ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 มิ.ย. 2024
- The authorship of 2 Peter has been a point of contention unlike any other book in the New Testament. From the early days of the church to modern scholarship, questions about its origin and legitimacy have persisted.
In this video, we're going to explore the main reasons why some people doubt if 2 Peter is genuine. These objections come from Bart Ehrman's book "Forged," which summarizes what many scholars think about the authenticity of this book. I will provide counterpoints from scholars who accept 2 Peter as genuine.
00:00 Intro
01:08 2 Peter and the early church
06:28 Jude's connection
09:48 Second coming concerns
12:01 Paul's letters are Scripture?
14:09 An illiterate fisherman
18:28 Conclusion
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
PS Cicero had different people write his letters for him, causing significant stylistic differences in how they were written. I was made aware of this after the fact wanted to include this, but the vid was already uploaded and was not sure if it was worth the trouble of re-uploading.
Use a time machine to go back before you made the vid, then insert it back in 👍
How often do we see use of amanuensis in antiquity
And how often do poor people use them
@@jadenrobert2447your question seems to imply that Peter was poor. Paul used them so why think Peter could not have?
@@jadenrobert2447Less often. The use of amanuenses is usually associated with the wealthy and educated, since poor people generally don't have the resources to fund it.
In relation to Peter, the evidence seems to indicate that he wasn't poor at all. In fact, his wealth was quite reasonable (not rich, but moderately wealthy). He owned a fishing business (boats and all) with his brothers (Luke 5:1-10), was financially supported by his community (Luke 8:1-3), and he was able to manage and distribute resources during his time as the leader of the early Christian movement (Acts 2:41-47).
@@darkwolf7740do you know of resources I can use to learn about amanuensis I just finished forgery and counter forgery and I’m interested in what the other side can say
I personally believe that Jude used 2 Peter, rather than the other way round, because Peter warned his readers that false teachers were going to come (2 Peter 2:1, 3:3), whereas Jude says that they have already arrived (Jude 1:4, 1:12), which would suggest that Jude came after 2 Peter.
Jude also says that the apostles are the ones that warned about it. Meaning Jude is repeating what they already said, not needlessly of course but in a very urgent way, and rightly so.
I beg to differ. The style of 2 Peter 2 is different than the rest of the epistle, Which suggests a different source. But.. I'm only at 9:13 of this video ;-)
@@rb8954 I never got that impression. Chapter 2 is just a lot more aggressive is all.
Another interesting fact is that the specific way the letter's author's introduces himself, as "Simeon Peter" is very unique, and is only used one other time in the NT in the book of Acts. As far as I understand it, this was a more obscure variation of Peter's name (in greek) therefore it's unlikely that a forger would have used it.
Interesting, I’ve never thought about that
Can you explain why you think it's unlikely a forger would spell Simon as Simeon? My understanding is the ancients cared a lot less about correct spellings of names.
Ugh Bart Erhman again. The king of misinformation
I’m getting sick of Bart Erhman too.
@@clayton4349 Think about it. At this point he probably knows a lot of what he says is tripe but hey! He gets a career and money from deceiving so he’s happy.
You might be the perfect target of @TheNonAlchemist video, "Why they hate him...."
@@metaldisciple and Christ will tell him “depart from me, I never knew you”
@@freddurstedgebono6029 Reminds me of Matthew 16:26.
“For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Excellent video. Ehrman's insistence on Peter or Jesus not being able to speak Greek is overstated. It is very possible that Jesus and His Apostles spoke predominantly in a Palestinian Jewish influenced Greek. New Testament scholar G. Scott Greaves makes a strong case in his book, "Did Jesus Speak Greek?" that Greek was most likely the predominant language spoken in Galilee. It is often presumed the Gospel writers translated Jesus's words in to Greek but Greaves argues that that wasn't the case. The Decapolis and Caesarea where Jesus spent most of his ministry were predominately Greek speaking. The Gospel writers go out of their way to comment on Jesus speaking Aramaic. If Jesus spoke Aramaic all the time, why would the gospel writers make a comment on Jesus using Aramaic phrases such as when he raised Jairus's daughter or when he opened the mouth of a mute man or when he hung on the cross? Greaves argues that Galileans most likely predominantly spoke Greek and Christ's Apostles were chosen primarily because of their proficiency in both Greek and Aramaic.
Anything’s possible in the magical kingdom
@@creatinechris exactly like the universe coming out of nowhere
@@majesticrainmaker1460 which no one believes
@@creatinechris
Atheists believe the universe just created itself out of nothing
@@creatinechris
Magical kingdom you mean like the 100s of invisible, undetectable genders that atheists believe in?
As a Catholic, I approve this video.
Hey, baldwin! remember me from Discord from RZ's server?
As a Protestant, I approve this video!
@@legodavid9260 dang this an RZ meet up, I remember both of you. I got banned though
@@matnic_6623 We all got banned, homie.
@@legodavid9260based RZ and Testify enjoyer
"Peter borrowed from Jude..."
Or Peter could have borrowed from conversations that Jesus had with him and the rest of the apostles, which later became known among the believers. As Jude himself says, these are things that "you have known from the begining" or that "the apostles of Jesus Christ spoke before".
Yeah, it's not like Jesus mixed up His message all that much. Do we really think His Second-in-Command and His step-brother/cousin didn't hear the same story at least once? 🙄🤦🏼♂️
"Scholars," man... 😒😒🙄
Peter with the 2 left hands strikes again!
At 15:20? Yep!
Re: 2 Peter and Jude, I am not so confident that one text even used the other. You have identified part of the densest collection of similarities between 2 Peter and Jude in 2 Pet 3:2-3 and Jude 17-18. Fifteen non-continuous words are the same, though there is slight variation in word order of the similarities, two words are in different forms, and two others are synonyms of what is present in the other text, out of a total of thirty-one words in Jude and thirty-six words in 2 Peter (in Greek). In neither case is there an extensive string of exact wording and order shared by both texts, as the similarities are frequently interrupted. Peter’s frame around these parallel texts is completely different and much more extensive than Jude’s, as this portion serves as an introduction to his teaching on those who doubt the coming of the Lord, as well as his presentation of what to expect in the time that is coming. Despite the density of similar words, this is a rather curious string of similarities to explain on either theory of dependence. If Jude borrowed from Peter, he decided to cut his letter short right around here before he got to the eschatological indicatives that motivate the ethical imperatives later, and all he sought to borrow from him were some introductory words. If Peter borrowed from Jude, all he apparently needed, after taking a few sentences off from borrowing to any extent, was some words for framing to introduce the last major teaching in his letter. Either way, some odd choices were made by one of the writers in between the similar words, if they wanted simply to copy certain words and yet alter the force of the same.
Consider for example how much more complicated the syntax is in Peter to change the point, if he copied Jude, from “remember the word spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ” to “remember the spoken-beforehand word by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior by your apostles.” The more difficult syntax of 2 Peter does not appear explicable simply by appeal to him using Jude as a source. It seems rather that the commonalities in the first verse of each text are driven by a common task of reminding by appeal to the apostles (and others, in the case of Peter), which they both emphasize was declared beforehand to emphasize that none of this is a surprise, and that God is guiding even bad parts of their experience to the achievement of his purposes. I do not see a compelling reason to think that they could not have come up with such similar wording for the same task in their appeals to the same tradition.
The similarities of the second verses in each text are also explicable by appeal to a common tradition. Reference to the “last days” (or in the case of Jude, “last time”) appears across the NT as an element of common tradition/thinking involving an eschatological lens. And given the widespread experience of suffering and conflict for the earliest Christians, including mocking and attempts to shame them by outsiders, it is hardly surprising that a common element of apostolic teaching would involve warning about the mockers the faithful would face. Both authors are drawing on a common message, which explains the common core of similar terms in combination with flexible wording, as they are both summarizing something the apostles have surely said many times over. I do not think they have a common textual source that just disappeared (a la the hypothetical Q), but they are rooted in similar streams (or the same stream?) of apostolic tradition and apostolic preaching.
Sorry for the long comment. This is just something I've written about before.
Thank you for this video. I don’t know if you read all the comments but in a video you did on New Testament as scripture I referenced 2 Peter as hailing Paul’s epistles as scripture and had a dialogue with someone who rejected 2 Peter as authentic. I touched on some of your arguments. Of course your video did a much better job than my comments. God Bless.
They'll always reject what proves them wrong
Been looking forward to this!
Happy New Year, Testify!
A very nice summation!
I like how you formulated this video and the editing and script are great.
2nd peter traditional authorship is just not plausible
An excellent summary.
What works do you use to support your arguments and what are the best books on this topic.
Great video!
