There may be one exception, 2 Peter 3:1-2.
Beloved, this is now my second letter to you. Both of them are reminders to stir you to wholesome thinking by recalling what was foretold by the holy prophets and commanded by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
Here Peter seems to regard the writings of the Apostels on par with the Hebrew Bible.
For more, see 2 Peter 3:2, The Apostolate, and a Bi-Covenantal Canon.
The passage in 2 Peter does not mention scripture. It is about what was foretold by the prophets.
While it is true some of the prophecies were written down, 2 Peter says nothing about inspiration of writers or writings.
I think a case can be made that this refers to the whole Hebrew Bible.
He said to them, âThis is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.â
(Luke 24:44, NIV)
Both Moses and David (who was thought to have written most Psalms, whether that is the case or not does not really matter) were seen as prophets. And the NT only quotes the prophecies that were written down.
I suppose it can be inferred. If the writings of the apostles are on par with the Hebrew Bible, and the Hebrew Bible is inspired, it is not a far-fetched idea that the apostolic writings are also inspired.
But even if they are not inspired, 2 Peter still makes it clear they are to be regarded as authoritative.
We will disagree on this. I find it quite a stretch to decide a statement that prophets spoke means writings are inspired.
Also, âprophetsâ are only one of the categories of the Hebrew Bible. The law and the writings are the other two.
Again, the passage in 2 Peter does not mention writings of the Apostles. And parts of the New Testament were not written by the Apostles.
And you may! I understand your view.
Perhaps this has to do with our (different?) definition of inspired. It literally means âGod-breathedâ.
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophetâs own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
(2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV)
So for me genuine prophecy is automatically God-breathed.
Those categories are net set in stone:
Jesus answered them, âIs it not written in your Law, âI have said you are âgodsâ â ?
(John 10:34, NIV)
Here Jesus speaks about the law, but quotes the Psalms. And in the case of Luke 22:44, the Psalms seem to refer to all the Writings. Probably because the Psalms are the largest part of this collection.
Besides, Peter did not write âthe prophetsâ. He said âthe Holy prophetsâ. With 1:21 in mind, he is clearly referring to all prophets (including Moses and David), not a particular section called âthe prophetsâ.
The context suggest Peter does:
Bear in mind that our Lordâs patience means salvation, 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 ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
(2 Peter 3:15-16)
Luke and Mark were the associates of Paul and Peter, respectively. And their works contain the words of Jesus, which are cleary God-breathed. Papias said Markâs gospel contains Peterâs memoirs.
The same with Revelation. Whether John the apostle is the same person as John the seer or not, the book contains the revelation given to Jesus by God.
That is not a fact.
It is a compound word with the roots God and Breathed.
Compound words are often not literally defined by their roots.
Understand does not mean to take an upright posture beneath something.
A butterfly is not a fly made of butter.
Using 1 Peter as the context for 2 Peter is another stretch.
So, what is your definition?
But that has nothing to do with the two words themselves. The word literally mean âto stand underâ. Which was eventually given a figurative extension. See understand | Etymology of understand by etymonline.
The original meaning is lost to modern audiences:
Etymology
From Middle English buterflie, butturflye, boterflye, from Old English buterflÄoge, equivalent to butter +â fly. Cognate with Dutch botervlieg, German Butterfliege (âbutterflyâ). The name may have originally been applied to butterflies of a yellowish color, and/or reflected a belief that butterflies ate milk and butter (compare German Molkendieb (âbutterflyâ, literally âwhey-thiefâ) and Low German Botterlicker (âbutterflyâ, literally âbutter-lickerâ)), or that they excreted a butter-like substance (compare Dutch boterschijte (âbutterflyâ, literally âbutter-shitterâ)). Compare also German Schmetterling from Schmetten (âcreamâ), German Low German Bottervögel (âbutterflyâ, literally âbutter-fowlâ). More at butter, fly.An alternate theory suggests that the first element may have originally been butor- (âbeaterâ), a mutation of bÄatan (âto beatâ).
So to suggest that âGod-breathedâ has no connection to its compound words, would require much evidence.
Typo, forgive me. It is from 2 Peter.
Although I commend the efforts of some twentieth-century Eastern Orthodox theologians to creatively reconstruct the ideas that had taken shape in the context of Byzantine monasticism, I would still say that the western mystical theology (not only Roman Catholic, but also Protestant Pietist) has repeatedly expressed the same insights. And the essential unity of faith and works is, surely, one of these.
