Distinctive Features of 2 Peter

     As 1 Peter deals with problems from outside the church (sufferings), 2 Peter deals with problems from within the church (false teachers). In 2 Peter familiarity is shown with the writings of Paul, which are further acknowledged among “the rest of scriptures” (3:15-16).¹ Because of the close association that Silvanus and Mark had with both Peter and Paul (Col. 4:10; 1 Thess. 1:1; 1 Pet. 5:12, 13), one or both of these coworkers may have been responsible for sharing Paul’s writings with Peter. Second Peter also shares a literary affinity with the epistle of Jude (see below), particularly 2 Pet. 2:1-18; 3:1-3 and Jude 4-18.

Date, Provenance, and Destination

     Second Peter was obviously written after 1 Peter (cf. 2 Pet. 3:1), and in 2 Peter the apostle is preparing to die a martyr’s death (1:13-15). According to early tradition, Peter was executed in Rome during the reign of Nero (see Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 2.25.1-8). Nero’s persecution began around the summer of 64 and ended by the summer of 68. It is reasonable to date 2 Peter ca. 64-65. Those who wish to date the epistle much later, particularly on into the 2nd century (e.g. R. E. Brown, Introduction to the NT 767) and as late as the 120s or 130s (L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 424-25), must account for the fact that Psa. 90:4 is quoted in 2 Pet. 3:8 without a hint of chiliastic (literal 1000-year reign of Christ) interpretation that was prevalent and wide-spread in the 2nd century (cf. Justin Martyr, Dial. 81; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 5.28.3, 23.2; Epistle of Barnabas 15.4). 

     Second Peter is simply addressed to “those having obtained an equally valuable faith with ours through [the] righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (1:1). Since reference is made to this being the second letter written “to you” (3:1), evidently the audience of 2 Peter is the same as the audience of 1 Peter. The document would then be intended for the “chosen sojourners of [the] dispersion” in the regions of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (see Distinctive Features of 1 Peter).

Literary Affinity with Jude

     A number of striking parallels are evident between 2 Peter and Jude, with nineteen of the verses in 2 Peter at least partially replicated in the twenty-five verses of Jude. The five possible explanations for this phenomenon are as follows:

Ø Each author wrote independently, and the similarities are either coincidental or attributable to the Holy Spirit.²

Ø Both documents came from the same author, although each is attributed to someone different.³

Ø Both used a common written source,⁴ which cannot be verified since the hypothetical source is not available.

Ø Peter borrowed from Jude, which appears to be the position held by most modern scholars.⁵

Ø Jude borrowed from Peter, which is the position advocated by this author.⁶

     It seems more likely that Jude borrowed from 2 Peter. Jude 17-18 appears to be a quote from 2 Peter 3:1-3 rather than vice versa. The ESV places the warning of Jude 18 in quotation marks and cites 2 Peter 3:2 in the margin. Moreover, the predictive nature of the future tense in 2 Peter 2:1-3 and 3:3 (i.e., false teachers are coming), as compared to the apparent fulfillment implied by the present tense of Jude 4, 16-19 (i.e., false teachers have come), supports the priority of 2 Peter.⁷

Conclusion

     The message of the relatively brief three-chapter epistle of 2 Peter has aided God’s people through the centuries with (a) reminders of the heavenly provision of grace, peace, and knowledge (1:1-4), (b) exhortations for spiritual growth (1:5-11), (c) confirming eyewitness testimony and inspiration of scripture (1:12-21), (d) warnings of false teachers and apostasy (2:1-22), (e) anticipating the day of the Lord (3:1-13), and (f) calling for spiritual maturation and faithfulness (3:14-18).  

     “But grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ; to him [be] the glory both now and forever. Amen” (2 Pet. 3:18).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Scripture quotations are the author’s own translation, unless noted otherwise. The reference to “some things” in Paul’s letters that are “hard to understand” (v. 16) does not necessarily mean that the writings are unclear or overly complicated; rather the subject matter itself is sometimes complex.

     ² A. Barnes says concerning this view, “no one can deny that this is possible, but is by no means probable. No other instance of the kind occurs in the Bible …” (Notes 1512).

     ³ John A. T. Robinson suggests that Jude was Peter’s amanuensis in the writing of 2 Peter before he wrote his own epistle (Redating the NT 193-99).

     ⁴ See M. Green, The Second Epistle General of Peter 50-55.