Whether the author of 2nd Peter borrowed from the book of Jude, or the author of Jude borrowed from the book of 2nd Peter, the fact that one borrowed from the other suggests that in borrowing from that other book, that author (in all likelihood) considered the other book to be genuinely apostolic.
Big up Eric!💪🙏
Excellent presentation Eric. Watched twice to absorb the arguments. I really appreciate how you presented both sides fairly. It's difficult to parse out authenticity in a time when pseudepigraphical writing were so common.
The mention of Silvanus from 1 Peter really destroys the illiteracy argument. He's got a frigging scribe! I also think Peter spoke conversational Greek. How could you not in a Hellenized society?
I still find it strange that Peter would console anxious Christians prior to the destruction of the temple, considering _that_ was The Sign of the End of the Age. Why not remind them of the Olivet Discourse?
Keep em coming friend! This community needs level headed apologists like yourself.
I knew I recognized the music from somewhere must be royalty, free or something but Catholic truth also uses this music as their intro. God bless.
“The Scholarly consensus should be taken with a grain of salt” BINGO
I love your videos, man!
I think the single point that revolutionized my understanding of the “validity” of NT letters was that the apostles didn’t just get zapped by the Holy Spirit and write it all down in one sitting. Instead, we know that they used professional letter-writers, worked with their companions, and crafted the form and argumentation of the letters over time. This is how each of the letters can hit such vastly different aspects of theology and use distinct structure, and yet I have no qualms with identifying them all as Scripture.
Bingo. That's the problem with much of the typical "Evangelical" Low-Church problem with understanding scripture.
What is written through the history of study of canonicity?
I see how all the complaints fall flat (especially the second coming thing
I mean I would expect the christians who started facing hardships to ask "when will Jesus come back") but you should have focused on the first complaint a bit more
Question: Couldn’t the church fathers that appear to be referencing 2 Peter actually be speaking to existing Christian traditions that 2 Peter also picked up on/pulled together from the church fathers into one work? In other words, can the fathers quotations be used to support that 2 Peter already existed?
Thank you
what program are you using for the ai photos?
Canva
The argument about forgeries always presenting alternate or false teachings is, in my opinion, one of the most convincing evidences of its authenticity, even though it was mentioned last. What is the point of producing a forgery without an agenda and that in fact only reinforces the teachings of the person being counterfeited?
Thanks for this video Erik!! God bless you for your work!
I found the quote of Justin Martyr in his dialogue with Trypho the most convincing quote. Also the citation of 2 Peter 3:3 in Jude 17-18 was a very important new info for me. Thanks again :)
If scholars could clearely show that several books (or parts of them) were pseudepigrapha were Christians therefore forced to shrink the canon? Would this have further implications?
Depends on the sect. For Catholics and Orthodox, it would not matter since the canon was formalized in a particular state at the Council of Rome in 382.
Additionally, small updates or additions after the death of the author is firmly within the scope of scriptural tradition. For example, Joshua likely authored the bit about Moses’s death at the end of Deuteronomy, but the entire body is still considered to be Scripture by Jews and Christians alike.
So in sum; not likely that the canon would change for most people, although some minor sects may consider changing.
@@whitebeans7292 Well, it's pretty unlikely that Moses wrote any of the Pentateuch. So the last chapter of Deuteronomy is hardly the determining factor there. But still scripture, yes. Same with the Psalms - not written by David (maybe David commissioned some of them). Or Proverbs - not written by Solomon.
Being pseudoepigraphical is just not a big problem. It is more important to get to the truth of who wrote the text and in what context. Pseudoepigraphical text is only a real problem for extreme literalists, but they have bigger problems.
@@fluffysheap I contest that he didn’t write any of it. Not only does the Pentateuch completely fail to mention anything about the temple or Jerusalem (which would be expected given the centrality of the temple), but we have a quote on a silver bracelet from Deuteronomy that dates to before the Babylonian exile. This is counter to the JEDP theory, which has no external evidence.
Also, pretty much the whole Bible attests to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
@@fluffysheapI really don't understand why Moses couldn't have written all the various laws and sacrificial priestly stuff in the Torah, even if we grant for the sake of the argument that the narratives about what he did were written later. The Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 and Blessing of Moses in Deuteronomy 33 are also widely acknowledged by scholars to be among the oldest texts of the entire Bible, why couldn't Moses have been behind them?
15:12 It's not true that 1 Peter 5:12 explicitly states that Peter used Silvanus as his scribe. Ehrman addresses this claim in his book _Forged,_ where he points out that "scholars now widely recognize that when the author indicates that he wrote the book 'through Silvanus', he is indicating not the name of his secretary, but the person who was carrying the letter to the recipients. Authors who used secretaries don't refer to them in this way."
This is probably the fairest point you've raised so far. NET Bible Commentary: "The phrase Through Silvanus means either that Silvanus was the secretary (amanuensis) who assisted Peter in writing or composing the letter (cf. Rom 16:22) or that he carried the letter to the churches. The latter sense is more likely since this is the meaning of the Greek wording when it is used elsewhere (cf. Acts 15:23; Ignatius, Letter to the Romans 10:1; Letter to the Philadelphians 11:2; Letter to the Smyrnaeans 12:1; Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians 14), though it is perhaps possible that both ideas could be incorporated by this expression."
Great video. The evidence is not as weak as I thought it was. I would say my personal belief/assurance that Peter wrote 2 Peter is risen from 20 % to 51%
What about 51.1%?
I’m already 100% confident that Peter wrote it. Now it’s 100.1%
@@darkwolf7740 Mmm. I just tend to understate my case as much as possible.
@@clayton4349 I was agnostic initially but leaning towards forgery until I found out that Origen and Firmilianus thought it was authentic. I thought before that no one considered it by Peter until the fourth century, which seemed like an impossible hurdle for arguing its' authenticity.
@@OrthodoxInquiryAs a compromise, go with 51.01% 🤝
Literally just started questioning this and trying to get some resources together. Thank you for the info!
Read "Forged" by Ehrman. And if you want to go deep, read his academic book, "Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics"
@truncated7644 yeah ive seen a lot of what erhman says. The issue is I think he just kinda says things he thinks are true and then stacks conclusions and theories on it
@@kaylorschaff2791 That's pretty much the definition of scholarship. Determine what you believe are true facts and then build theories to explain it them that are are The most efficient and consistent with the facts .
@truncated7644 Maybe. Im not too familiar with the concrete definition of scholarship. However, things like him deciding mark was written after 70AD and therefore all the other gospels afterward are entirely based on the fact that Jesus supposedly predicted the fall of the temple and couldnt have. That sets off a lot of chain reactions including an argument saying paul didnt write an epistle because it supposedly quotes luke which couldnt have happened because paul supposedly died before luke was written. Stuff like that seems like stacking so much on one baseless claim.
@@kaylorschaff2791 I can understand your view. I would say I think it is a mistake to think he is injecting his own opinion, as if it were unsupported. He is convinced of his position based on how he understands the evidence and he isn't alone among historians who study this. There are more than one reason to believe Mark is written around 70 AD. Also, it would be misguided to think they make the argument for Paul's authorship based simply on this, if they do that at all. I've never heard of it.
I don't think you will find much support for the gospel of Luke being written before Paul's death, even from conservative Christian scholars.
I'm pretty trad when it comes to authorship of the NT, but even I'll admit that there's a very very good chance 2 Peter was written by disciples of Peter later.
I'll see if this video changes my mind. Will comment after
I have been looking for answers for 1&2 peter authenticity. Thank you, and God bless you .
Did you also look here? "Forged" by Ehrman or his academic book, "Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics"?
Here's what happened, and it's absolutely airtight. Jude wrote a letter using the Book of Enoch as the basis for achieving our "common salvation." In it, he not only alludes to Enoch in verses 6 & 13, but quotes Enoch 1:9 VERBATIM in verses 14 & 15, but not before he quotes the book BY NAME, and by calling him the 7th from Adam, he is saying the source is ancient. Also, by saying he prophesied, he is saying that the Book of Enoch is Prophecy. By saying that Enoch PROPHESIED about THESE MEN (who were infiltrating the Church,) he is saying that those who oppose this book are the "brute beasts" and "wild waves" and all that. They taught counter to Enoch. Like today's church, they claim Enoch is a "cleverly concocted fable." Now Jude claims this is the teaching of the Apostles, and the people questioned that. They therefore sought out the chief Apostle, Peter, and Peter defended Jude. He affirmed that it was indeed the teaching of the Apostles by saying, "We did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we told you about the POWER AND COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ." Now what is this with reference to? ENOCH 1:9!!! "Behold! The LORD COMETH with 10,000s of His Saints to EXECUTE JUDGMENT, etc. See? THE POWER and the COMING that Jude spoke of. Another, more amazing insight is that Peter references the Antediluvian World as the world OF OLD several times. So when he says the prophets OF OLD spake as they were moved by the HOLY SPIRIT, he means ANTEDILUVIAN PROPHETS spoke as they were moved by the HOLY SPIRIT. ENOCH is the prophet in question, and Peter is saying he was moved by the Holy Spirit. They have opened the door to this book being ready for the Day of Trubulation, just as Enoch prophesies in chapter 1. Yes, you can read all yourself. The two books work together and exist for the purposes of restoring that book and discarding church history in its entirety.
