Loading...To make sense of the difficulty I’ve been having in figuring out what they Apocalypse of Peter did not make it into the NT, but the book of 2 Peter did, I need to say a bit about the latter – and probably about *other* Petrine books that did or did not make It (which also claim to be written by Peter even though the author was someone else). Here is a brief introduction to the book of 2 Peter, taken from my textbook on the New Testament.
*******************************************************************
2 PETER
For a variety of reasons, there is less debate about the authorship of 2 Peter than any other pseudepigraphon in the New Testament. The vast majority of critical scholars agree that whoever wrote the book, it was not Jesus’ disciple Simon Peter. As was the case with 1 Peter, this author is a relatively sophisticated and literate Greek-speaking Christian, not an Aramaic-speaking Jewish peasant. At the same time, the writing style of the book is so radically different from that of 1 Peter that linguists are virtually unanimous in thinking that if Simon Peter was responsible for producing the former book, he could not have written this one. Even more to the point, a major portion of this letter has been taken over from the book of Jude and incorporated into chapter 2. If Jude can be …
The rest of this post is for blog members only. If you don’t belong yet, why not now? Remember, as 2 Peter tells us, the time is short!
Projecting average population characteristics onto Peter is faulty. If he was illiterate because of his occupation as a fisherman, then he was literate because of his occupation as an apostle. And which survives to us today, his work as a fishman or his work as an apostle?
I know the evidence that rural fishermen were illiterate. What is the evidence that apostles were literate? (You probably know that Acts 4:13 explicitly says he was illiterate, btw; but that’s not the main evidence, just an interesting point to note.)
Yes, but is it possible that when the writer of Acts calls Peter and John ἀγράμματοί that he means that they were not properly educated, such as in the standard Greek education? Could it be possible that it means that Peter and John were not literate in Greek, but still had a middling ability to read and possibly write in Aramaic and Hebrew? What I’m saying, Dr. Ehrman, is that your almost dogmatic, binary approach to this topic (as if the only two options were either Peter was Cicero or he wasn’t be able to tell an aleph from an omega) not only shows a lack of imagination, but borders on the unrealistic.
For example, the way “literacy” is measured in the least literate nations today can depend on methodology, and methodology is pretty far from standardized. For instance, the UN determines global literacy by a method that seems just as good as any, but is still debatable (UNESCO weighs the number of children in school throughout the world against statistical measures of average proficiency and likely rates of attrition) and that’s using highly sophisticated modern tools on people who are actually living right now! You can just imagine what a nightmare it would be to use the same method for people and cultures from 2,000 years ago?
My point is that the concept of “literacy” itself is still somewhat subjective. This is something I studied extensively when working on my Masters in Education. To take an absurd example, if a person only knew how to write the word “cat” should they be considered “literate”? If not, how many words must a person be able to write before they should be considered “literate”? These are the kinds of questions that education scholars have to work out. It’s really not so simple as this person is literate and that person is illiterate. It’s possible that, by our standards (or ancient Greek standards), Peter could be considered “illiterate” and still be somewhat literate! That’s the point I’m trying to make.
The word literally means “without letters” — meaning someone who doesn’t know the alphabet. It certainly could mean other things depending on the literary context, just as today I could say about the scholar I just met that he was “totally illiterate.”
All I’m saying, Dr. Ehrman, is you shouldn’t be so quick to assume that Peter went from being an ignorant bumpkin fishing in the Kinneret one day and then, relatively suddenly, he was expounding deep eschatological and soteriological concerns only a few months later. That strains credulity. Again, if history and statistics are our guide, it’s probably safe to assume that the traditional ignorance applied to Jesus and his disciples was manufactured by the early church. Why? For two important reasons:
1) This Humble Origins tradition is a way to explain away why Jesus and his disciples weren’t famous and influential while Jesus was still alive. That is, one would think that a man who was as purportedly wise and powerful as Jesus would have been much more well-known and influential. What would explain such a lack of notoriety? Well, if Jesus and his disciples were nobodies who started off knowing nothing, it would make sense why they only came to their knowledge later in life, as a gift from God (via the Holy Spirit).
