2Pe 1:19 bebaio,teron — A significant difference in interpretation hinges upon the

grammatical function of this adjective. The KJV appears to take it as a simple attributive
to “prophetic word,” which leads to the attractive interpretation that the prophetic word
(i.e., the Scripture) is more reliable than the apostles’ personal experience. However, the
predicate position of the adjective militates against this view, and the modern versions
(even the NKJV) do not assent to it. The ESV’s rendering, though, does allow the same
inference (i.e., that the Scriptures are more reliable than personal experience) by taking
the adjective substantivally as the direct object, to which “the prophetic word” is then
construed as an appositive. The more common approach is to retain the comparative
sense of the adjective and construe it as predicate: “we have the prophetic word [to be,
(i.e., made)] more certain.” This construction yields quite a different sense: it says that
the apostles’ personal experience confirmed the Scriptures. This is not to say that
personal experience is more reliable than the Scripture; it says simply that personal
experience (whether one’s own experience or that of a trustworthy witness) does
contribute something to one’s conviction about the reliability of Scripture. This view does
no disrespect to the centrality of Scripture as the authoritative basis for human
knowledge. Other passages also highlight the value of eyewitness testimony and actual
experience (e.g. Luk 1:2, 1Jo 1:1). Taking yet another approach, the NET Bible construes
bebaio,teron as a predicate adjective, with the comparative form expressing elative
force: “We have the prophetic word [as being] highly reliable” (my wording, to show
grammatical details most clearly). This understanding eliminates any question of
comparison between Scripture and personal experience, as is explained in the lengthy and
helpful note. The NET translators argue against the more common construction, though,
on grounds that appear weak to me. They suggest that “made more certain” is a meaning
unparalleled for this construction and would require a form of poie,w. They do have a
point: Peter’s words do not seem to be the most natural way to say “made more certain.”
But I do not think the construction they are looking for is one with poie,w. In fact, I
cannot find in the NT a construction with e;cw and poie,w that yields the meaning
“have [something] made [something].” This fact partly negates their argument from the
non-existence of a precise parallel: the construction they suggest as more appropriate also
appears to be non-existent! I think the construction they are looking for is one with a
perfect participle, such as in Luk 14:18f.: e;ce me parh|thme,non This passage, by
the way, comes close to being the very construction whose existence they deny. But the
perfect participle of the cognate verb (bebaio,w) does not occur in Biblical Greek,
perhaps because of the difficulty of reduplicating it, and I am not aware of any especially
close synonyms. So Peter’s comparative adjective written as predicate may well be the
nearest readily available expression for the thought “made more certain,” which appears
to me to fit the context beautifully. Any objection that this interpretation elevates human
experience above God’s Word may easily be met with the simple observation that it is the
Word, not the experience, that Peter goes on to say deserves the believer’s careful
attention. The function of experience is simply confirmatory. At any rate, diagramming
bebaio,teron as predicate adjective reflects the grammar of both the NET rendering
and the rendering of most of the other modern versions. The simple attributive of the KJV
is not really defensible grammatically, and the ESV’s rendering reads somewhat
unnaturally to me.
2Pe 1:19 bebaio,teron — A significant difference in interpretation hinges upon the
grammatical function of this adjective. The KJV appears to take it as a simple attributive
to “prophetic word,” which leads to the attractive interpretation that the prophetic word
(i.e., the Scripture) is more reliable than the apostles’ personal experience. However, the
predicate position of the adjective militates against this view, and the modern versions
(even the NKJV) do not assent to it. The ESV’s rendering, though, does allow the same
inference (i.e., that the Scriptures are more reliable than personal experience) by taking
the adjective substantivally as the direct object, to which “the prophetic word” is then
construed as an appositive. The more common approach is to retain the comparative
sense of the adjective and construe it as predicate: “we have the prophetic word [to be,
(i.e., made)] more certain.” This construction yields quite a different sense: it says that
the apostles’ personal experience confirmed the Scriptures. This is not to say that
personal experience is more reliable than the Scripture; it says simply that personal
experience (whether one’s own experience or that of a trustworthy witness) does
contribute something to one’s conviction about the reliability of Scripture. This view does
no disrespect to the centrality of Scripture as the authoritative basis for human
knowledge. Other passages also highlight the value of eyewitness testimony and actual
experience (e.g. Luk 1:2, 1Jo 1:1). Taking yet another approach, the NET Bible construes
bebaio,teron as a predicate adjective, with the comparative form expressing elative
force: “We have the prophetic word [as being] highly reliable” (my wording, to show
grammatical details most clearly). This understanding eliminates any question of
comparison between Scripture and personal experience, as is explained in the lengthy and
helpful note. The NET translators argue against the more common construction, though,
on grounds that appear weak to me. They suggest that “made more certain” is a meaning
unparalleled for this construction and would require a form of poie,w. They do have a
point: Peter’s words do not seem to be the most natural way to say “made more certain.”
But I do not think the construction they are looking for is one with poie,w. In fact, I
cannot find in the NT a construction with e;cw and poie,w that yields the meaning
“have [something] made [something].” This fact partly negates their argument from the
non-existence of a precise parallel: the construction they suggest as more appropriate also
appears to be non-existent! I think the construction they are looking for is one with a
perfect participle, such as in Luk 14:18f.: e;ce me parh|thme,non This passage, by
the way, comes close to being the very construction whose existence they deny. But the
perfect participle of the cognate verb (bebaio,w) does not occur in Biblical Greek,
perhaps because of the difficulty of reduplicating it, and I am not aware of any especially
close synonyms. So Peter’s comparative adjective written as predicate may well be the
nearest readily available expression for the thought “made more certain,” which appears
to me to fit the context beautifully. Any objection that this interpretation elevates human
experience above God’s Word may easily be met with the simple observation that it is the
Word, not the experience, that Peter goes on to say deserves the believer’s careful
attention. The function of experience is simply confirmatory. At any rate, diagramming
bebaio,teron as predicate adjective reflects the grammar of both the NET rendering
and the rendering of most of the other modern versions. The simple attributive of the KJV
is not really defensible grammatically, and the ESV’s rendering reads somewhat
unnaturally to me.