Hi @rhetorician You may like to expand on your comments here, so that I can understand the reason for your dialog.

You're right. I do have something on my chest. Well, actually, it is deep within my chest, and it's called a heart. I believe with all my heart that the 66 books of the Judeo-Christian Bible (yes, I know the Tanakh contains only 23 books, since they are categorized differently from the way our English Bible categorizes them) are God-breathed in the original manuscripts. Rest assured, I'm not a wooden literalist. I do, after all, have a Ph.D. in Rhetorical Theory from a reputable university.

Does anything you said here make your views more important than those of scholars who also have hearts and, to a large extent are also Christians?

And they have PhD's

By God-breathed, I do not mean--and say, as do many well-meaning but simpleminded Christians today, "The Bible is literally the word of God." I do, however, see the potential danger in picking and choosing (based on ultimately untenable presuppositions) what is God's word and what is not. I hate to resort to the tired argument (but it does have biblical precedence) of the "slippery slope," but Jesus said in effect that the broad road

which leads to destruction is also slippery. The point is, we all choose the road we take. Simply calling oneself a Christian does not make one a Christian. As the old wag said, "When we get to heaven, we'll be surprised both by who IS there and who is NOT there"!

Rather than discuss your personal faith, let's stick to something of interest to both of us. You objected to the claim that most scholars say 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical. Why should they not form that view, after years of careful study.

I'm reminded of Jesus' words, when he said, "Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

This is not relevant, just as most of the comments you appended to my answer were not relevant.

Careful study is good. In fact, careful study is very good. We all, myself included, approach our study of the Bible with preconceived ideas, presuppositions, and assumptions. Some are good, some are definitely bad, and some are relatively harmless. Which is which? This side of heaven we just cannot be 100 percent sure.

Why should scholars who have spent entire careers studying the Bible not form the view that 2 P was not written by Peter - whether or not they go to hell for having said so?

@rhetorician I respect your faith and the depth of your faith, but scholars have the right to be objective.

Faith is needed, either way. Whether one believe 2 Peter is canonical or is not canonical, faith sustains that belief. Faith, however, is only as good as its object. If the object is unreliable, inaccurate, pseudepigraphical, well, is the faith good?

2 Peter is canonical - there is no denying this. Whether Peter wrote it is another matter.

No one goes to hell for not believing 2 Peter isn't God's inspired word, nor does one go to hell for believing Isaiah isn't one book and wasn't written just by Isaiah. What sends one to hell is rejecting Jesus as one's rescuer from sin and the boss of one's life.

My objection is to having extensive comments loaded onto my answer, when those comments do not serve the purpose that comments are meant to serve - seeking further information, or suggesting ways to improve what I was trying to say.

@rhetorician Sorry, we crossed. But you keep coming back to telling me about your faith, which is not something I addressed in my answer.

Well, I AM suggesting ways to improve what you're trying to say, and that is by at least recognizing that a good portion of Christians worldwide stake their lives on the belief that the Scriptures are canonical and trustworthy, IN PART because the men whose names are attached to the books actually wrote them.

I'm sorry, but nothing in that would be relevant as part of my answer. BUT you could write an answer along those lines. Why not do so?

I hate to resort to analogy, but if I get a love letter from someone who claims to be my wife, I want to be dam sure that she is the one who wrote it and not some imposter who is trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

Yeah, Dick, you make a good point. I may just do as you suggest. By the way, I bear no ill will toward you. By the way, have you ever read anything by John R.W. Stott?

Another analogy, I am a Christian in the early second century, and want to do my part in spreading the faith. I write an epistle, but realise that no one is very interested in reading an epistle that I write. So, I attribute it to the long-dead apostle, and now everyone wants to read it ...

.

Writing something and then claiming an apostle wrote it when that is in fact not the truth is called lying. Good Christians aren't supposed to lie or bear false witness, right?

Presumably we are finished here. I always knew this was not personal between us and that we will finish with good feelings about each other. For myself, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mind removing at least your later comments from my answer. If you do decide to write your own, I look forward to reading it.

Sure, Dick. I don't mind deleting my comments. Have a good night, wherever you are! Don

Good Christians aren't supposed to lie or bear false witness, but unfortunately it does happen, even today.

True enough!

Thank you, Don. Talk to you next time.

Pseudepigraphical writing from that time would necessarily be considered lying ...

@DickHarfield It's simply not true to say "most scholars say 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical" - most scholars don't address the issue at all. Even to say most "biblical scholars say 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical" would be difficult to support unless, for some reason, you presuppose faculty members of bible colleges and theological seminaries don't fit within that definition.

You could perhaps support a statement to the effect that most scholars who address the issue say 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical, but that obfuscates the fact that the vast majority of biblical scholars who believe in an inspired canon see no need to address the issue - their belief on that particular issue is not necessarily stated in the public arena, but can be inferred from other things they have written.