2) This Humble Origins story is a great vehicle with which to demonstrate God’s power. God turning an already well-known Pharisee, for instance, into a messianic figure, well, that’s almost insultingly too easy for God. But God turning a group of backwoods rubes into some of the most enlightened men on earth, well, that would be almost miraculous, wouldn’t it? That is to say, it’s far more impressive if, instead of Jesus and the disciples coming from middling origins and working their way to an exalted status, they came from the most humble origins and then worked their way to exalted status.
Think of it this way. Let’s say you came from a middle-class household in the middle of America and managed to work your way into a relatively powerful profession, like, for example, church pastor. But none of the people with whom and for whom you work know your personal history at all, giving you the opportunity to make up your entire biography. Would you either A) tell the truth about your boring, middling life history, or would you B) make your life far more interesting, and even seemingly miraculous, by creating for yourself a gripping rags-to-riches backstory? Most ethical people would do the latter, out of fear of being discovered. But what if Jesus and the disciples weren’t ethical people like that?
I don’t think he ever did express any deep theological ideas.
I was on your side for the longest time, so I get where you’re coming from! But, I’m having trouble seeing Jesus as middle-class or caring about learning to read and write. Even wealthy people thought literacy was beneath them, so it was not a commodity to be desired. It didn’t seem to be sought after by the Jews either (except for the Essenes—I think) until around the 3rd century. Also, Paul mentions how he patterned his life after Christ—being poor, going hungry, physically assaulted, living a life of servitude, etc… The Philippians Hymn says Jesus took on the form of a slave/servant. Plus, he was crucified like a lower class peasant would have been in the first century.
Being poor and illiterate did not mean Jesus and his followers lacked intelligence. He could have received learning through oral instruction which is how he taught his own disciples. Personally, I think Jesus learned an apocalyptic view outside of his community and thought he was the chosen one to bring this special message back to his hometown area. He would appear wise to some and crazy to others. He reminds me of the ministers I heard preach when I was younger, thinking they were so knowledgeable, educated, and full of insight. It wasn’t until some years down the road I realized they knew very little.
Someone else mentioned that Jesus would not have been destitute because of all the building projects going on during that time period. I think there might be some truth to that and as an adult Jesus may have had a little more but not so much growing up in a large family. There was still a problem with people starving to death because there were attempted rebellions over it according to Dominic Crossan. Look at our own country of abundance yet we still have major problems with housing and feeding the poor.
Let me give you an historical example that, I hope, will make it much easier for you to imagine.
Peter the Hermit lived a life of abject poverty — indeed, as a hermit — in the 11th and 12th centuries. Peter was a simple itinerant preacher in Western Europe who would have been a cipher in history if not for one accomplishment. Before the actual First Crusade, Peter the Hermit managed to recruit his own army of peasants — giving his crusade the name of the Peasants’ Crusade — which he marched through Europe and Asia, terrorizing the cities and peoples who happened to be in the way of his army. Until, that is, an army of Seljuk Turks ambushed his rag-tag army south of Nicaea, and that was the end of Peter and his Peasants’ Crusade.
Peter the Hermit was also an ordained priest of the Catholic Church.
In other words, don’t let the names and the legends fool you. Jesus and his disciples could have been low in status and still have been relatively higher in status than most, kind of like Peter the Hermit.
Jesus was clearly much more intelligent than average, and spent a great deal more time than the average person–of any time or place–thinking about the state of the world and its denizens.
That is not the same thing as education in the modern sense. Many people spend an enormous quantity of time and money on education, and still end up relatively Unintelligent, because to them education is about training yourself to gain material wealth and social status. In the process, they may gain some genuine understanding–or not.
But please note, nothing like our present-day educational system existed for anyone back then, even the wealthiest most privileged people. None of them were educated by our standards. Most believed in the supernatural. A handful looked closer at the mysteries of the natural world, higher mathematics, philosophy, etc.
