2 Peter, also known as theSecond Epistle of Peter and abbreviated as2 Pet.,[a] is anepistle of theNew Testament written inKoine Greek. It identifies the author as "Simon Peter" (in some translations, 'Simeon' or 'Shimon'), a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). The epistle is traditionally attributed toPeter the Apostle, but most critical scholars consider the epistlepseudepigraphical (i.e., authored by one or more of Peter's followers, using Peter as apseudonym).[4][5][6][7][8] Scholars estimate the date of authorship anywhere from AD 60 to 150.
According to the Epistle itself, it was composed by the Apostle Peter, an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry.2 Peter 3:1 says "This is now the second letter I have written to you"; if this is an allusion to1 Peter, then the audience of the epistle may have been the same as it was for 1 Peter, namely, various churches inAsia Minor (see1 Peter 1:1).
The date of composition has proven to be difficult to determine. Taken literally, it would have been written around AD 64–68, as Christian tradition holds Peter was martyred in the 60s byNero, and also because Peter references his approaching death in2 Peter 1:14 ("since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me").[9]
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. Scholars consider the epistle to have been written anywhere between c. AD 60–150, with "some reason to favour" a date between 80 and 90.[10] Dates suggested by various authors include:
The scholarly debate can be divided into two parts: external and internal evidence. The external evidence for its authenticity, although feasible, remains open to criticism. (There is debate as to whether 2 Peter is being quoted or the other way around.) Much of this debate derives from Professor Robert E. Picirilli's article "Allusion to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers," which compiles many of the allusions by theApostolic Fathers of the late first and early second centuries, thus demonstrating that 2 Peter is not to be considered a second-century document.[36] Despite this effort, scholars such as Michael J. Gilmour, who consider Picirilli's evidences to be correct, disagree with classifying the work as authentic but rather as apseudepigrapha, arguing among many other things thatPaul (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2) had to warn against contemporary pseudo-Pauline writers.[37]
The internal debate focuses more on its style, its ideology, and its relationship to the other works and stories. Some of the internal arguments against the authenticity of 2 Peter have gained significant popularity since the 1980s. One such argument is the argument that the scholarBo Reicke first formulated in 1964, where he argued that 2 Peter is clearly an example of an ancient literary genre known as a 'testament', which originally arose from Moses' farewell discourse inDeuteronomy.[38][b][c]Richard J. Bauckham, who popularized this argument, wrote that the 'testament' genre contains two main elements: ethical warnings to be followed after the death of the writer and revelations of the future. The significant fact about the 'testament' genre was not in its markers but in its nature; it is argued that a piece of 'testament' literature is meant to "be a completely transparent fiction."[42] This argument has its detractors, who classify it as asyllogism.[43][44][45][46][47] Others characterize the writing as a 'farewell speech' because it lacks any semblance of final greetings or ties with recipients.[48]
One of the questions to be resolved is 2 Peter's relationship with the Pauline letters since it refers to thePauline epistles and so must postdate at least some of them, regardless of authorship. Thus, a date before AD 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far as to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture"—one of only two times a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way—implying that it postdates them by some time.[49] Various hypotheses have been put forward to improve or resolve this issue; one notable hypothesis is that theFirst Epistle of Clement (c. AD 96), by citing as Scripture several of the Pauline letters,[50] was inspired by 2 Peter because it was considered authentic. This would mean that even the recipients of 1 Clement, the inhabitants ofCorinth, would have also considered it authentic, which would indicate that the letter must have been in circulation long before that time.[51] The earliest reference to a Pauline collection is probably found inIgnatius of Antioch around AD 108.[52][53]
