The Gospel of Matthew was written anonymously, but was universally attributed to Jesus apostle Matthew, until the 1800’s. Today, most scholars, and skeptics and critics no longer believe this. Instead, they claim the Gospel of Matthew is based largely on the Gospel of Mark, which they assert was written first, and also on the totally speculative “Q” source. They claim, therefore, that Matthew is unlikely to have been written by one of Jesus closest followers, namely the former tax collector, and apostle of Jesus, Matthew Levi, but instead was written in the 80’s or 90’s CE by one or more second generation disciples. What does the evidence actually show as to when the Gospel of Matthew was written?read more
“The original of the letter (autograph) is not known to survive. Papyrus 46, the earliest reasonably complete version available to scholars today, dates to approximately AD 200, around 150 years after the original was drafted. Biblical scholars agree that Galatians is a true example of Paul’s writing. The main arguments in favor of the authenticity of Galatians include its style and themes, which are common to the core letters of the Pauline corpus. George S. Duncan described its authenticity as “unquestioned. In every line it betrays its origin as a genuine letter of Paul. A majority of scholars agree that Galatians was written between the late 40s and early 50s, although some date the original composition to c. 50–60.”—Wikipediaread more
The Book of Revelation is without doubt the most complicated, controversial, and esoteric of the entire Bible! Some even doubt that it should even be in the Bible at all, and assert that its place in the Bible Canon was controversial from the start. This is false. Why? The early acceptance of Revelation by the Christian Church is proof that the book is divinely inspired.
We have early, widespread and consistent reception of Revelation. Papias (c 125), Justin Martyr, Irenaus, the Muratorian Fragment, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen all accepted Revelation as authentic. That’s impressive! Every one of these accepted Revelation as inspired, on the basis that John, the apostle was the recorder. B W Bacon was so impressed with the initial widespread acceptance of Revelation, that he wrote: “There is no other book in the entire NT whose external attestation can compare with that of Revelation, in nearness, clearness, defintiteness, and positiveness of statement” (The Making of the New Testament, 190).
Objections to Revelation were later and limited. Gaius in the early 3rd century rejected Revelation, thinking it was a forgery of the apostate Cerinthus. This is the first real objection.
Objections to Revelation were not on any historical basis. Gaius rejected the literal millennnial reign of Christ, so he thought the reference in chapter 20 of such had to be a product of the apostate Cerinthus.
Any such objections were resolved early. It was accepted by the synods of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), by Philastrius of Brescia (c 385), Rufinus of Aquilia (c 404), Jerome (c 414), and Augustine (c 426). They accepted Revelation as authentic because it was accepted by the early Christians as authentic.
There are many quotations from Revelation by early writers, who quoted it as being authentic.
Although it is popular to do so, we should not measure the existence of the New Testament (NT) canon (authoritative, or inspired, books) just by the existence of lists, which came into being somewhat later than the NT canon’s coming into existence. When we examine the way the NT books were viewed and used in the very early days of Christianity, we can determine the de facto existence of a functioning canon by about 100 CE.
Did it take until the fifth century to finalize the NT canon?
The views expressed here are admittedly a little different than the traditional, or orthodox, view of how the New Testament canon, in particular, and the Bible as a whole, came into acceptance. The views presented here actually stand in stark contrast to modern-day populist scholars, like the agnostic Bart Ehrman.
“Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” (Matthew 16:17). The NT canon was not revealed by humans, but by God.
The books of the Bible did not become the Word of God because people decided it to be so. A book became canonical if it was inspired by God (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:20,21). Inspiration by God, and not humanly contrived lists, determines canonization.
“That by revelation there was made known to me the mystery, as I wrote before in brief. By referring to this, when you read you can understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which in other generations was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit” (Ephesians 3:3-5). Canonical books (inspired books of the Bible), prophecy, and revelation were revealed by the holy Spirt, not man-made councils.
The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) claims responsibility for the decision as to which books should be included in the Bible canon. However, the NT canon was settled long before then – not by any council’s decision, but by the same holy Spirit that inspired the Bible in the first place (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20,21).