Jesus asked himself questions few others did–“Why is the world like this? Why do good people so often do badly, while bad people so often do well? What can be done about this? How should we live?”
Jesus was, in my estimation, at least as intelligent as Socrates, who died in a not dissimilar way–and who was, in fact, little more than a common workman himself.
It’s strange that forgers would compose gospels and letters posing as Peter who would have been illiterate, not to mention speaking in Aramaic, not Greek. Wouldn’t these forgers have been Christians? No qualms with writing false narratives and just flat out lying.
I think Hezser mentioned the Essenes having evidence of literacy and teaching literacy in the first century. Certainly not anyone from Galilee, but I can’t see Jesus receiving apocalyptic teachings from Galilee either. Nazareth would have barely received scroll readings much less differentiated views. So I think he could have lived in an urban area once he became an adult to make a living where his worldview opened up. Maybe he took what he learned back to his hometown. I think it’s very possible he became functionally bilingual as well.
Just to add to that, Jesus’ own family was perplexed by his teachings and thought he was crazy. That suggests people from his area had never heard of it before and that he left home as a carpenter but when he came back, he was an apocalyptic rabbi.
I don’t believe he ever worked as a carpenter. His father Joseph was a semi-skilled laborer, not a cabinet maker. He probably had some of the same skills. He probably worked in that line himself a while, to make ends meet, but living an ascetic lifestyle, needing little other than the clothes on his back, places to stay, people willing to feed him in exchange for hearing him speak, he needed no profession.
If the end is (still ! ) being delayed to allow more to repent then that plan has backfired. after 2 thousand years alot more will be going to hell. Better that they were never born, which would have happend if the end actually came “soon” or within a generation as Jesus thought.
Can we read into 2 Peter that there was indeed an expectation that Jesus was supposed to return during the lifetime of the 1st generation of Christians? (And people were jumping ship because he didn’t.) And the reason for the delay was to allow time for more people to repent. As if God couldn’t see that during Jesus’ time and had to change the timetable? And that strategy didn’t seem to work, as with the world’s growing population there are more unbelievers than ever!
Yes, that seems like a sensible read.
Is there proof of any generation of Christians in the last 20 centuries that has not expected Christ to return in their lifetime? I certainly felt blessed to be born into the generation during which it was all going to happen… :/
Yes, aren’t we lucky?
To say “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day” (2 Peter 3:8) seems like a cop-out to me. Because for *people* (who are the Lord’s audience), a day is like a day and a thousand years are like a thousand years. If I’m supposed to pay you money I owe you in a day, and a day seems like a week to me, that doesn’t extend the deadline.
1) Is there a reason why in 2 Peter 3, “Peter” says that the “elements” will be “dissolved with fire” (v:10) and just two verses later says nearly the same thing?
2) What did “Peter” mean by the “elements” (stoicheion)–the actual components of the sky, like stars, the moon, etc., or a figurative meaning, like an upheaval of the social order? Why do you think that?
Yes, the STOICHEIA are the foundational elements that make up physical reality. He possibly wanted to emphasize that they would really be destroyed.
Huh. Sounds like the decay of the false vacuum, to put it in modern terms.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/vacuum-decay-ultimate-catastrophe
It just occured to me that the text mentionned that the “day of judgment” will come like a thief…
“You shall not steal”
Not to steal is such a big thing in the teachings of the Torah…
As the Tradition says that a stolen grain of wheat will not grow… For example someone seeing someone stealing a grain of wheat and seeing it grow would say, you see, that teaching is bullshit… but then that person following the thief on it’s way to sell the grain of wheat to the mill would see him having an accident… (nop G.od doesn’t have a problem! We do when we see things on a small scall, or only one lifetime, or perspective)
And the text is telling me that God’s way of doing things WILL BE LIKE A THIEF!!! …
I know about reverse psychology… but talk about reverse teachings!!!… hmmm.. . not shure! :S
2 Peter 3:3-5 (NRSV with my emphasis)
3 First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers WILL COME, scoffing and indulging their own lusts 4 and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ 5 They deliberately IGNORE this fact…
Is the shift from future tense in verse three to past tense in verse five acceptable in Greek, or did “Peter” accidentally shift from “predicting” a future event to stating what was actually the case in his day?