@18:22 why is Peter's left hand replaced by a right hand? Also, why is it so massive? Why does the left hand of his companion look so deformed?
I regret looking at the hands.
He's very handy.
“Resembles, seems like, maybe references”. Real solid evidence here. Very convincing.
2 Peter 3:3, Jude 17-18 scoffers
What else refers to scoffers? Who are these scoffers?
Excellent video. I can now sleep knowing you covered 2nd epistle of Peter.
Btw, what if Jude simply took from 2nd Peter and abridged it?
Jude did paraphrase from Peter.
“But you, beloved, must remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ,”
Jude 1:17
The authors of scripture are perfectly connected in their theology.
@@RedeemedSinnerSaint Indeed.
What I find interesting, and Erik should’ve definitely mention it in the video, is that Clement of Alexandria wrote a commentary on 2nd Peter, but it was lost in history.
Eusebius also reports that Clement accepted all the “disputed” books, which would include 2nd Peter.
“To sum up briefly, he has given in the Hypotyposes abridged accounts of all canonical Scripture, not omitting the disputed books, - I refer to Jude and the other Catholic epistles, and Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.” (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.14.1, 3.25.3)
@@clayton4349The only potential problem with this assumption is that we cannot be sure 2 Peter was among the “disputed books” in the late second century, such as Jude, 2 and 3 John, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 That is fair. Although it’s undeniable that if we found Clement of Alexandria’s commentary on 2nd Peter, it would be the greatest find.
@@clayton4349It would be great to see. Given how prolific he was, I’m shocked it wasn’t well preserved. Maybe he was just too prolific!
Isnt 2 peter the only book that externally validates Paul as an apostle?
Acts 9 does indirectly; acknowledging Paul's conversion, missionary journeys, and church establishing.
@darkwolf7740 Wasn't acts written by Luke, which was Paul's protégé?
@@Dee-nonamnamrson8718Yes, but if it was biased, he wouldn't have even mentioned Paul's persecutions.
@darkwolf7740 Saul's persecutions gives credence to his conversion, it doesn't detract from it.
@darkwolf7740 I hope I'm not coming off as being anti Paul, I want to be convinced of his legitimacy. I'm looking for the best pro-Paul arguments.
Now this is what I call apologetic work! Excellent video!
11:00 we know it's not a solid argument because there is no book in the New Testament directly referring to the destruction of Jerusalem of AD 70.
I'd like to point out Paul faced issues with False Teachers in his ministry too, he had to face how Jewish people tried to bring people back under the law despite Paul going out of his way to say that no one was under Law, but Grace. There were also issues with supposed genealogy and jewish fables. 2 Peter acknowledgment of Paul lessons heavily implies that the False Teachers in mention were of very similar Nature as those Paul faced. Which is why I skeptically look at the early church "fathers" when it comes to doctrine and the such. After all didn't scripture acknowledged how some of those false teachers were also from the church itslef. For example I did notice how some of the early cristians writing from church fathers could be a bit too hateful on the jew, despite warning that God could cut us off as he did them. I mean the Roman Catholic Church claims apostolic succession, imagine for a bit it might be true, that still doesn't absolve them from the apostasy. As an ex-catholic I learned more about scriptures now then as a catholic... Same the SDA they are the same as the Galatians that Paul admonished for trying to go back to the law. Gnosticism probably wasn't the only issue they faced, by far it might have been the minor considering for a big part of it Paul has to remind people to not follow the Law...
Here is a big truth, those people reject the history of the Apostolic Age church and the first century church favoriting the second century history of it because they know that tracing it all back mean that they have to aknowledge that only what is written in scriptures can testify the history of the first century church, and in their intellectual dishonesty they don't, the attack it through the second century members of the church who were more then likely suffering both from loss of papiry by the constant persecution of the Roman empire and the false teachers mendling with their doctrine. Ironically that does strenghten more our scriptures then weakening them if the members and elders of the early church had doctrinal problems. It just proves the point of what is written in the by the fact that they fail to follow the sound doctrine. Demas did forsaken Paul, so who is to say after the apostles died and so many were martyred some might have tried to change the doctrines out of fear in some places in order to avoid persecution. And that is without considering Gnosticism...
People who try to find evidence of the early church historical claims from outside the church itself is ridiculus, they will only find people who wanted them death because of their belief, the Roman empire despised them why would any of them keep record beyond their propaganda to kill them because of their worship of the Caesar? People even forget that said society was ILLITERATE and the Roman empire no the Elitist wanted to keep it this way. THEN BOOM the early church appears, people in there are more literate, are ethically better, do not recognize the Caesar and the empire supremacy over them... What do this modern "Scholars" expect to find to validate the scripture outside the early church? Only Propaganda to encourage extermination and nothing more, or fake claims of the desciple stealing Christ body despite who the disciple were and their incapacity in pulling it off, and the fact that Christianity would have died much sooner since the body would have appeared nearly instantly considering where it all took place and when it all took place. I mean come one even today all the people of the 666 aren't able to completely hide the truth that they control everything and have staged the world for WW3 and through Media disinformation and Historical disinformation and so on. Yet somehow for some of those "skeptics" a fisherman, tax collectors and some others were able to perfectly stage a faked resurrection, a fake man and keep it hidden for nearly 2 thousand century with lies like guys come one not even the best liers can keep it hidden for a century, how many controversial informations have began to surface recently? How many conspiracy theories point to a disturbing truth? Far to many and those get validated pretty soon by simply observing the world we live in.
Christ was Historical the Roman Empire knew it well, they hated Christians because by simply existing they were a threat for the Families in control of the known world, they hated their message, they hated that suddenly some people could become literate in their empire they were a threat to their status quo despite the fact that the Apostles doctrine was one of Grace. The crucifixion happened as it happened people knew it well, a body was never found despite claims that the desciple stole it the body was never found, and against all odd when all previous jewish sects of people claiming they were the Messiah only Christianity lived till this day, the rest all proved to be false claims... At some point it's just pure common sense to say, maybe something did occur and the church really backs up it's own claim.
This is a good video, I appreciate it.
I agree that writing style is a weak argument in general against authorship, but I think there's little to no chance that Peter actually physically set pen to paper. The writing of 2 Peter just doesn't match someone who learned to write late in life, probably in his second language. It's flowery and pretentious - if I were going to compare it to modern writing, I'd probably compare it to F. Scott Fitzgerald. It's really not a match. So if Peter did write it, he didn't write it with his own hand, and he most likely didn't literally dictate it either.
I'm not a classics nerd, I study Greek so I can read the Bible better, but what I've heard is that this style wasn't common until the second century. I'm not confident enough in this to claim it as evidence - even the weak evidence that writing style necessarily is. But people do say it.
Silvanus or another scribe could have written it down, though. This was a common practice. But it's putting a lot on Silvanus (or whoever - maybe Silvanus was just the letter carrier), making it more of a collaboration. That isn't hard evidence against, but it isn't a point in favor.
As for the similarities with Jude, that's another interesting topic. It's not hard evidence, but again it counts against Petrine authorship. Peter and Jude would have known each other, and there's no reason they wouldn't collaborate or copy from each other. I mean, today's preachers copy from each other - why wouldn't they? So the copying on its face isn't a problem. But Jude, as far as I know, stayed in Jerusalem, whereas Peter would have necessarily written 2 Peter in Rome. So that makes the similarities difficult.
It seems unlikely that the false teachers in Jerusalem would be so similar to the ones in Rome that the same arguments would work for both. Jude is a fundamentally very Jewish epistle, drawing heavily on Jewish apocalypticism and literature like Enoch. 2 Peter echoes the themes. Is this really a likely match for the mostly-Gentile Romans that Peter was preaching to? By contrast there is none of this in Paul's letter to the Romans. When Paul writes to the Romans it's about how Gentiles can share in the promises made to Abraham if they have faith. Jude and 2 Peter are drawing on literary traditions that Roman proselytes likely wouldn't have understood. Or compare to today's missionaries - they are not going to Africa and talking about Balaam. 2 Peter's subject matter is just not the sort of thing that fits the concerns Peter would have had. It is more about the things that 2nd century theologians would have been concerned about.
