Alices Adventures in Wonderland Book Review

Alices Adventures in Wonderland is one of the most famous and enduring childrens classics. The novel is full of whimsical charm, and a feeling for the absurd that is unsurpassed. But, who was Lewis Carroll? Charles Dodgson Lewis Carroll (Charles Dodgson) was a mathematician and logician who lectured at Oxford University. He balanced both personas, as he used his study in the sciences to create his eminently strange books. Alices Adventures in Wonderland is a charming, light book, that reputedly pleased Queen Victoria. She asked to receive the authors next work and was swiftly sent a copy of An Elementary Treatment of Determinants. Synopsis The book begins with young Alice, bored, sitting by a river, reading a book with her sister. Then Alice catches sight of a small white figure, a rabbit dressed in a waistcoat and holding a pocket watch, murmuring to himself that he is late. She runs after the rabbit and follows it into a hole. After falling into the depths of the earth, she finds herself in a corridor full of doors. At the end of the corridor, there is a tiny door with a tiny key through which Alice can see a beautiful garden that she is desperate to enter. She then spots a bottle labeled Drink me (which she does) and begins to shrink until she is small enough to fit through the door. Unfortunately, she has left the key that fits the lock on a table, now well out of her reach. She then finds a cake labeled Eat me (which, again, she does), and is restored to her normal size. Disconcerted by this frustrating series of events, Alice begins to cry, and as she does, she shrinks and is washed away in her own tears. This strange beginning leads to a series of progressively ​curiouser and curiouser events, which see Alice babysit a pig, take part in a tea party that is held hostage by time (so never ends), and engage in a game of croquet in which flamingos are used as mallets and hedgehogs as balls. She meets some extravagant and incredible characters, from the Cheshire Cat to a caterpillar smoking a hookah and being decidedly contradictory. She also, famously, meets the Queen of Hearts who has a penchant for execution.​ The book reaches its climax in the trial of the Knave of Hearts, who is accused of stealing the Queens tarts. A good deal of nonsense evidence is given against the unfortunate man, and a letter is produced which only refers to events by pronouns (but which is supposedly damning evidence). Alice, who by now has grown to a great size, stands up for the Knave and the Queen, predictably, demands her execution. As she is fighting off the Queen’s card soldiers, Alice awakes, realizing she has been dreaming all along. Review Carrolls book is episodic and reveals more in the situations that it contrives than in any serious attempt at plot or character analysis. Like a series of nonsense poems or stories created more for their puzzling nature or illogical delightfulness, the events of Alices adventure are her encounters with incredible but immensely likable characters. Carroll was a master of toying with the eccentricities of language. One feels that Carroll is never more at home than when he is playing, punning, or otherwise messing around with the English tongue. Although the book has been interpreted in numerous ways, from an allegory of semiotics theory to a drug-fueled hallucination, perhaps it is this playfulness that has ensured its  success over the last century. The book is brilliant for children, but with enough hilarity and joy for life in it to please adults too, Alices Adventures in Wonderland is a lovely book with which to take a brief respite from our overly rational and sometimes dreary world.

Essay on The Dead - 1219 Words

Gaofeng Li At home essay #2 EN 102 Prof. Pryor The Dead In the novel The Dead, Gabriel Conroy, who is the nephew of Julia and Kate Morkan, is the main character of the story. One night he and his wife attended a party, which was given by his two aunts, and there were many other members in the party. The story revolves around their life and memories.Gabriel Conroy felt a blur between his soul and the dead. Some people died, but they are still alive because they have true love. Some people are alive, but they are still dead because they never love.I like the story for three reasons. First, the of content Gabriels speech at the party impressed me a lot. James Joyce, who is a genius writer, is like all other Irish writers, he loveshis†¦show more content†¦Very good: that was one for Miss Ivors.†(Joyce, 134) Second, my heart is moved that Gabriel looks at his wife, Gretta, on the stairs. It is the real love, the pure love. He was attracted by thelonely figure of his wife. A woman, standing in the shadow also. It is his wife. It isgrace and mystery, just like a symbol. It is his wife. The reason why he was attracted by the figure of his wife is because it is his own shadow, his heart shadow:standing alone on the high stairs, forgetting time and space, immersing in his own grief in. He is also eager to know whathis wife is thinking about. â€Å"Gabriel had not gone to the door with the others. He was in a dark part of the hall gazing up the staircase. A woman was standing near the top of the first flight, in the shadow also. He could not see her face but he could see the terra-cotta and salmon-pink panels of her skirt which the shadow made appear black and white. It was his wife. She was leaning on the banisters, listening to something. Gabriel was surprised at her stillness and strained his ear to listen also. But he could hear little save the noise of laughter and dispute on the front steps, a few chords struck on the piano and a few notes of a mans voice singing.