     ⁵ See W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the NT 430-31; R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter 141-43; D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo, An Introduction to the NT 656-57; D. F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style 163-87. Note that many advocates of the priority of Jude build their case on the assumption that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical. 

     ⁶ See also C. Bigg, Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude 216-24; D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 923-24; G. N. Woods, Epistles of Peter, John and Jude 377-78. This view certainly does not discount the role of divine inspiration (see Biblical Inspiration in Perspective).

     ⁷ See The NT Epistle of Judas.

Related Posts: Authorship of 2 Peter, Distinctive Features of 1 Peter

Image credit: http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2016/5/31/it-would-have-been-better-2-peter-210b-22.html

Distinctive Features of 1 Peter

     The theme of 1 Peter is hope in the midst of suffering. No less than seven different words for suffering are used in 1 Peter (H. C. Thiessen, Introduction to the NT 279). The noun pathēma (“suffering”) occurs only four times (1:11; 4:13; 5:1, 9), while the verb paskō (to “suffer”) appears twelve times (2:19, 20, 21, 23; 3:14, 17, 18; 4:1, 15, 19; 5:10).

     First Peter is the only NT epistle wherein the name “Christian” appears (4:16); elsewhere in the NT only in Acts 11:26 and 26:28. D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo observe, “apart from the thanksgiving section in 1:3-9 and the ‘stone’ passage in 2:4-10, every paragraph of 1 Peter opens with a command, with theology brought in along the way to ground the command” (An Introduction to the NT 636).

Provenance and Date

     Peter sends greetings from “she who is in Babylon, chosen together with you …” (1 Pet. 5:13).¹ While some have suggested that “she” is a reference to an actual woman, perhaps Peter’s wife, most interpreters understand this to be a metaphoric allusion to the collective members of the church (note KJV).² It is therefore only natural to interpret “Babylon” symbolically as an allusion to Rome. As for the literal Babylon in Mesopotamia,³ there is no evidence that the church was existing there in the mid-1st century AD or that Peter or Mark or Silvanus was associated with that region. Few, if any, would consider Egypt’s Babylon as a possibility either. In late Judaism “Rome began to take on the name and many of the characteristics of Babylon as a world-power hostile to God …” (BAGD 129), and the book of Revelation indicates that 1st-century Christians understood “Babylon” as a symbolic reference to Rome (cf. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). If Nero’s persecution was looming or in its early stages at the time of writing, Peter’s reluctance to expressly identify the Christian community in Rome is understandable.

     Irenaeus stated that Paul and Peter were in Rome at the same time (Adv. Haer. 3.1.1), which corresponds to Paul’s second Roman imprisonment beginning around 64. Mark had been summoned to Rome by Paul about this time (2 Tim. 4:11) and was with Peter at the time of writing (1 Pet. 5:13). Note also there is substantial evidence that Mark’s Gospel originated in Rome or was at least intended for a Roman audience (see Mark's Audience). Nero’s persecution of Christians began in conjunction with Rome’s great fire of July 64, and since Peter directs his readers to “honor the king” (2:13-17), the epistle may have been written before the height of Nero’s persecution.

     A reasonable date for the composition of 1 Peter is mid-64, although sometime slightly (but not considerably) earlier or later is possible. Since both Galatia and Cappadocia are included in the address (1:1) and the two provinces were untied by Vespasian in 72, a date before this time is assumed. Nevertheless, those who reject Petrine authorship propose a much later date, viz. 80-95 (see L. M. White, From Jesus to Christianity 274).

Audience, Destination, and Occasion

     The epistle is addressed to “chosen sojourners of [the] dispersion” in the following regions: Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (1:1) – present day Turkey. The question is whether these are geographic territories or Roman provinces (including areas where Paul had and had not preached). Probably Roman provinces are in view, as they are listed in the clock-wise direction in which the letter would be delivered. Of the places mentioned, Paul only worked in the southern region of Galatia and in Asia (as far as we know). The statement is made in 2 Pet. 3:15 that “our beloved brother Paul … wrote to you” (cf. v. 1), which is conceivably an allusion to Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, and perhaps also the letters to Philemon, Timothy, and the Laodiceans (cf. Col. 4:16).