“And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13) The NT canon was accepted as the word of God by the early church, shortly after each book was written, which was long before the RCC came into existence in the 4th century.
There is no evidence that any book in our canon today gradually gained acceptance over time. There were no stages of acceptance for each individual canonical book.
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people ” (Jude 3). This body of truth, or faith, contained in the New Testament, was delivered “once for all” time, being completed prior to 100 CE, according to the evidence.
“Just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which is ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:15,16). This gives scriptural status to all 14 of Paul’s letters, by placing them as having equal status with the Hebrew Scriptures. Why can we say this?
Since Peter wrote to the “exiles scattered throughout [5] provinces” or regions (1 Peter 1:1), it is reasonable that Peter was referring to the entire collection of Paul’s letters available at the time. Peter probably knew all but possibly one or two of Paul’s letters that were available at the time. Not only would this mean that Peter was well aware of Paul’s writings, but as a leading apostle, he affirmed them. It’s obvious that Paul’s letters had a widespread reputation. From this we can infer that they were circulating possibly as a corpus, or body, in the 60’s. Ignatius of Antioch in the early 100’s, and Polycarp in the mid 100’s show familiarity with Romans, 1 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Hebrews – eleven of Paul’s letters! The Chester Beatty papyrus 46, dated to around 200 CE, is a collection of most of Paul’s letters, including Hebrews. The facts solidly prove that the Pauline corpus was circulating early, long before the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) councils of the latter part of the 4th century.
From this platform of Paul’s 14 letters circulating as scripture from the 60’s on, we can verify the rest of 13 NT books.
“For the Scripture says… ‘The worker deserves his wages.'” (1 Timothy 5:18) Paul apparently quotes from Luke 10:7, which says “…for the worker deserves his wages”, and also quotesDeuteronomy 25:4, calling both “Scripture”. This quote of 1 Timothy 5:18gives scriptural status, or acknowledges the scriptural status, of Luke’s writings, namely volume 1 – Luke, and volume 2 – Acts.
Since Luke and Acts comprise Volumes 1 and 2 of Luke’s history (“my former book” – Acts 1:1), we can conclude that they both were circulating as scripture in the 60’s. Polycarp cites some verses in Luke, in the mid-100’s.
“Remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold.” (Jude 17) The word of the apostles was authoritative. The New Testament was written by four apostles directly chosen by Jesus, namely, Matthew, John, Peter and Paul. Four other close associates of the apostles, namely, Mark, Luke, James, and Jude, wrote the rest of the New Testament.
In the 60’s, when Jude wrote his letter, the apostles and their very close associates’ writings were considered authoritative. Papias and Justin Martyr referred to Matthew and Mark’s books, with Mark named as Peter’s secretary.
“The church in Babylon, also chosen, sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son” (1 Peter 5:13). Mark was a very close associate of Peter, apparently his secretary, writing the book of Mark. So Mark’s book had apostolic authority.
Polycarp and Justin Martyr in the mid-100’s referred to 1 John and John, respectively. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred c. 110 CE, makes clear references to John’s writings.
The Muratorian fragment of c. 170 CE named 23 of the 27 NT books as authentic. Only Hebrews, James and Peter’s 2 letters were omitted. This proves widespread circulation and approval of, and for, the 23 books some time prior to this. Since the Muratorian document is fragmentary – omission from it does not imply non-acceptance.
John and Peter’s status as prominent apostles gave them outstanding authority, and their writings would have been received as such.
1 Corinthians 15:7 – “Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.” Jesus appeared to James, his half-brother.
The New Testament canon was established early, by Holy Spirit
The New Testament canon was established early, by Holy Spirit
The New Testament canon was established in the first century by Holy Spirit. Let’s examine some notes on the scriptures which confirm this fact:
2 Peter 1:16-21 – Peter affirms Old Testament prophets wrote God’s word. He puts himself and other apostles in the same category.
