2 Peter
The Second Epistle of Peter, usually referred to simply as
Second Peter and often written 2 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...
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter...
The Second Epistle of Peter comes to us with less historical
support of its genuineness than any other book of the New
Testament. In consequence, its right to a place in the Canon
is seriously doubted by some and denied by others. There are
those who confidently assign it to the Apostolic age and to
the apostle whose name it bears in the New Testament, while
there are those who as confidently assign it to post-
apostolic times, and repudiate its Petrine authorship. It is
not the aim of this article to trace the history of the two
opinions indicated above, nor to cite largely the arguments
employed in the defense of the Epistle, or those in
opposition to it; nor to attempt to settle a question which
for more than a thousand years the wisest and best men of
the Christian church have been unable to settle. Such a
procedure would in this case be the height of presumption.
What is here attempted is to point out as briefly as may be
some of the reasons for doubting its canonicity, on the one
hand, and those in its support, on the other.
I. External Evidence in Favor of Its Apostolic Authority.
1. Ancient Opinion:
It must be admitted at the very outset that the evidence is
meager. The first writer who mentions it by name is Origen
(circa 240 AD). In his homily on Josh, he speaks of the two
Epistles of Peter. In another place he quotes 2 Pet 1:4:
"partakers of the divine nature," and gives it the name of
Scripture. But Origen is careful to say that its authority
was questioned: "Peter has left one acknowledged Epistle,
and perhaps a second, for this is contested." Eusebins,
bishop of Caesarea, regarded it with even more suspicion
than did Origen, and accordingly he placed it among the
disputed books (Antilegomena). Jerome knew the scruples
which many entertained touching the Epistle, but
notwithstanding, he included it in his Vulgate (Jerome's
Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Version. The main reason for
Jerome's uncertainty about it he states to be "difference of
style from 1 Peter." He accounts for the difference by
supposing that the apostle "made use of two different
interpreters." As great teachers and scholars as Origen,
Eusebius, and Jerome, e.g. Athanasius, Augustine,
Epiphanius, Rufinus and Cyril, received it as genuine. At
the Reformation Erasmus rejected 2 Peter; Luther seems to
have had no doubt of its genuineness; while Calvin felt some
hesitancy because of the "discrepancies between it and the
First." In the 4th century, two church councils (Laodicea,
circa 372, and Carthage, 397) formally recognized it and
placed it in the Canon as equal in authority with the other
books of the New Testament.
2. Modern Opinion:
The opinion of modern scholars as to references in post-
apostolic literature to 2 Peter is not only divided, but in
many instances antagonistic. Salmon, Warfield, Zahn and
others strongly hold that such references are to be found in
the writings of the 2nd century, perhaps in one or two
documents of the 1st. They insist with abundant proof in
support of their contention that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr,
the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache, and Clement of
Rome, were all acquainted with the Epistle and made
allusions to it in their writings. Weighing as honestly and
as thoroughly as one can the citations made from that
literature, one is strongly disposed to accept the evidence
as legitimate and conclusive...
Link: https://bible-history.com/isbe/P/PETER,+...
The following is a brief outline of the contents of this
epistle: The customary opening salutation is followed by an
enumeration of Christian blessings and exhortation to
Christian duties. 2Pe 1:1-13 Referring then to his
approaching death, the apostle assigns as grounds of
assurance for believers his own personal testimony as eye-
witness of the transfiguration and the sure word of
prophecy--that is the testimony of the Holy Ghost. vs. 2Pe
1:14-21 The danger of being misled by false prophets is
dwelt upon with great earnestness throughout the second
chapter, which is almost identical in language and subject
with the Epistle of Jude. The overthrow of all opponents of
Christian truth is predicted in connection with prophecies
touching the second advent of Christ, the destruction of the
world by fire, and the promise of new heavens and a new
earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. ch. 3. This epistle of
Peter presents questions of difficulty. Doubts as to its
genuineness were entertained by the early Church; in the
time of Eusebius it was reckoned among the disputed books,
and was not formally admitted into the canon until the year
393, at the Council of Hippo. These difficulties, however,
are insufficient to justify more than hesitation in
admitting its ,genuineness. A majority of names may be
quoted in support of the genuineness and authenticity of
this epistle. (It is very uncertain as to the time when it
was written. It was written near the close of Peter's life--
perhaps about A.D. 68--from Rome or somewhere on the journey
thither from the East --Alford.)
