To this statement of the details as to the writer and recipients of the Epistle, which seem to be implied in the document itself, it will be well to sppend the views as to the occasion of the Epistle and the circumstances of its composition, which have been put forward of late years by two critics who have defended its authenticity.
(i.) The chief points which Spitta emphasizes in his elaborate work, Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas, 1885, areas follows :—St. Peter wrote the Epistle late in his life to Jewish Chris- tians, to whom both he (31) and St. Paul (316) had addressed letters which have not been preserved. He promises to make provision that after his death his friends shall be reminded of his teaching. The Epistle of Jude was accordingly written at a later time for the express purpose of carrying out St. Peter’s intention; and in that Epistle there are several direct references (vv.* 5-12) to 2 P, while in Jn 171. we find words from 2 P 3° quoted as apos-
tolic words. The destination of the Epistle explains
its subsequent history. The ‘ paulinische Ein- seitigkeit’ of our NT’ Canon is one of many proofs that the early Church was not wont to welcome documents which had Jewish associations.
(ii.) Zahn, Hinleitung ii. 42-110, 1899, takes the same general line as Spitta, but is somewhat more precise and circumstantial in his reconstruction of the history. St. Peter addressed the Epistle to Churches, mainly Jewish, in Palestine and in the adjacent districts, but not N. or N. W. of the Syrian Antioch. The apostle had long before taken a leading part in their evangelization, and had sub- sequently written to them a letter now lost. St. Paul also, not sap cng during his imprisonment at Cesarea, had sent them a letter; but this letter, like the letter of St. Peter just mentioned, has not been preserved. One of the chief reasons why St. Peter wrote them this second letter was to warn them against false teachers, whose evil influence he had himself seen at work in Gentile Churches. He feared lest the plague should spread to Jewish converts. The apostle then, over and above the exhortations and warnings of the Epistle itself, promises that he will, as long as he lives, remind them of the truths on which he insists, and further, that he will write for them an instruec- tion in doctrine (Lehrschrift), that after his death they may have these things ever brought to mind. The time of the Epistle must be placed late in St. Peter’s life ; for (2) he writes as one now growing old; (8) many letters of St. Paul are in existence; (y) there is a feeling of disappointment abroad that the promise of the Return is unfulfilled; (5) the first generation of Christians is now dying off. As to the place where the Epistle was written, it contains no indication that St. Peter had as yet been in Rome. On the other hand, it is natural to suppose that, when he wrote to them, he was not living in the immediate neighbourhood of his correspondents. Thus it is an obvious conjecture (a) that the place where the Epistle was written was Antioch ; (δ) that the time of its composition was shortly before St. Peter left the East fo Rome, where he probably arrived in the autumy of 63; t.e. the date falls within the years 60-63. About a dozen years later (circ. 75) St. Jude wrote to the same Churches, and (vv.* 17) formally quoted 2 P as an apostolic document. As to the later history of 2 P, it is important to emphasize the fact that 1P and 2P were written to wholl different groups of Churches. It is quite natural, therefore, that their fate should be different. For a long time Gentile Christians would trouble themselves but little as to an Epistle addressed to Jewish Christians. Hence the comparative obscurity into which 2 P fell.
There is little room for difference of opinion as to the date of 2 P among critics who maintain the genuineness of the Epistle, and hold the almost universal opinion that it was written as a sequel to 1 P, the latter Epistle being placed near the end of St. Peter’s life. The case, however, is somewhat altered for any who follow B. Weiss and Kihl (see above, Pp. 7821.) in their view that 1 P was written about the year54. Yet these critics do not diverge from the conclusion as to the date of 2 P mentioned just above. On the one hand, Kiihl urges that the silence of the Epistle as to the destruction of Jerusalem is a proof that it was written before the year 70. n the other, the fact that St. Peter holds himself henceforth alone responsible for the instruction of those to whom he writes, though he is aware that St. Paul had written to them, points to a time after the death of the latter apostle. The most probable date, there- fore, is (according to Kiihl) about the middle of the 6th decade.
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
II. THE QUESTION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.—l. INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE. Before discussing the problem of the genuineness of the Epistle we must clear out of the way the question of its integrity. Are we bound to con- sider the Epistle as a whole? May not some of the difficulties in regard to its genuineness arise from the fact that the Epistle as it stands has been interpolated? In this matter ΚΠ] has in- herited the suspicions of two earlier critics— Bertholdt and Lange. It will be sufficient to examine the case as stated by Kiihl. He sup- poses (1) that the whole of ch. 2 is an inter- polation; (2) that in 3 words have been inserted to facilitate the dovetailing of the inter- polated passage into the original letter. In this original document, according to Kiihl’s theory, the passage about Prophesy was succeeded im- mediately by an exhortation—dyeis δέ, ἀγαπητοί, ἀνήσθητε τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες κιτλ, He is