2 Peter 3:15-16 – Paul’s letters were on the same level as all the “rest of the scriptures.” That is, inspired of God. Early Greek manuscripts show Paul writing 14 letters.
2 Timothy 3:16-17 – The rest of the scriptures (the Old Testament) are inspired of God. We can broaden this now, and apply the principle to all 66 canonical books as shown below:
Acts 1:1-3 – “In my former book, Theophilus…” (NIV) So he implies Acts is the second volume.
Jude 17 – “But you, my dear friends, must remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ said.” Jude was apparently referring to Acts 20:29; 1 Timothy 4:1-2; 2 Timothy 3:1-5; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 2 John 7. Apostolic authority carried great weight. The apostles’ writings apparently were considered scripture.
Galatians 1:17-20 – Paul put his own apostleship in the same category as the original twelve apostles. Jesus’ brother James was considered an apostle by this time, and likely their brother Jude was also.
So books by Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, James (Jesus’ brother) and Jude were considered scripture. Mark wrote for Peter. Luke wrote for Paul and interviewed many eyewitnesses.
Increase in the knowledge of God
The Old Testament predicted an increase in the knowledge of God when Christ comes with the new covenant:
“They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Isaiah 11:9)
“I will give them a heart to know me, that I am the Lord. They will be my people, and I will be their God, for they will return to me with all their heart.” (Jeremiah 24:7)
“‘This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,’ declares the Lord. ‘I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,’ declares the Lord. ‘For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.'” (Jeremiah 31:33-34)
“For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.” (Habakkuk 2:14)
Mark was a close associate of Peter, from whom he received his information. (1 Peter 5:13) Peter regards Mark with such warmth and affection that he calls him his son.
This information didn’t come to Mark as a finished, sequential account of the life of Jesus, but as the preaching of Peter – preaching directed to the needs of Christian communities. Mark accurately preserved this material and arranged and shaped it.
The title “According to Mark” appears in all the ancient canonical lists and many ancient manuscripts, and is thought to have been added very early in the history of the text.
Early church fathers all affirm Mark wrote the Gospel:
Papias (140)
Justin Martyr (150)
Iranaeus (185)
Origen
Tertullian
Clement of Alexandria (195)
Eusebius (326) – quotes Papias saying “elder” (John) attributed to Mark
Second and third century books falsely claimed apostles as authors rather than secondary figures such as Mark.
“A young man, wearing nothing but a linen garment, was following Jesus. When they seized him, he fled naked, leaving his garment behind.” (Mark 14:51-52) The “young man” here may be Mark. “Linen” clothes were a sign of wealth. He was from a wealthy family in Jerusalem. (Acts 12:12-13)
Possible evidence of Mark as Peter’s “interpreter” is the simplified chronological order of events in Mark that mirrors Peter’s rehearsal of those events in Acts. (Acts 3:13-14; Acts 10:36-43)
Peter’s eyewitness accounts include many descriptive scenes in Mark, which are lacking in other gospels. For example:
Matthew was an eyewitness to many of the events he wrote about
Many “Bible scholars” claim that Matthew relied on Mark’s gospel as the primary source to write his gospel. Why would Matthew the tax collector, one of Jesus’ twelve apostles, rely so much on Mark’s account? The answer? He didn’t. He was an eyewitness of much of what he wrote, so there was no need for him rely on Mark, who was not an eyewitness, but a recorder of the apostle Peter’s memories (1 Peter 5:13). Both Matthew and Mark wrote their gospels “inspired by God” (2 Timothy 3:16).
