Came across this statement by Peter H. Davids in his 2 Peter commentary in the new Pillar series, writing about Richard Bauckham's understanding of 2 Peter as a testament. I cannot think of any basis on which to disagree with Davids:
"While Bauckham believes that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical, he also believes that it is written in a testamental form and that the genre would have been recognized by any contemporary reader as being written in the spirit of Peter rather than having been written by Peter. Thus, he argues, the document was neither intended to deceive nor did it in fact deceive its first readers. They would have thought of it as being about Peter rather than by Peter. Bauckham may be right or wrong on this, but the position he holds is fully compatible with evangelical affirmations about the trustworthiness of the canonical Scriptures in all that they truly affirm (versus what we may misread them as affirming)" (130 n.20).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That pseudegraphical works reflect an authors "school", if I may use the term, is a perfectly sensible notion.
In the same way one might say that Rommel captured Tobruk. Of course no single soldier took Tobruk. But the victory is ascribed to the general, even when many others did his job.
Ken, noted the same statement by Davids. In addition, Tom Schreiner says something similar about Bauckham in his 2 Peter, Jude commentary in the NAC!
That's significant! I don't know Davids but have really appreciated what I know of his work. He really seems to model the kind of attempt at objectivity I feel is so often lacking. I think you do too. There is just something different about British/Canadian/Australian evangelicalism, it seems, that is just a little more fair minded than the American scene, IMHO.
Post a Comment