2. Internal Evidence. — There are points of similarity in style between it and the first epistle. The salutation in both epistles is the same, and there are peculiar words common to both, though found also in other parts of the N. T. Both epistles refer to ancient prophecy (1 ret. i, 16 ; 2 Pet. i, 20, 21) ; both use dptn) as applicable to God (1 Pet. ii, 9 ; 2 Pet. i, 3), and both have dire&t- atc (1 Pet. iii, 21 ; 2 Pet. i, 14), which occurs nowhere else in the N. T. ; dvaarpocpii is a favorite term (1 Pet. i, 15, 17, 18; ii, 12; iii, 1,2, 16; 2 Pet. ii. 7-18 ; iii, 11); the verb iiroirTtviiv in 1 Pet. ii, 12; iii, 20, corresponds to the noun fc7ro7r-);c (2 Pet. i, 16) ; the peculiar colloca- tion dairikoq icai cipw/wc (1 Pet. i, 19) has an echo of itself (2 Pet. ii, 13 ; iii, 14) ; Triiravrai aftap-iaq (1 Pet. iv, 1) is not unlike dKarcnzaiiaroix a/iapriac, etc. (2 Pet. ii, 14). We have also, as in the first epistle, the intervention of several words between the article and its substantive (2 Tet. i, 4 ; ii, 7 ; iii, 2). The frequent
use of Iv in a qualifying clause is common to both epis- tles (2 Pet. i, 4; ii, 3; iii, 10). The recurrence of sim- ilar terms marks the second epistle, but it is not without all parallel in the first. Thus 2 Pet. i, 3, 4, ctcwpijpt- vilQ, Stcwpqrat; ii, 7, 8, diicaioc, three times; ii, 12, (pzopc'iv, iv ry (pSopa Kara(p%ap>)(T0VTat. So. too, in 1 Pet. iii, 1, 2, dvaaTpo<pi)c,, dvaarporpi] ; and ii, 17, n/o'j- aari , ripd-e, etc. Then too, as in the first epistle, there are resemblances to the speeches of Peter as given in the Acts. Com p. yptpa Kvpiov (iii, 10) with Acts ii, 20 — the phrase occurring elsewhere only in 1 Thess. v. 24; Xaxovciv (i, 1) with tXaxe (Acts i, 17) ; tvoffiiiav (i, 6) with Acts iii, 12; and tvoefiiiQ (ii, 9) with Acts x, 2-7: KoXaZofJtvovc, (ib.) with Acts iv, 21— an account which Peter probably furnished. We have likewise an apparent characteristic in the double genitives (2 Pet. iii, 2 ; Acts v, 32).
It is also to be borne in mind that the epistle asserts itself to have been written by the apostle Peter, and distinctly identifies its writer with the author of the first epistle — -This epistle now, a second, I write unto you, in both which I stir up" — averring also to some extent identity of purpose. It is not anonymous, like the epistle to the Hebrews, but definitely claims as its author Peter the apostle. Nay, the writer affirms that he was an eye-witness of the transfiguration, and heard " the voice from the excellent glory." He uses, more- over, two terms in speaking of that event which belong to the account of it in the Gospels; comp. i, 13, gkijvw- fiari, with his own words <TK7iva£ rpuc, ; also in 15, t£o- Sov, in reference to his own death — the same word being employed to denote Christ's death, rr)v i£,a<:ov ai/Tov, this being the theme of conversation on the part of Moses and Elias (Luke ix, 31). Ullmann supposes the reference in the words Siicaiov ci tjyov fiai Citytiptiv (i, 13) to be to Mark's Gospel said to have been com- posed on Peter's authority; but the allusion seems to be to the paragraph immediately under his hand. It would have been a profane and daring imposture for any one to personate an apostle, and deliver to the churches a letter in his name, with so marked a reference to one of the most memorable circumstances and glories in the apostle's life. A forgery so glaring could make no pre- tence to inspiration — to be a product of the Spirit of Truth. The inspiration of the epistle is thus bound up with the question of its authorship, so that if it is not the work of Peter it must be rejected altogether from the canon. The opinion of critics of what is called the liberal school, including all shades from Liicke to Baur, has been decidedly unfavorable, and that opinion has been adopted by some able writers in England. There are, however, very strong reasons why this verdict should be reconsidered. No one ground on which it rests is un- assailable. The rejection of this book affects the au- thority of the whole canon, which, in the opinion of one of the keenest and least scrupulous critics (Eeuss) of modern Germany, is free from any other error. It is not a question as to the possible authorship of a work like that of the Hebrews, which does not bear the writ- er's name. The Church, which for more than fourteen centuries has received it, has either been imposed upon by what must in that case be regarded as a satanic de- vice, or derived from it spiritual instruction of the high- est importance. If received, it bears attestation to some of the most important facts in our Lord's history, casts light upon the feelings of the apostolic body in relation to the elder Church and to each other, and, while it confirms many doctrines generally inculcated, is the chief, if not the only, voucher for eschatological views touching the destruction of the framework of creation, which from an early period have been prevalent in the Church.