TETEK (-SECOND EPISTLE OF) 22 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
Tjftlv tovtwv avfi/3i 3rjKcv),&s if in allusion to 2 Pet iii, •1. The appeal to Hennas i- a- doubtful; in lib. i. Vis. iii, 7. the words reliqueruni viam veram have a Blight resemblance to 2 Pet. ii. I"*; in anothi r place | F. iv, "> i ise qui ejfugistis sceculum hoc is no( a citation oi diroipvyovTiQ n't /udupaTa rov Koa/iov, "_' Pet ii, 20. ,lu -lin Martyr saj -. " A day ^\ i 1 1 1 the Lord is as a thou- sand years" (Dialog, cum Tryph. cap. 81 : Opt ra, ii. 278, ed. Otto, Jense, L843), but the clause maj as well be taken from Psa. sc, l as from 2 Pet iii. 8. Similar statements occur twice in [renseus, and have probably :i similar origin, as citatii ns from the « '. T. The epistle is 1 1< >t quoted by Tertullian, the Alexandrian Clement, nor Cyprian, w ho speaks only of one epistle. A passage in Hippolytus (De Artiichristo, ii). in asserting of the prophets that they did not speak •• by ilicir own power" (££ iSias Svvd/jiiwe), lmt uttered things which < ; < .« I had revealed, appears to be a paraphrase of 2 Pet i. 21. Another statement made by Theophilus (Ad Autoly- rinu. lib. ii. p. 87), in which he describes the prophets as 7n>£V(taTO<p6poi iri'tvfiaToq ayiov, is not unlike 2 Pet. i. 20, virb irvivparoc, ayiov (pepojisvot. Theophilus again describes the word shining as a lamp in a house tpaivuiv uHTTrip \v\i'0(; iv oiKt'ipari ; but the figure is different from that in '-' Pet i. 19, wc \r\i'oj Qalvovn iv avxfii]p<t> ru-<;> -•■ as a light shining in a dark place." Clement of Alexandria commented, we arc told by Eu- sebius and Cassiodorus, on all the canonical Scriptures, Eusebius specifying among them "Jude and the other Catholic epistles" icai rdc Xoiirac. ica&oXtiedc imoro- Xdc I Hist. Eccles. vi, 1 h. But a second statement fit" i iassiodorus mentions expressly the first epistle of Peter, as if the second bad been excluded, and adds. •• i and 2 John and .lames." thereby also excluding Jude, which Eusebius, however, had distinctly named (/'< Tnstitut. cap. viii i. The testimony of < >rigen is no less liable to doubt, for it seems to vary. In the translation of Ru- finus, who certainly was not a literal versionist, we find the epistle at least three times referred to, one of them being the assertion. "Petrus enim duabus epistolarura Btiarum personat tubis" (Horn. iv, on Joshua). In Horn, iv on Leviticus, 2 Pet i. 1 is quoted, and in Horn, xiii on Numbers, 2 Pet ii, H'> is quoted. Somewhat in op- position to this, Origen, in bis extant works in Greek, speaks of the tirst epistle as iv n) KoStoklKy iir. ; nay.
as quoted by Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vi. 25), he adds that "Peter left one acknowledged epistle," adding- tffro) Si rati SivripaV d(i<ptj3d\\ETat yap. This is not a formal denial of its genuineness, but is tantamount to it. Nor can the word- of Firinilian be trusted in their Latin version. Vet in his letter to Cyprian le seems to allude to •_' Peter, and the warnings in it against her- etics K'ypriani Opera, p. 126, ed. Paris. 1836). Iii a Latin translation of a commentary of Didymua on the epistle it is called falsata, mm in canone. Now falsare, according to Du Fresne in his Glossar.med.et ivfim. Latinitat., does not mean to interpolate, lmt to pro- nounce spurious. Eusebius has placed this epistle among the dvrikeyoptva (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25), and more fully he declares, "That called his second epistle we have been toll has not been received, ovk IvStdSfr 7ci' ; hut yet appearing to many to be useful it has been diligently studied with the other Scriptures." Jerome says explicitly, "Scripsil dmrs epistolas . . . quarum Becunda a plerisque ejus esse negatur;" adding a- the reason, "propter Btyli cum priore dissonantiam," and as- cribing this difference to a change of amanuensis, divi r- retibus </>■ Script. Eccles. cap. i, epist exx, ad
Hedib. cap. \i ). .Methodius of T\ re make- two di-linot
allusions to a peculiar portion of the epistle (iii, 6, 7, 12, 13), the conflagration and purification of the world (Epiphan. Hares. Ixiv, 31, torn, i, pars post p. 298, id. odder. I860). Westcotl (On tfo Canon, p. 57) points
out a i. fl reiiee iii the mart] rdom of I-natiiis. in w hich
(cap. ii i the father i- oompared to •• a ili\ ine lamp illu- minating the hearts of the faithful by his exposition of the Holy Scriptures" (2 Pet i, 19). The epistle is not .
found in the Peshito, though the Pbiloxenian ha- it. and Ephrem Syrua accepted it. Tin- canon of Muratori has it not. and Theodore ofMopsuestia reject- ed it. Iiut it was received by Athanasius, Pbilastrius, Cyril, Rufinus, and Augustine. Gregory ofNazianzum,
in his Carmen '■'•'■''. refer.- to the seven catholic epistles.
It was adopted by the Council of Laodicea, 367, and by the Council of Carthage, 397; From that period till the Reformation it was acknowledged by the Church. Not to refer to other quotations often given, it may suliice to say that, though the epistle was doubted, it usually had a place in the canon: that the objections against it were not historical, lmt critical in nature, and had their origin apparently anion- the Alexandrian schol- ars; and that in one case at least, that of O -ma- frl- dicoph ustes. doctrinal prepossessions led to ii- rep ction. Gregory, at the end of the 6th century, sums to allude to others whose hostility to it had a similar origin, add- in-. ■• Si ejusdem epistolse verba pensare voluissi nt, lon- ge aliter sentire potuerant" (Sec Olshausen, Opttscu- l,i. where the citations are given at length.) The old doubts about the epistle were revived at the time of the Reformation, and not a few modern critics question or deny its genuineness. In earlier times strong dis- belief was expressed by Calvin. Erasmus, Grotius, and Salmasius. Scaliger, Semler, Credner, De Wette, Ne- ander, and Mayerhoff deny its Petrine origin. Pott, Wiudischmann, Dahl, Gaussen, ami Bonn* t. on the oili- er hand, make light of many objections to it. But the proofs adduced on its behalf by Dietlein (Lit 2. Ep. I', in. 1851 i are many of them unsatisfactory, the re- sult of a dextrous and unscrupulous ingenuity on b< half of a foregone conclusion. Yet amid early doubts and modern objections we are inclined to accept this epistle, and to agree with the verdict of the early churches, which were not without the means of ample investiga- tion, and to whom satisfactory credentials must have been presented.