Those who doaddress the issue are either coming from a critical perspective, or are responding to one.

Hi @bruisedreed As I replied to another query, I was not expressing an opinion on this (although that would be my opinion), but citing, without alteration, a source. I know Wikipedia is not always a reliable source (but here I see it as reliable) but if I cite it, I should do so without alteration. If you can get Wikipedia to change what it says, I will either follow them or cite another source.

@bruisedreed More importantly, a point you picked up on is that most scholars probably do not write about 2 Peter. But I did not say this - I said 'regard': I can regard something to be true without ever bothering to write about it.

Counting scholars isn't useful. More significant would be the number of scholars from very critical schools of thought who think that a book is authentic, and the number of scholars from conservative schools who think that a book is pseudepigraphical, even if they maintain its inspiration and authority.

I still don't understand why my last question was closed as unclear?If someone could answer me that would be great.

@Eagle I voted to reopen. I don't see a problem.

@bruisedreed If asked "Is 2 Peter pseudepigraphical?" and they decline to answer, then naturally their answer is not worth mention regarding the question. And they truly have never taken a close look at it, yet at the same time insist it is "Holy Scripture", then they should either explain their neglect of the issue or actually look into it.

My understanding is that, of those who talk about it, many, if not most, conclude 2 Peter is very unlikely to have been written by Peter the Apostle.

I don't see why Dick should be coming under fire for saying this.

> but that obfuscates the fact that the vast majority of biblical scholars who believe in an inspired canon see no need to address the issue

@bruisedreed Okay, now the question is why, and of course, why should their opinion be taken seriously in the discipline of textual criticism?

They don't even want to bother with the question, probably for theological reasons. I don't think that can fly in a legitimate textual criticism process.

@curiousdannii I think in the discipline of textual criticism, theological beliefs about the text hold little water. "What are the facts? What do they seem to support?" These are the right questions. Not "What do I believe about it?" Textual criticism is more science and archaeology, not theology.

@fredsbend Thank you

@fredsbend We haven't been talking about textual criticism, but higher criticism. Very different fields.

But my point was that counting the people who hold to their party line isn't informative. See who the outliers are and what their arguments are.

Just as conservatives take it as a given that, for example, Moses did write the pentateuch, most scholars at secular critical schools take it as a given that he didn't. That's why saying "the majority of scholars think X" is worthless

The evidence for determining the authorship of Biblical books is in general not conclusive. Wikipedia summarises this about 2 Peter: "Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support."

@curiousdannii I think believing in the Bible's inspiration is a conflict of interest, and one that doesn't exist too much in the more critical schools. I don't see why this contention should be dismissed so easily.

Looking only at the outliers makes little sense. Why should "believers who doubt" be more valuable than the process leading to the doubt in the first place?

It's hard to take seriously the scholar who says that "all scripture is god breathed" while denying a valid critical process that doubts that very notion regarding a specific text.

@WasthereeveranElisha? I shudder to see what bollocks the Skeptics crowd will produce there. Something like "Yep, this translation says that. We don't deal in interpretations though." They really miss the mark there on valid skepticism. There's far more reasons than "conflates with known facts" to be skeptical of something.

Here's a nice take down, for the record. biblicalchristianworldview.net/documents/…

Yep, @El'endiaStarman, it's referring to numerology.

@fredsbend You should just post that in an answer.

@El'endiaStarman I have a suspicion they won't like the source. I don't waste my time answering there. To "fact crazy", not enough "reason crazy". It's a pedant's wastehole.

They just downright hate, in this order: 1) Religious questions, 2) Alternative medicine questions, 3) Government wrong-doing questions. Especially if a good answer must favor the assumptions in the question. Like "well, actually this isn't a case of religion being stupid" or "Well, this alternative medicine may actually work".

I don't know why I'm complaining. Probably because the site seems like it was better, based on old posts, but now it's ruled by pedantic little turds.

I can't even comment without some wiener telling me some crap like "Don't answer in comments". That might even happen to us on that post.

@fredsbend Inspiration is a completely tangential topic to authorship. With a robust enough doctrine of inspiration you can believe that 2 Peter was not written by Peter while still believing in its inspiration.

Biblical studies and commentary writing in particular is a very circular field. Everyone cites everyone else (as is appropriate), but sometimes that means that a lot gets written without much original thought

A conservative evangelical commentary which cites 6 other evangelicals to give a brief endorsement of Peter's authorship is not useful. A critical scholar who cites 6 critical scholars to reject his authorship is no more useful.

Someone who gives time and space to the argument is much more useful. And I think that if they're crossing party lines then it's definitely worth reading their arguments