MrMacSon wrote:Yes, it is weird on a few fronts. It makes one wonder if the 'other' or 'another place' was a place here on earth.
I will float a prosaic interpretation (boo! hiss!):
This (apparent) expression that could show uncertainty about where Peter ends up... could cohere with the claim in Luke 1:1-4 to try to investigate accurately? This kind of thing is not uncommon in historical writing, where the writer attempts to be precise, in the absence of better information, and reserved about information that has not been received from somewhere (or if information available conflicts).
(Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
MrMacSon wrote:Yes, it is weird on a few fronts. It makes one wonder if the 'other' or 'another place' was a place here on earth.
I will float a prosaic interpretation (boo! hiss!):
This (apparent) expression that could show uncertainty about where Peter ends up... could cohere with the claim in Luke 1:1-4 to try to investigate accurately? This kind of thing is not uncommon in historical writing, where the writer attempts to be precise, in the absence of better information, and reserved about information that has not been received from somewhere (or if information available conflicts).
(Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...)
Perhaps, along similar lines, the author did not know why his/her available information about Peter suddenly went dry, and assumed that it must have been because he got out of town after his brush with Herod.
MrMacSon wrote:Yes, it is weird on a few fronts. It makes one wonder if the 'other' or 'another place' was a place here on earth.
I will float a prosaic interpretation (boo! hiss!):
This (apparent) expression that could show uncertainty about where Peter ends up... could cohere with the claim in Luke 1:1-4 to try to investigate accurately?
Yes, Sydney Anglican Archbishop Davies alludes to Bishop Barnett alluding to that -
... the paradox of Peter, as Barnett describes it, is that, after such a triumphant contribution to the opening pages of Luke’s second account to Theophilus, Peter seems to disappear from view after the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15)
Luke 1:1-4 (ESV)
1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.
Second Peter quotes from and adapts Jude extensively,[2] identifies Jesus with God, and addresses a threatening heresy which had arisen because the anticipated Second Coming of Christ had not yet occurred. It is the only New Testament book to treat other New Testament writings as scripture.
Composition
The date of composition has proven to be very difficult to determine. Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from AD 60 to 160. Many believe that it was written between 65-68 A.D. because Peter was martyred around 68 A.D. by Nero, and also because Peter references his approaching death in 2 Peter 1:14 ("since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me").
Chester & Martin say scholars consider the epistle to be written between c AD 100–150[8] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris.[9] For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between AD 80–90 as most probable.[10] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[11] Zahn,[12] Spitta,[13] Bigg,[14] and Green.[15] Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60–130 CE, with some reason to favour 80–90 CE."[16]
The Memoirs have unfortunately disappeared, but Eusebius made a good deal of use of Hegesippus, especially valuing the pieces of Christian Palestinian tradition that he supplied. ... his most notable use of Hegesippus being the latter's account of the life and martyrdom of Jesus' brother James, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and then stoned and beaten to death by the Jews (Church History ii. 23. 3-18). Of almost as much interest is his story of Domitian and the grandsons of Jesus' brother Jude. He says that the emperor was seeking out any descendants of David, as possible leaders of insurrection, and his agent found two grandsons of Jude who were farmers, cultivating a little farm of thirty-nine acres. They showed their toilworn hands, and were so manifestly harmless peasants that the emperor let them go (Church History iii. 20. 1-8). So, however careless Hegesippus was, his book would be of great interest to students of primitive be found.
Finally, there seems to be a literary relationship of II Peter with the Apocalypse of Peter. Loisy judged II Peter to be dependent upon the Apocalypse, while some scholars today would judge the dependence to be in the reverse direction.
