Bible commentators show usage of 2 Peter by Clement of Rome and other ECWs

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Pure Bible Forum

Bible commentators show usage of 2 Peter by Clement of Rome and other ECWs
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...peter-by-clement-of-rome-and-other-ecws.2375/

Petrine authorship of 2 Peter before AD 70
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/petrine-authorship-of-2-peter-before-ad-70.6376/

Clement of Rome - references to 1 Peter and 2 Peter
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/clement-of-rome-2-peter-1-1.2373/

=================================

Clement of Rome’s New Testament (2018)
Graham Harter - UK - Feb 14, 2018
https://etimasthe.com/2018/02/14/clement-of-romes-new-testament/

Conclusion:
  • There are enough allusions to James and to 2 Peter in Clement’s letter for us to be reasonably certain that both texts were in Clement’s possession and were regarded by him as authoritative.
  • Clement may also have had 1 Peter in his possession; there is some evidence in the text to support this, but in my opinion it is far from conclusive.
======================================

Graham may add some to our six 2 Peter so far, and he helps on 1 Peter, it is sure Clement of Rome used both Epistles.

Four things Clement of Rome tells us about early Christianity
Graham Harter - February 27, 2018
https://etimasthe.com/2018/02/27/four-things-clement-of-rome-tells-us-about-early-christianity/
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Authenticity of 2 Peter (1999)
Michael J. Kruger (b, 1971)
https://etsjets.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/files_JETS-PDFs_42_42-4_42-4-pp645-671_JETS.pdf


Michael Kruger on The Problem of External Attestation of 2 Peter (February 14, 2021)
Robert Boylan
https://scripturalmormonism.blogspot.com/2021/02/michael-kruger-on-problem-of-external.html

In an interesting article defending the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, Michael Kruger, under the heading of “The Problem of External Attestation,” we read the following. Note how it refutes the naïve view that a meaningful criterion for accepting a book as canonical is that of early external attestation of it being apostolic in nature (cf. Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura):

2 Peter and the Early Church.

Origin (c. 182-251) is the first to cite 2 Peter by name at the beginning of the third century and thus often finds himself as the pivotal church father in discussions over the epistle’s authenticity. If one assumes that the date of the first explicit citation is roughly concomitant with a book’s composition, then Origen’s late citation certainly casts the only and deciding vote against 2 Peter. However, the date of the first explicit citation is hardly the only data that proves to be relevant.

Despite the fact that Origen recognizes that some had doubts about the epistle (“Peter has left behind one acknowledged epistle, and perhaps a second for it is questioned” [Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11). He quoted the epistle six times and clearly regarded it as Scripture ( [Origien, Numer. Hom. 2.676). It is evident that he considers 2 Peter as equal in authority with 1 Peter by saying that “Even Peter blows on the twin trumpets of his own Epistles” (Origen, Hom.in Josh. 7.1). It seems quite difficult to believe that an epistle that that Origen treated in such a manner could have been just recently composed in his own day. Indeed, the fact that he quotes it so thoroughly as Scripture in his writings suggests that it may have been accepted widely as canonical by this time.

Interestingly, Origen fails to indicate the reason for the doubts some of his contemporaries maintained, nor does he discuss their extent or location. It seems fair, therefore, to suggest that Origen did not seem those doubts to be of any serious nature or at least not enough to question 2 Peter’s scriptural status. In addition, considering the fact that Origen was one of the sharpest literary critics in the ancient world, his silence on 2 Peter’s literary style seems quite conspicuous. Perhaps he was not persuaded that the epistles were fundamentally all that different. In light of these and the aforementioned considerations the fact that Origen is in fact to cite 2 Peter by name in no way argues conclusively against 2 Peter’s authenticity.

Eusebius (c. 265-339) 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 “ancient presbyters” (Hist. Ecc. 3.3.1). But it is interesting to note that despite his reservations he lists 2 Peter along with James, Jude, 2 and 3 John as “the Disputed books which nevertheless are known to most.” So even Eusebius does not place 2 Peter in with the “spurious” 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 Peter’s 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 Jerome’s time, there was no further doubts concerning 2 Peter’s place in the NT canon.

