Talk:Second Epistle of Peter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Why is the Apocalypse of Peter clearly pseudonymous? Is it really so obvious? Is someone who accepts its validity really that stupid? "Modern Scholarship" bears a striking resemblence to early extreme Roman sect orthodoxy; we exclude from the canon everything we didn't get to eliminate last time around. Modern Scholarship only prunes down Scripture, it almost never argues for the inclusion of that which the Romans tossed.
Can someone explain the Simon vs Simeon point? This sounds to me like an argument that, for example, James and Jacob are different names, when they are the same name. What is the significance? --Amillar 20:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Done----eleuthero 22:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I also added in more material on historical debate, cleaned up the style, and worked on making it more NPOVish)
[edit] POV?
The bulk of the article seems to be devoted to defending the traditional viewpoint that Peter wrote the letter. My copy of Encarta states that most scholars believe it to be pseudonymous, and that the "false teachers" comment is a reference to the gnostics. The hypothesis that the reference to a collection of Paul's letters "does not in any way have to mean a complete collection" seems suspiciously like the arguments apologists use to "harmonize" certain biblical contradictions.
- The comment: "does not in any way have to mean a complete collection" is a discription of the text, not an apologetic argument. There is indeed nothing in 2 Peter 3 that suggests a complete collection of Paul's letters. That statement represents a neutral reading of the text and should remain.
- This article is almost entirely apologetical. I've changed a bit, but it probably needs total reworking. Most scholars don't believe Peter wrote it, and this article should indicate that. john k 15:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
