The objections, as Jerome remarks, w< re based on dif- ference of style, and we admit that there is -round for suspicion on the point. Still no doubter or impugner who placed the epistle anion-' the dvTiktybpeva gives any historical -round tor his hostility. No one of old is ever brought forward as having denied it in his own name, or in the name of any early Church, to he Peter's. If the apostolic fathers do not quote it. it can only he inferred either that it was not in universal circulation, or that they had no occasion to make any use of it. We observe that it was not likely to lie quoted frequently; it was addressed to a portion of the Church not at that time much in intercourse with the rest ot ( Ihristendom i the documents of the primitive Church arc far too .-can- ty to give weight to the argument (generally a ques- tionable one) from omission. Their silence 'would not warrant the assertion that the epistle was net in the canon during their period, and for half a century after- wards. The earliest impugners never speak of it as a hook recently admitted into the canon, or admitted on insufficient evidence or authority. ( toe objection of this nature would have been palpable and decisive. The -i- lence ><\' the fathers is accounted for more easily than its admission into the canon after the question a- to its genuineness had been raised. It is not conceivable that it should have been received without positive attesta- tion from the churches to which it wa- tirst addressed. We know that the autographs of apostolic writings w< re preserved with care. It may he added that there ap- pears to he no probable motive for a forgery. Neither persona] ambition nor ecclesiastical pretensions are in any way forwarded by the epistle. There is nothing in ii that an apo-ih- might not have written, nothing that comes into direct conflict with Peter's modes of thought, either a- recorded in the Act- or as found in the first epi-tle. No little circumstantial evidence can he adduced in its favor, and it- earlj appearance in the canon is an element of proof which cannot easily be turned a-ide.
PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF) 23 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
The doubts as to its genuineness appear to have orig- ' inated with the critics of Alexandria, where, nevertheless,
the epistle itself was formally recognised at a very ear- ly period. Those doubts, however, -were not quite so strong as they are now generally represented. The three greatest names of that school may be quoted on either side. On the one hand there were evidently ex- ternal credentials, without which it could never have obtained circulation ; on the other, strong subjective im- pressions, to which these critics attached scarcely less weight than some modern inquirers. They rested en- tirely, so far as can be ascertained, on the difference of style. The opinions of modern commentators may be summed up under three heads. Many, as we have seen, reject the epistle altogether as spurious, supposing it to have been directed against forms of Gnosticism preva- lent in the early part of the 2d century. A few consider that the first and last chapters were written by Peter or under his dictation, but that the second chapter was interpolated So far. however, is either of these views from representing the general results of the latest in- vestigations, that a majority of names, including nearly all the writers of Germany opposed to Rationalism, who in point of learning and ability are at least upon a par with their opponents, may be quoted in support of the genuineness and authenticity of this epistle. The state- ment that all critics of eminence and impartiality con- cur in rejecting it is simply untrue, unless it be admit- ted that a belief in the reality of objective revelation is incompatible with critical impartiality, that belief be- ing the only common point between the numerous de- fenders of the canonicity of this document. If it were a question now to be decided for the first time upon the external or internal evidences still accessible, it may be admitted that it would be far more difficult to maintain this than any other document in the New Testament ; but the judgment of the early Church is not to be re- versed without far stronger arguments than have been adduced, more especially as the epistle is entirely free from objections which might be brought, with more show of reason, against others now all but universally received : it inculcates no new doctrine, bears on no controversies of post - apostolical origin, supports no hierarchical innovations, but is simple, earnest, devout, and eminently practical, full of the characteristic graces of the apostle, who, as we believe, bequeathed this last proof of faith and hope to the Church. Olshausen's de- liberate conclusion is — " 1. That our epistle, as far as we can ascertain from history, was used by the Church, and was generally read, along with the other catholic epis- tles; 2. There were those who denied that Peter was the author of this epistle, but they were influenced par- ticularly by critical and, perhaps, by doctrinal reasons ; 3. That there were historical considerations which led them to assail our epistle is not probable ; certainly it cannot be demonstrated. History, then, avails scarcely anything in overthrowing the authority of our epistle" ( Integr. and Authent. of Second Epistle of Peter, transl. in Amer.Bibl. Repos. July, 1836, p. 123-131).