As far as canonical lists are concerned, we find 2 Peter absent from the Muratorian Fragment (c. 180), one of the earliest extant lists in church history. Although this may seem to be substantial evidence against the epistle’s authenticity, it is important to note that 1 Peter, James, and Hebrews were also not included. Furthermore, although this lists omits 2 Peter, by no means does it regard it as spurious; silence does not equal rejection. 2 Peter was recognized as fully canonical by the Canons of Laodicea and by the time of the church councils of Hippo and Carthage of the fourth century. It is significant that these latter church councils were the very ones that rejected the Letters of Barnabas and Clement of Rome—which were both very respected writings in the early church and often used alongside Scripture—indicating that these church councils exhibited careful analysis of all documents and rejected all they considered sub-apostolic.

2 Peter’s full acceptance into the canon of the church by the fourth century is confirmed by its appearance in various early manuscripts of the New Testament. The Bodmer papyrus, designated p72, is a papyrus dating to the third century and contains the oldest copies of 1 and 2 Peter. In addition, 2 Peter finds a firm canonical home with its appearance in some of the most important textual discoveries: Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Codex Vaticanus (4th century), and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century).

In our quest to determine the authenticity of 2 Peter we cannot overlook the fact that 2 Peter, despite the reservations of some, was finally and fully accepted by the church as canonical in every respect. The fact that 2 Peter faced such resistance—resistance coupled with the incessant competition of pseudo-Petrine literature—and still prevailed proves to be worthy of serious consideration. It is so easy to dismiss the conclusions of Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen, Epiphanius, Athanasius, Augustine, Rufinus, Jerome, and the church councils at Laodicea, Hippo and Carthage. If the epistle of 2 Peter held such a form position in the fourth-century canon, then perhaps the burden of proof should fall on those who suggest it does not belong there. (Michael J. Kruger, The Authenticity of 2 Peter, JETS 42:4 [December 1999]:645-71, here, pp. 649-51, emphasis in bold added)
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions (2010)
P. H. R. van Houwelingen
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ejt/19-2_119.pdf

Prof. dr. P.H.R. van Houwelingen (Rob)
https://tuu.nl/en/medewerkers/rob-van-houwelingen/
https://tukampen.academia.edu/RobvanHouwelingen
CV
https://tukampen.academia.edu/RobvanHouwelingen/CurriculumVitae


1787916704234.png

1787917185541.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hagner is a skeptic, but he likely adds more evidences.

Donald Alfred Hagner (b. 1936)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Hagner

The Use of the Old and New Testaments in Clement of Rome (1973) (2014)
by Donald Alfred Hagner
https://books.google.com/books?id=ReZ5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA244

https://scholar.google.com/citation...J&citation_for_view=8dP2CroAAAAJ:qjMakFHDy7sC

The use of the Old Testament in the New Testament is a subject that has been studied rather thoroughly in recent times. Quotation in the Apostolic Fathers, on the other hand, has remained a comparatively neglected field of study, despite the interesting questions associated with it. Shortly after my arrival in Manchester in the autumn of 1966, when I was casting about for a suitable topic of research leading to the Ph. D., my friend Dr. Julius Scott suggested that a study of quotation in Clement of Rome might be worthwhile and interesting. Following up this suggestion, for which I remain grateful, I found myself increasingly fascinated with the subject of quotation in the Apostolic Fathers and specially in Clement of Rome.

The abundance of quotations and allusions in 1 Clement together with its early date, make this epistle particularly significant for the study of text, canon, and interpretation—not only so far as the use of the Old Testament is concerned, but also concerning the early use of the New Testament writings.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Quora - Did Apostle Peter write 2 Peter, or was it forged?
Latest activity: Jun 28, 2026
Anonymous
https://www.quora.com/Did-Apostle-Peter-write-2-Peter-or-was-it-forged

When I read the arguments against the traditional attributions of Scripture, I’m often reminded of the scene from Liar Liar with Jim Carey:

“Your Honor, I object!”

“On what basis?”

“Because it’s devastating to my case!”

In this case, critics point out that 2 Peter mentions the letters of Paul and calls them “Scripture,” and it mentions the book of Jude. Therefore, 2 Peter can’t be authentic, because that would mean that the letter of Jude is authentic, and that the letters of Paul were considered Scripture within a decade of when they were written. And both of those things are devastating to my case!