@fluffysheap You might want to read Romans again. Paul’s letter to the Romans is very Jewish as well. He drew heavily on the Old Testament, going on and on about Abraham and circumcision. He goes on to talk about Adam and Moses in Romans 5 as if his readers already know who they are. Romans 9-11 mentions Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Esau, Moses, Pharaoh, Hosea, Isaiah, Elijah, David, etc.. I would actually argue that Romans is more Jewish than 2 Peter.
WRT the Lord speaking Greek, one quote suggests that He did, when he told the repentant thief he'd be with him in *Paradise.* Paradise is a Greek word for the Garden of Eden.
Thanks for the video, interesting and cogent
I do have a point of criticism though that I believe would be a fair reply that skeptics can make.
The video goes through the various proposed reasons to doubt Peters authorship and one by one shows that there are other plausible possibilities compatible with Peter's authorship. But, it is not enough merely to show a plausible alternative possibility, because while possible any theory may still nevertheless be improbable. Yes, it is possible that Peter learned and knew sophisticated Greek, but it is still not likely, the critic might say. Or yes, it is certainly possible that Jude or Peter used each others letter, but, this is still a priori improbable etc.
To maintain Peter's authorship as the most reasonable conclusion I think you'd either have to:
A. Support that each proposed alternate explanation is inherently more probable to occur than the skeptics interpretation (it is not merely possible, but actually probable)
B. Give countervailing positive reasons to believe in Petrine authorship that outweigh the skeptics reasons (this was done well in the reference to Peter writing that Paul is hard to understand etc)
There is also the matter that the skeptic could fashion his reasons as a cumulative case. Even if each reason for doubt is individually far from decisive, bundled together they still make the reasonable conclusion to be that Peter was not the author. I.e so many doubtful things have to be true simultaneously for Peter to be the author that it quickly becomes very improbable.
Yeah, IDK. I guess I don't find it inherently unlikely that after years of travel, Peter might have gained some proficiency in Greek and used a scribe to write a letter intended for a group of churches. There's no low prior for an apostle to want to write a couple of letters to be read as some kind of encyclical. This scenario doesn't demand strong positive evidence, just the undermining of defeaters. But given the brevity of the letter, it's challenging to marshal some really rock solid case it its favor. It's tricky when we only have two letters attributed to him, especially one written through Silvanus. What if all we had from Paul was Romans and Philemon? How would one make a strong positive case for the genuineness of those letters? I guess we can say the attribution from the early church fathers is stronger in the case of those two examples, but you know that wouldn't fly with skeptics because it doesn't move the needle for them with 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians or the Pastorals.
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks for the reply.
I actually agree that the prior probability of the proposed alternative scenarios are not particularly low but they aren't inevitable or extremely probable either, so the net cumulative effect is that the confidence in the authorship is still reduced.
The way I'd express it is that the presentation of the letter itself as from Peter, with many corresponding personal details, and the absence of other details we might expect from a forgery, together create a strong very probable baseline that Peter is the author. Thereafter the various sceptical reasons proposed reduce that almost certain/very probable conclusion down to something like merely probably Peter, with room for resonable doubt.
You did a much better job than I did making this point. My take away is that if God wants me to believe something another human wrote is from God, it is hard to believe he would do it in such an unconvincing way.
@@truncated7644Why would true theology need to depend on perfect manuscript preservation? If you have the most essential points and fair enough preservation of the material from which they are argued, are minutiae in Greek syntax really a reasonable basis for complaint?
@@keatsiannightingale2025 Well, the first argument that Christians dismiss and don't like is that if God perfectly inspired the text, why didn't he perfectly preserve it? But I will put that to the side to say it isn't just minutiae in Greek text. The case against the authorship of II Peter is primarily based on the theology of the book. But if it is a forgery, critics find the evidence regarding the style, vocabulary, the necessary level of education, the historical use of an amanuensis, the dependence on Jude, the early doubts of its authenticity, its late distribution and adoption, etc. to be supportive of the theory.
13:49 A forgery would more likely take advantage of Peter's notoriety as a key leader in the church and exalt and flaunt Peter's ability to understand Paul's letters. Yet on the contrary the author exhibits humility in acknowledging that some of Paul's letters are hard to understand, yet not qualifying the statement that he himself doesn't have a problem understanding Paul. A humility also seen in his use of the phrase "those who have obtained a faith of EQUAL STANDING with ours " (1:1).
A humility also shown in his presenting the Old Testament Scriptures as the "prophetic word" that's "something more sure" than their testimony of having seen the transfigured Christ (2 Pet. 1:16-21). Not that their testimony as Apostles actually was of less authority, but that in answering the charge of having followed cleverly devised fables, the author points to the already established authority of Scripture [cf. Paul in Acts 17:11]. And so, despite Peter's right to "pull rank" (as a true representative commissioned by Jesus) and assert the truth of his teaching purely on having been personally sent by Jesus [he who receives you receives me (Matt. 10:40)], the author defers to the undisputed authority of the OT Scriptures.
A humility also shown by an acknowledgement of other apostles ("through your apostles") besides himself.
A forger would more likely take financial advantage of his readers since he has no scruples in pretending to be someone who he is not, yet the author of 2nd Peter warns of Balaam's bad example of being greedy for wealth in his religiously ministering to others (2:15-16). That's in addition to the book's encouragement to have morally high level of living. Something which, admittedly, a forger might fain. Yet, the phrasing, emphasis and fervency of the book on moral integrity seems to be so genuine that in all likelihood either the book really was written by Peter, or the author was flagrant hypocrite. Yet the book doesn't seem to be pushing a radical theology or one promoting self-aggrandizement. Forgers will often be tempted to wax eloquent and write lengthy letters or books. Yet, 2nd Peter is shorter than 1st Peter. Another exercise of humility. If you're going to falsely claim to be Peter (one of, or the major leader in the early church), why not 1. write as long a letter or longer, and 2. rise to the level of Greek proficiency as the 1st letter of Peter (which was written with help of Silvanus [1 Pet. 5:12]). And if borrowing from Jude, why not hide it by phrasing things differently? This unassuming similarity would suggest that 1. either 2nd Peter wrote first and Jude borrowed from it, OR 2. 2nd Peter did borrow from Jude but that the author wrote with enough humility that he didn't see the need to hide it. Something a forger would avoid doing, but is perfectly consonant with a humble genuine Apostle who is willing to borrow from others when something is well expressed or is also pertinent to the present situation.
While Aramaic was the most commonly spoken language of the Levant at that time, both spoken and written Greek had already made inroads 300 yrs earlier with the spread of Hellenism. While I don't think Yeshua and His disciples primarily spoke Greek, they would have had some familiarity with it becaue Greek was the lingua franca of the empire. Written Greek may have been used in the Levant for business transactions and legal documents at that time. Matthew being a tax collector probably knew Greek and Latin and some of the other disciples certainly could have learned it from him or any number of other disciples who were educated in it. Any of the Galilean Jewish disciples who left the boundaries of the Middle East to preach the Gospel in Roman ruled areas would have no doubt learned spoken Greek to some degree and eventually perhaps even learned how to write in Greek.
All of the arguments in favor of my position still have some proponents and none of the arguments against my position are universally accepted, therefore I am following the evidence when I arrive at the conclusion with which I started.
Same can be said for both sides 😂.
@@MrSeedi76 it has certainly applied to me at various times.
@@seanhogan6893
Biblical scholars are a bunch of fakes. They conclude things based on presumption.
If Ehrman says it, I just assume it's wrong until evidence says otherwise...
Until AI gen pictures can get hands right, people should NOT be using them for visuals 😂
Good content video. But you can date Peter's and Paul's death as late as 67AD even early 68AD. Nero died in June of 68AD. And there is a strong tradition of 2 Pauline imprisonments in Rome separated by a time of freedom.
14:57 No, Acts 4:13 is _not_ simply recording the scribes' opinions on Peter and John. Luke says they "grasped" (Greek: katalabomenoi) that Peter and John were illiterate, implying Luke knew they _were_ illiterate.
Contrast this with Acts 14:19, where Luke says the people merely "thought" (nomizontes) Paul was dead.
The Greek word used in Acts 4:13 is "agrammatoi," which can mean either unlettered or uneducated. However, this doesn't necessarily imply illiteracy or a lack of education. It seems to suggest, at least in this context, that Peter and John were not formally trained in the traditional Jewish educational system, not that they were illiterate or uneducated.
Furthermore, the Greek word "katalabomenoi" doesn't necessarily affirm the illiteracy of Peter and John. The word simply means either understanding or perceiving something. Luke is making it clear that Peter and John were not formally educated, not that they weren't educated. The believers were astonished by this fact.
