209
Since Egypt has been regarded as the home of the Apocalypse, that too has been made tlie place of 2 Peter's origin (so A. Ilarnaek, op. cit. p. 4G9 ; Jiilicher, op. cit. p. 206 [Palestine or Egypt] ; F. H. Chase, ' Peter, Second Epistle,' HDB iii. 816 f.). But the possibility of a Palestinian or an Asiatic (Asia Minor) origin must be admitted, and the type of heresy refuted — which the author pre- sumably knew at first-hand — would seem to count strongly in favour of the latter territory.
i. Authenticity. — The foregoing considerations would appear to render the authenticity of 2 Peter quite indefensible. But since Petrine authorship is still advocated by a few scholars, we shall now- state their position, selecting, as representative, Spitta, op. cit. ; Zahn, op. cit. ii. 42-110 (Eng. tr., ii. 194-203) ; and Bigg, op. cit. pp. 199-247. Spitta defends the priority of 2 Peter over Jude, finding in the latter [e.g. vv.'"- '-• '"■) clear evidences of direct dependence upon the former.* In fact, Jude was written in order to fulfil the wish of Peter ex- pressed in 2 F 1'°. A detailed comparison of the thought and vocabulary of the two Epistles leads Spitta (pp. 405-470) to afiirm the secondary char- acter of Jude. 2 Peter was actually written by the Apostle toward the close of his life ; it was addressed to some Jewish Christian community unknown to us, and the same community had previously received letters from both Peter and Paul (3'- "). These letters have now been lost. The difficulty of believing that 1 and 2 Peter can have come from the same pen is met by ascribing to Silvanus an important r61e in the composition of the former. The tardiness with which 2 Peter gained a place in ecclesiastical tradition is ex- ])lained by supposing that its Jewish connexions militated against its admission to an epistolary canon in which Pauline writings predominated (p. 535 ff.).
Zahn holds very similar views, but is more specific on certain points of detail. He agrees with Spitta in making 2 Peter earlier than Jude, and regards tlie former as the work of Peter, who wrote from Antioch to Jewish Christians in or near Palestine, shortly before his departure for Rome in the year 63. Although the Apostle was addressing Jewish communities, he aimed at anti- cipating the activity of heretical teachers whose work he had already noted in Gentile communities such as Corinth. Since the language of 1 Peter is due to Silvanus, the stylistic distinctiveness of 2 Peter is thought, as by Spitta, to be truly Petrine ; and reasons similar to those of Spitta are given to account for the obscurity surrounding 2 Peter in the 1st and 2nd centuries.
Bigg follows the same general lines, but is more ready to believe that both letters are the literary work of the Apostle himself, the differences being due merely to ditterent amanuenses. Even though 2 Peter is placed earlier than Jude, Bigg finds in 2 P 3' a distinct reference to 1 Peter rather than to some hypothetical lost letter ; and he thinks 2 Peter was addressed to some Gentile community in Asia Minor to which the disturbances originally arising in Corinth had spread.
Other writers save a portion of the Epistle to Peter by removing later interpolations. Kiihl, op. cit. pp. 346-.363, will serve as an illustration.t He would restore the original by removing 2'-3', which he thinks was taken from Jude and inserted in 2 Peter probably by the author of the Apoca- lypse of Peter. The primary document antedates Jude ; it is the work of the apostle Peter about
* Tills is the view generally held by those who think 2 Peter authentic.
t For advocacy of a displacement h.^'pothesis. as a means of relievinff certain incongruities in the letter, see P. Ladeuze, 'Transposition accidentelle dans la II* Petri,' in iJ^, new ser. ii. 119061 643-552.
VOL. 11. — 14
the year 65, and it is addressed to some Gentile Christian community. Stylistic dilhculties are solved by resorting when necessary to the redac- tional activity of the inlcrpulator.
S. Text and interpretation. — 2 Peter furni.shes many textual perplexities, and the meaning of the author's language is not always clear. But since tlie.se problems have been treated fully in good recent comment.uies (c.q. J. B. Mayor, 11. Knopf, et al. ), they do not call for detailed discussion in the present connexion.
Literature. — The standard NT Introductions discuss the principal problems connected with 1 p.n(l 2 Peter. Anion;^ the more recent and important are A. Hilgrenfeld, Uii>t..-knt. Einleitumj in das iVr, Leipzig, 1S75, pp. (il8-(Hl ; S. David- son, Introduction to the Study of the iV7-, 2 vols., London, 1882, i. 601-532, ii. 438-473 ; B. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Einieitung in das NT^, BerUn, 1897, pp. 407-433 (Eng. tr., 2 vols., London, 1887-88, ii. 128-174); G. Salmon, A Historical Introductimi to the /?oo*-so/(AeJVT6, London, 1892, pp. 433-447, 481-608; H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der hixtorisch-krit. Einkitung in das A'T-i. Freiburg i. B., 1892, pp. 309-327; W. H. Bennett and W. F. Adeney, Biblical IntyinluctioUy New York, 1899, pp. 440- 460 ; B. W. Bacon, Introduction to the NT, do., 1900, pp. 160- 168, 170-173 ; T. Zahn, Einleilunq in das N'l^, Leipzig, 1900, ii. 1-111 (Eng. tr.. New York, 1909, ii. 134-293) ; A. Julicher, Einleitmig in das HT^, Tubingen, 1906, pp. 176-185, 20U-2US (Eng. tr., New York. 1904, pp. 204-216,232-241); A. S. Peake, A Critical Introduction to the ST, London, 1909, pp. 90-100; J. Moffatt, LNT, Edinburgh, 1911, pp. 318-344, 358-372.