So, here’s something to consider. Clement of Rome wrote his letter to the Corinthians around 80–90 AD. He mentions the deaths of Peter and Paul as if they occurred in recent memory (both were said to have been martyred in Rome in the late 60’s), and he quotes from 2 Peter.

So, we have a prominent elder in the Church at Rome, writing within no more than twenty years of when both Peter and Paul were still alive, writing to a Christian community founded by Paul just a few decades earlier. Are we expected to believe that somebody forged a Petrine epistle, circulated it as far as Rome, and managed to fool a bishop who likely knew Peter and Paul personally… all within twenty years of the death of Peter?
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
2 Peter — The Most Contested Letter in the Canon
Graham Ham
https://garrettham.com/second-peter/

The Apostolic Fathers

The most significant possible allusion occurs in 1 Clement 23:3–4 (c. AD 96), which closely echoes 2 Peter 3:3–4 about scoffers citing the delay of divine promises. Clement introduces the material with “that which is written,” suggesting he regards it as scriptural. Bauckham argued both drew on a common lost apocalyptic source.57 Robert Picirilli argued 2 Peter was the source, noting that Clement’s designation of the material as “scripture” would be “exceedingly strange” if it came from an unknown non-Petrine text.58

Robert Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,” JSNT 33 (1988): 57–83

====================================================

1 Clement 23:3–4 echoing 2 Peter 3:3–4. [1]

The Potential Allusion
  • The Textual Parallel: In 1 Clement 23:3, the author writes about scoffers who doubt the fulfillment of divine promises, using language strikingly similar to the skepticism regarding the delay of the parousia (Christ's second coming) found in 2 Peter 3:3–4. [1, 2]
  • Reference to "Scripture": Clement introduces the saying with an expression indicating it is written text, which leads some scholars to argue he viewed 2 Peter as authoritative Scripture. [1, 2]
The Scholarly Debate
  • Direct Dependence: Some biblical scholars argue that Clement directly used 2 Peter because of the close thematic and verbal correspondence concerning scoffers and aging generations. [1]
  • Shared Source: Other scholars suggest that both 1 Clement and 2 Peter may have independently drawn from a common, now-lost Jewish-Christian apocalyptic writing or oral tradition circulating in early Christian communities. [1, 2]

If you'd like, I can:
  • Provide the exact side-by-side text of both passages
  • Discuss how other Apostolic Fathers viewed 2 Peter
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
BCHF
1787876728086.png



I began ihis siudy to see whether anything in the Apostolic Fathers might shed any light on the Interpretation of 2 Peter. Other motivations have been added along the way. I soon ran into the claims of some that 2 Peter is not aliuded to at all in the corpus of the Apostolic Fathers. Edwin Abbott provides an outstanding example of this. Of 2 Peter he said: ‘Up to the time of Clement of Alexandria (i.e. c. 200) there is no trace of its existcnce’;1 It is not distinctly quoted by any Christian writer till the third Century’;2 and, ‘It was rejected in the earliest days by the silence of the Fathers’.3 (F.W. Farrar partly answered Abbott in later issues of the same periodical,4 but not on this point.)
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Picirilli

