The Second Epistle of Peter is a book of the New Testament of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Saint Peter, but in modern times widely regarded as pseudonymous.
It is the first New Testament book to treat other New Testament writings as scripture, 2 Peter was one of the last letters included in the New Testament canon; it quotes from and adapts Jude extensively, identifies Jesus with God, and addresses a threatening heresy which had arisen because the end and salvation had not occurred.
Contents |
Composition
According to the Epistle itself, it was composed by the Apostle Peter, an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. It criticizes "false teachers" who distort the authentic, apostolic tradition, and predicts judgment for them. 2 Peter explains that God has delayed the Second Coming so that more people will have the chance to reject evil and find salvation. It calls on Christians to wait patiently for the parousia and to study scripture.
The date of composition has proven to be very difficult to determine. Commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from 60 to 160AD.[1]
Authorship
Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author[citation needed], and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.[2]
Date
The questions of authorship and date are closely related. Self-evidently if Peter the Apostle wrote this epistle then it must have been written prior to his death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is not probable.
Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD[3] and so contend that it is pseudepigraphical. For an argument for a late date see Harris.[4] For a 'middle date' see Bauckham who opts for a date between 80–90AD as most probable.[5] For an early date and (usually) for a defense of the Apostle Peter's authorship see Kruger,[6] Zahn,[7] Spitta,[8] Bigg,[9] and Green.[10] Jeremy Duff argues that the various strands of evidence "point towards the period 60–130 CE, with some reason to favour 80–90 CE."[11]
Canonical acceptance
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."[12] The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by Origen (c. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he 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.”[12] Origen, in another passage, has been interpreted as considering the letter to be Petrine in authorship.[13] Before Origen's time, the evidence is inconclusive;[14] there is a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, though possible use or influence has been located in the works of Clement (d. c. 211), Theophilius (d. c. 183), Aristides (d. c. 134), Polycarp (d. 155), and Justin (d. 165).[15] Eusebius (c. 275 – 339) professed his own doubts, see also Antilegomena, and is the earliest direct testimony of such, though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of Jerome (c. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.[16]
Content
If the “scandal of the cross” diminished the sect's chances of dominating Judaism, the destruction of Jerusalem ended them. The believers' expectations turned from freedom toward judgment. Israel had already been redefined in I Peter to be the people of faith in Jesus. These, who had been through the tribulation of destruction of the nominal nation of Israel, now expected the return of Jesus to judge the world and save the faithful.
-
- “Arguments for and against God‟s just judgment resemble those found in Plutarch's De sera numinis vindicta” [On the delays of divine vengeance] “as well as in the targumic midrash about Cain and Abel in Gen” [Genesis] “4. The description of cosmic fire and renewal would sound congenial to Stoic ears as well as those trained in biblical traditions.” TNJBC p. 1017iii[17]
This epistle presciently declares that it is written shortly before the apostle's death (1:14). Arguments have been made both for and against this being part of the original text, but this debate largely is centred on the acceptance or rejection of supernatural intervention in the life of the writer.
The epistle contains eleven references to the Old Testament. In 3:15, 16 a reference is made to one of Paul's epistles, which some have identified as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11.
The book also shares a number of shared passages with the Epistle of Jude, e.g. 1:5 with Jude 3; 1:12 with Jude 5; 3:2f with Jude 17f; 3:14 with Jude 24; and 3:18 with Jude 25.[18]
Tartarus is mentioned in 2 Pet 2:4 as devoted to the holding of certain fallen angels. It is elaborated on in Jude 6. Jude 6 however, is a clear reference to the Book of Enoch. Bauckham suggests that 2 Peter 2:4 is partially dependent on Jude 6 but is independently drawing on paraenetic tradition that also lies behind Jude 5-7. The paraenetic traditions are in Sirach 16:7-10, Damascus Document 2:17-3:12, 3 Maccabees 2:4-7, Testament of Naphtali 3:4-5 and Mishna Sanhedrin 10:3.[19]
Audience
The audience in this book are the churches in general.
See also
Notes
- ^ Bauckham, RJ (1983), World Bible Commentary, Vol.50, Jude-2 Peter, Waco
- ^ Grant, Robert M. A Historical Introduction To The New Testament, chap. 14.
- ^ Chester, A & Martin, RP, (1994), The Theology of the letters of James, Peter & Jude, CUP, p.144
- ^ Harris, Stephen L.. Understanding the Bible: a reader's introduction, 2nd ed. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985. p. 354
- ^ Bauckham, RJ (1983), World Bible Commentary, Vol.50, Jude-2 Peter, Waco, p.158
- ^ Kruger, MJ, (1999) “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42.4, p.645-671
- ^ e.g. S. T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament II p. 250
- ^ F. Spitta, Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (1885)
- ^ C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in International Critical Commentary
- ^ E. M. B. Green, 2 Peter Reconsidered (1961) and other works.
- ^ Jeremy Duff. "2 Peter". Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press. 2001.
- ^ a b Donald 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’, in, Cambridge 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.
- ^ C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in International Critical Commentary (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (1934), p. 141.
- ^ Donald Guthrie, Introduction to the New Testament 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, De Viris Illustribus chapter 1.
- ^ The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S., Union Theological Seminary, New York; NY, William J. Dalton, S. J.; Roland E. Murphy, O. Carm. (emeritus) The Divinity School, Duke University, Durham, NC; [Jerome H. Neyrey, S. J., The Second Epistle of Peter], with a foreword by His Eminence Carlo Maria Cardinal Martini, S.J.; Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1990
- ^ T. Callan, "Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter", Biblica 85 (2004), pp. 42-64.
- ^ Christian-Jewish Relations Through the Centuries By Stanley E. Porter, Brook W. R. Pearson
First reference: Bauckham, Richard - commentary series should read, Word Biblical Commentary
References
- Adams, Thomas B. "A Commentary on the Second Epistle General of Second Peter" Soli Deo Gloria Ministries, 1990. ISBN 978-1877611247
- Green, Michael. "The Second Epistle of Peter and The Epistle of Jude: An Introduciton and Commentary" Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2007. ISBN 978-0830829972
- Leithart, Peter J. "The Promise Of His Appearing: An Exposition Of Second Peter" Canon Press, 2004. ISBN 978-1591280262
- Lillie, John. "Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter" Klock & Klock Christian Pub, 1978. ISBN 978-0865241169
- Seton, Bernard E. "Meet Pastor Peter: Studies in Peter's second epistle" Review and Herald Pub. Association, 1985. ISBN 978-0828002905
External links
 |
Wikisource has original text related to this article: |
Online translations of the epistle
- Book of 2 Peter (NLT) at BibleGateway.com
- Online Bible at GospelHall.org
Other
- Christian Classics Ethereal Library
- A sizeable article giving an overview of the problems with, and ultimately a defense of, the authenticity of 2 Peter
"Epistles of Saint Peter". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. 1913. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Epistles_of_Saint_Peter.
| Preceded by 1 Peter |
Books of the Bible | Succeeded by 1 John |
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