@@darkwolf7740
No, "agrammatoi" never means "not formally trained in the traditional Jewish educational system". There are no examples of it meaning that. It just means "un-lettered", i.e. not knowing letters. Your claim is _ad hoc._
"katalabomenoi" affirms that the scribes _grasped_ that Peter and John were illiterate. You don't say that someone "grasped" that p if p is false - you would say that they just "thought" or "believed" that p.
It wasn't the believers who were astonished. It was the high priest and the elders who were astonished that these illiterate peasants could lecture about the Scriptures so well.
How in the heck would they know they were illiterate? Did they administer to them a reading test? Did they sit them down and ask them to read a scroll? How can you be so sure that they were illiterate by just by being dogmatic about exact definitions of word and semantics alone?
@@TestifyApologetics
The high priest knew that fishermen from rural Galilee weren't educated.
I've just presented data about the use of certain Greek words. "agrammatoi" never means "not trained as a rabbi", and "katalabomenoi" never means "thinking something that isn't true".
You can dismiss this data if you want, but then who's being dogmatic?
If you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it.
11:46 Don't threaten them with a good time. "Scholars" these days be like, "Duhhh, Revelation was written in the 1930s! Derrrp!"
Great video. I like that you go from one point to the next. No wasted time.
I’ve deconverted over the past 3 years. In the past I had full trust in God and church history. Now what’s really tough for me to except is how much of the Bible is we have to blindly trust. We can’t know the authorship of 1st and 2nd Peter or the gospels. Why did God allow the originals to wither away and he allowed changed to be made to scripture. For me, the same God that killed a man for touching the ark of the covenant wouldn’t allow those things to happen.
Why would God care if the originals withered away? Didn't the books survive? Didn't the early church live for quite some hundrend years before all of those books were collected into a single canon? And it's not that those changes alter meaning or something. 99% of those changes is either changes in lettering, or changes in word order, but because of the way greek works, neither affect the meaning of a phrase. Christians are supposed to be people of the spirit (or the meaning if you will, in greek its the same thing colloquially), not of the letter "for the letter kills, but the spirit gives life". And at the end of the day, God became incarnate as a man, not a book. The Word of God is a person, Jesus Christ, not a book. The latter is a muslim teaching. If the ark of the covenant has a new testament counterpart, that's Christ's human nature, because it contains, not the words commanded by God, but God himself. If the faith contained inside the bible is alive, then it should be able to survive alterations, as well as translations (because you are not reading a single word of your bible in it's original form if you read it in english). Or should we expect God to restrict himself that way, when even in the scriptures themselves there are recorded instances where people came into contact with God outside those boundaries? When Cornelius or the guard at Phillipoi were converted in some short convesation that wouldn't have been longer than a couple of hours, should we expect that Peter, or Paul and Silas, run them through the OT and then gave them a detailed lecture on Jesus? Hech, Cornelius and his whole house had the Spirit come down upon them BEFORE they were baptised, contrary to the what Jesus prescribed in the great comission. God isn't bound by rules, we are.
I don't think that's a good reason for doubting. How can we--as humans with imperfect minds and reasoning skills--claim to say "If I were God I would have X"?
This "blind trust" you speak of is normal in our everyday lives, and we have no problem with that.
I think that you can't know anything for sure besides the fact that you exist. But we should recognize the difference between "I know for sure" and "I know beyond a reasonable doubt."
"I know for sure" virtually never happens. But you know many, many things beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is good enough.
I don't know "for sure" that the God of the Bible exists. I don't think anyone does even if they say they do.
But I know beyond a *reasonable doubt* that the universe had a beginning, the apostles believed Jesus rose from the dead, and miracles seem to still happen.
Put it this way: For those three things, one explanation can easily fit them: Christianity is true.
But for them to be false, you need more explanations. Like:
"The universe began without a creator/cause"
"The apostles each had hallucinated Jesus being alive after his death" (this one multiplies for every apostle)
"Every miracle is either faked or mistaken" (this one multiplies for every miracle)
Occam's Razor comes into play and shows that Christianity being true fits better.
@22beanbean
So, you're telling us that you left Christianity because God didn't do what you imagine he should have done. Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? You can make that about anything. "I deconverted because I bought a lottery ticket and didn't win the billion dollar grand prize. Why would God allow this when he knows I could really use the money?" It's basically the "child being angry at his parents because they didn't buy him what he wanted" argument.
@@Frodojack sounds like your trying to get me back to Christianity by insulting me. :) I didn’t say why I left Christianity. I was saying while I was a Christian I thought one way now I think another way. My point is if God really wanted us to know his message what we have in the Bible isn’t the best way. I don’t understand why an all knowing God would allow the original manuscripts to be lost to time. I prayed to got asking him to help me keep my faith but got nothing. I guess that’s divine hiddenness :/. I’ve looked into biblical/church history and it’s not a solid as I was taught it was. This isn’t a kid throwing a temper tantrum, this is me wandering why God wouldn’t make it clear he exists. If he truly wants us saved I see no reason why he hid himself from us.
@@22beanbean I wasn't insulting you nor trying to get you back to Christianity. I was noting the poor reasoning in your statement. You seem to believe that God has to do things your way or else he doesn't exist in your world. Then you complain that you don't understand why God doesn't do things that you want him to do. That's fine and well, but like a human parent, God is under no obligation to do what his children want. That's not an insult, but a legitimate analogy. Most parents realize that giving in to their children's desires isn't always in their long term interest.
Erik I have a question. With prophecy such as issiah 53 how would you go about debunking the argument that the gospel writers had access to issiah and simply fit the Jesus narrative to fit this prophecy. Thanks
I'll give you 4 methods 👀
(1) A 700-year gap between Isaiah and Jesus makes it unlikely that the authors had access to the complete works of Isaiah.
(2) Ancient copies of Isaiah (including Chapter 53) found in the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus, so it wouldn't make sense for the Gospel writers to copy Isaiah 53 for Jesus when earlier versions of Isaiah were available.
(3) Interpretations of Isaiah 53 being a messianic Prophecy predate Jesus.
(4) Not all of the prophecies in Isaiah 53 are applicable to Jesus. For example, the servant having children isn't applicable to Jesus... unless you try to argue that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child or something 🙈
We know they didn't make up Jesus' rejection by his own people, which is a major part in Isa 53. Also that the Jews think that Jesus suffered and died because of his own sins, it's something the rabbis say themselves but it is also said in the chapter.
Also, the chapter talks about resurrection, so is it just a coincidence that we have eyewitness testimonies about the risen Christ?
@@darkwolf7740 where are you getting #3 from? The only one I can think of that is potentially pre-Jesus is Targum Jonathan that makes a very clear distinction between the messiah who shall prosper and the ones who suffer. But the dates on Targum Jonathan are a range from BC to AD anyways so I dont know when the commentary on this specific passage was made
Were you thinking of something else? T Jonathan is the only one ive seen in the list of "even the Jews believe this is about the messiah" that is potentially pre-Christian, the other ones are Talmud or medeival commentators
That being said it would make sense for this passage to be reinterpreted to be about the Messiah during the messianic fever period that Jesus partook in leading up to Christianity, but I was wondering what specifically you had in mind for #3, i dont know of anything explicitly saying that this was known to be a messianic prophecy
@@Greyz174Talmud, Book of Enoch, stuff like that.
@@darkwolf7740the fourth point you have there is erronneous and doesn't even understand the context. The narration that The Servant shall see his offspring is immediatly followed by curing of the Barren Zion, because the Servant, as a Kinsman redeemer (Isaiah 50), takes the daughter of Zion as his bride gives her many, many children (Isaiah 54).
This is why Isaiah 55 explicitly says that the everlasting Davidic Covenant is fulfilled in the Servants of the Lord (the offspring of Isaiah 53) who now have been incorporated in the inheritance of the Servant of the Lord, one-man-Israel, who enacted a New Exodus and gathered the remnant of Israel to God (Isaiah 49).
The inheritance is not just one chunk of a Land, as is stated in Isaiah 54-55, but it is enlarged so that it can encompass all nations.
Whereas Numbers 14 speaks of the promised Land of Canaan as the inheritance of Israel, Isaiah 65-66 speaks that the inheritance is the New Heavens and the New Earth (and this new creation is mentioned in parallelism with creating the New Jerusalem for joy) - language that draws heavily on creation and the language of Numbers 14 where God's glory fills the whole earth.
Isaiah 48 mentions Israel which has been redeemed from Babylon physically, although confesses God's name without righteousness nor truth.
And he shall not declare the glory and oracles of God which were entrusted to him and will not fulfill the holy vocation of being the Light for the nations (Isaiah 42).