† (Joyce, 144) Gretta was twice reminded ofShow MoreRelated The Dead Essay474 Words   |  2 PagesThe Dead 1) Symbolic meaning of snow†¦ a. Beginning when first enters Aunts house (warmth) he is out of the snow = coldness, isolation and inhumanity. But when enters the home he is surrounded with warmth and acceptance. Pages 10-11 b. Page 25 Gabriel was nervous about presenting his speech and sought comfort at a window. Looking outside at the falling snow, Gabriel he received a form of release, escape and feeling that he is unknown. c. At the end of the story, when Gabriel is withRead More Comparing the Living Dead in James Joyces The Dead and Dubliners1172 Words   |  5 PagesDubliners and The Living Dead      Ã‚  Ã‚   In his work The Dead, James Joyce utilizes his character Michael Furey, Gretta Conroys deceased love from her youth, as an apparent symbol of how the dead have a steadfast and continuous power over the living.   The dominant power which Michael maintains over the protagonist, Gabriel Conroy, is that Gabriel is faced with the intense question of whether his wife, Gretta Conroy, loves him and whether he honestly loves her.   Joyce provides substantial informationRead MoreAnalysis Of The Poem The Dead 1672 Words   |  7 Pagesher money. It is set on this day, because it highlights Gabriel’s epiphany. He is there to break traditions, because they are either dead or dying, just like the Christ. He brings more modern views in regards to how the people respond and remember the dead. The dead in the story are the old traditions that they hold. Also, the memories the people there have on the dead from their past. Specifically, Gretta’s first love, Michael Furey. Gabriel is different from other party guests as he is more modernRead MoreRestrictiveness of Routine in the â€Å"Dead†975 Words   |  4 Pagesstory have to come together to create tone. One such story is the â€Å"The Dead†, an exceptional conclusion to James Joyce Dubliners (1914) that is a collection of short stories that consist of natural depictions of middle class Irish men and women in the early twentieth century. The primary focus of â€Å"The Dead† concerns not only dead people, but more specifically a dead generation and the living who behave as if they were dead already. Through artistic unity, Joyce creates a portrait of ordinary peopleRead MoreThe Dead By James Joyce2257 Words   |  10 Pages‘The Dead’ begins and ends in two entirely different places. What begins as a harmless portrait of simple human interactions, morphs slowly into an examination of the nature of time and memory. James Joyce uses every level of his writing in o rder to reveal this complex paradox. He breaks down the boundaries of life and death, of time and memory, by breaking down the structure of his grammar. He exposes the ambiguities of existence through the ambiguities of pronouns. In the midst of this acrobaticRead MoreThe Dead By James Joyce2111 Words   |  9 Pagesstory a sort of epiphany that leads them to realize the source of their unhappiness, oftentimes, the characters choose to do nothing about it. Farrington, the protagonist in the short story â€Å"Counterparts,† and Gabriel Conroy, the protagonist in â€Å"The Dead,† are two very different characters. Joyce uses this steep contrast between Farrington and Gabriel to argue about the circle of life and its routineness, and how happy endings are not common or to be expected no matter the circumstance. FarringtonRead MoreThe Theme of Death in The Dead Essay1151 Words   |  5 PagesAlthough a scene of a funeral home might come to mind when a reader first hears a short story aptly named â€Å"The Dead,† the tale actually takes place in the festive setting of a winter dance at the home of the two aunts of the main character, Gabriel Conroy. James Joyce’s short story â€Å"The Dead† has a literal title, because its main concept is death – both physical death and spiritual death. Gabriel Conroy and his wife, Gretta Conroy, attend a party held by Gabriel’s aunts, Kate Morkan and JuliaRead MoreThe Dead By James Joyce Essay942 Words   |  4 Pagesnarrative writer in modern times. Joyce conveyed this new writing style through his stylistic devices such as the stream of consciousness, and a complex set of mythic parallels and literary parodies. This mythic parallel is called an epiphany. â€Å"The Dead† by Joyce was written as a part of Joyce’s collection called â€Å"The Dubliners†. Joyce’s influence behind writing the short story was all around him. The growing nationalist Irish movement around Dublin, Ireland greatly influences Joyce’s inspirationRead MoreJames Joyce s Araby And The Dead1176 Words   |  5 Pages James Joyce’s short stories â€Å"Araby† and â€Å"The Dead† both depict self-discovery as being defined by moments of epiphany. Both portray characters who experience similar emotion s and who, at the ends of the stories, confront similarly harsh realities of self-discovery. In each of these stories, Joyce builds up to the moment of epiphany through a careful structure of events and emotions that leads both protagonists to a redefining moment of self-discovery. The main characters in both these storiesRead MoreThe Walking Dead1495 Words   |  6 PagesThe Walking Dead AMC’s gritty and gruesome apocalyptic hit â€Å"The Walking Dead† places the blood thirsty, agonized groans of zombies right in our living rooms. The show follows a small group of survivors in the midst of a zombie apocalypse that has decimated some seventy-five percent of the population. The cable series which first premiered in 2010 made no bones about its weekly offering of flesh-eating, blood-splattered gore. The opening sequence of the pilot episode features a virus-ridden little

Who Wrote 2 Peter Free Essays

