Is it possible to locate with any degree of proba- bility a period and a territory answering to this historical situation ?
3. Date and provenance. — 2 Peter is not the only NT book to concern itself with heretical teachers. It is true, the Judaizers who troubled St. Paul have essentially nothing in common with the disturbers of 2 Peter, and the latter have only a faint likeness to the heretics of Colossce (Col 2*'", Eph 5'^"-), or to the antinomians of Ph 3"'-. In the Pastoral Epistles there are closer analogies to 2 Peter (e.q. 2 Ti 3"^-, Tit 1">'- "), as also perhaps in the Joliannine Epistles (e.g. 1 Jn 2''- *-• -* 4', 2 Jn ', 3 Jn »''•). But it is in Kevelation (e.g. 2=- »• 9. i3t. 15. 18 34. 8)_ j^nfi particularly in Jude, that the closest parallels are to be found. In fact, Jude is taken over almost bodily into 2 Peter — that is, assuming that Jude is the earlier document.* Yet
* This opinion is fairly well established ; see, e.(j.^ F. H. Chase, art. 'Jude, Epistle of," in HDD ii. S02f ; J. B. Mayor, op. cit.
this fact does not positively fix the date of com-
S:)sition, since the date of Jude is not certain, ut it is commonly placed comparatively late in the list of NT letters.
Further evidence for the date of 2 Peter is furnished by a number of incidental notices in the Epistle itself. In 3'°'- we learn that the Epistles of St. Paul had already been assembled into a collection which has canonical authority like ' other scriptures' — probably meaning the OT. The first generation of Christians had died (3''), and even Jn 21'*'- seems to be known to the author (1'*). Acquaintance with the tradition of Papias, to the eH'ect that Peter was ultimately responsible for the record of Jesus' career contained in Mark, has been suspected in 2 P 1'°, while !"'• may reflect familiarity with Mark's account of the Trans- figuration, and 2"° may be coloured by the language of Mt 12-'= or Lk 11-'. Literary attinities with Josephus and with Pliilo have also been discovered, but there are especially strong resemblances be- tween 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter (see for particulars J. B. Mayor, op. cit. pp. cxxv-cxxxiv). On the other hand, there are very few references to 2 Peter in the writings of the early Fathers. The earliest certain allusion to the Epistle is by Origen (ap. Eusebius, HE VI. xxv. 8), but possibly it was known to Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, HE VI. xiv. 1). In earlier times there is no certain trace of its existence and it was very late in obtaining a place in the canon. It is not men- tioned in the Muratorian fragment, nor is it in- cluded in the Peshitta or in the Old Latin (see J. B. Mayor, op. cit. p. cxvitt'.). Eusebius (HE III. xxv. 3) doubted its canonicity, although he attested the esteem with which it wasregarded by Christians.
From the foregoing considerations we may draw some inferences regarding the time and place of ■vvriting. It may not be possible to identify with certainty the false teachers, but they clearly re- present a more advanced type of antinomianism than that of the Pastorals or of the Johannine Epistles. This fact points to a 2nd cent, date and possibly to Asiatic territory as the home of the heresy. The latter supposition agrees with the statement of 2 P 3' (cf. 1"), which probably is a reference to 1 P I"'- ; nor is it out of harmony with 2 P S'", for St. Paul had addressed letters to various communities in Asia Minor. (But see J. B. Mayor, op. cit. p. cxxxvii, who thinks that the destination was Rome.) Reference to a Pauline canon already perverted in the process of interpretation is not probable before the 2nd cent. ; and the late date at which 2 Peter appears in ecclesiastical tradition also marks it as one of the very last NT books to be written. These data would seem to bring the time of its composition down not only to the 2nd cent, but even past the first quarter of that century. Yet the Epistle was known to Origen, and perhaps to Clement of Alexandria, so it must have been in circulation some time before their day. The most probable supposition is that it formed a part of that body of literature which grew up around the name of Peter (Gospel, Preach- ing, Apocalypse) about the middle of the 2nd century. This hypothesis is confirmed by the strong resemblances between 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter, which have led some inter- preters to suggest identity of authorship (W. Sanday, Inspiration [BL, 1893], London, 1893, p. 347 f. ; cf. also Kiihl, op. cit. p. 376). While this may not be probable, the two works undoubtedly belong to the same general period and territory.
pp. i-xxT. This is the prevailing view at present, yet the priority of 2 Peter has found recent defenders in F. Spitta, Der zweite' Brief des Petnts und der Briff dea Judas; T. Zahn, Einieiumg in das NT, ii. 43 ff. (Enp. tr.. Introduction to the XT, ii. 194 ff.) ; C. Bits;, op. cit. p. 2100.
PETER, EPISTLES OF
PETER, EPISTLES OF