Matthew the Tax Collector
Matthew is presented as a tax collector in the gospel, as Matthew writes in his third person account – “As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘Follow me,’ he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew’s house, many tax collectors and sinners came and ate with him and his disciples. When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?'” (Matthew 9:9-11 NIV). The fact that Matthew was a tax collector is very unlikely to be fabricated. Why? This would have been very embarrassing, even shameful, for the writer, because tax collectors were classed with the worst of people in the Roman Empire. (Matthew 11:19; 18:17; Luke 18:11)
Matthew 23:37 – “Jerusalem, Jerusalem… How often I wanted to gather your children” (NIV). How could this be true if Jesus had not visited Jerusalem previously, as some critics claim, during his ministry? The eyewitness, Matthew, however, puts Jesus, not only in Jerusalem, but right in the temple complex, when he reports: “Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there . . . The blind and the lame came to him at the temple and he healed them” (Matthew 21:12,14 NIV).
“The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward. Finally two came forward and declared, ‘This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.”” (Matthew 26:59-61NIV) – This statement or charge does not make much sense without John 2:19, which says: “Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days” (NIV). The two false witnesses perverted Jesus’ statement, because “the temple he had spoken of was his body” (John 2:21 NIV). John’s gospel had not yet been written when Matthew wrote his gospel. Eyewitness Matthew, who did not need to rely on other sources, shows us why they were false witnesses – it was because of their misquote.
The title ascribing the first gospel to Matthew is in the earliest extant Greek manuscripts unanimously, without any contrary evidence (compare 2 Peter 3:2), and is likely original. In fact, all extant manuscripts of the beginning of Matthew ascribe the gospel to him. The writership of Matthew wasn’t doubted until the 18th century.
Early church fathers acknowledged Matthew as the author with no hints of doubt. Perhaps no other ancient book has its writer more clearly and unaninously established than than the gospel of Matthew. The early church fathers accepted the authority of Papias (60-130), who acknowledged Matthew as the writer of the first gospel. Some ancient writers said that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and later translated to Greek. While this may be true, Matthew’s Gospel shows few signs of having been translated into Greek from an earlier Semitic text, and appears much more likely to to be an original Greek composition. Irenaeus (180); Eusebius (260-340), Athenagoras Pantaenus, Ignatius (110), Theophilus Origin, Tatian, Hegesippus, Tertulian, Clement of Alexandria, all testify via quotes to Matthew’s writership.
“It is not merely the merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the =&0=&
Subscriptions at the end of some later manuscripts state that Matthew wrote it 8 years after Jesus’ death. If accurate, this testifies that Matthew’s gospel was the first written.
Clues from the Gospel itself
“As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘Follow me,’ Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.” (Mark 2:14 NIV) “After this, Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth. ‘Follow me,’ Jesus said to him.” (Luke 5:27NIV) – Both of these scriptures identify the text collector called by Jesus as Levi.
Matthew 9:9 – “As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector’s booth. ‘=&1=&
The tax collector called Matthew appears to be the apostolic name Jesus gave him after he chose to follow Christ, similar to Simon being called Peter by Jesus. (Matthew 16:18) Only Matthew’s Gospel identifies Matthew as Matthew, Jesus’ name for him. Mark and Luke identify him as Levi, his birth name. The Gospel of Matthew contains clear evidence that the writer had a very strong ability in Hebrew and/or Aramaic and Greek, which would have been a prerequisite for most tax collectors.
Matthew used the more precise term according to its usage, nomisma, in addition to “denarion”, for the coin Jesus referred to in answering the tax question. “‘Show me the coin (“nomisma”) used for paying the tax.’ They brought him a denarius.” (Matthew 22:19)
Mark and Luke use the Greek word “denarion”, or “=&2=&in English. “‘Should we pay or shouldn’t we?’ But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. ‘Why are you trying to trap me?’ he asked. ‘Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.'” (Mark 12:15NIV)
“‘Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?’ ‘Caesar’s,’ they replied.” (Luke 20:24 NIV) This linguistic specificity strongly implies that the writer, Matthew, was conversant in the fine details of money and finance, a fact that supports the tax collector’s writership.
Popular agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman claims that,
“it seems unlikely that the uneducated lower-class illiterate disciples of Jesus played the decisive role in the literary compositions bearing their names.” read more
Is the Bible reliable? Does it contain myths, or are the stories true? Did the writers simply write down stories they had heard from other people, or did they experience the things firsthand that they wrote about?
