Three arguments have been adduced to prove that the epistle must belong to post-apostolic times. 1. It is alleged that the doubts about Christ's second coming, referred to in iii. 3. 4, could not have arisen in apostolic times, when the belief in it was so firm and glowing ; and a period of some length must have elapsed ere it could be said that the "fathers had fallen asleep." But the scoffers referred to were probably Gnostics who never believed that event, or at all events spiritualized the truth of it away; and after one generation had passed they might use the language imputed to them ; or " the fathers" may denote the Jewish patriarchs, since whose decease uniformity had characterized all the processes and laws of nature. The Gnostic spiritualism which treated the resurrection as past early troubled the Church, and its disciples might cast ridicule on the faith and hopes of others in the challenge which Peter quotes. 2. It is said that the allusion to Paul's epistles indicates a late date, as it supposes them to be collected in part at least, and calls them by the sacred name of ypatpai (iii, 15, 10). But surely it may be granted that towards the close of Peter's life several epistles of Paid
PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF) 20 PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
may have l>een brought together and placed in point of authority on the Bame level as the O.T.; and that other documents also — rdc Xonrag ypafdg already occupied a similar place. Whatever exegesis be adopt- ed, this is the general result. The writings of Paul, bo will known to the readers of this i pistle, arc mentioned completed whole; the phrase iv iraoaiQ, etc, i- nol i" be taken absolutely, but relatively, as if denoting ••in all his epistles which he writ<s." The "things" rcl'i rr.il to as discussed in these epistles (tthi'i tovtiov) are n<>i t In ir general contents, but the coming of our Lord and the end of the world, and in these discussions -arc some things hard in he understood." The allusion certainlj presupposes a late age, and the writer, as he informs us, was very mar his death. The date < if Peter's deal h is not precisely known, and the common traditions concerning it may therefore be modified. As Alford say-, a later date than the usual one may be assigned to it. 3. Again, it is, held, as by Neander, thai the epi- thet ■■ holy mount," as applied to the bill of transfigura- tion, indicate - a late period, fur Zion only was so desig- nated; and Mayerhoff affirms that the epithet suits Mount Zion alone. But the scene on which the glory of Jesus had been so displayed might many years after- wards be well called "holy" by one who was an eye- witness, when In- referred to it as a proof and symbol of "the power and coming of the Lord Jesus."
Still, while a partial reply may he given to objec- ti. ns based on difference of style and of doctrinal rep- resentation, it must in honesty be added that these dif- ferences are not all of them wholly accounted for. The style and matter, as a whole, are so unlike the first epistle, that one has considerable difficulty in ascrib- ing In t!i epistles to the same author. While there is similarity in some words or phrases, the spirit, tone, and manner of the whole epistle are widely diverse. Minute criticism may discover ii-a'i Xeyofieva, and ar- range them in proof parallel to similar usage in the first epistle : hut such minutiae do not hide the general dissimilitude. It may lie argued, and the argument IS not without weight, that a forger would have imi- tated the salient peculiarities of the first epistle. No one of ordinary critical discernment would have failed to attempt tin' reproduction of its characteristic feat- urea of style and thought. But the absence of such studied likeness is surely in favor of the genuineness. It may be added also that, as there are in the first epistle statements so peculiar to it as to be found no- where else, the same specialty in what seems to be undesigned coincidence marks the second epistle in the declarations of its third chapter. It would have been difficult in the second century to impose on the churches a second epistle forged in Peter's name, and so unlike in many points to his first. A direct imi- tation of his style might have deceived some of the Churches by it - obvious features of similitude, but the case i- widely different when a writing so obviously unlike the first epistle won its way into circulation unchallenged in its origin and history, and was not doubted Bare at length by scholars and mainly on crit- ical '_'round-. Why did not Origen and other- tell us of the time of its first appearance, and how and by whom it wis placed in the canon? Possibly on such points the, were ignorant, or at least they knew noth- ing thai warranted suspicion. Still the diff manner between the two epistl !8 remain-, and perhaps • me might account for it. as Jerome has hinted and Calvin has supposed, by the supposition that Peter dictated the epistle in Aramaic, and that the amanu- ensis w.i- loft to express the thoughts in his own forms and phrases. Difference of condition and purpose may account for difference of topic, and the change of style may be ascribed to the Greek copyist and translator. If. moreover, we admit that Borne time intervened i>e- tween the composition of the two works; that in writ- ing the first the apostl • was aided by Silvanus, and in the second by another, perhaps Mark; that the circum-