John xxi. 15-22 is sometimes compared with the reminiscence of the same interview in 1 Pet. v. 2. The last, it is ea.id, is a.nconscioa.s-it comes from the fa.lness of the heart; while the direct assertion of eh. i. 14 is in the manner of a falsaria.s. But this, surely, is hypercriticism. St. Peter, when stand- ing before the Sanhedrin, asserted his personal knowledge of the great facts of the gospel (Acts iv. 20), much as he does in this Epistle. Apostles, like other men, may sometimes relate at length events of their previous history, sometimes make allusions to them. In this very chapter there are two such unconscious reminiscences. The use of the word "tabernacle" in vers. 13 and 14 reminds us of St. Peter's suggestion, "Let us make three tabernacles; " and the word l[ooo,; occurs in the sense of " decease" nowhere in the New Testament except in eh. i. 15 and in St. Luke's account of the Trans- figuration. These two allusions are exactly in the manner of the First Epistle. Compare also the unconscious adoption of Christ's words in eh. ii. 20; the reference in eh. iii. 10 to Matt. xxiv. 43 ; the apparent reminiscence of Matt. vii. 6 in eh. ii. 22, and of Matt. xxv. 46 (Ka.1 o.a-L,;) in the use of the word KoAaCoµhov,; in eh. ii. 9. Surely neither the asser- tions of eh. i. 14-18, nor those of 1 John i. 1-3 give the very slightest reason for doubting the genuineness of either Epistle. The same may be said of the account of the Transfiguration; there also we find minute evidences of Petrina authorship. The change of numbe-r- from the singular in ver. 14 to the plural in vera. 16, 18 may well come from an unconscious recollection that, while the Lord's words recorded in John xxi. 18 were spoken to St. Peter only, two other apostles were wit- nesses of the Transfiguration. .And we may regard it as certain that a. falsarius of the second century would have quoted the words of the voice from heaven exactly as they are given in one of the synoptic Gospels, which were then well known. The dercription of the scene of the Transfiguration as "the holy mount," doubtless implies that the Epistle was written in the later apostolic period, when the leading facts of the gospel history were generally known among Christians. But it cannot be fairly insisted on as an argument for a post-apostolic date. Why should not the mount of th.: Transfiguration be regarded as a holy place by the early Christians as Mount Sinai was by the ancient Israelites ? In eh. iii. 2 the true reading seems to be {iµwv, so that St. Peter may be understood as confirming by his apostolic authority the teaching of St. Paul, as he does in ver. 15 of the same chapter, and in 1 Pet. i, 12, 25 ; and, as some think, in 1 Pet. v. 12. But, even if the reading of the received text is retained, there is no reason why the assertion of apostleship should be regarded as an indication of a non-Petrina authorship, any more than the assumption of the title, "an apostle of Jesus Christ," in both Epistles. St. Paul often asserts his apostleship: why should not St. Peter do the like? (2) Another objection is drawn from the reference to St. Paul in eh. iii. 15, 16. One apostle, it is urged, would not be likely to give bis imprimatur to the writings of another; he would not speak in this way of the difficulties in vi INTRODUCTION TO
them; he would not class them with the Scriptures of the Old Testament. Again we ask, Why not? It seems a very natural thing that an apostle, writing at a time when some at least of St. Paul's Epistles had become generally known, should refer to writings of such importance, St. Peter's first letter is foll of references to St. Paul's Epistles, though the apostle is not mentioned by name. .And there may have been good reasons. We know that St. Paul's authority had been questioned in the Churches of Galatia; St. Peter may have thought it desirable to support that authority. We know that St. Paul's teaching had sometimes been misrepresented; St. Peter may have thought it necessary to warn his readers against hasty conclusions from difficult parts of that teaching. St. Paul himself bad done the like in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, in Rom. iii. 8, and elsewhere. Nor is there any reason to be startled at the application of the word "Scripture" to the Epistles of St. Panl. St. Paul again and again asserts his own inspiration; he says that he received the gospel "by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i. 12); he tells the'. Corinthians that the spiritual among them will nnderstand that the things which he writes "are the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. xiv. 37; see also 1 Cor. v. 3, 4; 1 Thess. ii 13); he applies the word "Scripture" to what seems to be a quotation from the Gospel of St. Luke (1 Tim. v. 18). St. Peter himself, in his First Epistle (i. 12), classes "them that have preached the gospel unto you," of whom St. Paul was the chief, with the prophets of the Old Testament. The only inference to be fairly drawn is that, at the date of this Epistle, some of the writings of the New Testament were generally known among Christians, and were accepted among them as sacred books, of equal authority with the Scriptures of the Old Testament. (3) Undoubtedly, there is a difference of style. The style of both Epistles is nervous and energetic; in both there is an ab11Ddance of unusual words; there is an obvious fondness for striking and picturesque expressions, as well as for mysterious subjects. These characteristics, common to both Epistles, are more marked in the second than in the first; the style is here and there more rugged, the rare words are more startling; we meet here and there with anacolutha and strange participial connections. The con- necting particles co=only used in the First Epistle appear rarely in the second; we notice also, as a peculiarity of the Second Epistle, a remarkable tendency to repeat a word three or four times. The style of the Second Epistle is perhaps, as a role, less Hebraistic; while in some parts the Greek seems more classical and more periodic than that of the first. But these differences can be accounted for. The First Epistle was written calmly. It is a treatise rather than a letter ; it was intended to arm the Christians of Asia Minor against the coming sufferings, to console them, to remind -them of the high privileges and blessed hope of their heavenly calling. It is the thoughtful production of a man writing deliberately. The Second Epistle is a more hasty composition; the effect is produced by a few bold, THE SECOND EPIS'fLE GENERAL OF PETER. vii