Link: https://bible-history.com/smiths/P/Peter...
The question of the authenticity of this epistle has been
much
discussed, but the weight of evidence is wholly in
favour of its
claim to be the production of the apostle whose name
it bears.
It appears to have been written shortly before the
apostle's
death (1:14). This epistle contains eleven
references to the Old
Testament. It also contains (3:15, 16) a remarkable
reference to
Paul's epistles. Some think this reference is to 1
Thess.
4:13-5:11. A few years ago, among other documents, a
parchment
fragment, called the "Gospel of Peter," was
discovered in a
Christian tomb at Akhmim in Upper Egypt. Origen
(obiit A.D.
254), Eusebius (obiit 340), and Jerome (obiit 420)
refer to such
a work, and hence it has been concluded that it was
probably
written about the middle of the second century. It
professes to
give a history of our Lord's resurrection and
ascension. While
differing in not a few particulars from the
canonical Gospels,
the writer shows plainly that he was acquinted both
with the
synoptics and with the Gospel of John. Though
apocryphal, it is
of considerable value as showing that the main facts
of the
history of our Lord were then widely known.
Link: https://bible-history.com/eastons/P/Pete...
SECOND EPISTLE. Authenticity and genuineness. "Simon Peter a
servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ" stands at its
heading. He reminds us at the close of his life that he is
the Peter who was originally "Simon" before his call. In 2
Peter 1:16-18 he mentions his presence at the
transfiguration, and Christ's prophecy of his death; and 2
Peter 3:15 his brotherhood to his beloved Paul. In 2 Peter
3:1 he identifies himself as author of the former epistle.
The second epistle includes in its address the same persons
as the first epistle. He presumes their acquaintance with
Paul's epistles, by that time acknowledged as Scripture; 2
Peter 3:15, "the longsuffering of God," alluding to Romans
2:4. A late date is implied, just before Peter's death, when
Paul's epistles (including Romans) had become generally
circulated and accepted as Scripture. The church in the
fourth century had, beside the testimony which we have of
its acceptante though with doubts by earlier Christians.
other external evidence which, under God's guiding Spirit,
decided them in accepting it.
If Peter were not the author the epistle would be
false, as it expressly claims to be his; then the canon of
the council of Laodicea, A.D. 360) (if the 59th article is
genuine) and that of Hippo and Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397)
would never have accepted it. Its whole tone disproves
imposture. The writer writes not of himself, but "moved by
the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). Shame and suffering were
all that was to be gained by a forgery in the first age.
There was no temptation then to "pious frauds," as in after
ages. A wide gulf separates its New Testament style from the
earliest and best of the post apostolic period. "God has
allowed a fosse to be drawn by human weakness around the
sacred canon, to protect it from all invasion" (Daille).
Hermas (Simil. 6:4; 2 Peter 2:13, and Shep. 3:7; 4:3; 2
Peter 2:15; 2 Peter 2:20) quotes its words. Clemens Romans
(ad Cor. 7; 9; 10) alludes to its references to Noah's
preaching and Lot's deliverance (compare 2 Peter 2:5-7; 2
Peter 2:9). Irenaeous (A.D. 178) and Justin Martyr allude to
2 Peter 3:8.
Hippolytus (de Antichristo) refers to 2 Peter 1:21.
But the first writer who expressly names it as "Scripture"
is Origen, third century (Hem. on Josh., 4th Hom. on Lev.,
and 13th on Num.), quoting 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Peter 2:16. In
Eusebius H. E. 6:24 he mentions that some doubted the second
epistle. Tertullian, Clemens Alex., Cyprian, the Peshito
Syriac (the later Syriac has it), and Muratori's Fragm.
Canon do not mention it. Firmilian of Cappadocia (Ep. ad
Cyprian) says Peter's epistles warn us to avoid heretics;
this warning is in the second epistle, not the first. Now
Cappadocia (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 3:1) is among the countries
addressed; so it is from Cappadocia we get the earliest
testimony. Internally it professes Peter is its writer;
Christians of the very country to whose custody it was
committed confirm this. (See CANON; NEW TESTAMENT.)...
Link: https://bible-history.com/faussets/P/Pet...