string(38) " of the most debated and argued over\." Who Wrote Second Peter An Explanation Michael S. Summy LUO 1185240 NBST 679-01 Dr. Leo Percer November 13, 2012 Table of Contents I. We will write a custom essay sample on Who Wrote 2 Peter or any similar topic only for you Order Now Introduction†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦2 II. History of the Authorship of Peter†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 2-5 III. Arguments for Petrine Authorship of 2 Peter†¦. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 6-10 IV. Arguments Against Petrine Authorship of 2 Peter†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. †¦. 10-15 V. Conclusion†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 15-16 VI. Personal Conclusion†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦.. 16 VII. Bibliography†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. 17 INTRODUCTION Debates over the authorship of various books in the Bible are common among Biblical scholars. Some of these debates are legitimate as the book of the Bible lacks a claim of authorship, while others appear to be ridiculous as the claims within the Scripture appear to settle the issue. Some books, such as 2 Peter fall into the category of books that claim a certain authorship, but sufficient arguments exist that can cast some doubt as to the truth of the legitimate writer. The theory of the authorship of 2 Peter is a question that has caused a great deal of debate and controversy within the church. The purpose of this paper is not to defend the theory that Peter wrote this epistle. An investigation of various arguments on the subject will be used to debate both the tradition view of Peter as the author and the more liberal view that someone other than Peter is responsible for writing the epistle. This is not a new debate, but rather an ongoing controversy that has existed since the second century. The arguments for both sides seem similar at times, and both use valid evidence to support their conclusions. This paper will show how a logical conclusion can be drawn that the Apostle Peter was the author of second epistle of Peter. HISTORY OF THE AUTHORSHIP OF 2 PETER The answer to the question of authorship of 2 Peter seems as if it should straightforward as the book claims within the first few words to have been written by the apostle Peter. Surprisingly this question has existed since the days of the early church and even to this day clarity is still being sought. Although 2 Peter was not as widely known and recognized in the early church as 1 Peter, some may have used and accepted it as authoritative as early as the second century and perhaps even in the latter part of the first century (1 Clement [AD 95] may allude to it). † This early canonical acceptance did not end the debate. The first time the book was credited to Peter was around the beginning of the third century in the time of Origen. â€Å"Even he cast some doubt as to the church’s ability to ascribe the book to Peter, but Origen did not completely deny it either. Origen’s comments in his Expositions on the Gospel according to John, provided evidence that some in his day doubted the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. He stated, â€Å"And Peter, on whom the church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle, and, it may be, a second also, for it is doubted. † Origen also placed doubt on Petrine authorship by making the statement that the existence of the book was not known until his own time, which caused serious problems. Eusebius (265–340) placed it among the questioned books, though he admits that most accept it as from Peter. After Eusebius’s time, it seems to have been quite generally accepted as canonical. † After the time of Eusebius, the debate over the second epistle continued on, b ut eventually the book as accepted in the New Testament Canon by Clement. The controversy over Peter’s authorship grew silent for many years, but never completely disappeared. â€Å"In recent centuries, however, its genuineness has been challenged by a considerable number of interpreters. The only fact that seems to be certain in the debate is that the authorship of 2 Peter will never be completely satisfied. Many in the early church were quick to classify 2 Peter as a letter written by the Apostle Paul. â€Å"Why would the author of 2 Peter refer to Paul’s letters, which did not circulate as a group until about 95 AD? † The early church leaders also saw the fact that the author of 2 Peter referred to himself many times within 2 Peter. They further recognized that the author of 2 Peter identified himself twice as any times as did the author of 1Peter. In 2 Peter the author goes on to compare â€Å"all the letters of Paul with the writings mentioned previously, further suggesting that the recipients do not posses the entire Pauline corpus. † Although some in the early church felt that 2 Peter was written by Paul, this belief never gained a great deal of traction and eventually was dismissed by church leaders. A major factor in the history of the authorship 2 Peter was the date of the death of the apostle Peter. Most conservative thinkers would date the death of Peter to the time of Nero and would place the date around 66 AD. This timing would allow for Peter to be the writer of this book and answers most of the objections made by the more liberal minded scholars. Those who ascribe to a later death for Peter, used this evidence to support the idea that someone other than the Apostle wrote this book. Most church leaders agreed on the timing of the death of Peter and since it was such a public event there is little doubt that he died in the middle 60’s. The early church used this date and the writing within the book itself to create a strong argument for Peter being the author. The early church fathers had many important decisions to make as leaders of the followers of Christ and one of the most important ones was which writings to accept into the Biblical Canon. Of all of the books of the New Testament 2 Peter was one of the most debated and argued over. You read "Who Wrote 2 Peter" in category "Essay examples" â€Å"The first direct quotation of 2 Peter is in 1 Clement, a letter written around the end of the first century. Theide says that once the quotations started appearing, the