string(38) ‘ of the very debated and argued over\. ‘
Who Had written Second Philip An Explanation Eileen S. Summy LUO 1185240 NBST 679-01 Dr . Leo Percer The fall of 13, 2012 Table of Contents We.
Introduction………………………………………………………………………2 2. History of the Authorship of Peter……, , , , ,.. …………………….. ……. 2-5 III. Disputes for Petrine Authorship of 2 Peter…. …………………….. ……. 6-10 IV. Quarrels Against Petrine Authorship of two Peter……………………. …. 10-15 Sixth is v. Conclusion…………………………………………………………….. …,.. 15-16 NI. Personal Conclusion………………………………………….. ……………….. sixteen VII.
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………. 17 INTRODUCTION Debates in the authorship of various books inside the Bible are typical among Biblical scholars. Many of these debates are legitimate while the book of the Holy bible lacks a claim of authorship, although some appear to be preposterous as the claims within the Scripture apparently settle the problem. Some literature, such as two Peter fall into the category of books that claim some authorship, although sufficient arguments exist that could cast a lot of doubt for the truth of the legitimate article writer.
The theory of the authorship of 2 Peter is a question that has brought on a great deal of issue and controversy within the house of worship. The purpose of this paper is definitely not to protect the theory that Peter wrote this epistle. An investigation of various arguments on the subject will be used to debate the two tradition view of Peter as the writer and the even more liberal perspective that an individual other than Philip is responsible for composing the epistle. This is not a new debate, but instead an ongoing controversy that has persisted since the second century.
The arguments pertaining to both sides appear similar sometimes, and both use valid evidence to aid their results. This paper will show what sort of logical conclusion can be attracted that the Apostle Peter was your author of second epistle of Philip. HISTORY OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF 2 PETER The response to the problem of authorship of 2 Peter seems as if it should straightforward since the book claims inside the first few terms to have been written by the apostle Philip. Surprisingly this question has existed since the days of the early chapel and even to this day clarity remains to be being searched for. Although two Peter was not as well regarded and recognized in the early church because 1 Peter, some may possibly have applied and accepted it as authoritative as early as the second 100 years and perhaps possibly in the latter part of the first 100 years (1 Clement [AD 95] may infer it). ” This early canonical approval did not end the issue. The first time the book was credited to Peter was around the beginning of the third hundred years in the time of Origen. “Even he cast some question as to the church’s ability to ascribe the publication to Philip, but Comienzo did not completely deny it either. Origen’s comments in his Expositions around the Gospel in accordance to David, provided evidence that some in his day doubted the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. He mentioned, “And Peter, on whom the cathedral of Christ is built, against which the entrances of Hades shall not prevail, has left one particular acknowledged epistle, and, it may be, a second as well, for it can be doubted. inches Origen likewise placed hesitation on Petrine authorship by making the statement that the existence of the publication was not well-known until his own period, which triggered serious concerns. Eusebius (265–340) placed this among the asked books, though he admits that most acknowledge it since from Peter. After Eusebius’s time, it appears to have been quite generally accepted since canonical. ” After the time of Eusebius, the debate over the second epistle continued on, although eventually the book since accepted in the New Testament Canon by Clement. The controversy over Peter’s authorship grew silent for many years, but never entirely disappeared. “In recent centuries, however , it is genuineness have been challenged with a considerable range of interpreters. The only fact that appears to be certain in the debate is that the authorship of 2 Peter are never completely satisfied. Many in the early on church were quick to classify 2 Peter as a notification written by the Apostle Paul. “Why could the author of two Peter make reference to Paul’s words, which did not circulate as a group until about 95 ADVERTISING? ” The early church commanders also noticed the fact which the author of two Peter referred to himself frequently within two Peter. That they further identified that the writer of 2 Philip identified himself twice as any times while did mcdougal of 1Peter.
