’s descending to the dead. Doctrine is based on it and the Church has ruled on it. Attempts both before as well as thereafter are those of deconstruction - about which we are well advised to be vigilant. Bear in mind also that scholars need not even be Christian.
As with Hebrews, the document was clearly investigated at the time of its appearance. What is not known is who delivered it, since Peter was likely imprisoned. That unknown factor must have contributed to the letter’s acceptance - facts which we simply do not possess.
But the scholarly mind, like nature, abhors a void and so endeavors to fill in the blanks. Knowledge is sought, but must never be guessed at. Truth is not subject to opinion. Saint Jerome seems to have expressed no doubts about it.
Do modern scholars assume themselves greater than Jerome?