The Bible is not made up of cleverly devised fables or myths. “We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:16 NAB). Many of the Bible writers were actually eyewitnesses of their written accounts. “But we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty” (2 Peter 1:16 NAB; see also 1 Peter 5:1) Eyewitnesses also handed down their accounts to others who carefully researched these things. (Luke 1:1-3) Still others studied and pondered. (Ecclesiastes 12:9-10) But none came from human will. (2 Peter 1:21)
All scripture was inspired by God:
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16,17 NIV). read more
Who wrote 1 and 2 Peter, two letters of the 27 books of the New Testament? Many critics say that they written by a pseudonymous writer, or writers, falsely claiming to be the apostle Peter, and especially is this said about 2 Peter, which is arguably the most disputed book in the New Testament.
Early Church’s View of Literary Works
“Words . . . by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:17 LSB; 2 Peter 3:2) were considered to be authoritative. However, early Christians were advised to be cautious. “MY beloved, do not believe every prophecy, but examine the prophecies to find out if they are of God: because many false prophets have appeared in the world” (1 John 4:1Lamsa Bible). Therefore, the early Church viewed literary works which claimed to be written by an apostle, or one of their close associates, or that claimed to be scripture, in several ways (Eusebius, History, 3-25), which are:
Those recognized as genuine by all Christians (for example, 1 Peter);
Those that, though disputed by some, were still recognized as authentic by the church as a whole and were familiar to most Christians (for example, 2 Peter);
Non-canonical works that made no claim to being canonical;
Those that were generally acknowledged as outright heretical.
Early Church’s View of Pseudonymous Works
The early church did not accept a document as inspired by God simply because it had an apostle’s or one of their close associates name on it.
“We ask you . . . not to become =&0=&Paul is referring to deceptive, pseudonymous works that were already circulating in the early 50’s.
The early church did not, on principle, approve of books written under false names. For example, the church father Tertullian (On Baptism, 17) indicated that the elder who wrote the pseudonymous Acts of Paul in order to augment “Paul’s fame” was defrocked, and the so-called Gospel of Peter of the 2nd century was criticized as false, pseudonymous (Eusebius, History, 6.12). The Apocalypse of Peter, or Revelation of Peter, was rejected as being a fake, as was the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. Moreover, pseudonymous materials tend to be drastically different from 1 and 2 Peter.
The Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter were all three written far too late to have been written by the Apostle Peter, and they each blatantly contradict the 66 book Bible canon in a number of ways. A few examples of these contradictions are:
The so-called Gospel of Peter of the 2nd century records the cross itself, the instrument on which Jesus was executed, as talking. It contradicts the canonical gospels in a number of ways. For example, it exonerates Pilate of all responsibility for Jesus’ execution, and has Herod Antipas giving the order to execute Jesus, and has Jesus never dying at all, but being taken directly into heaven from his cross.
The Apocalypse of Peter has vivid descriptions of the pagan doctrine of hellfire, and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter portrays souls as being immortal, and Jesus fleshly body as not being real.
Internal Testimony of Peter’s Writership
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ . . . ” (1 Peter 1:1). ” . . . as your fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of Christ” (1 Peter 5:1 LSB). The writer of 1 Peter clearly identifies himself by name as “Peter”, and also “an apostle of Jesus Christ” that is, one of Christ’s original 11 faithful apostles, and “as a fellow presbyter”, that is, an older, mature Christian man, having the position in the church of “elder” (1 Peter 5:1 most translations), and as a “witness to the sufferings of Christ”, meaning he was actually there in person alongside Christ when Jesus was on earth. These descriptions fit the apostle Peter.
“Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours” (2 Peter 1:1 NAB). The opening verse of 2 Peter attributes its writing to the same apostle Peter as the first letter does. Notice the name “Symeon”. This is the same Hebrew name used to describe him when, “The apostles and the presbyters met together” and “James =&1=&Obviously, the apostle Peter is referred to here by the same name he uses to introduce his second letter.
