Distinctive Features of 2 Peter

     As 1 Peter deals with problems from outside the church (sufferings), 2 Peter deals with problems from within the church (false teachers). In 2 Peter familiarity is shown with the writings of Paul, which are further acknowledged among “the rest of scriptures” (3:15-16).¹ Because of the close association that Silvanus and Mark had with both Peter and Paul (Col. 4:10; 1 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12, 13), one or both of these coworkers may have been responsible for sharing Paul’s writings with Peter. Second Peter also shares a literary affinity with the epistle of Jude (see below), particularly 2 Pet. 2:1-18; 3:1-3 and Jude 4-18.

Date, Provenance, and Destination

     Second Peter was obviously written after 1 Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 3:1), and in 2 Peter the apostle is preparing to die a martyr’s death (1:13-15). According to early tradition, Peter was executed in Rome during the reign of Nero (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.1-8). Nero’s persecution began around the summer of 64 and ended by the summer of 68. It is reasonable to date 2 Peter ca. 64-65. Those who wish to date the epistle much later, particularly on into the 2nd century (e.g. R. E. Brown, Introduction to the NT 767) and as late as the 120s or 130s (L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 424-25), must account for the fact that Psa. 90:4 is quoted in 2 Pet. 3:8 without a hint of chiliastic (literal 1000-year reign of Christ) interpretation that was prevalent and wide-spread in the 2nd century (cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 81; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.28.3, 23.2; Epistle of Barnabas 15.4). 

     Second Peter is simply addressed to “those having obtained an equally valuable faith with ours through [the] righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1). Since reference is made to this being the second letter written “to you” (3:1), evidently the audience of 2 Peter is the same as the audience of 1 Peter. The document would then be intended for the “chosen sojourners of [the] dispersion” in the regions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (see Distinctive Features of 1 Peter).

Literary Affinity with Jude

     A number of striking parallels are evident between 2 Peter and Jude, with nineteen of the verses in 2 Peter at least partially replicated in the twenty-five verses of Jude. The five possible explanations for this phenomenon are as follows:

Ø Each author wrote independently, and the similarities are either coincidental or attributable to the Holy Spirit.²

Ø Both documents came from the same author, although each is attributed to someone different.³

Ø Both used a common written source,⁴ which cannot be verified since the hypothetical source is not available.

Ø Peter borrowed from Jude, which appears to be the position held by most modern scholars.⁵

Ø Jude borrowed from Peter, which is the position advocated by this author.⁶

     It seems more likely that Jude borrowed from 2 Peter. Jude 17-18 appears to be a quote from 2 Peter 3:1-3 rather than vice versa. The ESV places the warning of Jude 18 in quotation marks and cites 2 Peter 3:2 in the margin. Moreover, the predictive nature of the future tense in 2 Peter 2:1-3 and 3:3 (i.e., false teachers are coming), as compared to the apparent fulfillment implied by the present tense of Jude 4, 16-19 (i.e., false teachers have come), supports the priority of 2 Peter.⁷

Conclusion

     The message of the relatively brief three-chapter epistle of 2 Peter has aided God’s people through the centuries with (a) reminders of the heavenly provision of grace, peace, and knowledge (1:1-4), (b) exhortations for spiritual growth (1:5-11), (c) confirming eyewitness testimony and inspiration of scripture (1:12-21), (d) warnings of false teachers and apostasy (2:1-22), (e) anticipating the day of the Lord (3:1-13), and (f) calling for spiritual maturation and faithfulness (3:14-18).  

     “But grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; to him [be] the glory both now and forever. Amen” (2 Pet. 3:18).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, unless noted otherwise. The reference to “some things” in Paul’s letters that are “hard to understand” (v. 16) does not necessarily mean that the writings are unclear or overly complicated; rather the subject matter itself is sometimes complex.

     ² A. Barnes says concerning this view, “no one can deny that this is possible, but is by no means probable. No other instance of the kind occurs in the Bible …” (Notes 1512).

     ³ John A. T. Robinson suggests that Jude was Peter’s amanuensis in the writing of 2 Peter before he wrote his own epistle (Redating the NT 193-99).

     ⁴ See M. Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter 50-55.

     ⁵ See W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the NT 430-31; R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter 141-43; D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 656-57; D. F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style 163-87. Note that many advocates of the priority of Jude build their case on the assumption that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical. 