list is longas to the number of times 2 Peter was referenced. Another Church Father Irenaeus, also appeared to take a part of 2 Peter or allude to it, but he choose not to mention this book by name. Not even the book of Revelation received as much scrutiny as 2 Peter. The hesitancy of the early church to accept 2 Peter was due in part to that fact of Peter’s name was being used in many Gnostic writings. At least three apocryphal writings were being circulated at the sam e time as 1 and 2 Peter. Another difficulty was both Peter and Jude alluded to Enoch, which quickly became known as an apocryphal book. It is clear that in the Fourth Century, at the Councils of Hippo, 2 Peter was recognized as being part of the Biblical Canon. â€Å"At this same counsel other books such as I Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas were rejected mainly on the grounds that they lacked a claim of authorship by someone who was considered an apostle. † A scholar of church history during this time wrote this synopsis of the feelings of the believers towards Peter’s second epistle. He wrote, â€Å"Quite probably the churches which originally received it, knowing it not to be Peter’s own work, would not have granted it the same status in their own use as they did, e. . , to the Pauline letter. . . . Whatever the reasons for its lack of wide use in the second century, this seems to have contributed to its very slow progress toward general acceptance into the canon. † As with most historical data, little is known of the status of this epistle during the next 1000 years. As the church e ntered the period of the Reformation many of the standards of the church were called into question including the Biblical Canon. â€Å"2 Peter was regarded as second-class Scripture by Luther, rejected by Erasmus, and regarded with hesitancy by Calvin. The fact that 2 Peter had several claims of authorship by the Apostle Peter within its text allowed it to be spared and recognized as part of the inspired Word of God. ARGUMENTS FOR PETRINE AUTHORSHIP OF SECOND PETER The book of 2 Peter begins with this verse, â€Å"Simon Peter, a bond servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. † This statement seems to make clear the claim that Peter wrote this letter would also seem to leave little room for doubt. Few other books with such a claim have been disputed, but the critics are quick to ignore this initial claim by Peter and scrutinize the letter. This is not the only place in the letter that Petrine authorship is proclaimed and details of the life of the Apostle support this assumption. 2 Peter 1:16 speaks of the author as a man who is facing or is near to his death. This allusion would certainly support the idea of Peter as the writer, because it was believed Peter knew he would be martyred and wanted to give his followers one final word of encouragement. Further in the letter in 2 Peter 2:16-18, the author shared a retelling of the Transfiguration of Christ. In the gospel of Matthew, Peter is one of only three men who accompanied Jesus at this event. The retelling of the details of this amazing display could only be completed by Peter, James, or John. One final statement from with the book itself can be found in chapter three. 2 Peter 3:1 made a clear references to a prior letter, which should be assumed as being 1 Peter. There is little comparable material in the two epistles, but this reference to the first epistle seems to lead to the conclusion that they were written by the same person. On the one hand it is argued on this fact the 1 and 2 Peter must have two different authors, but on the other hand it seems strange that a pseudo-writer would not use any content from the prior book he was attempting to imitate. † The evidence within the book itself would seem to clearly suggest that Peter was the author. The reception of th e early church leaders of 2 Peter or the lack thereof can be seen as a contradictory. On one hand the book of 2 Peter is mentioned very little in the ancient writings of the church leaders. On the contrary, those same leaders did not lump the book of 2 Peter into the category of the rejected books. Few if any of these men make a clear statement of denial of Peter as the author, but many did cast doubts about it. Some of the earliest remaining documents that refer to 2 Peter, have shown evidence that a debate over its authorship was present in the church. â€Å"One such document written by Origen in the third century is considered to be the first to explicitly mention 2 Peter by name. † This mention by Origen may be the first documented reference to 2 Peter, but many scholars believe there are other writings made by the early church fathers which made allusions to the book. Another leader, Jerome, mentioned doubts surrounding the authenticity of 2 Peter, but never concluded that Peter did not write this letter. A strong fact to support the Petrine authorship is the overwhelming majority the church fathers do not argue against the epistle. â€Å"2 Peter was never rejected as suspicious nor was it attributed to anyone other than Peter. In support for Petrine authorship, 2 Peter enjoys wide inclusion in what is arguably the strongest early Papyrus, which was thought to be as early as the 3rd Century. Due to the support by the church fathers and the lack of opposition to the book, 2 Peter is believed to have unofficially gained canonization as early as the mid-second Century. Critics of Petrine authorship are quick to point out differences in the styles of the two books of Peter. They feel that the two epistles could not possibly have been written by the same man. Upon examination of the two books, there are clear differences between the two letters. †Å"The vocabulary of 1 Peter has only 153 words in common with 2 Peter while 543 are unique to 1 Peter and 399 unique to 2 Peter. The book of 2 Peter also has far fewer participles than does first Peter