Bible Heaven/Bible Heaven.iso/robertsn/rwp-2pe/g2pe.int

Text File | 1993-03-13 | 13KB | 256 lines

                   THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER
                       ABOUT A.D. 66 OR 67

                      BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION

                 MOST DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT BOOK

        Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some
one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the
very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars
deny the genuineness of II Peter than that of any single book in
the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and
R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour.
One has to admit that the case concerning II Peter has problems
of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and
balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that
an adverse decision against the authenticity of II Peter stands
by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books.
It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without
full knowledge of all the evidence.

                    SLOW IN GENERAL ACCEPTANCE

        It was accepted in the canon by the council at Laodicea
(372) and at Carthage (397). Jerome accepted it for the Vulgate,
though it was absent from the Peshito Syriac Version. Eusebius
placed it among the disputed books, while Origen was inclined to
accept it. Clement of Alexandria accepted it and apparently wrote
a commentary on it. It is probable that the so-called Apocalypse
of Peter (early second century) used it and the Epistle of Jude
either used it or II Peter used Jude. There are undoubted
allusions also to phrases in II Peter in Aristides, Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Clement of Rome. When one considers
the brevity of the Epistle, the use of it is really as strong as
one can expect. Athanasius and Augustine accepted it as genuine,
as did Luther, while Calvin doubted and Erasmus rejected it. It
may be said for it that it won its way under criticism and was
not accepted blindly.

                    CLAIMS PETRINE AUTHORSHIP

        Not only so, but in fuller form than #1Pe 1:1|, for the
writer terms himself "Simon (Symeon in some MSS.) Peter," a fact
that has been used against the genuineness. If no claim had been
made, that would have been considered decisive against him. Simon
(Symeon was the Jewish form as used by James in #Ac 15:14|) is
the real name (#Joh 1:42|) and Peter merely the Greek for Cephas,
the nickname given by Christ. There is no reason why both could
not properly be employed here. But the claim to Petrine
authorship, if not genuine, leaves the Epistle pseudonymous. That
was a custom among some Jewish writers and even Christian
writers, as the spurious Petrine literature testifies (Gospel of
Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, etc.), works of a heretical or
curious nature. Whatever the motive for such a pious fraud, the
fact remains that II Peter, if not genuine, has to take its place
with this pseudonymous literature and can hardly be deemed worthy
of a place in the New Testament. And yet there is no heresy in
this Epistle, no startling new ideas that would lead one to use
the name of Simon Peter. It is the rather full of edifying and
orthodox teaching.

                AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCES OF PETER

        The writer makes use of his own contact with Jesus,
especially at the Transfiguration of Christ (#Mr 9:2-8; Mt
17:1-8; Lu 9:28-36|). This fact has been used against the
genuineness of the Epistle on the plea that the writer is too
anxious, anyhow, to show that he is Symeon Peter (#2Pe 1:1|). But
Bigg rightly replies that, if he had only given his name with no
personal contacts with Jesus, the name would be called "a forged
addition." It is possible also that the experience on the Mount
of Transfiguration may have been suggested by Peter's use of
\exodos\ for his own death (#2Pe 1:15|), the very word used by
Luke (#Lu 9:31|) as the topic of discussion between Jesus and
Moses and Elijah. There is also in #2Pe 1:13| the use of "tent"
(\skênoma\) for the life in the body, like Peter's use of "tents"
(\skênas\) to Jesus at that very time (#Mr 9:5; Mt 17:4; Lu
9:33|). In #2Pe 1:14| Peter also refers to the plain words of
Jesus about his coming death (#Joh 21:18f.|). In #2Pe 1:15| Peter
speaks of his own plan for preserving the knowledge of Jesus when
he is gone (possibly by Mark's Gospel). All this is in perfect
keeping with Peter's own nature.