Another debate is about its linguistic complexity and its relationship with 1 Peter. According to the scholarBart D. Ehrman, the historicalPeter could not have written any works, either because he was "unlettered" (Acts 4:13) or because he was a fisherman fromCapernaum, a comparatively small and probably monolingual town, in a time and province where there was little literacy.[54] Bauckham addresses the statistical differences in the vocabulary of the two writings, using the data given by U. Holzmeister's 1949 study;[55] 38.6 percent of the words are common to 1 and 2 Peter. 61.4 percent peculiar to 2 Peter, while of the words used in 1 Peter, 28.4 percent are common to 1 and 2 Peter, 71.6 percent are peculiar to 1 Peter. However, these figures can be compared with other epistles considered authentic,[56] showing that pure statistical analysis of this type is a weak way of showing literary relationship.[57][58][59] Bauckham also notes that "the Greek style of Second Peter is not to the taste of many modern readers, at times pretentiously elaborate, with an effort at pompous phrasing, a somewhat artificial piece of rhetoric, and 'slimy Greek'"; contrary to the style of the first epistle, "2 Peter must relate to the 'Asiatic Greek.'"[60] The crux of the matter is how these differences are explained. Those who deny the Petrine authorship of the epistle, such as, for example,Kelly, insist that the differences show that First and Second Peter were not written by the same person.[61] Others add that 2 Peter was a specific type ofpseudepigraphy common and morally accepted at the time, either because it was a testamentary genre or because the works of the disciples could bear the names of their masters without any inconvenience.[62][63][d]
Those who defend Petrine authorship often appeal to the differentamanuenses or secretaries Peter used to write each letter, as first suggested byJerome.[64][65][66]Thomas R. Schreiner criticizes people who regard arguments in favor of the authenticity of 2 Peter as mere arguments of religious conservatives who impotently try to invent arguments to support authenticity. People of this mindset, according to Schreiner, object to the claim that different secretaries may have been used but then claim that the corpus of the two letters is too small to establish stylistic variation. Schreiner states:
When we examine historical documents, we are not granted exhaustive knowledge of the circumstances in which the document came into being. Therefore, we must postulate probabilities, and in some cases, of course, more than one scenario is likely. Moreover, in some cases the likely scenarios are not internally contradictory, but both constitute plausible answers to the problem posed. Suggesting more than one solution is not necessarily an appeal to despair, but can be a sign of humility.[67]
The scholarSimon J. Kistemaker believes that linguistically "the material presented in both documents provides substantial evidence to indicate that these letters are the product of a single author."[68] However, this view is very much in the minority. Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphal.[4][69][70][71][35][49] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use ofJude, possible allusions to second-centurygnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayedparousia, and weak external support.[72]
There is an obvious relationship between the texts of 2 Peter and theEpistle of Jude, to the degree that one of them clearly had read the other and copied phrases, or both had read some lost common source.[76] The shared passages are:[77]
The earliest undisputed mention of 2 Peter is by the theologianOrigen (c. 185–254) in hisCommentary on the Gospel of John, in which he states:[78]
Peter, on whom the Church of Christ was built, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail, left only one epistle of aknowledged genuinenness. Suppose we allow that he left a second, which is doubtful.
Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. According toDonald Guthrie this means that Origen "saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical."[80] Acceptance of the letter into the canon did not occur without some difficulty; however, "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."[80]
Origen, in another passage, has been interpreted as considering the letter to be Petrine in authorship.[81] Before Origen's time, the evidence is inconclusive;[82] there is a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of theApostolic Fathers, though possible use or influence has been located in the works ofClement of Alexandria (d. c. 211),Theophilius (d. c. 183),Aristides (d. c. 134),Polycarp (d. 155), andJustin (d. 165).[83][84][36]
Carsten Peter Thiede adds to Picirilli's work authors such as Justin andMinucius Felix who would use 2 Peter directly and a new reference in Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 9.2 = 2 Pet. 1.17).[87]
Eusebius (c. 275–339) professed his own doubts (see alsoAntilegomena), and is the earliest direct testimony of such, though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time ofJerome (c. 346–420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.[96]
ThePeshitta, the standard version of the Bible for churches in theSyriac tradition, does not contain the Second Epistle of Peter and thus rejects its canonical status.[97]
Theepistle presciently declares that it is written shortly before the apostle's death (1:14), an assertion that may not have been part of the original text. Arguments for and against the assertion being original are based largely on the acceptance or rejection of supernatural intervention in the life of the writer.[105]
The chapters of this epistle show a triangular relationship between Christology (chapter 1), ethics (chapter 2) and eschatology (chapter 3).