Whereas the redeemed remnant in Isaiah 66 "shall declare the glory of God among the nations" and bring them as a tribute offering which cannot be refering to Jews living among nations, as the context is the people "who have not heard my fame nor seen my glory" who are brought in the family of Abraham and thus are called brothers and are brought up as Priests and Levites (compare Malachi 1:10-11; 3).
A story from the book of 1 Kings, where a prophet by the name of Elijah when he beheld 400 false prophets of the false object of worship called Baal said to them if you think you're God to be the answer then assemble yourselves and call me fire down from heaven; Elijah said to them likewise shall I do the same as the story goes the 400 false prophets of the false being made themselves a bunch of ruckus calling out to the lie they believed.
Elijah surely used scripture from the word of God the Old Testament or Old Covenant or Agreement and fire did fall from heaven.
The more you get right about God the more he shows up.
God is a spirit those that worship him must do so in spirit and in truth. John 4:24
Don't just have faith, have faith in God, and his word. There is surely a type of extreme unpleasantness already in the Earth, have you seen it, are you delivered from it?
Job 38:17 "Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?"
Job 38:33 "33 Knowest thou the ordinances of heaven? canst thou set the dominion thereof in the earth?"
As a child, I would have dreams in be in many nightmares where underground tentacle monsters could sense my slightest movement and impel me,
wars, dreams of persecution, the grim Reaper, things would get wild. I remember calling on the Old Testament name of God Jehovah, and I remember things
did not end well for me when I was being assaulted by a witch. However, ever since I was a child the name of Jesus has never failed me, when I began to call on his name
Even recently, a spider demon with a human face around the size a 42" TV was crawling on my wall when I awoke from my sleep.
I spoke the name of Jesus quite a few times and I attained Mercy unto myself, for that because Jesus has the authority for this reason.
John 3:35 " He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
1 John 2:23 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."
I believe that God cares for his creation and doesn't want to lose them, because I believed in Jesus and had the humility to honor his name many times throughout my life.
I attained mercy through the New Covenant, agreement, or Testament. Only parts of the old still apply. The old prepared place for the New.
I believe Love is many things, and is doing many things read 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (KJV) and study the language of the time (Middle English), saying an agreement to do some things all the time, and some things so long as it is not provoked which is not easily accomplished. Look at the Greek interlinear and see what to it says. Love is kind while not provoked and is out to to preserve and protect you not always for your short-term satiation but your long-term health, wealth, and viability.
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 1:14 "And the Word:λόγος(in ancient Greek) message, expression of God's ideas), was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."
For if I read James 1:5 (KJV), do not leave out James 1:6,7, and 8 (KJV),
and while we at it live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
If there are 18000+ religions in the world I know to whom I say go to save me trouble, the name and the ideas that I will confess as Lord to be serving of and to call my friend.
Proverbs 4:19 “The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.”
A concept of the word is the idea that is behind it or what should pop into your head by what the author is meaning. If you do not have the idea of the word correct you have a misconception and it changes the whole story.
Read the KJV, pray for wisdom, pray without ceasing: don't go a day without it.
Genesis 18:14 "14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son."
El Shaddai, is one of God's names: meaning, the Almighty. The deductions you can make with your eyes are not as important to me as the decisions you can make with your heart.
I believe God set the stage before we got to the play. God putting bones in the ground isn't him being deceptive, he wants to know if we will be presumptuous.
The New Testament cannot be authentic because it quotes the Old Testament extensively... from the probably soon to be released book by Bart Ehrman called "Over Quoting Jesus."
I find the arguments revolving around Peter's supposed poor Greek skills very poor. By this point in time the apostles were the head of reasonably large communities with people from all walks of life. Peter's letters, written explicitly as a general message to Christian's around the Mediterranean, shouldn't be thought of as a personal thing he jotted down all by himself, but more akin to president's speeches today. I.e messages written with the assistance of friends and through discussion with the leaders of the community. The idea Peter would have needed to write all of it only by himself, with no outside assistance from the community he was leading and residing in, seems inherently unlikely.
In fact, a Galilean fisherman who knew that his Greek was rusty, would be very likely I think to seek out the help of qualified members of his communities, especially since he was writing a letter for general distribution.
I agree generally with your assessment. That the Greek of 2 Peter was of lesser quality than the other books of the New Testament in no way diminishes the authenticity of 2 Peter. The fact that Luke, a Greek doctor, had better Greek in no ways lessens his gospel and Acts as authentic. God used educated believers and less educated believers throughout the entire Greek and Hebrew Bible to further his kingdom. It shows Gods sovereignty and omniscience a to be able to use all believers from all walks of life to further the kingdom.
These arguments made for authenticity of 2 Peter doesnt hold up at all. Many of those church fathers accepted Hermas and Barnabas as scripture as well. So that doesnt mean 2 Peter is a legitimate source.
The "fathers" referencing the jewish patriarchs dont hold up either because they werent looking forward to Jesus' second coming. The burden of proof is on those making such outrageous claims.
If Peter was really the first pope, wouldn’t his authorship be completely undisputed? Honest question
People debate truths all the time. It does add to trustworthiness in some cases if there is no debate, but just because there’s debate over something does make that thing false.
I would like to see scripture where Peter is appointed as Pope.
13:00 This is wild speculation ("if", "could have been", "might have", etc.). There is no evidence that _any_ of these things actually happened - they're just made up _ad hoc,_ from the armchair. It's fanciful.
Nor is any explanation given of why Peter and Paul would "quickly recognize the inspired nature of the other's writings". Paul never hints that what he's writing is Scripture - indeed he constantly refers to "the Scriptures" as distinct from his own letters. The view of Paul's letters as Scripture needs time and development.
That's not true at all. Paul is very clear he is speaking with inspired authority. See 1 Thessalonians 2.13, 1 Corinthians 14.37-38, and just pause and see the other passages Carson quotes. Also see my recent response video to Dan McClellan
Yes, Paul may be speaking and writing with authority as an apostle, but that by no means suggests he thought all his compositions were Scripture the second they were penned and circulated. The two things are distinct. This would apply just as much to his writings as to his oral conversations and speeches.
You're arguing from silence. It's clear he asserted his words had authority on par with Scripture in multiple places. It's clear they thought their teaching had authority. If they put pen to paper and demand that it be read in churches, then I don't see how it's such weird inference that they saw their writings as Scripture.
@@TestifyApologeticsNo, I’m arguing from the reasonable distinction between a) writing with authority and b) writing a revelation from God. Strictly speaking, the only composition in the whole NT that claims to be entirely a revelation from God is the Apocalypse of John. Every other text, whether Gospel or Acts or Epistle, has to be ad hoc assumed to be Scripture on the merits of apostolic authority and canonical status.
If everything Paul wrote to the churches he knew or didn’t know was to be understood as Scripture the second it was penned, you would not expect to see Paul making pronouncements like “Now this we declare by the word of the Lord” in the middle of a letter like 1 Thessalonians (4:15a). What this suggests is that Paul didn’t believe everything he wrote in every letter carried the implicit authority of God. Would God admit ignorance about who Paul had baptized through Paul, as in 1 Corinthians 1:16?
@@keatsiannightingale2025, your reasoning is flawed, all the books of the Bible is writings of someone about his experiences with God and also contain history, only a few places where God's exact words were written down.
Jesus returned in judgement against Israel in 70 A.D. so he did return and John, the apostle and some disciple’s would have been still around around 70 A.D. so there’s no contradiction I’m always sick of hearing that Jesus second coming is thousands of years later when he said that he would come in that generation which is 40 years Jesus even correlates to 40 years in the wilderness as a generation. He tells you what a generation is it’s so easy to understand.
Agreed. Testify and his goons would still find inadequate excuses to explain this away.
You do videos about crucifixion, resurrection, virgin birth, and the alleged Contradictions
Why not talking about The Sermon on the Mount? Will be interesting
With respect to 1 Clement, the similarity could just as well be due to the author of 2 Peter knowing 1 Clement. I don't think it's evidence at all that 2 Peter was written in the 1st century.
Sure, that isn't entirely implausible but when you consider the early usage of 2 Peter and that the other arguments against Petrine authorship are weak, it makes more sense to think 2 Peter came first. It's just a small piece to consider.
Acts 4:13 describes Peter as illiterate and untrained. He was an uneducated laborer and native Aramaic speaker from rural Galilee. If he was illiterate and untrained, then he couldn't have written 1 or 2 Peter.
Not only this, but 2 Peter betrays a late date of composition due to its referral to the letters of Paul, its concern with countering Gnosticism (a later movement), and its focus on standing firm in the face of the delayed coming of Jesus.
so Peter just could not have learned to write or to speak greek?
@gambalombo There's a difference between learning a language and being able to compose literary works and letters in that language.