and the ones in 2 Peter are often repeated. â€Å"One common example given by critics is the use of apokaluyi† in 1 Peter and parousiva in 2 Peter to refer to the Lord’s coming. † This is not a practice that is unique to these two letters. Many of the works of Paul contain unique language to the particular letter in which it was used. Paul also choose the same terms as Peter used for the Second Coming and selected these words when writing 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians. The problem with the argument for similarity between the two epistles seems to be that the critics almost expect Peter’s second epistle to be simply a rehash of the same material as was seen in the first. There is an unreasonable demand for vocabulary and themes that match the first work, but the critics seem to forget the reasons behind the writing of each letter. Each letter was written to address a different set of circumstances and there was a unique purpose to each epistle. The critics can point to stylistic differences in the books, but this lack of similarity can be explained. The more liberal leaning thinkers also point to the differences in the theology and doctrinal themes of the books as reason to Petrine authorship. The purpose of 1 Peter can be summed up as a challenge to the believers to endure suffering and live holy lives. 2 Peter on the other hand seems to contain mostly strong warnings against the false teachers of the day and also a final message to the believers before the death of Peter. This criticism seems to ignore the fact that Peter felt the need to address issues that were pressing at the time of his writing. Differences should be expected if the author is dealing with different problems, as was the case with Peter. The assumption that an author must deal with the same topics in both letters is unrealistic and uncommon. Most if not all of Paul’s letters deal with issues that were unique to the area to which Paul sent the letter. It can be concluded that Peter deserves the same consideration as Paul in this matter. Although there are many differences between the two letters of Peter many similarities also exist etween them. The critics point to an excessive amount of repetitive word in 2 Peter, but 1 Peter can also be characterized by repetition of words. Bigg says, â€Å"The habit of verbal repetition is therefore quite as strongly marked in the First Epistle as the Second. There are similarities of thought and no document in the New Testament is so like 1 Peter as 2 Peter. † Upon review of both letters, there does seem to be enough commonality between the two books of Peter to conclude that the same man wrote both books. Since there is little evidence to argue against Apostle Peter as the author the first book of Peter, the conclusion can be reached that he also wrote the second. One of the more common practices among the writers of the New Testament was to have a scribe or someone who would write their words for him. Longenecker states in his work, â€Å"The Greek papyri, therefore, indicate quite clearly that an amanuensis was frequently, if not commonly, employed in the writing of personal letters during the time approximating the composition of the NT epistles. † Sometimes this was done to help the writer use better Greek and make his work more understandable. Men like Peter, who were not educated in the same manner as the upper class, would need assistance in making their writing more professional and acceptable to the educated class. â€Å"One plausible explanation for the differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is that Peter used an amanuensis to do the actual writing of 1 Peter with Peter checking and approving the final product. † This seems to be the clear method in which the first epistle of Peter was written. 1 Peter 5:12 says, â€Å"Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it! † A logical conclusion to explain the differences between the two letter of Peter is that he wrote 2 Peter himself and he had someone write his words for him in his first letter. Peter received the inspiration for both letters from the Holy Spirit, but the methods of recording each of the books were unique. The best argument for Peter being the author of the second epistle is the fact that the letter was eventually accepted as into the New Testament Canon. One of the main reasons for its acceptance would have to be the assumption that the book was written by a man of the standing in the church like the Apostle Peter. â€Å"Although it could be pseudonymous letters like â€Å"The Gospel of Peter†, â€Å"The Apocalypses of Peter†, â€Å"The letter of Peter to James†, none of these works was accepted into the canon because they hadn’t God’s inspiration. † Second Peter had gained acceptance into the Canon by the time of Cyril of Jerusalem. The issue of its canonicity was settled by the acceptance of the church leaders such as Cyril, Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome. These church leaders, who were not easily swayed to allow books into the Canon, acknowledged 2 Peter to be Scripture because of the overwhelming internal and external evidence. ARGUMENTS AGAINST PETER AS AUTHOR OF SECOND PETER Although there seems to be an abundance of evidence to support the idea that Peter wrote the second epistle of Peter, many Christian scholars and thinkers disagree with this assumption. The amount of evidence to disprove Petrine authorship seems to be as great and some would argue more that the evidence to support his authorship. Issues about the date, the style of writing, the lack of historical claims, the brevity of the book, the language used by the author, and the similarities to Jude are all cited as reasons to discount the possibility of the disciple known as Simon Peter being the writer. At one point in the history of the church, the leading school of thought was that 2 Peter was an example of pseudepigraphal literature