Nonetheless, I donât believe that the Reformation (at least, the Lutheran Reformation) âhas made a distinction without a differenceâ. The salvific faith to which Luther and his immediate followers referred is an aspect of particular action rather than a purely internal disposition. To have such faith is to faithfully receive divine mercy: to listen to the Gospel with trust, to be baptised with trust, to receive the Eucharist and absolution with trust, and so forth. This trust-that-receives is what connects a person with God and, therefore, nourishes the spiritual life of a Christian in its entirety - both the internal disposition that we often tend to call âfaithâ, and works.
Actually, using 2 Peter for any doctrine is a stretch.
From Daniel Wallaceâs introduction to 2 Peter:
âFrom another, the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter. The vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this second perspective without much discussion.â
I encourage you to read Bruce Metzgerâs book on the canon of the New Testament and consider why no early church leader quoted 2 Peter or referred to it for more than 100 years after Peter died.
The first church leader to mention 2 Peter was Hippolytus of Rome (born about 170 AD). And he did not mention it as scripture. Eusebius Ecclesiastical History says it is a forgery.
2 Peter is not in the canon that I use. The 66-book canon is only about 500 years old. I prefer the 22-book New Testament canon of the Church of the East. Most people just take the first canon that they are presented without ever thinking about it. It is an important topic and deserves consideration.
Definitions are appropriately based on an assessment of the usage of the word in other contexts. That word is only used once in the New Testament.
But early church leaders used it many times, and they described many writings and even speeches/sermons as inspired.
âIt will have been noticed that in the preceding discussion concerning criteria used by early Christians in discerning the limits of the canon, nothing was said concerning inspiration. Though this silence may at first sight seem to be strange, the reason for it arises from the circumstance that, while the Fathers certainly agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were inspired, they did not seem to have regarded inspiration as the ground of the Bibleâs uniqueness. That is, the inspiration they ascribe to the Scriptures was only one facet of the inspiring activity of the Holy Spirit in many aspects of the Churchâs life.7 For example, while Clement of Rome speaks of the sacred Scriptures (here referring to the Old Testament) as âtrue and given through the Holy Spiritâ (lxiii. 2), the author of the Epistle to Diognetus writes for his own part to his correspondent: âIf you do not offend this grace, you will learn what the Word (λáœčγοÏ) talks about through those through whom he wishes to talk, when he pleases. For whatever we have been moved painstakingly to utter by the will of the Word that commands us, it is out[âŠ]â
Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
This material may be protected by copyright.
Yet Dr. Wallace concludes:
Although a very strong case has been made against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, we believe it is deficient. Not only is there very good evidence that this epistle was utilized in the late first and early second century by a variety of writers (as Picirilli has recently pointed out), but the occasion for the letter fits the lifetime of Peter better than later. Further, once some kind of amanuensis hypothesis is seriously taken into consideration (in our view, an amanuensis was used for 1 Peter but probably not for 2 Peter, then many of the objections against Petrine authorship are found wanting. Taken together, these external and internal arguments strongly suggest the traditional view, viz., that Peter was indeed the author of the second epistle which bears his name.
22. Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline | Bible.org
I will try to, thank you for the recommendation!
It is certainly true that most people think the current Protestant Bible came on a platter from heaven. So I concur that the issue of the Canon should get more atention in churches.
Of course, I am not arguing that only the Bible is inspired.
It would have been difficult for him to have remained at Dallas Theological Seminary with any different conclusion.
We always need to take such strong incentive in mind.
You do know, I hope, that I did not say âno connection.â
If you donât know that, please go back and read my posts again.
I disagreed with your statement about the word âliterallyâ meaning God Breathed.
Is this still your opinion?
That could be the case. But that still is an appeal to probability. Such things can only be considered after the arguments for and against pseudonimity have been assessed.
Oh sorry, my bad. Indeed, I do not mean God literally breathed on these writing. I should have said, âthe Greek says God-breathedâ. With âliterallyâ I meant the literal transliteration [edit: translation*] of the Greek.
So I wanted to make clear that there is a connection with the prophets sharing Godâs messages, and the apostles teaching the words of Jesus (Godâs greatest prophet). They are passing on the Word of God. I should have been more clear.