In a couple of Peter the author goes on to assess “all the letters of Paul with the writings mentioned previously, further suggesting which the recipients tend not to posses the whole Pauline corpus. ” Even though some in the early on church sensed that a couple of Peter was written by Paul, this opinion never received a great deal of traction force and eventually was dismissed by church frontrunners. A major factor inside the history of the authorship two Peter was your date in the death in the apostle Peter. Most conventional thinkers might date the death of Peter for the time of Nero ahead software and could place the particular date around 66 AD.
This kind of timing will allow for Philip to be the article writer of this publication and answers most of the objections made by the greater liberal minded scholars. Those who ascribe to a later death for Peter, used this kind of evidence to back up the idea that someone other than the Apostle published this book. The majority of church commanders agreed on the timing with the death of Peter and since it was this kind of a general public event there is certainly little uncertainty that he died at the center 60’s. Early church utilized this date and the writing within the book itself to create a strong disagreement for Philip being the writer.
The early cathedral fathers had many essential decisions to make as frontrunners of the followers of Christ and one of the most important kinds was which will writings to take into the Biblical Canon. Of all the books in the New Testament 2 Peter was one of the debated and argued above.
It is very clear that inside the Fourth Century, at the Councils of Hippo, 2 Peter was recognized as being area of the Biblical Canon. “At this same counsel different books such as I Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas were turned down mainly on the grounds that they was missing a assert of authorship by someone who was deemed an apostle. ” A scholar of church record during this time published this suite of the thoughts of the believers towards Peter’s second epistle. He composed, “Quite probably the churches which usually originally received it, understanding it not to get Peter’s own work, may not have awarded it the same status within their own make use of as they performed, e.., for the Pauline page…. Whatever the causes of its deficiency of wide use in the second 100 years, this has contributed to its very slow progress toward general acceptance in the canon. ” As with most historical data, little is well known of the status of this epistle during the up coming 1000 years. As the church entered the period of the Reformation lots of the standards in the church were called in question including the Biblical Several. “2 Peter was regarded as second-class Bible verses by Luther, rejected by Erasmus, and regarded with hesitancy by Calvin. The truth that 2 Peter got several promises of authorship by the Apostle Peter within just its textual content allowed this to be spared and recognized as part of the inspired Word of God. FIGHTS FOR PETRINE AUTHORSHIP OF SECOND PETER The publication of 2 Philip begins with this passage, “Simon Philip, a connection servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to the people who have received a trust of the same kind as our bait, by the righteousness of our The almighty and Messiah Jesus Christ. ” This affirmation seems to make clear the claim that Peter had written this page would as well seem to keep little space for hesitation.
Few other catalogs with such a claim have been disputed, but the critics are speedy to disregard this primary claim by simply Peter and scrutinize the letter. This may not be the only put in place the notice that Petrine authorship is usually proclaimed and details of living of the Apostle support this assumption. a couple of Peter one particular: 16 talks of the creator as a gentleman who is facing or is near to his death. This kind of allusion would certainly support the concept of Peter as the copy writer, because it was believed Philip knew he would be martyred and wanted to give his fans one final word of encouragement.
Further more in the notification in 2 Peter a couple of: 16-18, the writer shared a retelling with the Transfiguration of Christ. Inside the gospel of Matthew, Peter is one of only 3 men whom accompanied Christ at this function. The retelling of the details of this amazing screen could just be completed simply by Peter, James, or John. One last statement via with the book itself can be found in chapter 3. 2 Peter 3: one particular made a references to a prior page, which should be believed as being 1 Peter. There is certainly little comparable material in the two epistles, but this kind of reference to the first epistle seems to result in the conclusion that they were authored by the same person. On the one hand it really is argued within this fact the 1 and 2 Philip must have two different experts, but on the other hand it seems like strange a pseudo-writer may not use any kind of content in the prior book he was trying to imitate. ” The evidence inside the book on its own would seem to clearly claim that Peter was the author. The reception of the early house of worship leaders of two Peter or perhaps the lack thereof is seen as a contrary. On one hand the book of two Peter is mentioned hardly any in the historical writings in the church frontrunners. On the contrary, those self same leaders would not lump the book of 2 Peter in to the category of the rejected books.