1. Edwin A. Abbott, 'On the Second Epistle of St. Peter', The Expositor 2/3 (1882), p. 50. The series of three articles is an attack on the authenticity and canonicity of 2 Peter: pp. 49-63, 139-53, 204-19.
2. Ibid., pp. 152, 153 (italics his).
3. Ibid., p. 218.
4. F.W. Farrar, 'Dr. Abbott on the Second Epistle of St. Peter', The Expositor 2/3 (1882), pp.401-23; 'The Second Epistle of St. Peter and Josephus', The Expositor 3/8 (1888), pp. 58-69.
5. Theo Donner, 'Some Thoughts on the History of the New Testament Canon', Themelios 7 (1982), p. 26.
6. Kirsopp Lake (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers, in The Loeb Classical Library (London: William Heineman/Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1950).
7. Benjamin B. Warfield, 'Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second Peter', The Southern Presbyterian Review 34 (1883), pp. 390-445; also 'The Canonicity of Second Peter', The Southern Presbyterian Review 33 (1882), pp. 45-75.
8. Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint 1965).
9. Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (2nd edn; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, reprint 1956).
10. Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter (Word Biblical Commentary; Waco, Texas: Word, 1983).
11. Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (= NTAF) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1905).
12. J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers (5 vols.; Grand Rapids: Baker, reprint 1981).
13. Robert M. Grant (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers (6 vols.; New York/ Camden: Thomas Nelson, 1964-68).
14. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. 157.
15. Warfield, 'Genuineness of Second Peter', p. 397.
16. Lightfoot, Fathers, Part One, II, p.80. He goes on to a tenuous conjecture that Eldad and Modat was the source, based only on the fact that Hermas also spoke of 'doublemindedness' and cited that work. M.R James (The Lost Apocrypha of the Old Testament, London: SPCK/New York: Macmillan, 1920, reprint 1936, p. 40) notes the resemblance to 2 Pet. 3.4 and finds 'difficulty in acquiescing in Lightfoot's conjecture'. He conjectures the apocryphal Ezekiel.
17. B.F. Westcott, General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge and London: Macmillan, 1889), p. 181.
18. J. Armitage Robinson, Barnabas, Hermas, and the Didache (New York: Macmillan, 1920), p. 17.
19. James A. Kleist, The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch (Ancient Christian Writers, 1; Westminster: Newman, 1949), p. 109. E.J. Goodspeed (The Apostolic Fathers: An American Translation, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), cites the two Clementine references with a simple '?'. Thus also Grant (Fathers, I, p.41): 'According to 2 Clement, the quotation comes from 'the prophetic word,' but we do not know the work in question'.
20. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. 126; see also pp. cxxiii, 149. Cf. also Warfield, 'Genuineness of Second Peter', p. 398.
21. Lightfoot, Fathers, Part One, II, p. 235.
22. Karl P. Donfried, The Setting of Second Clement in Early Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1974), p. 151.
23. Bauckham, Commentary, p. 284.
24. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, pp. cxxiii, 105, 107, 108.
25. Bauckham, Commentary, pp. 218, 224, 242.
26. Warfield, 'Canonicity', p. 53. See also 'Genuineness of Second Peter', pp. 397, 398.
27. Lightfoot, Fathers, Part One, II, pp.42, 235. John Lawson (A Theological and Historical Introduction to the Apostolic Fathers [New York: Macmillan, 1961], p. 35) also cites the first one.
28. Bigg, Commentary, p. 210 (but he wrongly puts it in 1 Clem. 11.2 instead of 2 Clem. 11.2).
29. Ibid., p. 266. That he misses the second of the three phrases is all the more strange in light of his comparison of τήν +1F40;δ+1F40;ν τήν +1F70;ληθινήν in Herm. Vis. 3.7.1—which might well be a free rendering of Peter's phrase, although one could hardly bank on that. NTAF, pp. 37, 38, deals with 1 Clem. 35.5, 6 in comparison with Rom. 1.29-32 but does not even treat the phrase 'the way of truth'.