At the beginning of chapter 1, the author calls himself "Simeon Peter" (seeActs 15:14). This detail, for the scholar Rob. van Houwelingen, is evidence of the authenticity of the letter.[112] The letter gives a list of seven virtues in the form of a ladder: Love, Brotherly affection, Godliness, Steadfastness, Self-control, Knowledge, and Excellence.[113] Through the memory of Peter (1:12–15), the author encourages the addressees to lead holy and godly lives (1:11b); in verse13 the author speaks of righteousness (being just) in a moral sense, and in verse14 his line of argument reaches a climax as the addressees are encouraged to do all they can to be found blameless (1 Thess 5:23). In short, the author's concern is to encourage his addressees to behave ethically without reproach (1:5–7;3:12–14), probably because of the impending parousia (Second Coming), which will come like a thief in the night (3:10;1 Thess 5:2).[114]
In this chapter, the author affirms that false teachers have arisen among the faithful to lead them astray with "destructive heresies" and "exploit people with false words" (2:1–2). Just as there were false prophets in ancient times, so there would be false teachers,[115] false prophets and sheep's clothing were one of the prophecies of Jesus [Matt 7:15], to which the author of this letter together with the author of1 John refers [1 John 4:1].[116] False teachers are accused of "denying the Lord who bought them" and promoting licentiousness (2:1–2). The author classifies false teachers as "irrational animals, instinctive creatures, born to be caught and destroyed" (2:12). They are "spots and stains, delighting in their dissipation" with "eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin… hearts trained in covetousness" (2:13–14).[115] As a solution, 2 Peter proposes in the following chapter tools such as penance, aimed at purging sins, and the reactualization of the eschatological hope, to be expected with attention, service and perseverance.[117] This chapter in all likelihood adapts significant portions of theEpistle of Jude.[118][119][120][121]
The ethical goal is not to fall into that debauchery, and errors, and to have hope. This is promoted with many stories of how God rescues the righteous while holding back the unrighteous for the day of judgment, and the stories ofNoah, the story of Lot inSodom and Gomorrah (2:6–8) and the storyBalaam, son of Bosor (2:15–16) are used as a warning.
The fundamental of this chapter is the authoritative Christian revelation. The revelation is found in a two-part source (3:2). There is little doubt that the "words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets" refers to the OT writings, either in part or in whole.[122][123] Then the author mentions the second source of revelation, the "commandment of the Lord" spoken by "your apostles." It is remarkable that this two-part authority includes an obvious older means "words spoken beforehand" as well as an obvious newer half, the apostolically mediated words (words about Jesus). One could be forgiven if he sees here a precursor to a future "old" and "new" Testament.[124] This juxtaposition of prophet and apostle as a two-part revelatory source is not first found in3:1–2, but in1:16–21.[123]
Another remarkable feature of this chapter is that the author presupposes that his audience is familiar with a plurality of apostles ("how many" is unclear), and, moreover, that they have had (and perhaps still have) access to the teaching of these apostles. One cannot "remember" teaching that they have not received. Of course, this raises difficult questions about the precise medium (oral or written) by which the public received this apostolic teaching. However, near the end of this chapter, the means by which the audience at least received the apostlePaul's teaching is expressly stated. We are told that the audience knew the teachings of "our beloved brother Paul" (3:15) and that they knew them in written form: "Paul also wrote to you according to wisdom as he does in all his letters" (3:16), the "also" being the key word since in the first verse of the chapter the author referred to another written apostolic text, namely his first epistle (1 Peter): considering part of the "Scriptures" not only the OT prophets, but also Paul and the author himself,[125] from the Pauline corpus the author may have known1 and2 Thessalonians,Romans,Galatians, and possiblyEphesians andColossians.[126][127] Thought on Christian revelation is also located in other early authors, namelyClement of Rome,Ignatius,Polycarp,Justin Martyr, and in the work2 Clement.[128]
In the middle of the chapter is the explanation for the delay in Jesus' return (3:9); Jesus' delay is only to facilitate the salvation of the "already faithful" who may at times waver in their faith or have been led astray by false teachers (2:2–3). God is delaying to make sure that "all" have had sufficient time to secure their commitment (or return) to the gospel, including the false teachers. The remaining verses provide details about the coming day of the Lord along with the exhortation that flows seamlessly into the conclusion of the letter. The instruction offered here (3:11–13) echoes that of Jesus who called his disciples to await the consummation of his kingdom with attention, service and perseverance (Mt 24–25;Mk 13:3–13,32–37;18:1–30;21:1–38). Taken together with the final verses (3:14–18), here again the author expresses the concern that believers secure their eternal place in God's new creation by embracing lives that foster blessing and even hasten God's coming day.[129]
^The work is also called theSecond Letter of Peter.[2][3]
^Within the New Testament it is speculated that 2 Timothy, John 13-17, Luke 22:21-38, and Acts 20:18-35 are also farewell discourses or testamentary works.[39][40]
^In addition to the end of Deuteronomy within the Old Testament, it is speculated that Genesis 47:29–49:33 and 1 Samuel 12 are also farewell discourses.[41]
^Tertullian,Adversus Marcionem. 4.5.3-4;That which Mark edited is stated to be Peter’s [Petri affirmetur], whose interpreter Mark was. Luke’s digest also they usually attribute to Paul [Paulo adscribere solent]. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters [Capit magistrorum videri quae discipuli promulgarint].