and therefore was not the work of the Apostle. There is little doubt that a definitive answer as to the authorship of this book will not be obtained until all questions are answered by God in eternity. The book of 2 Peter was and is still considered by many to be pseudepigraphal in nature and was not written by Peter. Ksemann states that â€Å"2 Peter is perhaps the most dubious writing in the New Testament. † Others went as far as to conclude that virtually no one believes that 2 Peter was written by the disciple and friend of Christ named Peter. These men would argue instead that someone else wrote the letter and used the name of Peter to give legitimacy to it. Pseudonymous works are defined as â€Å"the practice of writing a literary work under the pretence that someone else, usually someone more famous, wrote it. 2 Peter is one of only a few books that were accused of being pseudonymous that survived the scrutiny of the canonical counsels and eventually it was accepted by the church fathers. The looming questions over the authorship of 2 Peter has led to the conclusion by most critical scholars that the book needs to be labeled as pseudepigraphal literature. The issues come from those who are not willing to accept the first verse of 2 Peter and the other internal evidence as sufficient for proving that Peter was the author. These scholars, feel the evidence to support Petrine authorship is weak and should not be accepted without questions and a thorough examination. One major issue is that the features of the letter seem to give evidence of a time later than Peter’s lifetime. In 2 Peter 3:4, the author used the phrase, â€Å"Ever since our fathers died. † This verse seems to make a reference the first generation of Christians, which would seem strange coming from Peter as he too was part of this group. Another instance is 2 Peter 3:15 which states, â€Å"Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. † The author seemed to be looking back at the letters of Paul as works already complete and established. Most of Paul’s works were not even known about until well after the death of Peter. The internal evidence in 2 Peter seems to offer as many questions about the authorship of the book as it does answers. The possibility of a pseudonymous author is high due to these facts. One of the most convincing arguments against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is a thorough examination of the Greek of the epistle. Peter was described as a Galilean fisherman in the gospels and he and his brothers were most likely worked for a fishing business owned by his family. According to Dr. Leo Percer, â€Å"Peter was not uneducated, as he most likely attended schools that were taught by the Pharisees to help him learn the Law of Moses. He was not however educated to the extent that we would have been proficient in writing Greek. † Many scholars look to the description of Peter in the book of Acts as proof of his lack of education. Acts 4:13 states, â€Å"Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marveled; and they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus. † The Greek of 2 Peter appears to be much less formal and unstructured and it is very different from the Greek of 1 Peter. The ability to conclude that both letters were written by the same hand is very difficult to prove. The Greek of 1 Peter and the Greek of 2 Peter is quite different and contain words and phrasing that make it difficult to reconcile the differences between the two books. Two major issues result from the Greek of 2 Peter and help support the idea that Simon Peter was not the author of second Peter. The first is the simple fact that most scholars agree that Peter did write the first book attributed to him, which makes the case against his authorship of the second. The second is the grandiose language that is used by the author. The fact remains it is unlikely that a Galilean fisherman would use the language in this book. â€Å"The author of 2 Peter seems to be pretentious and out to prove that he has a grasp of the Greek language through the use of such flowery words. Peter was looked at as the leader of the early church, which would give him no reason to feel the need to write in a way to give himself any more credibility than he already possessed. One critic made this statement â€Å"this letter betrays an artificial dialect of high-sounding words learnt from rhetoricians and books such would not fit well with both Peter’s modus operandi (of heavy reliance on written sources for his composition) and with the psychological probability of one attempting to write in a second language. These objects do provide problems for those trying to prove Peter as the author of 2 Peter. An even more problematic argument against the authorship of Peter for this short epistle is apparent similarities between 2 Peter and Jude. The books share a common message and a common theme. It also appears that the books share at least 17 common passages and parallels to one another. One example is 2 Peter 1:12 and Jude 5. 