“This is now, beloved, the second letter I am =&2=&The writer of 2 Peter clearly says this is the second letter he is writing, which implies that 1 Peter is the first letter he wrote.
“We had been eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the =&3=&The writer of 2 Peter counts himself as an ‘eyewitness’ who was present at Jesus’ transfiguration. The gospel writers Matthew, Mark and Luke place Peter at the Transfiguration scene (Matthew 17:1-11; Mark 9:2-11; Luke 9:28-36).
The writer of 2 Peter says, “our Lord Jesus Christ has shown me that I must soon leave this earthly life” (2 Peter 1:14 NLT). Only the apostle Peter could have made such a statement, keeping in mind Jesus’ prediction from about 3o or so years past (John 21:18,19).
Saying, “our beloved brother Paul” (2 Peter 3:15), suggests a close relationship with the apostle Paul, which fits the apostle Peter.
The contents of 2 Peter, unlike apocryphal and pseudepigraphal works, are in complete harmony with the all “the rest of the Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16 LSB).
Early Church’s Views of the Writership of Peter’s Letters
First and Second Peter both claim writership by Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1,17-18), and “a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1). The early church unhesitatingly received 1 Peter as authentic, and there is also some evidence of the acceptance of 2 Peter as authentic. Some examples are as follows, but notice the proof of the very early acceptance of both 1 and 2 Peter as authentic:
1 Peter
The Didache (an anonymous, early-second-century CE work dealing with a variety of doctrinal and practical matters of import to the early Christian church) about 95 CE, cited 1 Peter 2:1.
Polycarp (69-156 CE), about 130 CE, cited 1 Peter.
Tertullian, about 200 CE, accepted that Peter wrote 1 Peter.
2 Peter
Clement of Rome (30-101 CE), about 95 CE, in 1 Clement, paraphrased 2 Peter 3:1-4.
Eusebius (263-339), in his compilation of church history, mentions that although 2 Peter was disputed by some, it was recognized as authoritative by many (Hist. eccl. 3.25).
Both Letters
Papias (60- 135 CE), about 110 CE, cited 1 Peter, and noted that “Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle” [Eusebius, History, 2.15]. (1 Peter 5:13). The obvious implication is that Papias recognized 2 Peter as authentic.
Irenaeus (130-200 CE), about 180 CE, cited 1 Peter 1:18, using the apostle’s name [Against Heresies, 4.9.2; 4.16.5). He also seems to have had access to 2 Peter, because he quotes 3:8 almost verbatim (Haer. 5.23.2).
Clement of Alexandria, about 190 CE, accepted that Peter wrote 1 Peter, wrote a commentary on 2 Peter, which is now lost.
Second Letter Written Late in Peter’s Life
Second Peter was written late in Peter’s life, probably in the mid-60’s CE, as evidenced by the following statement of Peter. “For our Lord Jesus has shown me that I must soon leave this earthly life” (2 Peter 1:14 NIV). There is some evidence that Peter died in the late 60’s. This deflates the critics claims that:
(1) there could not have been first and second generation Christians by this time, nor could there be “scoffers” about the seeming delay of the Lord’s return (2 Peter 3:2-4); and
(2) Paul’s letters were not yet collected and viewed as “scriptures”, as Peter indicates they were. “Our beloved brother Paul . . . wrote to you also in all his letters” (2 Peter 3:15,16 LSB).
Peter speaks of this collection of the apostle Paul and Paul’s letters as if Paul and his letters were common knowledge. In the mid-60’s CE, Christianity had been operative for about 35 years, which is more than adequate time to have produced second generation Christians. Letters to these early churches were not only “read” by the recipient church, but they were also quickly copied and circulated to other churches for their reading “Colossians 4:16). Thirteen of Paul’s 14 canonical letters were already written by the early 60’s CE, and 2 Timothy was written in the mid-60’s CE. by the time Peter wrote his 2nd letter, over 90% of Paul’s letters had already been written, and most of them were likely widely circulating by the mid-60’s CE, when 2 Peter was written. A leading church figure, such as the apostle Peter, would have been familiar with Paul’s letters, and also some of the erroneous views of them, as indicated by 2 Peter 3:15,16.