Yes, v. 3 is in the future nad v. 5. The reason may be because in v. 3 he is referring to the “predictions” made earlier, as indicated in v. 2; in v. 5 he is referring to the fulfilment of those predictions in his own day.
“Even more to the point, a major portion of this letter has been taken over from the book of Jude and incorporated into chapter 2. If Jude can be dated to near the end of the first century, 2 Peter must be somewhat later…There is not a solitary reference to [2 Peter] until around 220 c.e…”
1) When is the earliest reference to the book of Jude? 2) Why does “Peter” reference Balaam, as does Jude, but not Korah or Cain? 3) Any significance to “Peter’s” adding “son of Bosor” (2:15) after “Balaam,” even though Balaam was the son of Beor (as some “ancient authorities” attest)?
1. It is mentioned in teh Muratorian Fragment at the end of the second century; I don’t recall if it’s mentioned before that, but I doubt it. 2. I don’t know. 3. I don’t know.
1) Why was Jude included in the Muratorian Fragment but not James? It would seem that since the former quotes Enoch and the latter was thought to be by Jesus’ brother, it would be the other way around. Is it James’ emphasis on works?
2) Is 2 Peter attested as scripture earlier than Athanasius’ Easter Letter of 367? If so, where?
1. I don’t know. 2. It’s said to be “disputed” e.g. in Eusebius, which means some accepted it.
“this author is a relatively sophisticated and literate Greek-speaking Christian, not an Aramaic-speaking Jewish peasant”
Dr. Ehrman, while I agree that it is highly unlikely that the real, historical Peter composed second Peter, or even first Peter for that matter, after what’s going half a decade of diving deep into the research for my Jesus novel, I have been finding it more and more untenable to conclude that Jesus and his disciples were mere “lower-class, illiterate peasants” from Galilee. That is to say, I have found it exceedingly unlikely that Jesus and his disciples were rubes who were more or less ignorant of whatever it was they were supposed to be preaching. I should clarify that I don’t mean to say that they were skilled enough in Greek to compose a work like 2 Peter. I’m suggesting that they were skilled enough in Hebrew and scripture to pass off as genuine prophets and preachers.
What I mean to say is that this Humble Origins trope that has been passed down over the centuries has started to wear thin. It should be all-too-obvious to everyone that if Jesus and his disciples were really ignorant bumpkins no one would have taken them at all seriously, especially the dowagers who appear to have funded their movement. On some level Jesus and his disciples “knew their stuff”.
Meaning this whole Humble Origins nonsense is probably propaganda that was propagated with the intent of making their knowledge of scripture appear all the more miraculous. The truth of the matter is Jesus and his disciples were probably fairly well-educated in scripture, and might even have been nominally literate.
I’m reminded of something Nietzsche’s anti-Semitic brother-in-law, Bernhard Förster, once suggested, that Jesus Christ only appeared among the Jews so that his glory would only shine brighter against the backdrop of an inferior people. The point is that the contrast has a significant and lasting effect on people. If the Christ can came from such humble origins, that can only be a sign from God meant to prove his true majesty, because only God could take such a lowly figure and turn him into the savior of humanity.
Such is the power of the Humble Origins trope.
It’s really not much of a theory, but is based on the fullest analyses available. Not sure if you’ve read Catherine Hezser, but that’s the place to start.
Hezser’s book is $112, meaning I would have to go to a library to read it, meaning I’m probably not going to get around to it anytime soon.
Either way, studies on ancient literacy are tangential to my point. Whether literacy was 10% or one tenth of a percent is not a determining factor for whether Jesus and his disciples were literate. That question has to be answered via other means.