Few in the event that any of these males make a clear statement of denial of Peter since the author, but many did solid doubts about this. Some of the first remaining paperwork that consider 2 Peter, have shown proof that a controversy over their authorship was present in the church. “One such record written by Origen in the third century is regarded as the first to clearly mention a couple of Peter simply by name. ” This point out by Comienzo may be the initially documented mention of the 2 Peter, but many students believe you will discover other articles made by the first church dads which built allusions for the book.
Another leader, Jerome, mentioned questions surrounding the authenticity of 2 Peter, nevertheless never figured Peter would not write this letter. A solid fact to support the Petrine authorship is definitely the overwhelming vast majority the chapel fathers tend not to argue against the epistle. “2 Peter was never rejected as dubious nor was it caused by anyone other than Peter. In support for Petrine authorship, 2 Philip enjoys vast inclusion about what is arguably the strongest early on Papyrus, which has been thought to be as soon as the 3rd Century. Due to the support by the chapel fathers plus the lack of competitors to the book, 2 Peter is considered to have unofficially gained canonization as early as the mid-second 100 years. Critics of Petrine authorship are speedy to point out variations in the types of the two ebooks of Philip. They feel that the two epistles could not quite possibly have been written by the same guy. Upon study of the two literature, there are obvious differences between your two words. “The vocabulary of 1 Peter has just 153 terms in common with 2 Peter while 543 are exceptional to 1 Peter and 399 unique to 2 Peter. The book of 2 Philip also has much fewer participles than does first Philip and the ones in 2 Philip are often repeated. “One prevalent example given by critics is a use of apokaluyi” in one particular Peter and parousiva in 2 Philip to refer for the Lord’s approaching. ” This is simply not a practice that is exclusive to these two letters. Most of the works of Paul have unique dialect to the particular letter through which it was used. Paul also choose the same terms while Peter employed for the Second Approaching and picked these phrases when publishing 1 Corinthians and two Thessalonians.
The challenge with the discussion for similarity between the two epistles appears to be that the experts almost anticipate Peter’s second epistle being simply a rehash of the same material as was seen in the first. There may be an uncommon demand for terminology and themes that match the initial work, however the critics appear to forget the causes of the producing of each notification. Each letter was written to address a different sort of set of conditions and there is a unique goal to each epistle. The critics can point to stylistic variations in the books, but this lack of likeness can be described.
The more open-handed leaning thinkers also indicate the differences inside the theology and doctrinal themes of the books as cause to Petrine authorship. The purpose of 1 Philip can be summed up as challenging to the believers to endure suffering and live o lives. a couple of Peter on the other hand seems to consist of mostly solid warnings resistant to the false instructors of the day as well as a final message to the believers before the death of Philip. This criticism seems to ignore the fact that Philip felt the necessity to address issues that were pressing at the time of his writing.
Distinctions should be expected if the author is definitely dealing with distinct problems, as was the circumstance with Peter. The assumption that an author must deal with the same subject areas in both equally letters can be unrealistic and uncommon. Many if not every of Paul’s letters deal with issues that had been unique for the area to which Paul dispatched the page. It can be figured Peter warrants the same thought as Paul in this subject. Although there are many differences between the two letters of Philip many commonalities also are present etween all of them. The critics point to excessive repetitive term in a couple of Peter, yet 1 Philip can also be seen as a repetition of words. Bigg says, “The habit of verbal replication is therefore quite because strongly noticeable in the Initially Epistle because the Second. You will find similarities of thought with out document in the New Testament is so just like 1 Peter as a couple of Peter. ” Upon review of both words, there will seem to be enough commonality involving the two catalogs of Peter to conclude the same man wrote the two books.