30. Donfried, Setting of Second Clement, p. 151.
31. Warfield, 'Canonicity', p. 53.
32. Kleist, Epistles No. 1, p. 107.
33. Bauckham, Commentary, p. 252; see also p. 247.
34. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. 151; see also p. cxxiii; Warfield, 'Genuineness of Second Peter', p. 398.
35. Bauckham, Commentary, pp. 296, 297; he adds: '(cf. also Apoc. Pet. E4, probably dependent on 2 Pet. 3.5, 7)'.
36. NTAF, p. 129. Grant (Fathers, II, p. 129) also: 'The quotation may be in fact an adaptation of 2 Peter 3.12'.
37. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. cxxiii; Lightfoot, Fathers, Part One, II, p. 250; Warfield ('Canonicity', p. 5): 'scarcely worth pleading ...; at best this [2 Clement] may depend on that [2 Peter]'.
38. Bigg (Commentary, p. 209) notes that ήμ+1F10;ρα κρ+1F30;σεως is found in the NT only in Matthew, 1 John, and 2 Peter.
39. Bauckham (Commentary, p.305) sees this as coming from an apocryphal source behind both 2 Clem. and 2 Peter.
40. Bigg, Commentary, p. 209.
41. Ibid., pp. 214, 215. In light of Peter's clear dependence on Isaiah and/or Malachi, one is amazed by the view of L.W. Barnard ('The judgment in 2 Peter iii', Exp Tim 68 [1956-57], p. 302) that 'The origin of this idea probably lies in Iranian thought'.
42. Donfried, Setting of Second Clement, p. 90. He is sure that 'Our author [of 2 Clem. ] is not quoting precisely from any known version of Malachi'.
43. Ibid., p. 91.
44. Bauckham, Commentary, p. 305.
45. Albert Bonus, '2 Peter iii. 10', ExpTim 32 (1920-21), pp. 280, 281.
46. NTAF, p. 129. Cf. Bigg (Commentary, p. 209): 'Dr. Salmon (Introduction, p. 521) suggests that [Clement's] ϕανήσεται is an attempt to make sense out of the corrupt εύρεθήσεται of 2 Pet. iii. 10'. Bauckham (Commentary, p. 305) also: 'The puzzling final words of 2 Pet. 3.10 are illuminated if 2 Clem. 16.3 represents their source'.
47. Lightfoot (Fathers, Part One, II, p. 131) compares 2 Pet. 3.2 ('the commandment of your apostles') to 1 Clem. 44.1 ('our apostles'), calling it 'an exact parallel'; Donfried (Setting of Second Clement, pp. 116, 117), on 2 Pet. 1.5, 6, says: 'There is a striking proximity in language between these verses and 2 Clement'. Bigg (Commentary, p. 210) mentions a few other minor correspondences between 1 Clement and 2 Peter, notably 1 Clem. 7.6 (N+1F68;ε +1F10;κήρυξεν μετ+1F70;νοιαν) and 2 Pet. 2.5 (N+1F68;ε δικαιοσύνης κήρυκα). But this may be acounted for in the view of K. Beyschlag (Clemens Romanus und der Frühkatholizismus [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1966], p. 290) that κήρυξ (herald) was a comon word in the hellenistic Christianity of that era: 'Aber auch der Ausdruck κήρυξ (I Clem 5, 6) ist in der Sprache des frühen hellenistischen Christentums kein Fremdling. Wie Noah in II Petr 2, 5 ... so wird auch Paulus in I Tim 2, 7 ... κήρυξ genannt'.
48. Beyschlag, Clemens Romanus, pp. 202, 203.
49. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. iii.
50. Ibid., p. 91. Thomas F. Torrance (The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers [Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd, 1948], p. 65) compares to Ignatius' words not only 2 Pet. 1.5-7, two passages in Hermas, and Clement of Alexandria, but also 1 Cor. 13.13 and Barn. 1.5.
51. NTAF, pp. 71, 72. Ernst Käsemann (Essays on New Testament Themes [London: SCM, 1964], p. 179), although he would agree with the Oxford Committee's presumption f2 Peter's lateness, at least notices the affinity in his essay on 2 Peter. 'As in Ignatius, Eph. 14.1, faith and love are the first and last links in this chain'.
52. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. 91. Lightfoot (Fathers, Part Two, II, p. 67) provides the actual citations from Clement of Alexandria as 'Strom. vii. 10: ή τε +1F70;ρχή κα+1F30; τ+1F40; τ+1F10;λος, π+1F30;στις λ+1F10;γω, κα+1F30; ή +1F70;γ+1F70;πη', and 'ib. ii. 13: προηγε+1F30;τει μ+1F10;ν π+1F30;στις, ϕ+1F40;βος δ+1F10; ο+1F30;κοδομε+1F30;, τελειο+1F30; δ+1F10; ή +1F70;γ+1F70;πη'.
53. Bigg, Commentary, p. 257.
54. Bauckham, Commentary, p. 176.