     The initial readers seem to have been predominantly Gentile Christians (cf. 1:14, 18; 2:9-10; 4:3-4) who had not been personally evangelized by Peter (1:12). The occasion of the letter is suffering (1:6; 3:13-17; 4:12-19), which could have involved one of the following scenarios:

§  A general official persecution, which does not seem to fit the context of 1 Peter. The persecution of Nero (64-68) was primarily limited to Rome and did not reach these distant provinces, while the respective persecutions of Domitian (90-95) and Trajan (97-117) were too late.

§  A local official persecution, for which there is no corroborating evidence.

§  A local unofficial persecution, which seems more likely. These Christians were apparently facing hardships such as hostility, suspicion, criticism, discrimination, mocking, and false accusations from the general populace, as were their brethren throughout the Empire (cf. 5:9).

Conclusion

     First Peter is just as relevant today as when it was first written. We are reminded of (a) our living hope of an eternal inheritance in heaven (1:1-12), (b) our call to obedience and holiness (1:13–2:12), (c) our duty to submit to temporal authorities (2:13-25), (d) husband-wife relations (3:1-7), (e) social relations (3:8-12), (f) faithfulness amidst suffering (3:13–4:19), (f) the role of spiritual leaders (5:1-5), (g) reliance on God for victory over evil (5:6-11), and (h) the grace and peace in Christ Jesus (5:12-14).   

     “Be humbled, therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in [due] time, having cast all your anxiety upon him because with him there is concern for you” (1 Pet. 5:6-7).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² The term ekklēsia (rendered “church” in most standard English versions) is a feminine noun (cf. Eph. 5:25-27; Rom. 7:4; 2 Cor. 11:2; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:2, 9), and the above interpretation is consistent with other occurrences of the word eklektos (“chosen,” “elect”) in 1 Peter (1:1-2; 2:9).

     ³ Babylon in Mesopotamia was almost entirely uninhabited at the time of Diodorus Siculus (2,9,9) in 1 BC (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.9.5-9).

Related Posts: Authorship of 1 Peter, Distinctive Features of 2 Peter

Image credit: https://servantsjournal.com/2014/03/03/1-peter-foreknowledge-of-god-part-i-1-peter-12a/

The Authorship of Second Peter

     The NT document historically known as 2 Peter claims to be from “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ” (1:1), and the author goes on to acknowledge this as the “second letter I am writing to you” (3:1).¹ As would be expected, there are multiple allusions in 2 Peter to events recorded in the Gospels (e.g. 1:14, 16-18). Nevertheless, many modern-day scholars deny that the document was actually written by the apostle Peter.² Here are the main reasons:

1. In the opening address a number of manuscripts read Sumeōn (“Simeon”), the Hebraic form of the Greek Simōn (“Simon”), which indicates the work of a pseudepigraphical writer.

2. A comparison of 1 Peter and 2 Peter shows that the same author did not write both books: (a) The writing styles are different, with 2 Peter being more solemn, repetitive, and cumbersome than 1 Peter, and about 60% of the vocabulary of 2 Peter is not found in 1 Peter. (b) There are several OT quotations in 1 Peter but practically none in 2 Peter. (c) In reference to the Lord’s return, the word apokalupsis (“revelation”) is used in 1 Peter, whereas parousia (“appearance”) is used in 2 Peter.

3. Second Peter seems to have been written after the apostolic generation had died (cf. 3:4) and expectations of the Lord’s imminent return had been disappointed (3:7-15).

4. The writer’s knowledge of a collection of Paul’s letters, particularly viewed in the context of “scripture” (3:15-16), presupposes a much later date.

5. If 2 Peter uses Jude as a source (as is commonly believed by a number of critical scholars) and if Jude was not written until the end of the 1st century, then 2 Peter must have been composed several decades after the apostle Peter’s death.

6. No NT book is as weakly confirmed among the patristic writers or was as slowly accepted into the NT canon as 2 Peter.

Responses to these objections

1. In the opening verse of 2 Peter there is textual variation among extant manuscripts between the Hebraic Sumeōn and the Greek Simōn; the “weight of external support for the two readings is almost equally divided” (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 629). The former has been adopted by the NRSV, ESV and NEB, whereas the latter by the ASV, NASB, N/KJV, NIV, and RSV. If Sumeōn is original, it is more likely to have come from Peter himself rather than someone pretending to be the apostle (cf. Acts 15:14). A forger would have surely copied the more common form instead of using such an obscure form.