My point was that even Dr. Wallace stated that the âvast bulkâ of NT scholars believe 2 Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter.
âFrom another, the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter. The vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this second perspective without much discussion.â
For me, the evidence most supportive of the position that 2 Peter is a forgery is that no early church leader mentioned or quoted from the epistle until 200 AD, about 130 years after the death of Peter. If the epistle had really been written by Peter, that would not be the case.
And in the early fourth century, Bishop Eusebius wrote this:
â1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon; yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.â
Excerpt From
The History of the Church
Eusebius of Caesarea
This material may be protected by copyright.
This is a good question! For anyone holding to a canonical view, its nearly unbelievable to think that you so happen to possess the right books (or translation) and this other tradition does not.
I believe Michael Kruger and Ligon Duncan are on the right track in seeing Scripture as a Covenant document given to the people of God. We are free to disagree about the scope of the canon and even whether the document contains errors, and I think this is a healthy position for the Church to hold.
Sounds like a confusion about the meaning of âinspiredâ and âauthoritative.â
âauthoritativeâ
Does a textbook have no authority if there is any error in the textbook about anything? This sounds rather foolish to me.
âAuthoritativeâ does not mean inerrant and authority is always specific to a particular subject. The question then to ask is for what is the Bible authoritative?
That the Bible is authoritative for Christianity is simply part of the definition of the Christian religion distinguished from other religions.
Some try to claim that the Bible is authoritative with regards to salvation. But this is made problematic by John 5:39-40 where Jesus says â39 You search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; 40 yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.â The Bible is more of a signpost than a textbook telling you how to save yourself.
âinspiredâ
What I find most peculiar about the application of this word to the Bible is the implication that this is something exclusive or even unusual. People find inspiration everywhere â in many if not most books, films, and other media. It seems to me inspiration pours down upon us in a torrent. And suggesting the Bible being inspired has such requirements as the OP suggests seem a bit peculiar to me.
Thus I would use stronger and more unique descriptor than âinspired,â saying the Bible is âthe word of God.â âŠmeaning God had a hand in its content to serve His purpose and all the proprietary rights belong to Him.
Sorry for my late reply, I wanted to do some more reading before replying.
Yes, I understood that. But the majority of scholars also reject that Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, Colossians and the Pastorals.
That is indeed a strong argument. Yet the same can be said about Philemon. Unless the early dating of the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180) is correct.
I found this:
Though not quoted by name before Origen, there appears to be early, though not widespread, evidence of its use. Both Eusebius and Photius say that Clement of Alexandria had it in his Bible, and wrote a commentary on it. The commentary is lost, but there seem to be some allusions to it in his surviving works. And Clement succeeded (c. 185 AD) Pantaenus at the
Alexandrian School, who can scarcely have been duped by a fraud a few years old, which is what the date assigned to 2 Peter by Harnack and most moderns would necessitate. Firmilian writing to Cyprian alludes to it, which shows the precariousness of Chaseâs argument from Cyprianâs own silence. The Pseudo-Clementines have clear references to 2 Peter, and Irenaeus cites the same adaptation of Psalm xc. 4, as does 2 Peter iii. 8 ⊠This may be significant in view of their
identical and wide divergence from the Lxx. Indeed, Methodius at the end of the third century specifically attributes the source of the quotation to 2 Peter. And there appears to be a striking reference to 2 Peter i. 15 in Irenaeusâ citation of an earlier writer (Papias, perhaps?) to the effect that after the death (Ćxodon) of Peter and Paul, Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote down the gospel message which Peter used to preach. Not only is the content of these two sayings similar; so is the form. Ćxodoj, used absolutely with the meaning âdeathâ, appears to be restricted to Luke ix. 31, 2 Peter i. 15 and this passage in Irenaeus. This would be most naturally explained if Peterâs usage reflects an actual verbum Christi, which was taken over by Irenaeus.
(2 Peter Reconsidered, p. 7-8.)
Besides them, Justin Martyr and Clement of Rome may allude to 2 Peter, see Authorship Questions in 2 Peter: Debunking the Forgery Claim.
Eusebius (c. 265â339) makes it clear that the majority of the church accepted the epistle as authentic although he himself had certain reservations about it. He mentions that his doubts
stem from the fact that writers he respected did not affirm its canonicity and that it was not to his knowledge quoted by the âancient presbyters.â* But it is interesting to note that despite
his reservations he lists 2 Peter along with James, Jude, 2 and 3 John as âthe Disputed books which nevertheless are known to most.â So even Eusebius does not place 2 Peter in with the
âspuriousâ writings such as the Apocalypse of Peter.