55. Grant (Fathers, IV, p.45): 'a common Christian doctrine (Bauer, p. 213)'.
56. In a similar vein Bigg (Commentary, p.211) reminds us that even scattered words and phrases have histories, being often current and 'used by people who have not the slightest idea where they came from', all the while testifying to the earlier date of the document where they actually originated. See also the article by Theo Donner ('Thoughts on the New Testament Canon').
57. Bigg, Commentary, p. 209.
58. E.g. C.C. Richardson, The Christianity of Ignatius of Antioch (New York: Columbia University, 1935); Milton Perry Brown, The Authentic Writings of Ignatius (Durham, NC: Duke University, 1963); James Moffatt, 'Ignatius of Antioch-A Study in Personal Religion', JR 10 (1930), pp. 169- 86 ; L.W. Barnard, 'The Background of St. Ignatius of Antioch', VC 17 (1963), pp. 193-206.
59. Virginia Corwin, St. Ignatius and Christianity in Antioch (New Haven: Yale University, 1960), p. 237.
60. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. cxxiii; Lightfoot, Fathers, Part Two, III, p. 326; Bigg, Commentary, p. 204; Grant, Fathers, V, p. 14; James A. Kleist, The Didache, The Epistle of Barnabas, The Epistle and the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, The Fragments of Papias, The Epistle to Diognetus (Ancient Christian Writers, 6; Westminster: Newman, 1948), p. 188.
61. Warfield, 'Canonicity', p. 52.
62. P.N. Harrison, Polycarp's Two Epistles to the Philippians (London: Cambridge University Press, 1936), p. 301.
63. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. 98.
64. Bigg, Commentary, p. 205.
65. Bauckham, Commentary, p. 192.
66. Karl Bihlmeyer ( Die Apostolischen Väter, ed. Wilhelm Schneemelcher [2nd edn, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1956], p. 8) cites 2 Pet. 3.3 for Did. 16.3. He also cites others of those noted in this paper (pp. 29, 40, 41, 115).
67. Bauckham, Commentary, p. 278.
68. J.R. Harmer (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers, by J.B. Lightfoot (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1956), pp. 152, 288.
69. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, pp. cxxi, cxxii. Kleist (Didache, No. 6, p. 179) cites both the psalm and 2 Peter.
70. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. cxxii.
71. Joh. Karl Th. v. Otto, 'Haben Barnabas, Justinus, und Irenäus den zweiten Petrusbrief (3, 8) benutzt?', ZWT 20 (1877), p. 526.
72. Ibid, p. 527.
73. Ibid., p. 529. He makes reference to one Dr. C.L. Leimbach, 'ein eifriger Forscher auf altpatristischem Gebiet', whose study 'Kennt Irenäus den zweiten Petrusbrief?' insisted that 2 Peter was the original. But the source (Zeitschrift für d. ges. luther. Theologie und Kirche (1877), pp. 244-49) is not available to me.
74. L.W. Barnard, Studies in the Apostolic Fathers and their Background (Oxford: Blackwell, 1966), p.47.
75. NTAF, p. 15.
76. R.H. Charles (ed.), The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English (Oxford: Clarendon, reprint 1913), II, p. 451.
77. Ibid., p. 427.
78. Warfield, 'Canonicity', p. 52.
79. T.W. Crafer, The Epistle of Barnabas (London: SPCK, and New York: Macmillan, 1920), p. 27. Lawson (Fathers pp, 201, 214) says Barnabas' quotation 'seems to be from 2 Peter iii, 8'; but see the reference cited in n. 102.
80. Bigg, Commentary, p. 210.
81. Ibid., pp. 213,214. Even Mayor (Jude and Seond Peter, p. 156) appears to contradict himself later when he cites Barnabas, Slavonic Enoch, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus in these words; 'where there is similar allusion to this verse'—speaking of the verse in 2 Peter. See also the extensive discussion in Bauckham ( Commentary, pp. 306, 307).
82. For an interesting survey of Hermas, see W.J. Wilson, 'The Career of the Prophet Hermas', HTR 20 (1927), pp. 21-62.
83. Goodspeed, Fathers, p. 317; Warfield, 'Canonicity', p. 52; Robert Joly, Hermas: Le Pasteur (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1958), p. 139.
84. Lawson, Fathers, p. 233.
85. Joly, Hermas, p. 23.
86. Lake, Fathers, p. 83.
87. NTAF, p. 107.
88. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. 142. Warfield ('Canonicity', p. 51) compares Vis. 3.7.1 ('abandoned the true way') with 2 Pet. 2.15; 2.2.
89. Bauckham (Commentary, p. 277) refers both Hermas and 2 Peter to 'an application of this passage of Jesus' teaching to apostasy, current in the church of Rome in the late first century'.
90. Bauckham, Commentary, p. 278.
91. Bigg (Commentary, p. 210) includes this among four relatively rare words that are common to Hermas and 2 Peter and 'may conceivably have been suggested by 2 Peter'.
92. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, pp. cxxvi, 133.
93. Ibid., p. cxxiii. Warfield ('Canonicity', p. 51) compares to this same passage, in 2 Peter, Herm. Sim. 6.4.4 ('All men who live in luxury and deceit are thus tortured, because though they have life, they have given themselves over to death'); and indicates that the three allusions he sees in Hermas are 'striking and are certainly sufficient to raise a very strong presumption that Hermas had 2 Peter'.
94. Lake, Fathers, p. 214.
95. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. 157; Joly, Hermas, p. 287; Goodspeed, Fathers, p. 318 (although 8.IX.1 is a misprint for 8.XI.1); Bauckham, Commentary, p. 312.
96. Lake, Fathers, p. 14.
97. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. 151.
98. NTAF, pp. 3, 37, 64, 84, 105.
99. Mayor, Jude and Second Peter, p. cxxvii.
100. Donfried (Setting of Second Clement, p. 93): '2 Clem. 16.3-4 reveal definite relationships with traditions standing behind 1 and 2 Peter'. See also the quotation cited in n. 43.
101. Bauckham, Commentary, pp. 149, 150, 157.
102. Lawson, Fathers, p. 201.
103. Warfield ('Genuineness of Second Peter', p. 398) finds several 'clear hints that ... Clement is the borrower' and that 'Peter's is the original'.
104. Harrison, Polycarp's Epistles, p. 240. See also Warfield ('Canonicity', p. 53), where he urges the need for a 'full, well thought-out essay on the general question of literary dependence—its proofs, marks, and signs. Dr. Sanday in his 'Gospels in the Second Century' has made a fair beginning as to the question, with how much looseness may a second century father be allowed to quote and his quotation be recognized? But all is not done yet that is essential. Something is wrong ... when men will universally ... recognize this passage as exhibiting dependence on Matthew—... "The experiments of many who thought themselves called, enabled the few who were chosen to find motives ... for work of real import".—(Mr. Stedman in Scribner for October, 1881, p. 821), and yet at the same time will doubt or deny any dependence on the same passage in the following—Ως γ+1F10;γραπται, π+1F40;λλοι κλητο+1F30;, +1F40;λιγοι δ+1F10; +1F10;κλεκτο+1F30; εύρεθ+1F68;μεν—( Ep. of Barnabas, iv. 14), or doubt or deny a dependence on 2 Peter in the passages in the text ... Certainly something is wrong with the critics. Or is it that Mr. Stedman's passage does not help the 'Apologists', while Barnabas's does? We are ashamed to even think such a thing'. (Italics his.)
105. Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP, 1962), III, p. 139.
106. Bauckham, Commentary, p. 162.
107. Andrew K. Helmbold, The Nag Hammadi Gnostic Texts and the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), pp. 90, 91. Cf. also citations by W.C. van Unnik, 'The Gospel of Truth and the New Testament', The Jung Codex (London: Mowbray and New York: Morehouse-Gorham, 1955), pp. 116, 120.
108. C.C. Richardson (trans. and ed.), Early Christian Fathers (London: SCM, 1953), p. 39. Cf. Torrance, Grace.
109. Warfield ('Canonicity', pp. 47, 48, 62) has also warned about making too much an argument from silence, citing examples both from Christian and secular sources of writings known to have existed that cannot be found at all. Who knows how many writings of how many church leaders of the time of the Fathers—known and unknown—have perished? Cf. Harrison (Polycarp's Epistles, p. 233): 'Failure to quote a book does not necessarily prove ignorance either of its contents or of its existence'.


Similar articles:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top