     ⁶ See also C. Bigg, Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude 216-24; D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 923-24; G. N. Woods, Epistles of Peter, John and Jude 377-78. This view certainly does not discount the role of divine inspiration (see Biblical Inspiration in Perspective).

     ⁷ See The NT Epistle of Judas.

Related Posts: Authorship of 2 Peter, Distinctive Features of 1 Peter

Image credit: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2016/5/31/it-would-have-been-better-2-peter-210b-22.html

The Authorship of Second Peter

     The NT document historically known as 2 Peter claims to be from “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1), and the author goes on to acknowledge this as the “second letter I am writing to you” (3:1).¹ As would be expected, there are multiple allusions in 2 Peter to events recorded in the Gospels (e.g. 1:14, 16-18). Nevertheless, many modern-day scholars deny that the document was actually written by the apostle Peter.² Here are the main reasons:

1. In the opening address a number of manuscripts read Sumeōn (“Simeon”), the Hebraic form of the Greek Simōn (“Simon”), which indicates the work of a pseudepigraphical writer.

2. A comparison of 1 Peter and 2 Peter shows that the same author did not write both books: (a) The writing styles are different, with 2 Peter being more solemn, repetitive, and cumbersome than 1 Peter, and about 60% of the vocabulary of 2 Peter is not found in 1 Peter. (b) There are several OT quotations in 1 Peter but practically none in 2 Peter. (c) In reference to the Lord’s return, the word apokalupsis (“revelation”) is used in 1 Peter, whereas parousia (“appearance”) is used in 2 Peter.

3. Second Peter seems to have been written after the apostolic generation had died (cf. 3:4) and expectations of the Lord’s imminent return had been disappointed (3:7-15).

4. The writer’s knowledge of a collection of Paul’s letters, particularly viewed in the context of “scripture” (3:15-16), presupposes a much later date.

5. If 2 Peter uses Jude as a source (as is commonly believed by a number of critical scholars) and if Jude was not written until the end of the 1st century, then 2 Peter must have been composed several decades after the apostle Peter’s death.

6. No NT book is as weakly confirmed among the patristic writers or was as slowly accepted into the NT canon as 2 Peter.

Responses to these objections

1. In the opening verse of 2 Peter there is textual variation among extant manuscripts between the Hebraic Sumeōn and the Greek Simōn; the “weight of external support for the two readings is almost equally divided” (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 629). The former has been adopted by the NRSV, ESV and NEB, whereas the latter by the ASV, NASB, N/KJV, NIV, and RSV. If Sumeōn is original, it is more likely to have come from Peter himself rather than someone pretending to be the apostle (cf. Acts 15:14). A forger would have surely copied the more common form instead of using such an obscure form.

2. Any variations in style and vocabulary can easily be explained by the unique circumstances under which each document was written, the differences in subject matter, and the contribution of Silvanus to the first letter (1 Pet. 5:12) and his absence from the second.³ Moreover, any attempt to conclusively evaluate a hypothetical “Petrine style” or “Petrine vocabulary” is precluded by the brevity of these writings. While there are a number of OT allusions in 2 Peter (cf. 2:1, 4-8, 15-16; 3:2, 4-6, 9-13) and at least two OT quotations (2:22: 3:8), the theme of suffering in 1 Peter apparently called for more scripture references than the theme of false teachers in 2 Peter. Since the apostle Paul employs both apokalupsis and parousia in reference to the Lord’s return in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians,⁴ what would be so unusual about the apostle Peter using both words on different occasions?

3. The allusion to hoi pateres (“the fathers”) in 3:4 does not necessarily refer to first-generation Christian patriarchs (which is nowhere else used as such) but rather to Jewish patriarchs. Further, the teaching of the Lord’s return in 2 Peter is not inherently suggestive of a much later date and is in fact comparable to 1-2 Thessalonians.

4. If Paul kept copies of his letters (which was customary among contemporary authors) and/or these copies were included among the “scrolls” and “parchments” that Timothy was requested to bring to Rome (2 Tim. 4:13), the entire collection could have easily been shared with Peter while the two apostles were in Rome, especially since Mark and Silvanus were colleagues of both of them (2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:12-13). Nonetheless, Peter’s reference to Paul’s “letters” does not in itself imply the entire corpus (though historically possible), and recognition of these writings as “scripture” does not pose a problem for those who accept the self-claims of divine inspiration (e.g. 1 Cor. 2:7-13; 14:37; Eph. 3:1-5). 