^The alleged citation of 1 Thess 5:2 in 2 Pet 3:10 is a disputed allusion. Duane F. Watson, Terranee Callan, and Dennis Farkasfalvy identify the allusion to 1 Thessalonians. Michael J. Gilmour, on the other hand, disputes the identification of the allusion.[106]
^abBrown, Raymond E., Introduction to the New Testament, Anchor Bible, 1997,ISBN0-385-24767-2. p. 767 "the pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work."
^Ehrman, Bart (2005).Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Harper Collins. p. 31.ISBN978-0-06-182514-9.Evidence comes in the final book of the New Testament to be written, 2 Peter, a book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously.
^Davids, Peter H. (1982). Marshall, I Howard; Gasque, W Ward (eds.).The Epistle of James. New International Greek Testament Commentary (repr. ed.). Grand Rapids,MI: Eerdmans.ISBN0-80282388-2.
^Evans, Craig A. (2005). Evans, Craig A (ed.).John, Hebrews-Revelation. Bible Knowledge Background Commentary. Colorado Springs,CO: Victor.ISBN0-78144228-1.
^Giese. C. P. (2012). 2 Peter and Jude. Concordia Commentary. St Louis: Concordia. pp. 11.
^Wohlenberg, G. (1915). Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief, pp. 37.
^Davids, P. H. (2006). The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 130-260. at. 130-131.
^Harvey and Towner. (2009). 2 Peter & Jude. pp. 15.
^Green, M. (1987). Second Epistle General of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. An Introduction and Commentary. Rev. ed. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. pp. 47.
^Moo, D. J. (1996). 2 Peter and Jude. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. pp. 24-25.
^abcPicirilli, Robert E. (May 1988). "Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers".Journal for the Study of the New Testament.10 (33):57–83.doi:10.1177/0142064X8801003304.S2CID161724733.
^Gilmour, Michael. J. (2001), "Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter" EvQ 73. Pp. 298-300
^Thomas R. Schreiner, 2003, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC, Nashville,TN: Holman Reference), pp. 266–75, at 275.
^Green, Gene (2008). Jude and 2 Peter. Baker Academic, pp. 37–38.
^P. H. R. Van Houwelingen (2010), “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions.” European Journal of Theology 19:2, pp. 121–32.
^J. Daryl Charles, 1997, “Virtue amidst Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 150, Sheffield, ENG: Academic Press, pp. 75.
^Mathews, Mark. D. (2011). The Genre of 2 Peter: A Comparison with Jewish and Early Christian Testaments. Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.1: pp. 51–64.
^Ehrman, Bart (2011).Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible's authors are not who we think they are. Harper One. p. 52–77; 133–141.ISBN9780062012616.OCLC639164332.
^Holzmeister, U. (1949). Vocabularium secundae espitolae S. Petri erroresque quidam de eo divulg ati. Biblica 30:339-355.
^Bauckham 1983, 144. “These percentages do not compare badly with those for 1 and 2 Corinthians: of the words used in 1 Corinthians, 40.4 percent are common to 1 and 2 Corinthians, 59.6 percent are peculiar to 1 Corinthians; of the words used in 2 Corinthians, 49.3 percent are common to 1 and 2 Corinthians, 50.7 percent are peculiar to 2 Corinthians.”
^Bruce M. Metzger. (1972). Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha. Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 91, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 3-24 at. 17.
