In regard to date, the superior limit is approxi-
_mately fixed by the fact that the Epistle was
~
known to Origen, probably to Clement, and that it was already accepted by some in the time of the latter as the work of St. Peter. It can hardly, therefore, have been composed quite recently in Clement’s, certainly not quite recently in Origen’s, time. The latest possible date, therefore, would be about the year A.D. 175. As to the inferior limit, the following considerations are pertinent. (1) A
literature is growing up, connecting itself with the name of St. Peter. (2) The immoral Gnostic sects are active. (3) St. Paul’s Epistles have been col-
lected: they are regarded as Scripture, and, with other Scriptures, they are violently misinterpreted by the heretics. These indications point to a date later than the first quarter of the 2nd cent. We may conclude provisionally that the Epistle was written a few years before, or a few years after, the middle of the 2nd cent., in Egypt, perhaps in Alexandria.
It must be added that a first rate commen- tary on 2P is a great want of English theo- logical literature. Such a commentary would have for its primary object the examination in detail of the relation of the language and ideas of 2 P to early Christian literature, and cla τὰ pe ndenierephic and Bposnypha! documents. Till
his work has been accomplished, conclusions as to the place of writing and as to the exact date within the 2nd cent. to which 2 P is to be assigned, must be regarded as tentative.
(2) In what sense is 2 P to be viewed as a forgery? When we regard the Epistle from the point of view of those who possess in the N'T a fixed and definite collection of apostolic writings, our natural im- pulse, when we find ourselves unable to maintain its genuineness, is to condemn it as a shameless forgery, composed with the express purpose of gaining, by means of false statements, a place by the side of the genuine Epistle of St. Peter. But ‘t may well be doubted if this verdict is not wholly vitiated by our ignorance of the circumstances of its composition, and by our natural transference of the ideas of a later time to an earlier and different age. The Epistle is closely related to the
VOL, IIIl.—52
eee ee
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
817
Apocalypse of Peter. Yt seems itself to refer (1") to some other related document or documents. If, then, it was part of a literature which connected itself with the name of St. Peter, the Epistle with similar writings may well have been put forward without any sinister motive. The very number of such documents may well have been at the time a sufficient bar to misconception. Their real character may have been ΠΣ well known to the readers for whom they were primarily in- tended. In other words, the personation of the apostle, which appears so wicked when 2 P .» viewed as an isolated document, may well have been an obvious literary device rather than a religious or controversial fraud.
The religious and theological aspect of the con- clusion that the genuineness of the Epistle cannot be maintained, lies outside the scope οἱ this article. The present writer, however, may be allowed to say, that in his opinion the adoption of such a critical verdict can cause perplexity only when the Lord’s promise of guidance to His Church is regarded as a charter of infallibility.
Lirerators. —(1) THE LIFE OF ST. PETER: Baronius, Annales, 1609; vier, Hist. S. Petri, 1639; H. A. Birks, Studies in the Life and Character of St. Peter, 1887 ; Couard, Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn. There is no standard ‘Life’ of St. Peter. Information must be sought in (i.) articles in Dictionaries (an asterisk in the following list indicates that the Epistles are included in the art. or are treated of by the same writer), e.g. *Encyc. Brit. (Harnack, 1885) ; *Herzog (J. P. Lange, 1859) ; *Herzog-Plitt (Sieffert, 1883); Kitto ΟΥ̓, L. Alex- ander, 1866) ; Schenkel (Holtzmann, 1871); *Smith (F. OC. Cook, 1863); *Winer (1848): (ii.) Introductions to Commentaries on Epistles, ¢.g. Plumptre, Kuhl: (iii.) Commentaries on the Gospels, the Acts, Galatians (especially Lightfoot), 1 Corin- thians: (iv.) ‘Lives of Christ’ and kindred fooks, ¢.g. Bruce, scan Na! the Twelve, 1871; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus Messiah, 1884, abridged ed. 1886; Ewald, Geach- tchte ἃ, Volkes Israel, 1864-68, Eng. tr. History of Israel, 1883-86 ; Hort, Christian Ecclesia, 1897 ; Farrar, Life of Christ, 1876; Andrews, Life of our Lord u the Earth, 1892; Haus- rath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgesch.S 1879, Eng. tr. Timea of Jesus, 1882, Times of Apostles, 1895; Keim, Geach. Jesu von Nazara, 1867-72, Eng. tr. Hist. of Jesus of Nazara, 1873-83; Lange, Leben Jesu nach den Evangelien, 1844-47, Eng. tr. Live of the Lord Jesus Christ, 1864; Renan, Vie de Jésus, 1863, 17th ed. 1882; Weiss, Leben Jesu, 1882, 3rd ed. 1888, a tr. ei of Christ, 1883-84; Beyschlag, Leben Jesu, 1885-56 ; Didon, Jésus Christ, 1890, Eng. tr. 1893; cf. art. Jesus Curist in vol. ἰ,.
. 653: (iv.) Works on the Apostolic Age, ¢.g. V. Bartlet, 1900; Ewald, Geach. d. Volkes Israel, vii.; Farrar, Barly Days of Christianity, 1882 ; Hort, Judaistic Christianity, 1894; Lechler, Das apost. u. das nachapost. Zeitalter®, 1857, Eng. tr. The Apost. and -Apost. Times, 1886; Lightfoot, ‘St. Paul and the Three,’ in comm. on Galatians, 1805, ‘St. Peter in Rome,’ in Clement, ii. p. 481ff., 1890; MoGiffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, 1897 ; Neander, Planting of the Christian Church, 1832, Eng. tr. 1841; Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, 1898, St. Paul the Traveller, 1895; Rankin, The First Saints, 1893; Re , Les Apotres, 1866, St. Paul, 1869, L’Antichrist, 1873, Les Evangiles, 1877, L’Eglise Chréti- enne, 1879; Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkath. Kirche, 1850, ©nd ed. 1857; Stanley, Sermons and Essays on the Apost. Age, 1847, 3rd ed. 1874; Weizsicker, Das apost. Zeitalter, 1886, Eng. tr. 1894; cf. art. Acrs or THE APosTLxs in vol. ἱ. p. 35.