5. Questioning 2 Peter because of its literary affinity with Jude is based on the twofold assumption of Jude’s priority and Jude’s late date, neither of which is proven or universally conceded (see The Epistle of Judas).

6. The apparently weak support of 2 Peter in the early church is a fair concern, although M. Green also notes that “no excluded book has nearly such weight of backing as 2 Peter” (The Second Epistle of Peter 13). The weakness of attestation should not be exaggerated, since several 2nd-century writings seem to betray an influence from 2 Peter (cf. R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter 162), and Eusebius, while acknowledging its disputed status, affirms its usefulness in study along with tō allōn graphōn (“the other scriptures”) (Eccl. Hist. 3.3.1). 

     While its absence from the Muratorian canon may very well be attributable to the fragmentary state of the text, D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo sensibly observe: “there is a good explanation for the neglect of 2 Peter. So many Petrine forgeries were in existence that the Fathers moved very cautiously in separating out 2 Peter from these other spurious books…. 2 Peter is not mentioned often by the fathers of the church—probably because it is short and so focused on false teaching that it makes little significant theological contribution” (An Introduction to the NT 662, 664).

     There are no close parallels to 2 Peter among the pseudepigraphical writings, and the 2nd century witnessed a whole body of pseudepigraphical literature attributed to Peter that was rejected from the NT canon.⁵

Conclusion:

     No argument against the Peterine authorship of 2 Peter can decisively stand on its own. Even collectively, when evaluated in light of all the potential variables and available evidence, a convincing case is not made. Unless one is predisposed to doubting the integrity of NT writings, there is no legitimate reason to deny 2 Peter’s self-claim of authorship.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² R. E. Brown contends that 2 Peter is a “pseudonymous work” that was in all likelihood “chronologically the last NT book to be written …. Indeed, the pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work” (An Introduction to the NT 761, cf. 766-68); see also B. D. Ehrman, The NT: A Historical Introduction 421-24; R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 504-505. For a good refutation of the arguments, see D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 828-48.

     ³ Jerome (340-420) noted: “the two epistles, which circulate as Peter's, are also different in style among themselves and in character, and in word structure; from which we understand that he used different interpreters as necessary” (Ad Hedibiam 120).

     ⁴ On the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, see The Thessalonian Letters, and Biblical Authorship Part 3 and Part 4.

     ⁵ E.g., Acts of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, the Gnostic Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (see C. R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the NT 511).

Related Posts: Authorship of Ephesians, Authorship of 1 Peter

Image credit: https://www.wacriswell.com/sermons/1960/the-sure-word-of-god/

The Authorship of First Peter

     The NT document historically known as 1 Peter claims to be from “Peter an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1).¹ The author writes authoritatively (1:13-25; 2:1-2, 13, etc.), as an eyewitness of Christ’s sufferings (5:1), with parallels between 1 Peter and Peter’s speeches recorded in Acts: (a) Acts 10:34 and 1 Pet. 1:17; (b) Acts 2:32-36; 10:40, 41 and 1 Peter 1:21; (c) Acts 4:10, 11 and 1 Pet. 2:7, 8. First Peter was unanimously recognized in the early church as an authentic document from the apostle Peter.² 

     Nevertheless, a number of modern scholars reject Simon Peter as the author of this NT epistle.³ Here are the main objections:

1. The excellent quality of Greek and the use of the LXX seem at variance with the alleged authorship of a Galilean Jewish fisherman.

2. The close relationship between 1 Peter and the Pauline writings could suggest literary dependence, which is inconsistent with the apparent hostility between the two apostles (cf. Gal. 2:7-14).

3. The “fiery ordeal” (4:12) suggests a universal imperial persecution, which would not fit into the lifetime of the apostle Peter.

4. The church organization implied in 5:1-4, with an established eldership, points to a much later period in the development of the Christian movement.

5. “Babylon” (5:13) as a metaphoric allusion to Rome arose in Jewish apocalyptic works only after the fall of Jerusalem (cf. 2 Baruch 11.1; 67.7; 4 Ezra 3.1-2, 28).

6. References to the life and ministry of Jesus are almost entirely absent from 1 Peter.

Responses to these objections

1. Notwithstanding the fact that Greek was widely used in 1st-century Palestine and most of the populace was bilingual,⁴ the secretarial assistance of Silvanus (5:12) sufficiently answers the criticism regarding how the document was composed (see below).

2. Both the presumed hostility between Paul and Peter and any alleged literary dependence have been greatly exaggerated. If the apostles were proclaiming the same message, we would expect to find a number of similarities between their writings. Furthermore, Paul and Peter shared some of the same coworkers (e.g. Silvanus, Mark), whose contribution and influence are often too easily overlooked.