The author of 1 Peter used Greek rhetorical flourishes and also demonstrated an intimate knowledge of the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). Whoever he was, he was highly educated in Greek composition.
Becoming trained in Greek literature was a full-time undertaking. It was an education reserved for wealthy elites, usually living in urban areas.
That wasn't Peter. Peter was an illiterate native Aramaic-speaking fisherman from Caupernaum, a mono-lingual backwater town in rural Galilee. He didn't know how to read or write Greek. And it strains credulity to suggest that he somehow dedicated the later half of his life to becoming rhetorically trained in Greek. That's something that literally took many years of focused study to achieve.
Consider also the many other books falsely claimed to have been written by Peter that everyone acknowledges as forgeries without resistance (some of which came close to making it into the Bible we have today). There are three different Apocalypses of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of Peter, and various other epistles of Peter. Even 2 Peter (which did make it into the Bible) is widely regarded as a forgery.
11:00 The idea that "the fathers" refers to the Patriarchs in this context makes little sense. The whole point is that it was promised that Jesus would come soon, but the apostles have died and nothing has changed.
For scoffers to complain "nothing has changed ever since the Patriarchs died!" is a bizarre non-sequitur. Who said that anything had to change before or near to when the Patriarchs would die?
Edit: The use of "the fathers" to refer to the apostles isn't unprecedented. Paul metaphorically refers to himself as a "father" to the Corinthians he's writing to in 1 Corinthians 4:15.
It's quite odd for someone posing as Peter to mention "since all the apostles have died" in the second century. That would be a major mistake. It's akin to me forging a letter as a member of the 1964 St. Louis Cardinals, purportedly written in the 1980s, and stating that almost the entire team has passed away.
@@TestifyApologetics
But he doesn't say that. He's quoting what _scoffers_ will say in the future (after Peter's death, given 2 Peter 1:14). He's not himself saying that all the apostles have died. Full passage:
"Most importantly, you must understand that in the last days *scoffers* will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. “Where is the promise of His coming?”, *they will ask.* “Ever since our fathers fell asleep, everything continues as it has from the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4).
It seems like the lexical data is on my side, and Bauckham agrees even though he rejects Petrine authorship, and I think it does make good sense in the context. The verse undeniably references the "beginning of creation" and Noah's flood, unequivocally pointing to Old Testament times. Even if argued that "the fathers" refers to New Testament times, the link to the Old Testament era requires explanation.
There's just nothing in the text that absolutely demands later dating and forgery.
@@TestifyApologetics
The scoffers reference "the beginning of creation" because they're saying that, despite the apostles' death, everything remains the same as it's always been for millions of years (i.e. "from the beginning of creation"). The original creation was supposed to be transformed into the new creation by the time all the apostles died.
The context requires "the fathers" to mean the apostles, since the force of the clause "ever since the fathers fell asleep" is that the parousia was expected to happen before or by the time this happened. This doesn't make sense if "the fathers" are the Patriarchs, as no one expected the parousia to happen before they died!
On the other hand, it makes sense if "the fathers" are the apostles (as the lexical data doesn't preclude), since Jesus predictions in Mark 9:1 and 13:30 clearly indicate that Jesus will return before some die.
@@TestifyApologeticsThe issue with this counterargument is that, clearly, any forger worth his salt is going to do his utmost to convince his readers that he is living in the times of the person he is pretending to be. So a second century forger is obviously going to attempt to be vague where it is advantageous to do so.
2 Peter is admittedly vague in its historical situation-specific enough to seem to acknowledge the first letter (he even follows the same salutation from 1 Peter and seems to expand upon it) and vague enough to not even address any one specific region of churches of a specific church, even though it is written as if he is. 2 Peter is, truly, a “general epistle” in the way that others like Hebrews, 1 Peter, 2 John and 3 John are not. The very idea of a general epistle being written and authorized by any but a magistrate or king to his subjects in the first and second centuries is a strange concept, but this variety more than any other would be easiest to make a forgery out of. No tracing possible, for one.
11:30 "The New Testament first shows worries about Jesus not returning right away in letters like 1 and 2 Thessalonians, [which were] written only twenty years after Jesus died".
Not true. 1 Thessalonians nowhere shows any worry about Jesus not returning right away, and most critics today date 2 Thessalonians much _later_ than "twenty years after Jesus died" precisely _because_ it shows this worry!
He writes because some people in the congregation had died before the return of Jesus. They thought the age of Jesus' return was imminent.
@@TestifyApologetics
Where does 1 Thessalonians say that?
@@legron121There’s also manuscript evidence from 1 Corinthians 15:51 that “We will not all sleep” was changed by some scribes to “We will all sleep, but we will not all be changed” etc. The authentic Pauline letters typically express a belief in an imminent Parousia.
@@TestifyApologeticsYou have misrepresented his concern. Paul is writes what he does because he wants of assure the Thessalonians of the resurrection of the dead at Christ’s coming, beginning with those who died in Christ. There doubt did not arise from a doubt in the Parousia’s nearness.
My friend, I appreciate your video. But, as a Christian, I remain unconvinced on the authorship of 2 Peter.
Surely, you would agree that the Apocalypse of Peter is not considered scripture, no? Yet, it appears that in the earlier parts of the early church, the apocalypse has more testimony than 2 Peter.
Clement of Alexandria quotes the Apocalypse in his Eclogae Propheticae (c.150), as well as mentions of in the Muratorian Fragment (c.200) which unlike 2nd Peter, was accepted in the Muratorian Fragment.
The only *negative* testament against the Apocalypse of Peter in the early church is that of Eusebius, to which Eusebius puts it in the same status as our modern day Revelation. Yet, again, this is accepted, too.
I guess the ultimate question I'd have for you is:
Why do you accept 2 Peter as being written by Peter, but not the Apocalypse of Peter?
The Apocalypse claims to be written by Peter, was prominent in the early church, was considered Scripture by Clement of Alexandria (the teacher of Origen, who also accepted the work as is evident by later copies of the work).
Is it merely because the canon does not include it? There seems to be no testimonial evidence that suggests that Peter *didn't* write the Apocalypse that *also* cannot be applied to 2 Peter.
Again, thanks for the video. I appreciate your work. Your passion and effort are an inspiration to Christians, and you are doing the Lord's work, my friend. My prayer and hope is that God may bless you so that you may continue in His service.
There were many factors involved in the canonisation of 2 Peter and rejection of the Apocalypse of Peter (AP). The AP wasn't rejected purely on the basis of testimony and claims of authorship.
To determine which books were canon, the early Church examined them to see if they lined up consistently with established traditions, had widespread acceptance, were used frequently in Christian communities, and if they were theologically consistent. 2 Peter passed the test, but the AP did not.
One of the main problems with the AP is that it confused early Christians with questionable theological teachings, such as Jesus laughing at sinners. By rejecting the AP, the Church were affirming that they didn't endorse such ideas.
Even though Clement did mention it, and the text was included in the Muratorian Fragment, the AP wasn't widely accepted by Christian communities, nor was it widely used as an authoritative work, unlike 2 Peter, which was.
Sure, the AP does claim that Peter wrote it, as 2 Peter also does, but a simple claim of authorship isn't enough to determine who wrote it, hence why the early Church had to examine those other factors to see if it fit the criteria of canon, and when they discovered that it didn't, they threw it out.
@@darkwolf7740 Can you explain to me *which* tests that 2 Peter passed, and AP did not, and where you are sourcing this information from?
I'd love to read more on the process the early church used to determine the canon.
Personally, I don't see 2 Peter being used as an *authoritative work* until about the 4th and 5th century. Prior to that, it seems to have as much use if not less as an authoritative work as AP.
But then again, the sources of use are the same: Clement of Alexandria and Origen.
That is, until the 4th and 5th century, where the divergence occurs.
No, I don't think that it enjoys better attestation. The original text remains uncertain, and the manuscript evidence for it is considerably poor. The Greek and Ethiopian versions display discrepancies. While it was extensively debated and seems to have received some support from early Christians like Clement and Methodius, Eusebius staunchly dismissed it, and the Muratorian Fragment indicates that certain Christians were against its public reading in churches. Origen lists our 27 NT book in his Homilies on Joshua, but doesn't mention it in the list, nor does he mention the Shepherd or 1 Clement. The A of P likely quotes 4 Esdras, so that's a problem, too. I don't think it is a good comp.
@@NarikkuSure thing. Be warned... this comment is long, but it helps to explain things better, so that's an overriding benefit 🔥
(1)
2 Peter passed both the criteria of apostolic authority and the criteria of doctrinal consistency, whereas the Apocalypse of Peter failed both tests, hence why 2 Peter was accepted as canon, whereas the Apocalypse of Peter was rejected. Both criteria must be met to be accepted as canon.