^Bruce M. Metzger. (1958). A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. The Expository Times 1970; pp. 91-99.
^Bauckham, RJ. (1988). Pseudo-Apostolic Letters. Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 107, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 469-494 (26 pages). at. 489.
^Armin D. Baum. (2017). Content and Form: Authorship Attribution and Pseudonymity in Ancient Speeches, Letters, Lectures, and Translations—A Rejoinder to Bart Ehrman. Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 136, No. 2 (Summer 2017), pp. 381-403 (23 pages). at. 389-390.
^Jerome, Letter 120 [to Hedibia]: Therefore Titus served as an interpreter, as Saint Mark used to serve Saint Peter, with whom he wrote his Gospel. Also we see that the two epistles attributed to Saint Peter have different styles and turn phrases differently, by which it is discerned that it was sometimes necessary for him to use different interpreters.
^Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Pub Group, 1987), 224
^Erhman, Bart (2005).Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. Harper Collins. p. 31.ISBN978-0-06-182514-9.Evidence comes in the final book of the New Testament to be written, 2 Peter, a book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously.
^Stephen L. Harris (1992).Understanding the Bible. Mayfield. p. 388.ISBN978-1-55934-083-0.Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.
^abLapham, Fred (2004) [2003].Peter: The Myth, the Man and the Writings: A study of the early Petrine tradition. T&T Clark International. pp. 149–171.ISBN0567044904.
^abDonald Guthrie,Introduction to the New Testament 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.
^M. R. James, "The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude", inCambridge Greek Testament (1912), p. xix; cf. Origen,Homily in Josh. 7.1.
^Donald Guthrie,Introduction to the New Testament 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.
^Davids, P. H. (2004). “The Use of Second Temple Traditions in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude,” in Jacques Schlosser, ed. The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 176; Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 426–27.
^Thiede, C. P. (1986).A Pagan Reader of 2 Peter: Cosmic Conflagration in 2 Peter 3 and the Octavius of Minucius Felix. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 8(26), 79–96.
^Osburn, D. Carroll. (2000). "Second Letter of Peter", in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 1039.
^Elliott, John. (1993). "Second Epistle of Peter", in Anchor Bible Dictionary 5. pp. 282–87, at 287.
^Helmbold, Andrew (1967). The Nag Hammati Gnostic Texts and the Bible. Grand Rapids, pp. 61.
^Donald Guthrie, 1990,Introduction to the New Testament 4th ed. Leicester: Apollos, pp. 808–9, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome,De Viris Illustribus chapter 1.
^"Table of Contents".ܟܬܒܐ ܩܕܝ̈ܫܐ: ܟܬܒܐ ܕܕܝܬܩܐ ܥܛܝܼܩܬܐ ܘ ܚ̇ܕܬܐ. [London]: United Bible Societies. 1979.OCLC38847449.
^Helmut Koester, 1982, Introduction to the New Testament, Vol. One: History, Culture and Religion of the Hellenistic Age, Fortress Press/Walter de Gruyter. pp. 107–10.
^Callan, T. (2014). Use of the letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter. Bib 85, pp. 42–64.
^Thurén, L. (2004). The Relationship between 2 Peter and Jude: A Classical Problem Resolved?. in The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, ed. Jacques Schlosser. BETL 176, Leuven: Peeters, pp. 451–60.
^Kasemann, Ernst (1982). Essays on New Testament Themes, "An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology", trans. W. J. Montague, (SCM Press, 1968: Great Britain), pp. 172.
^Houwelingen 2010, 122. "These considerations make us think especially of Paul's letter to the Galatians. It is also possible to think of the letters to the Ephesians and Colossians – the latter is indeed difficult to interpret."
^Levoratti, Armando J. (1981). La Biblia. Libro del Pueblo de Dios. Verbo Divino, 2018, pp. 1791. "In this passage is found the first mention of a collection of Paul's Letters considered an integral part of the canonical Scriptures. The passages therein which lent themselves to false interpretations were undoubtedly those concerning the second Coming of the Lord (1 Thess. 4. 13–5. 11; 2 Thess. 1.7–10; 2.1–12), and Christian liberty (Rom. 7; Gal. 5). In the latter, especially, some sought justification for moral licentiousness."
_fol._142r_-_2_Corinthians_11%2c33-12%2c9.jpg)
