Personal Prophecy (2)
Knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 ESV
Scripture – What does Peter mean by the Greek term gráphēs? Our Bibles typically translate this word as “Scripture,” but there are some important assumptions buried in such a translation. First, gráphēs is “the word more generally for ‘to write’ (e.g., in Rom. 16:22; 2 Th. 3:17); this includes writing by dictation (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14; 14:37; Jn. 21:24 [?]), or earlier writing (1 Cor. 5:9; 7:1; 9:15).”[1] There is a specific Greek term for the written laws of the Tanakh (tá gegramména), but Peter does not employ this. That is important. Furthermore, the term used for the entirety of the Tanakh is graphaí, used by Philo and the rabbis. hḗ graphḗ can be used from individual passages of the Tanakh, but the New Testament does not use graphḗ for a single book of the Tanakh.
In addition, we must remember that at the time of Peter’s letter, there was no canon of sacred material. That means we should not assume that Peter’s use of graphḗ means anything like our use of “Bible.” Peter writes about written prophetic material accepted as sacred (but not canonized), and in the first century, this could easily include the prophecies of 1 Enoch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Baruch, and the Wisdom of Solomon, in addition to pseudepigrapha like Life of Adam and Eve, Assumption of Moses, 2 Baruch, Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 4 Ezra, Ascension of Isaiah, and Psalms of Solomon. All written, all available to the believing community in the first century, all sacred in the broad sense of the word.
Finally, we must keep in mind that even if some books of the Tanakh were widely accepted as canonical (before any official designation), that does not mean that the text was fixed as canon. Orlinsky makes a point concerning latercanonization that is applicable here. “ . . . it is only the Hebrew books (not even their order beyond the Torah, i.e., the order of the books that came to constitute the Prophets and the Writings) that were canonized, not the Hebrew text of these books. The Hebrew text of the Bible was never canonized or fixed.”[2]
What have we learned? First, our assumptions about Peter’s terms must be set aside. There is no reason to think that Peter is speaking of our canonized “Old Testament.” Secondly, it is possible that Peter has more material in mind than we find in the Tanakh. Thirdly, when Peter speaks of prophecy, he is even more selective. Basically, he may have meant only those written texts that claim divine speech. And finally, the general view of prophecy in Peter’s era was notpredictive. It was proclamation. This limits further what Peter might mean. All of this means we need to rethink Peter’s claim according to the first century, not our own.
Topical Index: prophecy, Scripture, gráphēs, canon, 2 Peter 1:20-21
[1] Kittel, G., Friedrich, G., & Bromiley, G. W. (1985). Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged in One Volume (p. 128). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
[2] Harry M. Orlinsky, “The Septuagint and its Hebrew Text,” p. 552, n. 1
When you say, “ “ . . . it is only the Hebrew books (not even their order beyond the Torah, i.e., the order of the books that came to constitute the Prophets and the Writings) that were canonized, not the Hebrew text of these books. The Hebrew text of the Bible was never canonized or fixed.”[2]” , does that mean that the ‘version’ for the lack of a better word was not decided but they knew that the scroll, “Isiah” was supposed canonized?
Also where does one find a comprehensive list for the books that are not in the Bible. It’s very interesting to me.
RE: “First, our assumptions about Peter’s terms must be set aside.” I would like to add one more assumption: Peter was not referencing what would later become the “New Testament” (Apostolic Writings), i.e., letters being sent to/from different assemblies.
👍🏻 The amazing thing about the texts of Israel’s testimony— that is, the development and “canonization” of Israel’s talk and witness of their life in (or against) their relationship with Yahweh— is its diversity and plurality of testimonies in the course of Israel’s life with Yahweh. This is a setting that stands in contrast and opposition to a a romanticized idealism, or unilateral development, or hegemonic victory for any one interpretive line of development—that is, until that testimony is manifest integrally in human form through Yeshua of Nazareth.
Even so, the hermeneutic principle brought to bear upon Israel’s text of testimony through this particular and peculiar witness is divine life lived in human form and in the context of humanity’s conditions. Consequently, the “pluralistic accommodation” inherent in this uniquely manifest “hermeneutic” of Israel’s literary-theological testimony will not permit any hegemonic, unilateral application of its contextual content, particularly in the form of institutional (either ecclesial or academic) interpretation.
Thus, as Peter validly proclaims, “no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”