The general epistles of st. Peter and st. Jude, with notes and intr. by E. H ...

CHAPTER V.

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST PETER.

The Second Epistle ascribed to St Peter comes before us, as far as external evidence is concerned, somewhat heavily weighted. Origen (circ. A.D. 230) is the earliest writer who names it, and in doing so, he admits that its authority was questioned. "Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, has left us one Epistle generally accepted (oμoloyovμévŋv), and if you will, a Second, for this is questioned." (Euseb. H. E. VI. 25.) In addition to this he often quotes the First Epistle as "the Catholic Epistle." It had not made its way to greater acceptance when the Peschito Syriac Version of the New Testament was made, nor when the Muratorian Canon was drawn up, and finds no place in either of them. The latter, however, it should be noted, does not take in even the First Epistle, and so far leaves the two standing as on the same footing. In Eusebius we find traces of a transition stage, but the old doubts still continued, and obviously, as far as his own mind was concerned, preponderated. "We" he says "have not received that which is current as the Second Epistle as having a place in the Canon, but as it seemed to many to be edifying, it was studied with the other Scriptures." Afterwards he speaks of knowing only one genuine Epistle among the so-called writings of Peter (H. E. III. 3), and again classes the so-called Second Epistle with the Epistles of St James and Jude, as "questioned (avriλeyóμeva) but yet acknowledged by most people" (H. E. III. 25). Jerome (Script. Eccl. 1.) reproduces the same balanced state of feeling. The Second Epistle was "rejected by very many on account of its difference in style." He, however, included it in his Latin Version, known as the Vulgate, and this probably helped to determine its acceptance by the Western Church. Doubts lingered in Asia Minor and Syria, and were expressed by

Gregory of Nazianzus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. These, however, gradually gave way, and the Epistle appeared in the Philoxenian or later Syriac version, and was received into the Canon by the Councils of Laodicea (A. D. 372) and Carthage (A. D. 397).

On the other side we have what may possibly be allusive references to the Epistle, or even quotations from it, though it is not named. Barnabas, or the Epistle that bears his name (c. xv.), brings in the thought that "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years” (2 Pet. iii. 8), but then this was but a reproduction of the Jewish thought of a Millennial Sabbath of a thousand years, and does not prove that he derived it from our Epistle. Justin (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 89) quotes the same words, but it is, of course, uncertain from what source he drew them, and the same holds good of their citation by Irenæus (V. 23, 28). Theophilus of Antioch in speaking of "men of God as borne on by the Spirit and so becoming prophets" (ad Autol. II. 2), of the Word or LOGOS of God as a "lamp shining in a narrow dwelling" (II. 1), reminds us so closely of 2 Pet. i. 18—21, that it is difficult to believe that he was not acquainted with the Epistle. Origen (in works, however, of which we have only Rufinus's Latin translation) once and again quotes the Epistle as Peter's: "Peter speaks through the two trumpets of his Epistles" (Hom. IV. in Josh.); "Peter says, Ye have been made partakers of the Divine Nature" (Hom. IV. in Levit.).

As far as evidence from without goes then the case does not go beyond a fair measure of proof that the Epistle was known and read in the second century, but that in spite of its manifest claim to be by the Apostle, it was not generally accepted.

We turn to the internal evidence, and here again there is, at first sight, an impression unfavourable to its genuineness. The opening description which the writer gives of himself is different from that of the First Epistle. So also is the general style of language and tenor of thought. It dwells less on the Pauline thoughts of redemption, election, grace, salvation, less on the trials of persecution, and the necessity of patience, and

not without a certain tone of agitation, and a fulness of rhetorical amplification, speaks at length of the dangers of false teachers (c. ii.) and the mocking taunts of scoffers at the delay of the Lord's coming (c. iii.). There is, it has been said, an ostentation in the reference to the Transfiguration (i. 16), in the patronising tone in which the writer speaks of St Paul (iii. 15, 16), which is not in harmony with the naturalness and simplicity of the First Epistle.

It remains to be seen, however, how far a more thorough examination of the Epistle confirms or balances these conclusions. And here we have to deal with a large number of circumstantial details, each of them, it may be, comparatively inconclusive in itself, and yet tending, in their accumulated weight, to turn the scale of evidence.

(1) It is not probable that a pseudonymous writer would have begun his work by the use of the name "Symeon," which at once presented a startling variation from the opening of the First Epistle.

(2) In spite of the admitted difference of style, there are not a few instances in which words comparatively unfamiliar in other books are common to the two Epistles.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

ii. I "the Lord that bought them" (ȧyo- — i. 18

(3) On comparing the Second Epistle with the same New Testament writings with which the First Epistle has been compared, it will be seen that here also we have like points of contact and resemblance. These we give, as before, in a tabulated form.

2 Pet.

COMPARISON OF THE SECOND EPISTLE OF
ST PETER WITH ST PAUL'S EPISTLES.