3. Nothing in 1 Peter necessitates a universal imperial persecution but would include any “fiery ordeal” with which the readers were faced.

4. Organized congregational leadership was in place much earlier than many critical scholars wish to concede (cf. Acts 11:30; 14:23; 15:6; Phil. 1:1). Moreover, the various gifts the readers are admonished to utilize (1 Pet. 4:10-11) imply an earlier period.

5. While it is noteworthy that Jewish apocalyptic literature equates Rome with “Babylon” following Jerusalem’s destruction, this evidence does not consider the oral sentiments prior to the written accounts and represents a Jewish perspective but not necessarily that of suffering Christians under Nero (as in 1 Peter) and Domitian (as in Revelation). 

6. The author’s purpose was not to write a Gospel narrative about the life and ministry of Jesus but a letter of encouragement to suffering Christians.

Peter’s employment of an amanuensis

     In 1 Pet. 5:12 the statement is made, “Through Silvanus the faithful brother, as I regard [him], I have written to you briefly …” The question is whether egrapsa (aorist active indicative 1st person singular of graphō) indicates that Silvanus participated in writing the document or was simply its carrier. While some consider as a legitimate use of graphō the sense of to “bear” a letter,⁵ this is neither its primary meaning nor its most common usage (cf. Rom. 16:22). The verb graphō occurs in the NT 194 times, and in every instance it is used in the sense of “writing,” unless 1 Pet. 5:12 is the only exception.⁶ In reference to the letters Dionysius had been requested to write, the term egrapsa is used (Eusebius, Eccl Hist. 4:23.12), the exact form of the word found in 1 Pet. 5:12.

Conclusion

     When a NT document makes its own claim of authorship and is supported by ample internal and external evidence, a denial of that claim would require either irrefutable evidence to the contrary or a blind, anti-conservative or anti-biblical predisposition. Suffice it to say, the former is unavailable in the case of 1 Peter.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless noted otherwise, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The earliest apparent allusion to this epistle is in 2 Pet. 3:1, where the statement is made: “This now, beloved, I write a second epistle to you.” Not counting possible allusions in other writings (e.g. Clement of Rome, Epistle of Barnabas, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs), 1 Peter is quoted by Polycarp in his letter to the Philippians (1, 2, 5), Tertullian (Scorp. 6, 12), and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 3.11; Inst. 1.6), and is mentioned by name by Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2). Eusebius notes Papias’ use of it (Eccl. Hist. 3.39.17) and classified 1 Peter among the “undisputed” NT writings (Eccl. Hist. 3.3.1; 3.4.2).

     ³ R. E. Brown, Introduction to the NT 718-19; B. D. Ehrman, The NT: A Historical Introduction 400-401; R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 493-94; L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 272-74.

     ⁴ A. T. Robertson, Grammar 26-29; cf. D. A. Caron and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 240, 624, 644-45.

     ⁵ See H. Elliott, First Peter 872-73; P. J. Achtemeier, First Peter 7-9; W. A. Grudem, The First Epistle of Peter 23-24. The following examples are submitted in BAGD (167): IRo 10:1 [Ignatius to the Romans]; IPhld 11:2 [Ignatius to the Philadelphians]; ISm 12:1 [Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans]; Pol 14 [Polycarp to the Philippians]. However, J. B. Lightfoot, A. Roberts, and J. Donaldson translate all of these instances of graphō as “write” rather than “bear” (see Early Christian Writings). 

     ⁶ Some would point to Acts 15:23 as another exception (cf. BDAG 207; ESV, NASB, NIV, N/RSV), but the context does not demand a modification of the usual sense. It is true that the letter was sent with Judas-Barsabas and Silas (vv. 22, 27, 30-32), but someone had to write the letter on behalf of the group, and the most straightforward meaning of v. 23 is that these two men served as amanuenses (N.B. multiple letters would have been needed for the plurality of Gentile congregations). Even if 1 Pet. 5:12 is interpreted as Silvanus having merely been the letter-carrier, this does not rule out the probability that Peter used an amanuensis (which was the common practice of his day) nor does it discount Silvanus as both letter-carrier and amanuensis (cf. Acts 15:22-32).