As there is tiny evidence to dispute against Apostle Peter as the author the first publication of Philip, the conclusion can be reached that this individual also had written the second. One of the more common practices among the freelance writers of the Fresh Testament was to have a scribe or someone who could write all their words to get him. Longenecker states in his work, “The Greek papyri, therefore , show quite clearly that an amanuensis was regularly, if not commonly, used in the writing of personal words during the time approximating the structure of the NT epistles. ” Sometimes this is done to help the writer use better Traditional and make his work more understandable.
Men like Peter, who had been not informed in the same manner because the upper school, would need assistance in making all their writing more professional and acceptable towards the educated category. “One credible explanation for the differences among 1 Philip and two Peter is the fact Peter used an sales agent to do you see, the writing of 1 Peter with Peter looking at and granting the final merchandise. ” This kind of seems to be the clear technique in which the first epistle of Peter was written. you Peter your five: 12 says, “Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I consider him), I’ve written for you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this may be the true grace of Goodness.
Stand firm in it! ” A logical conclusion to explain the differences between the two letter of Peter is the fact he published 2 Philip himself and he had someone write his words pertaining to him in his first page. Peter received the ideas for the two letters from the Holy Soul, but the ways of recording each of the books had been unique. The best argument intended for Peter being the author from the second epistle is the fact the fact that letter was eventually recognized as in to the New Testament Canon.
You should know for its acknowledgement would have to become the supposition that the book was written by a man in the standing in the church like the Apostle Peter. “Although it could be pseudonymous albhabets like “The Gospel of Peter”, “The Apocalypses of Peter”, “The letter of Peter to James”, none of them of these performs was acknowledged into the rule because they hadn’t God’s inspiration. ” Second Philip had received acceptance in the Canon by the time of Cyril of Jerusalem. The issue of the canonicity was settled by the acceptance with the church frontrunners such as Cyril, Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome.
These church leaders, who had been not very easily swayed to allow books in the Canon, acknowledged 2 Peter to be Scripture because of the overwhelming internal and external facts. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PETER SINCE AUTHOR OF SECOND PETER Although there seems to be an abundance of data to support the concept Peter composed the second epistle of Peter, many Christian scholars and thinkers don’t agree with this assumption. The number of evidence to disprove Petrine authorship seems to be as wonderful and some could argue more that the facts to support his authorship.
Problems about the date, design for writing, having less historical promises, the brevity of the publication, the language utilized by the author, as well as the similarities to Jude are cited since reasons to low cost the possibility of the disciple called Simon Philip being the writer. At one justification in the history in the church, the main school of thought was that 2 Philip was a good example of pseudepigraphal literature and therefore was not the work of the Apostle. There may be little doubt that a certain answer for the authorship on this book will not be obtained right up until all questions will be answered simply by God in eternity.
The book of two Peter was and is even now considered by many people to be pseudepigraphal in mother nature and was not written by Peter. Ksemann claims that “2 Peter is probably the most doubtful writing in the New Legs. ” Other folks went in terms of to conclude that virtually no 1 believes that 2 Philip was written by the disciple and good friend of Christ named Peter. These men might argue rather that someone else wrote the letter and used the name of Peter to provide legitimacy to it. Pseudonymous works happen to be defined as “the practice of writing a literary operate under the pretence that another individual, usually an individual more renowned, wrote that. 2 Philip is one among only a few catalogs that were offender of being pseudonymous that made it the overview of the canonical counsels and ultimately it was acknowledged by the chapel fathers. The looming questions over the authorship of 2 Peter has led to the final outcome by most important scholars that the book has to be labeled as pseudepigraphal literature. The difficulties come from individuals who are not happy to accept the first verse of 2 Peter and the other internal evidence as satisfactory for proving that Peter was the author.