2 Peter 1:12 says, â€Å"Therefore, I will always be ready to remind you of these things, even though you already know them, and have been established in the truth which is present with you. The parallel verse in Jude 5 says â€Å"Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. † Just in the se two verses alone there are seven shared words and a few common phrases. Most of the similarities in these two books occur in chapter two and three of 2 Peter and can be seen throughout the one chapter of Jude. This commonality between the two letters presents problems in attempting to establish Petrine authorship. Another issue to be answered is the date of Jude and 2 Peter and the chronology of the two letters. â€Å"If Jude was written after Peter’s lifetime (as most scholars assume), then if 2 Peter uses Jude, it cannot be by Peter. † There is little evidence for a late date of Jude, but there seems to a great deal of evidence for 2 Peter having a late date. The date most scholars agree to for Jude is around 64 AD and even conservative thinkers would place the earliest date for 2 Peter at somewhere around 65 AD. This dating would lead to the possible conclusion that if Peter was written after Jude that much of 2 Peter was copied from Jude. The comparison of the books also supports the idea of 2 Peter being written at a much later date. A later date for Peter would allow for the writer of the book to use Jude as a source and would help to explain the many similarities. No matter which book was written first, there seems to be clarity that the books share from one another. A final, and maybe not as convincing, argument is that the overwhelming opinion of Biblical scholars is that Peter was not the author of this letter. One scholar writes, â€Å"the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter and that the vast bulk of NT scholars adopt this perspective without much discussion. † Other men such as Stephen Harris and Werner Kummel agree with this position and go as far as to say that â€Å"virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. † Even leading conservatives such as Carson and Moo would agree that there is little popular support to back Petrine authorship, but they still hold to the view that Peter wrote both books. The evangelicals and conservatives remind the liberals of the early acceptance of 2 Peter into the canon, but the liberals feel this decision was made before enough scrutiny of the book was made. â€Å"Nearly two thirds of Bible experts contend that Peter did not write 2 Peter. † CONCLUSION The evidence for or against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter is in no way strong enough settle the issue in a conclusive manner. For each point in support of Peter there is an equally convincing argument against him. This debate is not new; as it has been going on for close to 2,000 years. At times over that history, the issue seemed to be settled for Peter, but this was a short lived victory as the authorship of the book has been an ongoing issue for the church. Men from the time of Peter until now have searched for a definitive answer, but the answer has remained illusive. Each one of the arguments made by those who support Peter as the author has a counter argument against it. â€Å"The external evidence, while not proving authenticity neither disproves it, for the evidence provides twenty-two possible usages of 2 Peter. † Those who argue for Peter point to the internal evidence, and the personal allusions to the life of Peter. These illusions such as the retelling of the Transfiguration and the suffering of Christ are written by the author to establish his identity as the Apostle Peter. The other side would argue that a pseudo-author wrote in these illusions to try to establish his work as a book of an Apostle. An examination of the issues regarding the history, style, and even the doctrine of 2 Peter have been attempted to be used against Peter, but on the contrary, may be used to support it. Many of the problems the critics have with these issues can be answered by the fact that Peter likely used an amanuensis to help write his book. Those who disagree with Peter as the writer of 2 Peter would offer pseudonymity as the answer to the question of authorship. The issue with this stand has to be that â€Å"at the time of 2 Peter’s canonization, the practice of pseudonymity was scorned and had not one example of New Testament usage, while the canonical books were only admitted after careful scrutiny of genuineness. † Since 2 Peter was admitted into the Canon, the assumption of there being a pseudo-author is answered. Point by point each argument for Petrine authorship can be disputed, but each one against his authorship can also be torn down. PERSONAL CONCLUSION After examining all of the leading arguments both for and against Peter, I have come to the conclusion that Peter did in fact write the book of 2 Peter. The issue for me isn’t style or the quality of the Greek used by the author; it is in a personal belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. 2 Peter 2:1 clearly identifies Peter as the author of the epistle, and this ends the debate for me. As I examined evidence against Petrine authorship, I was always drawn back to the fact that the Bible says Peter wrote the book. As Payne says in his book, â€Å"How can one accept the verbal, plenary inspiration—which would demand Petrine authorship at verse one—and still call 2 Peter non-canonical? † 2 Peter was accepted, even though it was under a cloud of suspicion, into the New Testament Cannon, which qualifies it as the inerrant Word of God. If I believe that the Bible is never wrong, then 2 Peter must have been written by the Apostle named Simon Peter. The question of authorship for me is answered in 10 simple words, â€Å"Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. † Bibliography Green, Michael. Peter Jude: an Introduction and Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007. Green, Christopher Lucas, Dick. The Message of 2 Peter Jude: the Promise of His Coming. Leicester, England. : IVP Academic, 2004. Eusebius. The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine. New York: Penguin Classics, 1990. Gilmour, Michael J. â€Å"Reflection s On the Authorship of 2 Peter. † Evangelical Quarterly 73, no. 4 (Oct. – Dec. 2001): 291-309. Lillie, John. Lectures On the First and Second Epistles of Peter. Reprint Edition ed. Minneapolis, MN: Klock Klock Christian Pub, 1978. Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter: Greek Text with Introduction Notes and Comments. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter, and Jude: from Biblical Text– to Contemporary Life. Grand Rapids, Mich. : Zondervan, 1997. Pfeiffer, Robert Henry. History of New Testament Times,: with an Introduction to the Apocrypha. Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press, 1972. Walls, David. Holman New Testament Commentary – 1 2 Peter, 1 2 3 John and Jude. niv based ed. Nashville, TN: Holman Reference, 1999. ——————————————– 1 ]. Michael Gilmour, â€Å"Reflections On the Authorship of 2 Peter,† Evangelical Quarterly, Oct. – Dec. 2001, 294. [ 2 ]. Ibid, 296. [ 3 ]. Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (New York: Penguin Classics, 1990), 107. [ 4 ]. Michael Gilmour, 297. [ 5 ]. Ibid, 297. [ 6 ]. Robert Henry Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times,: 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 Coming (Leicester, England. IVP Academic, 2004), 242. [ 9 ]. Michael Gilmour, 300. [ 10 ]. Dick Lucas and Christopher Green, 243. [ 12 ]. 2 Peter 2:1,(NASB). [ 15 ]. MacArthur [ 16 ]. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, p. 832. [ 17 ]. Ibid,836. [ 18 ]. Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 227. [ 20 ]. Bigg, Critical and Exegetical Commentary, p. 239. [ 21 ]. 1 Peter 5:12, (NASB). [ 23 ]. Ernst Ksemann, â€Å"An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology,† Essays on New Testament Themes, Studies in Biblical Theology, 42, 1964, p. 169 [ 25 ]. 2 Peter 3:4 [ 26 ]. 2 Peter3:15, NIV [ 27 ]. Dr. Leo Percer, lecture notes. [ 28 ]. Acts 4:13, (KJV). [ 30 ]. W. F. Howard, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 2:28. [ 31 ]. 2 Peter 1:12, (NASB). [ 32 ]. Jude 5, (NASB) [ 34 ]. Daniel B. Wallace, ed. , Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic Professional, 2011), pageNr. [ 35 ]. Harris, Stephen L.. Understanding the Bible: a reader’s introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. page 354. [ 39 ]. Inerrancy [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980], 106). [ 40 ]. 2 Peter 1:1 How to cite Who Wrote 2 Peter, Essay examples

Father and Son Essay Sample free essay sample

Li-Young Lee’s verse form â€Å"A Story† depicts the harsh and complex relationship of that between a male parent and shortly. This is explored by the son’s desires for a narrative. which his male parent is unable to bring forth. The talker uses emotional devices to lucubrate on the wholly different positions that occur between a male parent and boy. Through the trading on and off points of positions. situational sarcasm. and purposeful enunciation. the talker adds emotional entreaty and significance to the love and bond between male parent and shortly every bit good as stressing the subject of altering and turning of their relationship over clip. This causes the reader to attach to the verse form and by making so to brood on his or her relationship between their parents. Lee’s foremost strategic attack is by the use of the multiple point of position. that of the male parent and the boy. We will write a custom essay sample on Father and Son Essay Sample or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The verse form starts off in the father’s point of position demoing his letdown that he can non give his boy a narrative â€Å"Sad is the adult male who is asked for a narrative and can’t come up with one. † The writer so switches off with â€Å"Not the same narrative. Baba. † Subsequently explicating the father’s immediate inability to â€Å"†¦come up with one. † The male parent â€Å"†¦rubs his mentum. scratches his ear. † The male parent is unable to provide his boy with a narrative. The simple quotation mark utilizes the emotions to truly demo the defeat the male parent feels of allowing down his boy. Switch overing into the son’s position you hear â€Å"Please. Baba. a narrative? † demoing the complete artlessness of the son’s petition. Another important and utile tool Lee uses is the situational sarcasm that he creates in the 3rd stanza where â€Å"In a room full of books in a universe of narratives. he can remember non one†¦Ã¢â‚¬  This shows that even though there is a million possibilities and a million narratives in the universe the male parent is still unable to retrieve non even one. This situational sarcasm shows that the male parent sees that this should be an effortless undertaking. yet it is non and he is fighting and unable to hold on even one narrative for his boy. Feeling frustrated and a Lashkar-e-Taiba down. the reader feels and emotional pull and is in melody with the father’s fright of losing his kid. by the child’s letdown in the male parent. This portrays the really infirmity of a male parent boy relationship. that even one set back can throw it all out of balance. In add-on another attack that Lee uses in his verse form is meaningful enunciation. which adds the emotional side to the verse form. â€Å"Sad is the man†¦Ã¢â‚¬  the male parent is disappointed in himself. as if he is unfit to be a male parent if he is unable to bring forth a narrative. â€Å"Am I god that I should neer let down? † The male parent apparently screams. the use of disappoint makes it obvious that the male parent is fighting with accepting the fact that he himself did neglect. but it is all right to fall sometimes. â€Å"†¦and a father’s love add up to hush. † The use of the father’s love adding up to silence is a powerful manner to stop the stanza. Picturing a scene in which no affair the badness of the male parents love for his boy. in the terminal it all ended with earsplitting silence. The reader is left with the feeling of overpowering emotions in which the truly experience the delicate relationship between a male parent and b oy. Throughout the verse form the writer emphasizes the battle of the male parent contending non to be a letdown to his boy through the use of his multiple point of positions. situational sarcasm. and strong enunciation. The tools used by the writer are effectual by portraying the really infirmity and of import relationship between a male parent and boy and how the male parent in the verse form is dead set on being able to do his boy proud of him.