Related Posts: Authorship of 2 Peter, Distinctive Features of 1 Peter

Image credit: https://thetheology.org/forums/1-peter/

The Aramaic Patronymic Bar-

     A patronymic is an identifying designation derived from the name of one's father or other male ancestor (e.g. Johnson = son of John). Corresponding to the Hebrew בֵּן (ben), the Aramaic בַּר (bar) is a patronymic prefix meaning “son of” (cf. Ezra 5:1, 2; 6:14; Dan. 3:25; 5:22; 7:13).¹ With reference to one’s paternity or other distinctive features, this prefix helped to differentiate among those who bore the same name in ancient Aramaic-speaking communities. For example, the name “Jesus” is the English transliteration of the Greek Iēsous, which is equivalent to the Hebrew Yehoshuah and its abbreviated form Yeshua (“Joshua”). Seeing that this was a fairly common name among first-century Palestinian Jews,² our Lord would have been known in his home community as bar Yosef or “son of Joseph” (cf. Luke 4:22; John 6:42).

Bar- as a Family Surname

     Bartholomew is listed among the 12 apostles in Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; and Luke 6:14 but is unnamed in John. While Bartholomew is paired with Philip in the Synoptic Gospels, John mentions Philip in association with Nathanael (1:43-49). Even though Nathanael is identified in the company of the apostles (John 21:2) and among the eyewitnesses of the risen Lord (John 21:3-14), he is unnamed in the Synoptics. Since the name Bartholomew is actually an Aramaic patronymic (bar Tôlmai = “son of Tolmai”) and would have normally been added to a given name, it stands to reason that the apostle known as Bartholomew was actually Nathanael bar Tolmai.³

     Two of the Lord’s original apostles shared the personal name Simon (Matt. 10:2, 4). To distinguish between them, Jesus not only gave one the nickname “Cephas” (Aramaic) or “Peter” (Greek) (Mark 3:16; John 1:42), he also used the patronymic bar Iōna (bar Jonah) in Matt. 16:17, meaning “son of Jonah.”⁴ The same designation would have also applied to Simon’s brother Andrew.

     Near the end of his earthly ministry the Lord encountered a blind beggar outside of Jericho called Bartimaeus (Mark 10:46), an appellation meaning “son of Timaeus.” We don’t know what this man’s given name was, as he was apparently more commonly known among the residents of Jericho (and/or Mark’s readers) in relation to his father’s name.

Bar- as an Ironic Play on Words

     Barabbas was the notorious criminal whose death sentence was repealed as the Lord Jesus took his place at Golgatha (Matt. 27:16-26; Mark 15:7-15; Luke 23:18; John 18:40). The name Barabbas is the Graecized form of the Aramaic bar abbâ, which is a combination of bar (“son of”) and abbâ (“father”), meaning “son of [the] father.” The irony is that Jesus was the legitimate Son of the heavenly Father (John 8:16-29), treated and executed as a criminal, whereas the infamous Barabbas was set free though he manifested a very different spiritual paternity (cf. John 8:44).⁵


     Bar-Jesus is the patronymic surname of Elymas, a Jewish false prophet and sorcerer mentioned in Acts 13:6-8. He opposed the preaching of Barnabas and Paul in Paphos on the island of Cyprus. As noted above, the Greek Iēsous (“Jesus”) is equivalent to the Hebrew Yeshua (“Joshua”) and was a common name among the Jews at the time, apparently worn by Elymas’ father. For Paul, however, this name had special significance,⁶ and instead of using it in reference to this deceitful antagonist, the apostle seems to make a play on words by addressing the sorcerer as “son of the devil” (v. 10).

Bar- as a Nickname with Special Meaning

     Barnabas is the nickname given by the apostles to Joseph (or Joses), a Levite-Jewish convert from Cyprus (Acts 4:36) and cousin of John Mark (Col. 4:10). This moniker is a combination of the Aramaic bar (“son of”) and naba (to “prophesy”). Since prophesying involved communicating “edification and exhortation and comfort to men” (1 Cor. 14:3), the Greek rendering of the name signified “son of encouragement” (Acts 4:36).⁷



     The designation Barsabbas is a patronymic description meaning “son of [the] sabbath,” perhaps indicative of the day of birth of the one to whom it was applied. In the Acts narrative two Christians shared this name, viz. Joseph Justus Barsabbas and Judas Barsabbas.

     Joseph Justus Barsabbas was a devoted follower of Jesus throughout the Lord’s entire earthly ministry and was an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ (Acts 1:15-23). He was assembled with around 120 fellow-believers in Jerusalem a few days before Pentecost, and he was one of two disciples considered to replace Judas Iscariot as an apostle but not the one chosen.