What I’m trying to get you to see, Dr. Ehrman, is that the Humble Origins trope is so transparent within the early Christian legends that it’s almost an insult to our intelligence to expect us to accept that Simon Peter went from being an ignorant rube one day to being a leading disciple for an influential apocalyptic preacher the next.
I’m reminded of the story of Ulysses Grant, who went from working in his father’s tannery at the start of the Civil War to ultimately becoming general of the entire Union forces three years later. If that’s all the information you’re given, that would, indeed, seem like an almost miraculous ascendancy — that “providence” must have had a hand in leading a man of such humble origins into to such an important and powerful position.
But what happens to his Humble Origins story when we fill in the missing details? Grant — having been born into a respected New England family that included French & Indian War and Revolutionary War veterans — graduated from West Point. Grant was a decorated officer during the Mexican-American War. And, although Grant was well on his way to moving up the Army’s ranks, he only resigned his commission because he thought the pay was lousy. Grant was only re-commissioned as an officer because of the Civil War. So, as you can see, when some important parts of his biography are filled in, Grant’s origins don’t appear that humble. But if you leave out those important details, it does appear rather astonishing that a man could go from selling leather goods to leading an entire army a few years later.
If I were a betting man, I would bet that if the details of the disciples’ lives pre-Jesus were filled in, we would discover that their origins weren’t really that humble. We would probably discover that Peter was only catching fish by day and at night he was studying scripture.
>> Either way, studies on ancient literacy are tangential to my point. Whether literacy was 10% or one tenth of a percent is not a determining factor for whether Jesus and his disciples were literate. That question has to be answered via other means.
If I may please, and I’m curious: what other means should those be?
>> We would probably discover that Peter was only catching fish by day and at night he was studying scripture.
Still curious: how do we discover this?
“If I may please, and I’m curious: what other means should those be?”
Well, we can start off by ignoring what the NT has to say about the literacy level of Jesus and his disciples. Then we might try to determine their literacy by searching for clues in the purported life of Jesus and the disciples. For instance, let’s assume that the account in the Synoptics of Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist is true. Well, that opens up a lot of questions:
— Why did Jesus go to John to be baptized?
— How did Jesus know to go to John to be baptized?
— What made Jesus know to trust the baptism of John?
— Where would Jesus get such knowledge of John?
Well, if you trust the NT account, you would have to think that Jesus was a simple, ignorant day-laborer until one day he suddenly got the urge to travel 50 odd miles to the Jordan river where he just so happened to run into John baptizing people, and then, after getting baptized, he returned to Galilee to start prophesying and preaching. Of course, that’s too far-fetched. So let’s say, instead, Jesus heard about John before leaving. Why would Jesus care about a man baptizing in the Jordan? Because Jesus was also a believer in an imminent eschaton. How did Jesus become a believer in the eschaton? He learned about it. Who did he learn it from?
You see? Holes are already starting to form in the gospels’ Humble Origins account. It’s only a small step to safely assuming that Jesus’ illiteracy was overplayed as well.
tlmoore
I agree
of course Jesus and all/most of the 12 were extremely poor by our standards. maybe not he tax collector
it depends on how one defines ‘peasant’
John Meier defines peasant as the very lowest members of the society – like day laborers
Not Jesus who was brought up as a tradesman
Nor Peter, a fisherman probably in business with ‘Zebedee and Sons’ who all owned boats
and he mentions as you observe the support from the women disciples
We have mistaken views of tradesman, as if they were middle class plumbers, electricians, and cabinet makers. Nope. They were day day laborers like just about everyone else.
I’ve also heard this theory in regards to Mohammed. It is highly unlikely that a rich merchant father would not educate his child that he expected to take over the business. But!, , having Mohammed be illiterate just makes the Quran so much more divinely likely. I’m not sure about Jesus but I’m much more confident that Mohammed was educated and very operate.
In order to argue for an authentic 2 Peter, would one argue he used different secretaries for each?
I have shown why this solution doesn’t work in my books on forgery. Search for “secretary” on the blog and you’ll see some posts on it.