      AND YET THE EPISTLE DIFFERS IN STYLE FROM FIRST PETER

        This is a fact, though one greatly exaggerated by some
scholars. There are many points of similarity, for one thing,
like the habit of repeating words (\epichorêgeô\ in #2Pe 1:10,19,
\bebaios\ in #2Pe 1:12,13,15|, \prophêteia\ in #2Pe 1:20; 3:3|,
etc.). These repetitions occur all through the Epistle as in I
Peter. "This is a matter of very high importance" (Bigg). Again
in both Epistles there is a certain dignity of style with a
tendency to iambic rhythm. There is more quotation of the Old
Testament in I Peter, but frequent allusion to words and phrases
in II Peter. There are more allusions to words and facts in the
Gospels in I Peter than in II Peter, though some do occur in II
Peter. Besides those already given, note #2Pe 1:8| (#Lu 13:7f.|),
#2Pe 2:1| (#Mt 10:33|), #2Pe 2:20| (#Mt 12:45; Lu 11:26|), #2Pe
3:4| (#Mt 24:1ff.|), and possibly #2Pe 1:3| to Christ's calling
the apostles. Both appear to know and use the O.T. Apocrypha.
Both are fond of the plural of abstract substantives. Both make
sparing use of Greek particles. Both use the article similarly,
idiomatically, and sometimes not using it. There are some 361
words in 1 Peter not in II Peter, 231 in II Peter not in I Peter.
There are 686 \hapax legomena\ in N.T., 54 in II Peter instead of
the average of 62, a large number when the brevity of the Epistle
is considered. There are several ways of explaining these
variations. One way is to say that they are written by different
men, but difference of subject has to be borne in mind. All
writers and artists have an early and a later manner. Another
solution is that Peter employed different amanuenses. Silvanus
was the one for I Peter (#1Pe 5:12|). Mark was Peter's usual
interpreter, but we do not know who was the amanuensis for II
Peter, if indeed one was used. We know from #Ac 4:13| that Peter
and John were considered unlettered men (\agrammatoi kai
idiôtai\). II Peter and the Apocalypse illustrate this statement.
II Peter may have more of Peter's real style than I Peter.

             HE ACCEPTS PAUL'S EPISTLES AS SCRIPTURE

        This fact (#2Pe 3:15f.|) has been used as conclusive
proof by Baur and his school that Peter could not have written
the Epistle after the stern rebuke from Paul at Antioch (#Ga
2:11f.|). But this argument ignores one element in Peter's
impulsive nature and that is his coming back as he did with
Jesus. Paul after that event in Antioch spoke kindly of Peter
(#1Co 9:5|). Neither Peter nor Paul cherished a personal grudge
where the Master's work was involved. It is also objected that
Peter would not have put Paul's Epistles on the level with the
O.T. and call them by implication "Scripture." But Paul claimed
the help of the Holy Spirit in his writings and Peter knew the
marks of the Holy Spirit's power. Besides, in calling Paul's
Epistles Scripture he may not have meant to place them exactly on
a par with the Old Testament.

              THE RESEMBLANCE TO THE EPISTLE OF JUDE

        This is undoubted, particularly between Jude and the
second chapter of II Peter. Kuhl argues that #2Pe 2:1-3:2| is an
interpolation, though the same style runs through out the
Epistle. "The theory of interpolation is always a last and
desperate expedient" (Bigg). In II Peter 2 we have the fallen
angels, the flood, the cities of the plain with Lot, Balaam. In
Jude we have Israel in the wilderness, the fallen angels, the
cities of the plain (with no mention of Lot, Cain, Balaam,
Korah). Jude mentions the dispute between Michael and Satan,
quotes Enoch by name. There is rather more freshness in Jude than
in II Peter, though II Peter is more intelligible. Evidently one
had the other before him, besides other material. Which is the
earlier? There is no way to decide this point clearly. Every
point is looked at differently and argued differently by
different writers. My own feeling is that Jude was before (just
before) II Peter, though it is only a feeling and not a
conviction.

                           ANACHRONISMS

        It used to be said that it was impossible for II Peter to
have been written in the first century, because it had the
atmosphere of the second. But one fact is strongly against that
argument. In #2Pe 3:8| occurs the quotation of #Ps 90:4| about
the thousand years without any chiliastic turn at all, a thing
sure to happen in the second century after chiliasm had come to
have such a swing. Peter's use of it suits the first century, not
the second. As a matter of fact, the false teachers described in
II Peter suit the first century precisely if one recalls Paul's
troubles with the Judaizers in Galatia and Corinth and with the
Gnostics in Colossae and Ephesus. "Every feature in the
description of the false teachers and mockers is to be found in
the apostolic age" (Bigg).