    Another follower of Jesus who wore this name was Judas Barsabbas. He was a leader in the Jerusalem church (Acts 15:22), a skilled writer (vv. 22-23),⁸ a prophet (v. 32), a teacher (vv. 27, 32), and an encourager (v. 32b). When the apostles and elders met in Jerusalem to discuss the circumcision controversy, reaching a consensus through the Holy Spirit’s guidance, the decision was put into writing, and it was Judas Barsabbas and Silas who penned the document and subsequently delivered it to Gentile Christians in Syria (Acts 15:22-32).

Conclusion

     The name a person wears is important, functioning to describe, distinguish and identify. And there is no greater honor than to be called the children of God (1 John 3:1) by wearing the name that is above all names (Phil. 2:9).⁹ May we live in a manner that is worthy of the precious name of our Lord Jesus Christ!

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ This Aramaic prefix is not part of the Hebrew names Barachel (Job 32:2), Barachiah (Zech. 1:1), Barak (Judg. 4:6), Bariah (1 Chron. 3:22), Barkos (Ezra 2:53), Baruch (Neh. 3:20; 11:5; Jer. 32:12), Barzillai (2 Sam. 17:27; 21:8; Ezra 2:61), Barachias/Berechiah (Matt. 23:35), or Barhumite (2 Sam. 23:31; cf. 1 Chron. 11:33).

     ² Cf. Acts 13:6; Col. 4:11; Heb. 4:8; Josephus, War 6.5.3. This name has been found by Israeli archaeologists no less than 71 times in ancient burial caves (see Ed Pilkington and Rory McCarthy, “Is this really the last resting place of Jesus…?” The Guardian [27-02-2007], <Link>).

     ³ See “Bartholomew,” <Link>.

     ⁴ An alternative reading in John 1:42 and 21:15-17 is [huios] Iōannou (“son of John”) (cf. B. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 172, 220). But remember that in Matt. 16:17 Jesus was originally speaking in Aramaic to fellow-Aramaic speakers, and Matthew was an Aramaic-speaking Jew writing to fellow-Aramaic-speaking Jews (see Matthew's Audience). In contrast, John was writing to Greek-speaking Gentiles (see John's Audience). Seeing that Aramaic expressions have been translated (or transliterated) into Greek by these different authors in different settings for different audiences, which in turn have been copied by hand plethoric times and then translated again into English, the difference in spelling of a couple of letters is hardly significant. See “Simon Peter,” <Link>. Further, there is only a two-letter difference in the Greek spelling of these two names. Matt. 16:17 is a Greek transliteration of a single Aramaic word. John 1:42 is a translation involving the three-word phrase ho huios Iōna OR ho huios Iōannou, while John 21:15-17 translates the repeated genitival Iōna OR Iōannou. Seeing that these expressions would have been passed down orally long before they were put into written form, slight variations of pronunciation would have led to natural variations in phonetic spelling. At the end of the day, the exact pronunciation or precise spelling of the name is not vital to understanding what the respective passages convey.    

     ⁵ See “Barabbas,” <Link>.

     ⁶ See Acts 9:20, 22; 13:23, 33; 15:26; 16:18, 31; 17:3, 7, 18; 18:5; 19:4, 5, 13; 20:21, 24, 35; 21:13; 25:19; 28:23, 31; Rom. 1:1, 3, 6, 8; et al.

     ⁷ See also Acts 9:27; 11:22-30; 12:25; 13:1-2, 7, 43, 46, 50; 14:12-20; 15:2, 12, 22, 25, 35-39; 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; 4:10.

     ⁸ The term graphō in Acts 15:23 literally means to “write.” See “Biblical Authorship 4,” <Link>.

     ⁹ Acts 2:38; 4:2, 10-12, 17-18; 5:28, 40, 41, 42; 8:5, 12, 35; 9:15, 27, 29; 10:43; 11:26; 26:28; 1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2; 3:11; Gal. 3:26-27; Eph. 1:20-21; Phil. 1:18; Col. 3:4; Heb. 1:1-4; Col. 3:11, 17; 1 Pet. 4:16; James 2:7.

Related Posts: Aramaic, The Son of Mary

Image credit: Photo of a 1st-century ossuary inscribed in Aramaic “James, son of Joseph [bar Yosef], brother of Jesus,” <http://hhenry47.home.insightbb.com/JamesOssuary.JPG>.