Church Fathers subsequent to Origen, such as Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianus and Augustine, all acknowledge the canonicity of 2 Peter. Even though Jerome was a main proponent of 2 Peterâs authenticity, he recognized the significant stylistic divergence with 1 Peter. He sought to account for this divergence by suggesting that Peter used a different amanuensis. After Jeromeâs time, there were no further doubts concerning 2 Peterâs place in the NT canon.
*It is of course recognized that Eusebius may have meant that 2 Peter was not quoted by any of the ancient presbyters âby name.â
(The Authenticity of 2 Peter, p. 650.)
At the very least it is clear that the Monophysite Syrian Christians knew of the Minor Catholic Epistles and probably accorded them some kind of canonical status inasmuch as they formed a part of the Philoxenian and Harclean versions, especially in the sixth and seventh centuries. But it also seems probable that the status of the Minor Catholic Epistles depended primarily on the status of the Philoxenian and Harclean versions, where alone they found a voice. The Philoxenian version disappeared almost completely. The Harclean version seems to have been relegated to the schools because of its overly literal rendering of the Greek, although several Harclean lectionaries have survived. It appears that as went these two versions, so went the Minor Catholic Epistles in the Syrian Church. Thus as the Philoxenian/Harclean yersions fell into disuse and the Peshitta version continued to gain strength as the âSyriac Vulgateâ, the Minor Catholic Epistles were increasingly excluded from the Syriac New Testament canon. Just as they had once flourished in the sixth and seventh century versions of Philoxenus and Thomas of Harkel, finally being received into the manuscript tradition of the Syriac New Testament canon, so with the decline of these versions and the dominance of the Peshitta they fell from being fully received within the canon of the Syrian Church as a whole.
(The Canonical Status of the Catholic Epistles in the Syriac New Testament, p. 328-329.)
It was not only in the Alexandrian and Roman canon of the fourth century that 2 Peter was included. We find it contained in the Bohairic and Sahidic versions of the New Testament which are at least 100 years earlier. The Epistle is omitted by the Peshitta and Old Syriac. Aphraates and Ephraem Syrus appear not to have known it, but it is possible that this silence is intentional. If so, it is not difficult to suggest a reason, since Jude is also omitted. Now Jude explicitly, and 2 Peter implicitly, quote the apocryphal Assumption of Moses. The Gnostics were notorious for their misuse for sectarian purposes of haggadah of this sort, and it is precisely in Syria, where the extravagances of Jewish angelology were most notorious, that one would naturally expect to find the most violent reaction against anything that might be adduced in their support. 2 Peter was, however, included in the Philoxenian version, and was perpetuated in the Syrian church by the Harklean recension in the seventh century AD.
(2 Peter Reconsidered, p. 7.)
I also found an interesting dissertation, but most of it is behind a paywall: The canonical history of 2 Peter in light of four theological issues of the second century.
Nonetheless, I think it does not really matter if 2 Peter turns out to be non-canonical after all. The central teachings of Christianity would still stand.
I found this podcast, particularly the first one, interesting and helpful. But I also expect a strong backlash that will probably not show up in the forum, but on organizational websites that keep an eye on Biologos â and I donât mean creationist and ID orgs.
My background is âmoderateâ fundamental evangelicalism (I guess you could say). As @jstump indicated, such groups are not very excited about the idea of evolution as reality BECAUSE of the Bible. Organizations I have found helpful theologically over the years are starting to get on board the creation-related apologetics train, which is distressing. There seems to be a doubling down on fundamentalist principles in many corners, that are making it harder for Christians like me to find a place I feel I fellowship.
I think @klwâs point is important:
[@klw striking this, because itâs unclear: But for many, doing this means seeing the Bible in a particular way that is not possible for me any more. It also leaves one in what seem to be uncharted waters.]
I would like following Jesus to be the focus, too. Things are a lot simpler, more straight-forward in that model. The view of scripture you describe, too, is a lot more forgiving and closer to something I think makes sense. But that is not the model thatâs familiar with me, and I am not familiar with churches that preach the Gospel well that hold this view of scripture. For me, this is like entering uncharted waters.
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.