(2)
a) The criterion of apostolic authority refers to the authority given to the apostles by Jesus. In other words, a written text must show signs of direct appointment, eyewitness testimony, teachings that are consistent with the apostles, and a clear sign of acceptance by the broader Christian community (i.e., Church leaders must generally give it the thumbs up). If all of these requirements are met, the text fulfils this criteria.
b) On the other hand, the criteria of doctrinal consistency relates to the coherence and compatibility of doctrines within a belief system. In order to pass the criteria, the doctrines within the text must be coherent (non-contradictory), match the historically accepted themes and teachings of other related texts, and match the ethical standards of said belief system that the canonised texts relate to.
Note: Failing just 1 of these requirements (in either criteria test) results in a failure of criteria and outright rejection as canon.
For example, since the Apocalypse of Peter didn't meet the requirement of ethical coherence (Jesus laughing at sinners), it failed the criteria of doctrinal consistency. This is one of the many reasons why it was rejected as canon by the early Church.
(3)
Evidence of an early accepted consensus for 2 Peter's authorship include an approval by Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria.
Likewise, the evidence for limited acceptance for the authorship of the Apocalypse of Peter includes critiques of authenticity and theological divergency by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Eusebius.
In summary, 2 Peter passed both criteria, so it was accepted as canon, but the Apocalypse of Peter did not, so eventually, it was rejected as canon.
The main reasons, according to the early Church fathers, were as follows;
i) Poor evidence for apostolic authorship
ii) Contained theological ideas that contradicted the rest of the scriptures
@@darkwolf7740 Thank you, my friend. I will read this later. (:
The enoch references spoil the book, and it's reliance on jude
I literally address the Jude issue.
@@TestifyApologetics I address it to, the book of Jude relies heavily on Enoch as does Peter 2. Peter borrows from Jude. It is inexcusable and no apostle of Jesus would source it because it is a monstrosity full of heresy and evil form of fetid religious lie. I am a Christian - Jude and 2nd Peter aren't apostolic or inspired.
Just because Peter and Jude elude to the book of 1 Enoch, it doesn't mean that they considered it to be scripture, as when Jude quotes from it in Jude 1:14-15, he doesn't say "it is written", or "as the scripture says" like the New Testament authors do with the actual Old Testament books. Remember also, that Paul quoted from secular, Pagan Greek poets in Acts 17:28 (Aratus), 1 Corinthians 15:33 (Menander) and Titus 1:12 (Epimenides), but just because they were ungodly people, it doesn't mean that everything they said was false, so the same goes with the Book of Enoch.@@blackswanrising2024
@@blackswanrising2024There’s a reason many of our brothers and sisters in Christ in the early church did not accept them as inspired.
@@blackswanrising2024Paul quoted a love poem to Zeus in Acts 17 and applied it to God: "in Him we live and move and have our being." Since this is clearly accepted by God as His word, the statement about monstrosities and what no apostle would do appears to be incorrect. God can raise up His word from the rocks and stones or even false prophets - as with Balaam - to praise Him or declare His truth.
Could the common source be, perhaps, Jesus? How funny...
And/or simply the often-repeating statements of the witnesses, or a mix of both as well. Both Jesus and the early Christians who followed him around during his ministry would be repeating things verbally in front of many. We anachronize to think it's all text-based; that's actually exceedingly rare in their culture versus recitation, both of quotes of Jesus and of their own eyewitness reports and in this case mostly of their teachings for application and the like.
So Jude for example didn't have to hear from Peter "this is something I'm writing in my own text" -- he could simply have heard Peter or anyone else in this group using that teaching (or vice versa, or both).
@@logicianbones Couldn't have put it better myself.
Bart Ehrman lies, deceives, cherry picks, and obfuscates so much, that by now I simply disbelieve *everything* he says.
Tell me, would it be wise to do otherwise? We know his fruit, and it's bad, so we can conclude that the whole tree is bad!
If Peter did write it, that doesn't prove that it is true or inspired. Ok, that's a typical skeptic's view, but it has a significant implication: The non-believing scholars don't care if he did or didn't write it, they are just using their best reasoning and critical tools to evaluate it. The handful of scholars you cite, on the other hand, have vested interests in its authorship. I know this won't mean anything to your sheep, but it's funny how people without a vested interest so consistently interpret the data differently than those who do.
But if you are going to use a title that claims to debunk your critics, don't you owe it to you audience to provide a strong argument? Instead I see little known names who offer hypothetical possibilities. You have no defeaters to your opponents arguments. Shouldn't it be titled, "Some arguments that don't disprove critics reasoning but could support the authorship of II Peter?
Many atheists claim to be impartial observers that only judge based on evidence, but I'd argue against that.
Some scholars have a vested interest in attacking the integrity of the Bible, because it's a reason, even if it's a weak one, to dismiss the idea that there's a God who will hold them morally accountable.
The Bible has an astounding record for being historically accurate, especially for a religious book, and the manuscripts we have for the NT are earlier and more numerous than those for some of the most famous names in western antiquity(Alexander the Great, Homer, the Caesars, Plato and Aristotle).
We know that Jesus was a real Man who was crucified and suddenly the disciples, and even those who didn't previously believe(James and Paul) gave their lives to tell the world they saw Jesus risen, face-to-face.
Even if God presented Himself to people in the most obvious way, even if we had the original gospel manuscripts on full display, people would find an excuse to not believe, because they love sin.
People "know" certain things are bad for them, they've been told over and over, but they won't give it up, even if it costs them their life.
Think about your own life. How many lies have you told? Have you ever stolen something?
Jesus taught that if you look at someone with lust, you commit adultery in your heart. He said that to be angry with your brother without a cause is judged as serious as murder. Have you ever looked with lust or hated someone?
How often have you used God's Name in vain, used it like a curse word, when you wouldn't insult a loved one in that way?
You and I broke God's Law by wronging God directly and wronging our neighbors, and because God is holy and just, He must punish lawbreakers with death and hell. The Bible says, "the wages of sin is death."
It's like when a judge gives the death sentence to a heinous criminal, that's what you've earned. That's how serious it is.
God sent His Son to save us from that. Jesus died on the cross for our sins. You and I broke the law, but Jesus paid the fine in full for us.
If you're in court with fines you can't pay, you're in trouble, but if someone pays for you, the judge can legally let you go because the law has been satisfied. That's what Jesus did for us.
Then after Jesus was buried, He rose from the dead, defeating death and proving what He claimed about Himself.
So if you turn from your sins and trust in Jesus to save you, like you'd trust a parachute, then God promises to give you a clean, new heart with new desires, you'll be saved and have everlasting life. You're not saved because you're good, but because God is good and rich in mercy.
I pray that you think about these things. Come to God with a humble, open heart and don't stop searching for the truth. God bless you.
"non-believing scholars don't care if he did" Think about how absurd that argument is.
As others have pointed out the first and most glaring obserdity is proposing nonbeliving scholars have no vested interest.
If you disbelieve the Christian theology, then anything that lends credence to its authenticity is not going to be something you favor. Because the more evidence in favor of it, the harsher implications that has for you since you don't belive it. If anything the believing scholars have less of a vested interest in fudging the authenticity given that if they are wrong about Christianity being correct it literally has no moral baring on them. Thr same cannot be said for disbelieving people. There are the most extreme implications for being wrong about that. So you definatly have a much more vested interest as a disbeliever to discredit the Bible, than a believer has to credit the Bible.
It's cute that you think non-believing scholars are merely Spock-like, unbiased truth seekers. You're just poisoning the well by gesturing to psychological motivations and not addressing specific arguments. Unfortunately this is kind of your habit. You tend to do this whenever Ehrman is mentioned; it's beginning to come across as really defensive.
@@kellinwitte7343 Ray Comfort much? I am not denying some scholars have a vested interest in attacking the Bible (see Richard Carrier). But the issue is only a faith position for fundamentalist Christians, it isn't for liberal Christians and non-believers.
11:38 "If critics want to use this argument to date 2 Peter to the 2nd century...."
That's a straw man, since Ehrman never used this argument to show that 2 Peter was written in the 2nd century! He used the argument to show simply that 2 Peter was written after Peter's death in the 60s.
It's important to accurately represent your opponent's argument before attacking it.
I'm not directly addressing Ehrman there. Many others do date 2 Peter to the early to mid second century.
@@TestifyApologetics
You were addressing Ehrman, since "this argument" means the argument that you had just quoted from Ehrman's book (from 9:58 to 10:44), which says nothing about the 2nd century.
You gave no examples of critics using this particular argument to date 2 Peter to the 2nd century.
I think that it’s likely that people who engaged in trade around the Mediterranean Sea could have picked up all sorts of languages. Being a polyglot isn’t even uncommon in today’s world.