Contrary Critical Views Discussed and Debunked
Critics, however, have generated more controversy over the writership and canonicity of 2 Peter than any other book of the New Testament. However, 2 Peter views the men who wrote “scripture” being “moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God” (2 Peter 1:21 NAB). The letter emphasizes “truth” (2 Peter 1:12; 2:2), and warns about “false teachers” (2 Peter 2:1).
A pseudonymous writing is difficult to reconcile with this high view of scripture. A comparison with uninspired apocryphal works illustrates the stark differences. For example, “I will bring my work to an end here too. If it is well written and to the point, that is what I wanted; if it is poorly done and mediocre, that is the best I could do” (2 Maccabees 15:37,38 NAB).
Despite strong historical evidence supporting the apostle Peter as the one who wrote 1 and 2 Peter, some commentators hesitate to accept Peter’s writership for several reasons:
Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44) set a precedent for Roman officials in all the provinces to consider Christians as criminals. First Peter includes several references to the persecution of Christians outside Rome (1 Peter 1:6; 2:15; 3:15-16; 4:12-13; 5:8-9). Since all scholars agree that Peter died during Nero’s reign (A.D. 64-68; cf Eusebius, History, 2.25), and since persecution outside of Rome began after Nero’s reign, many New Testament commentators hold that both 1 and 2 Peter (but, especially so 2 Peter) are pseudonymous works (falsely attributed to the apostle Peter). — Their language, however, does not necessarily refer to a large-scale, official persecution, and thus does not demand a date subsequent to Nero’s reign. The suffering Peter referred to was local and sporadic rather than universal and under imperial mandate. lndeed, Peter spoke more of Christians suffering verbal abuse and social ostracism than he did of martyrdom. Another fact is, why would a pseudonymous false teacher/writer devote so much effort into warning against “cleverly devised false stories” and “false teachers” (2 Peter 1:16; 2:1)?
The enormous geographical area represented by the audience addressed in 1 Peter 1:1 (for example, believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia) suggests to many scholars that these epistles were not composed until well after the 60s. They argue that enough time would have had to elapse after Paul’s missionary journeys to allow for the growth of Christianity in these areas (especially since we have no record that Paul even visited Pontus, Cappadocia or Bithynia). — As reflected in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters, however, Christian churches were often founded in short periods of time, and Peter may have first met some of his readers when they came to Jerusalem at Pentecost (Acts 2:9-10).
First and Second Peter both demonstrate a refined vocabulary and rich literary style. Since Peter and John are called “unschooled, ordinary men”, “illiterate and ignorant” (Douay) in Acts 4:13, many think it unlikely that Peter would have possessed the skill to write these epistles. However, the Greek word used in Acts 4:13(agrammatos) most likely means something like “without an advanced education,” rather than “illiterate.” The Jews prided themselves upon the education of their children (cf. Josephus, Against Apion, 1.12; 2.26). Peter evidently lacked the Talmud, or “college” level of, training. However, as a businessman in the fishing industry, not just someone who caught fish, he would have had to know how to read, and probably would have been fluent, not only Hebrew and Aramaic, but also in Greek, the international language of common, public discourse at that time. The picture of Peter that is frequently put forth today in popular expositions of Scripture—that is, the notion that he was something of a buffoon, an ignoramus illiterate fisherman—is most certainly not true. The Galilee area was an international crossroads, with Peter likely have business dealings with people who spoke various languages.
The Greek of 1 Peter is much more polished than that of 2 Peter, and there are striking vocabulary differences between 1 and 2 Peter. Therefore, critics claim that each letter must have a different writer. However, Peter’s use of Greek philosophical terms and concepts in 2 Peter is evidence that the subject is more complex than that. For example, Peter used: “excellence” (arete) (2 Peter 1:3 LSB), “divine nature” (theios physis), and “Tartarus” (tartarosoas) (2 Peter 1:4 NAB). Galilee was influenced by Hellenism and Greek culture, so it’s not surprising that Peter would be familiar with Greek philosophical terms. Using these terms wouldn’t require a study of Greek philosophy and classics, and Peter didn’t use the terms in a technical sense.