These college students, feel the data to support Petrine authorship is definitely weak and really should not be accepted with no questions and a thorough assessment. One serious problem is that the features of the notification seem to provide evidence of a time later than Peter’s life time. In a couple of Peter a few: 4, the writer used the phrase, “Ever since each of our fathers passed away. ” This kind of verse generally seems to make a reference the first era of Christians, which would seem strange received from Peter as he too was part of this kind of group.
One more instance is definitely 2 Philip 3: 15 which states, “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, in the same way our special brother Paul also wrote you with all the wisdom that God provided him. ” The author seemed to be looking again at the characters of Paul as works already finish and proven. Most of Paul’s works were not even known about right up until well after the death of Peter. The interior evidence in 2 Peter seems to offer as many inquiries about the authorship from the book mainly because it does answers. The possibility of a pseudonymous writer is high due to these facts.
One of the convincing quarrels against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is a thorough study of the Ancient greek language of the epistle. Peter was described as a Galilean angler in the gospels and this individual and his siblings were more than likely worked for a fishing business owned by simply his friends and family. According to Dr . Leo Percer, “Peter was not uneducated, as he almost certainly attended universities that were taught by the Pharisees to help him learn the Law of Moses. He was not really however well-informed to the extent that we would have been experienced in writing Ancient greek. ” A large number of scholars look to the description of Peter in the book of Acts as proof of his lack of education.
Works 4: 13 states, “Now when they observed the boldness of Philip and John, and perceived that they had been unlearned and ignorant males, they marveled, and they required knowledge of these people that they had been with Christ. ” The Greek of 2 Peter definitely seems to be much less formal and unstructured and it is very different from the Ancient greek language of 1 Peter. The ability to consider that the two letters had been written by a similar hand is incredibly difficult to demonstrate. The Traditional of 1 Peter and the Ancient greek language of 2 Peter is quite distinct and contain words and phrasing that make it difficult to reconcile the differences between the two ebooks.
Two main issues result from the Ancient greek of 2 Philip and help support the idea that Claire Peter had not been the author of second Philip. The first is the straightforward fact that the majority of scholars acknowledge that Peter did write the first publication attributed to him, which makes the truth against his authorship from the second. The second reason is the special language that is used by the author. The fact remains it is not likely that a Galilean fisherman might use the language in this book. “The author of 2 Philip seems to be pretentious and to be able to prove that this individual has a knowledge of the Greek language through the use of such flowery words. Philip was considered the leader from the early house of worship, which would give him simply no reason to appreciate the need to publish in a way to provide himself anymore credibility than he already possessed. One particular critic do this statement “this letter betrays an man-made dialect of high-sounding words learnt via rhetoricians and books this kind of would not fit well with Peter’s modus operandi (of heavy dependence on crafted sources for his composition) and with the psychological probability of just one attempting to publish in a second language. These objects do present problems for anyone trying to show Peter because the author of 2 Peter. A much more problematic argument against the authorship of Philip for this short epistle is apparent commonalities between 2 Peter and Jude. The books discuss a common meaning and one common theme. In addition, it appears that the books share at least 17 prevalent passages and parallels to each other. One example is definitely 2 Philip 1: doze and Jude 5. 2 Peter you: 12 says, “Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these points, even though you have found that them, and get established inside the truth which is present with you. The parallel verse in Jude five says “Now I wish to remind you, though you know all things once for all which the Lord, after saving a woman out of the area of Egypt, subsequently demolished those who did not believe. ” Just in these two verses alone you will find seven shared words and a few common keyword phrases. Most of the similarities in these two books take place in chapter two and three of 2 Peter and can be found throughout the a single chapter of Jude. This commonality between two words presents challenges in trying to establish Petrine authorship.
One other issue to get answered may be the date of Jude and 2 Philip and the chronology of the two letters. “If Jude was written following Peter’s life span (as many scholars assume), then in the event 2 Philip uses Jude, it can not be by Philip. ” There is certainly little evidence for a late date of Jude, yet there seems to a great deal of evidence for 2 Peter having a overdue date. The date many scholars accept to for Jude is around sixty four AD and even conservative thinkers would put the earliest date for a couple of Peter for somewhere around 65 AD.