                           THE READERS

        The author says that this is his second Epistle to them
(#2Pe 3:1|), and that means that he is writing to the saints in
the five Roman provinces in Asia Minor to whom the first Epistle
was sent (#1Pe 1:1|). Spitta and Zahn deny this on the ground
that the two Epistles do not discuss the same subjects, surely a
flimsy objection. Zahn even holds that II Peter precedes I Peter
and that the Epistle referred to in #2Pe 3:1| has been lost. He
holds that II Peter was addressed to the church in Corinth. He
considers the readers to be Jews while I Peter was addressed to
Gentiles. But "there is nothing in II Peter to differentiate its
first readers from those of I Peter" (Bigg).

                           THE PURPOSE

        Certainly Peter is here concerned chiefly with the
heresies of that general region in Asia Minor that so disturbed
Paul (Colossians, Ephesians, Pastoral Epistles) and John (Gospel,
Epistles, Apocalypse). Paul early foresaw at Miletus these wolves
that would ravish the sheep (#Ac 20:29f.|). In I Peter he is
concerned chiefly with the fiery persecutions that are upon them,
but here with the heretics that threaten to lead them astray.

                      BALANCE OF PROBABILITY

        There are difficulties in any decision about the
authorship and character of II Peter. But, when all things are
considered, I agree with Bigg that the Epistle is what it
professes to be by Simon Peter. Else it is pseudonymous. The
Epistle more closely resembles the other New Testament books than
it does the large pseudepigraphic literature of the second and
third centuries.

                             THE DATE

        If we accept the Petrine authorship, it must come before
his death, which was probably A.D. 67 or 68. Hence the Epistle
cannot be beyond this date. There are those who argue for A.D. 64
as the date of Peter's death, but on insufficient grounds in my
opinion.

            BOOKS ON II PETER BESIDES THOSE ON I PETER
                               ALSO

Abbott, E. A., _The Expositor_ (Jan. to March, 1822).
Chase, F. H., _Hastings D B_ (Second Peter).
De Zwaan, _2 Peter en Judas_ (1909).
Dietlein, W. O., _Der 2 Brief Petri_ (1851).
Grosch, H., _Die Echtheit des zweiten Briefes Petri_ (1889).
Henkel, K., _Der zweite Brief des Apostelfursten Petrus_ (1904).
Hofmann, J. C., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda
   (1875)
Hundhausen, _Das zweite Pontifkalschreiben des Apostels
   Petrus_ (1873).
James, M. R., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of
   Jude_ (Cambridge Greek Testament, 1912).
Lumby, J. R., _2 Peter and Jude_ (in Bible Commentary).
Mayor, J. B., _The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of
   St. Peter_ (1907).
Plummer, A., _The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of
   Jude_ (Vol. 3, N.T. Commentary for English Readers
   by Ellicott).
Robson, E. I., _Studies in the Second Epistle of St. Peter_ (1915).
Schott, Th., _Der zweite Brief Petri und der Brief Juda_ (1863).
Schott, _Der 2 Br. Petri und der Br. Juda Erkl_. (1863).
Schweenhorst, H., _Das Verhaltnis des Judasbriefes zum
   zweiten Petrusbriefe_ (1904).
Snyman, D. R., _The Authenticity of the Second Epistle of Peter_
  (thesis in 1923 for Th.D. degree at Southern Baptist
  Theological Seminary).
Spitta, F, _Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des
   Judas_ (1885).
Strachan, R. D., _Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910),
Ullman, C., _Der 2 Brief Petri Krit. untersuch._ (1821).
Warfield, B. B., _A Defence of 2 Peter_ (Southern Presbyterian
   Review, January, 1882).
   ,_Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the Genuineness of Second
   Peter (Southern Presbyterian Review_, 1883).
Werdermann, _H., Die Irrlehrer des Judasbriefes und 2
   Petrusbriefes_ (1913).
Wiesinger, J. T. A., _Der zweite Brief des Apostels Petrus und
   der Brief des Judas_ (1862).