1 Peter 5:12 tells us that Silvanus (Silas) assisted in the writing of the letter. “I have written and sent this short letter to you with the help of Silas” (NLT). This indicates that Peter was not above seeking assistance to make certain his letters read well. This fact also deflates some of the criticism that there are significant stylistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter. Silvanus, or Silas, Peter’s secretary for his first letter, likely wrote down the details from Peter’s recollections in his own style in 1 Peter. The vocabulary differences can also be accounted for by considering the different subject matter of each letter. 1 Peter is primarily written to encourage Christians who were suffering for their faith (1 Peter 1:6; 3:14), whereas 2 Peter is primarily written to warn Christians about false teachers. But, in 2 Peter, Peter also gives a farewell address because he knows his death is near (2 Peter 1:12-15).
Some scholars claim that the false teaching referred to in 2 Peter is a form of Gnosticism that emerged decades after the apostle Peter’s lifetime, which, if true, would mean that Peter could not have written the letter. However, the false teaching that Peter exposes is not the full-blown Gnosticism that developed in the 2nd century, but, rather, erroneous ideas and actions that eventually led to such Gnosticism (2 Peter 2).
Evidence in Favor of Peter’s Writership
The weight of evidence is in favor of the authenticity, that is, of Peter’s writership, of both of these two letters.
While there are differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, there are actually great similarities in the vocabulary of 1 and 2 Peter. In fact, the differences between Peter’s two letters and the entire rest of the New Testament are much more profound than the differences between these two letters. Actually, there is no other extant writing that is as similar to 1 Peter as 2 Peter. The differences that exist between the two letters can be explained by the differences in subject matter, the time, circumstances and purpose of writing, and the use of a scribe (1 Peter 5:12), or the lack thereof. First Peter was primarily written to help suffering Christians. Second Peter was written primarily to expose false teachers.
SIMILARITIES in VOCABULARY and EXPRESSIONS
——Between 1 Peter and 2 Peter
Identical opening salutation—“May grace and peace be yours in =&6=&
Luke the Evangelist, painted by James Tissot (c. 1886–94)
“The historical accuracy of the Luke-Acts two-volume work is frequently challenged. Scholars dispute such issues as the dating of the reign of Quirinius (Luke 1:5; 2:2) and references to Palestinian geography (Luke 4:44; 17:11), and raise additional historical questions regarding the numerous speeches in Acts (e.g., Acts 2:14-36), and the harmonious portrayal of the early church (Acts 4:32-35).The most critical historical objection to Acts concerns the details of Paul’s ministry. Although certain passages suggest that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul (Acts 16:10-17; 27:1–28:6), some scholars deem this tradition untenable on the basis of perceived difficulties in harmonizing the life and perspective of Paul as presented in Acts with details about his life found in his letters.
Many of these perceived difficulties are lessened when we recall the purpose of Luke’s accounts. In composing his volumes, Luke did not intend to record a comprehensive history, but, rather, to provide an accurate historical account to meet the needs of people to develop faith (Luke 1:4). Luke acknowledged his use of sources (Luke 1:2), which he investigated thoroughly in order to compose an orderly account (Luke 1:3). Where it is possible to verify Luke’s use of sources, we find that the Gospel writer followed them meticulously. Furthermore, Luke was precise concerning the titles of officials and municipalities in various towns (Acts 13:12; 17:6; 18:12; 19:31,35), details that reveal the writer’s commitment to accuracy.”—Based on the New International Version Archaeological Study Bible article “The Historical Value of Luke-Acts”
The blog site “The Christian Researcher” provides the following details:
=&0=&
_-_James_Tissot.jpg)