This kind of dating will lead to the possible summary that if perhaps Peter was written after Jude very much of 2 Philip was replicated from Jude. The a comparison of the books also helps the idea of two Peter getting written at a much after date. In the future for Philip would allow for the writer of the publication to use Jude as a origin and might help to clarify the many similarities. No matter which book was drafted first, there will be clarity that the books share from one another. One final, and maybe much less convincing, argument is that the overwhelming opinion of Biblical college students is that Peter was not the writer of this notice.
One scholar writes, “the issue of authorship is already settled, in least in a negative way: the apostle Peter did not write this letter and that the vast bulk of NT college students adopt this perspective with little discussion. ” Other guys such as Stephen Harris and Werner Kummel agree with this position and move as far as to express that “virtually no specialists defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Philip. ” Possibly leading old fashioned such as Carson and Moo would agree that there is little popular support to back again Petrine authorship, but they continue to hold towards the view that Peter had written both books.
The evangelicals and old fashioned remind the liberals with the early popularity of 2 Philip into the several, but the liberals feel this kind of decision was made before enough scrutiny of the book was performed. “Nearly 2/3 of Bible experts say that Philip did not publish 2 Peter. ” REALIZATION The evidence intended for or against Petrine authorship of 2 Philip is in no chance strong enough reconcile the issue within a conclusive method. For each reason for support of Peter there exists an equally convincing argument against him. This argument is certainly not new, as it has been taking place for near to 2, 500 years.
At times over that history, the issue seemed to be settled for Philip, but it was a short lived victory as the authorship in the book has become an ongoing issue for the church. Guys from the time of Peter so far have searched a conclusive answer, however the answer has always been illusive. All the arguments created by those who support Peter since the author includes a counter argument against it. “The exterior evidence, whilst proving authenticity neither disproves it, pertaining to the evidence gives twenty-two conceivable usages of two Peter. ” Those who argue for Philip point to the interior evidence, and the personal allusions to the your life of Philip.
These confusion such as the retelling of the �volution and the battling of Christ are authored by the author to ascertain his identification as the Apostle Philip. The other side will argue that a pseudo-author wrote in these confusion to try to set up his are a book of an Apostle. A great examination of the difficulties regarding the record, style, and the doctrine of 2 Philip have been attemptedto be used against Peter, nevertheless on the contrary, are often used to support it. Many of the complications the experts have with these issues can be answered by the fact that Peter likely used an sales agent to help compose his publication.
Those who argue with Philip as the writer of two Peter will offer pseudonymity as the answer to the problem of authorship. The issue with this stand has to be that “at the time of 2 Peter’s canonization, the practice of pseudonymity was scorned together not one sort of New Legs usage, while the canonical catalogs were only admitted after careful scrutiny of genuineness. ” As 2 Peter was accepted into the Cannon, the supposition of delete word a pseudo-author is clarified. Point by point each argument intended for Petrine authorship can be disputed, but each one against his authorship can also be ripped down.
PERSONAL CONCLUSION After examining all of the leading quarrels both for and against Peter, I’ve come for the conclusion that Peter performed in fact write the book of two Peter. The situation for me isn’t very style and also the quality with the Greek utilized by the author, it is in a personal belief that the Bible may be the inerrant Phrase of Our god. 2 Philip 2: 1 clearly determines Peter while the author in the epistle, which ends the debate to me. As I reviewed evidence against Petrine authorship, I was always drawn back to the fact the fact that Bible says Peter had written the book.