This is a really interesting thread, and I’m pleased you’ve indicated you will be looking at other Petrine material that didn’t make the canon. Will you be looking at the Preaching of Peter? It only survives in fragments, but some have placed it as early as the 1st century and the contents that survive appear orthodox in nature. Clement of Alexandria made use of it approvingly and I would be very interested to read your views on it.
I’ve decided not to, since, so far as I’ve been able to make out, no one gave it any chance of making it in. I’d be happy to learn I’m wrong about that!
I’m not sure what would qualify as a someone giving it a chance to be included in the canon, but I understand several early Christian authors (Clement of Alexandria and Heracleon) made use of it approvingly.
Clement of Alexandria made extensive use of it in Stromata.
Origen quotes from a work of Heracleon and is undecided on how much of the material is genuine in his commentary of John, xiii. 17: “It is too much to set forth now the quotations of Heracleon taken from the book entitled The Preaching of Peter and dwell on them, inquiring about the book whether genuine or spurious or compounded of both elements: so we willingly postpone that”
By the time we get to Jerome, it seems it was still known to the churches, but was now rejected as ‘apocryphal’ “On the other hand, the books, of which one is entitled his Acts, another his Gospel, a third his Preaching, a fourth his Revelation, a fifth his Judgment are rejected as apocryphal.”
You may have addressed this elsewhere, but I can’t seem to find it. You say that 2 Peter took whole sections from Jude. On the basis of what evidence do we think it was not the opposite? That Jude took the material from 2 Peter.
That’s a great question and would require a long answer! I’ll think about posting on it down the line.
If someone is writing a forgery…I’m trying to imagine how someone would pull it off. Would they show up at a church meeting and say ‘I went to Antioch, and they had this 2nd letter from Peter. They made me a copy, and here it is.’ Or do you have a better feel for how something like that might have taken place?
Yup, something like that would be one way. Or send it to someone saying you had received it from someone else.
Carrier says 2 Peter 1:16 and the stuff about “cleverly devised myths” is evidence that the author of 2 Peter was arguing against certain Christians who believed in a mythical Jesus.
Yes, he would.
Something else I see all the time, mythicists say that Paul lied about meeting Jesus’ brother James. Even if Paul had lied, that wouldn’t make Jesus a myth. Why would he say he met Jesus’ brother if he thought Jesus was a celestial being? There would be no brother to meet. They know not what they say.
In Carrier’s OHJ:
“There we see an attack upon certain fellow Christians who were actually teaching that the story of Jesus was (as Justin also denies) a ‘cleverly devised myth’ [ sesophismenois mythois ] and who were thereby creating a ‘destructive heresy’…In 2 Peter we also see a related anxiety over the strange celestial Jesus found in Paul’s letters—to the extent that now only the properly ‘informed’ were authorized to interpret them (2 Pet. 3.15-17).”
2 Peter emphasizes refraining from sexual sin just as Paul does in his epistles as well as having patience for the coming of the Lord. There’s nothing to suggest a ‘cleverly devised myth’ as being a reference to a celestial Jesus. As far as pet theories go, I think mine was way better lol! I situated Jesus back to the time of David, literally being the son of David—so much more *plausible* in my opinion.
On another note, when reading the NRSV of 2 Peter, I came upon the word “extinction”. 2 Peter 2:6 “and if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly;”
Fascinating!
1.) In 2 Peter 2:1 would the reference to false teachers “denying the very Lord who bought them” contribute to skepticism of this book? Considering Peter had to be forgiven by Jesus for denial on the night of his betrayal, to point a harsh finger at others for that sin would seem a bit forgetful of his own forgiven debt.
2.) Has anyone anylyzed the ramifications on modern doctrines if 2 Peter lost its authority? Does anything fall over that depends on this book?
1. I think the idea is that there were false teachers among the Christian churches — which everyone seems to have thought. So it would not have been a problem. 2. Not so much, though it provides a very handy solution to why the end has not come yet.