2. Any variations in style and vocabulary can easily be explained by the unique circumstances under which each document was written, the differences in subject matter, and the contribution of Silvanus to the first letter (1 Pet. 5:12) and his absence from the second.³ Moreover, any attempt to conclusively evaluate a hypothetical “Petrine style” or “Petrine vocabulary” is precluded by the brevity of these writings. While there are a number of OT allusions in 2 Peter (cf. 2:1, 4-8, 15-16; 3:2, 4-6, 9-13) and at least two OT quotations (2:22: 3:8), the theme of suffering in 1 Peter apparently called for more scripture references than the theme of false teachers in 2 Peter. Since the apostle Paul employs both apokalupsis and parousia in reference to the Lord’s return in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians,⁴ what would be so unusual about the apostle Peter using both words on different occasions?

3. The allusion to hoi pateres (“the fathers”) in 3:4 does not necessarily refer to first-generation Christian patriarchs (which is nowhere else used as such) but rather to Jewish patriarchs. Further, the teaching of the Lord’s return in 2 Peter is not inherently suggestive of a much later date and is in fact comparable to 1-2 Thessalonians.

4. If Paul kept copies of his letters (which was customary among contemporary authors) and/or these copies were included among the “scrolls” and “parchments” that Timothy was requested to bring to Rome (2 Tim. 4:13), the entire collection could have easily been shared with Peter while the two apostles were in Rome, especially since Mark and Silvanus were colleagues of both of them (2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:12-13). Nonetheless, Peter’s reference to Paul’s “letters” does not in itself imply the entire corpus (though historically possible), and recognition of these writings as “scripture” does not pose a problem for those who accept the self-claims of divine inspiration (e.g. 1 Cor. 2:7-13; 14:37; Eph. 3:1-5). 

5. Questioning 2 Peter because of its literary affinity with Jude is based on the twofold assumption of Jude’s priority and Jude’s late date, neither of which is proven or universally conceded (see The Epistle of Judas).

6. The apparently weak support of 2 Peter in the early church is a fair concern, although M. Green also notes that “no excluded book has nearly such weight of backing as 2 Peter” (The Second Epistle of Peter 13). The weakness of attestation should not be exaggerated, since several 2nd-century writings seem to betray an influence from 2 Peter (cf. R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter 162), and Eusebius, while acknowledging its disputed status, affirms its usefulness in study along with tō allōn graphōn (“the other scriptures”) (Eccl. Hist. 3.3.1). 

     While its absence from the Muratorian canon may very well be attributable to the fragmentary state of the text, D. A. Carson and D. J. Moo sensibly observe: “there is a good explanation for the neglect of 2 Peter. So many Petrine forgeries were in existence that the Fathers moved very cautiously in separating out 2 Peter from these other spurious books…. 2 Peter is not mentioned often by the fathers of the church—probably because it is short and so focused on false teaching that it makes little significant theological contribution” (An Introduction to the NT 662, 664).

     There are no close parallels to 2 Peter among the pseudepigraphical writings, and the 2nd century witnessed a whole body of pseudepigraphical literature attributed to Peter that was rejected from the NT canon.⁵

Conclusion:

     No argument against the Peterine authorship of 2 Peter can decisively stand on its own. Even collectively, when evaluated in light of all the potential variables and available evidence, a convincing case is not made. Unless one is predisposed to doubting the integrity of NT writings, there is no legitimate reason to deny 2 Peter’s self-claim of authorship.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Unless otherwise noted, scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.

     ² R. E. Brown contends that 2 Peter is a “pseudonymous work” that was in all likelihood “chronologically the last NT book to be written …. Indeed, the pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work” (An Introduction to the NT 761, cf. 766-68); see also B. D. Ehrman, The NT: A Historical Introduction 421-24; R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT Today 504-505. For a good refutation of the arguments, see D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 828-48.

     ³ Jerome (340-420) noted: “the two epistles, which circulate as Peter's, are also different in style among themselves and in character, and in word structure; from which we understand that he used different interpreters as necessary” (Ad Hedibiam 120).

     ⁴ On the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians, see The Thessalonian Letters, and Biblical Authorship Part 3 and Part 4.

     ⁵ E.g., Acts of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, the Gnostic Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (see C. R. Holladay, A Critical Introduction to the NT 511).

Related Posts: Authorship of Ephesians, Authorship of 1 Peter

Image credit: https://www.wacriswell.com/sermons/1960/the-sure-word-of-god/