As Payne says in his book, “How can one agree to the verbal, plenary inspiration—which would require Petrine authorship at verse one—and still call a couple of Peter non-canonical? ” a couple of Peter was accepted, even though it was under a cloud of suspicion, into the New Testament Cannon, which qualifies it as the inerrant Expression of The almighty. If I believe that the Scriptures is never incorrect, then 2 Peter need to have been authored by the Apostle named Bob Peter. The question of authorship for me is usually answered in 10 basic words, “Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. ” Bibliography Green, Michael. Philip & Jude: an Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, ELLE: Wm. N. Eerdmans Submitting Company, 3 years ago. Green, Christopher & Lucas, Dick. The Message of two Peter & Jude: the Promise of His Approaching. Leicester, England.: IVP Educational, 2004. Eusebius. The History from the Church from Christ to Constantine. Nyc: Penguin Classics, 1990. Gilmour, Michael L. “Reflections For the Authorship of 2 Peter. ” Evangelical Quarterly 73, no . 4 (Oct. – Dec. 2001): 291-309. Lillie, David. Lectures For the First and Second Epistles of Peter. Reprint Edition ed. Minneapolis, MN: Klock & Klock Christian Club, 1978.
Mayor, Joseph N. The Epistle of St . Jude plus the Second Epistle of St . Peter: Traditional Text with Introduction Records and Feedback. Grand Rapids: Baker, lates 1970s. Moo, Douglas J. a couple of Peter, and Jude: coming from Biblical Text, to Modern-day Life. Grand Rapids, Meine person.: Zondervan, 97. Pfeiffer, Robert Henry. History of New Legs Times,: with an Introduction towards the Apocrypha. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 72. Walls, David. Holman New Testament Commentary , one particular & 2 Peter, one particular 2 & 3 John and Jude. niv based ed. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 99. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 ]. Michael jordan Gilmour, “Reflections On the Authorship of 2 Philip, ” Evangelical Quarterly, April. , December. 2001, 294. [ 2 ]. Ibid, 296. [ 3 ]. Eusebius, The of the House of worship from Christ to Constantine (New You are able to: Penguin Classics, 1990), 107. [ 4 ]. Michael Gilmour, 297. [ 5 ]. Ibid, 297. [ 6 ]. Robert Henry Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Instances,: with an Introduction to the Apocrypha. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1972. 490. [ 7 ]. Ibid, 491. [ 8 ]. Dick Lucas , Christopher Green, The Message of 2 Peter , Jude: the Promise of His Approaching (Leicester, Great britain. IVP Educational, 2004), 242. [ 9 ]. Michael Gilmour, 300. [ twelve ]. Dick Lucas and Christopher Green, 243. [ doze ]. two Peter 2: 1, (NASB). [ 15 ]. MacArthur [ of sixteen ]. Guthrie, New Legs Introduction, s. 832. [ 17 ]. Ibid, 836. [ 18 ]. Great, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 227. [ 20 ]. Bigg, Essential and Exegetical Commentary, s. 239. [ twenty-one ]. one particular Peter 5: 12, (NASB). [ 23 ]. Ernst Ksemann, “An Apologia for Old fashioned Christian Eschatology, ” Essays on Fresh Testament Designs, Studies in Biblical Theology, 42, 1964, p. 169 [ 25 ]. 2 Peter 3: 5 [ 26 ]. 2 Peter3: 15, NIV [ 27 ].
Dr . Leo Percer, notes from a class. [ 28 ]. Acts 5: 13, (KJV). [ 30 ]. W. F. Howard, A Grammar with the Greek Fresh Testament, a couple of: 28. [ 23 ]. 2 Peter 1: 12, (NASB). [ 32 ]. Jude a few, (NASB) [ 34 ]. Daniel B. Wallace, ed., Revisiting the Data corruption of the Fresh Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Facts (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic , Professional, 2011), pageNr. [ 35 ]. Harris, Stephen M.. Understanding the Holy bible: a reader’s introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. site 354. [ 39 ]. Inerrancy [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980], 106). [ 40 ]. 2 Peter 1: one particular
