THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
According to I Pet. v. 13, the epistle was written at " Babylon." The ruined condition of the great Babylon at the time, however, as well as the fact that in the reign of Caligula the Jews 4. Place had been driven from it by pestilence and Date and persecution, render it certain that of Composi- Peter did not compose his epistle there, tion; Au- It is equally improbable that " Babythenticity. Ion " here means Mesopotamia in general or the Egyptian town of Babylon in the Nile delta. Neither is there any tradition during the first five centuries of any activity of Peter in either Babylonia or Egypt. So it is indubitable that here, as elsewhere, " Babylon " means Rome (cf. Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii. 2, 10, 21; Oracula Sibyllina, v. 153; II Esdras, hi. 1; cf. also I Pet. v. 14; Col. iv. 10). The letter can not have been written before 64, both because of its dependence on James and Romans, and because of the designation of Rome as Babylon, which did not come into vogue until the Neronian persecution had begun. It may be concluded, then, that it was written either soon after the outbreak of the persecution, shortly before the return of Paul from Spain and the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul, or, if the death of the former be placed shortly before the fall of Nero, in the closing years of this reign. The testimony of the early Church favors the authenticity of the epistle. Besides the allusion to it in II Pet. iii. 1, it is mentioned by Hernias, Papias, Polycarp, is cited by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and is placed in the canon by Eusebius. On the other hand, it was rejected, for dogmatic reasons, by the Paulicians, and in the nineteenth century its authenticity was denied by many critics; while others supposed either that it was translated from the Aramaic of Peter into Greek by Mark or Silvanus, or that one of these two developed the outline given by Peter. It has also been maintained that it was written later and then ascribed to Peter, although no credible motive can be assigned for such a proceeding. The optimism which pervades the epistle, like the theological attitude midway between James and Paul, is in entire accord with the temperament and position of Peter as revealed throughout the New Testament. Hence there is, in short, no good reason to doubt the authenticity of I Peter.
With the second Petrine epistle the case is different. The occasion of its writing was the rise of false teachers, some of them libertines like those described by Jude, and others mockers and deniers of the second advent (II Pet. ii.— iii.), 5. H Peter, although it seems probable, on the whole, that only one class of false teachers is really meant. The epistle is composed of an introduction reminding the readers of the boon of salvation and urging them to remain faithful (i. 1-10), and three parts: an assurance of the certainty of the second coming of Christ (i. 11-21); a characterization of the libertinism of the false teachers and their sure punishment (ii. 1-22); and prediction of the destruction of the world by fire, the delay of the day of judgment through the mercy of God, and an admonition to righteousness and pa-
tience (iii. 1-13) ; the whole concluding with an allusion to the writings of Paul, warning, admonition, and glorification of God (iii. 14-18). The epistle is clearly influenced profoundly by Jude (cf. ii. 4, 11, 13 with Jude 6, 9, 12); but, on the other hand, a comparison of the second Petrine epistle with the first shows a marked difference in style, as well as in dogmatic position. The concepts of " knowledge " and " godliness," unmentioned in I Pet., are prominent in II Pet., while the characteristic optimism of I Pet. here disappears. The center of expectation is the end of the world rather than the perfection of salvation; but, on the other hand, the second advent is thought of as more remote than in I Pet. Christ appears in II Pet. especially as the Savior, but the pattern of his life and passion, so stressed in I Pet., is as little mentioned in II Pet. as are his death and resurrection. The difference between the two epistles can not be explained from their divergent purposes; and a considerable time must have elapsed between the composition of the two, since II Pet. is later than Jude, which was probably written after the fall of Jerusalem (see Jude, Epistle of). Certain points in II Pet., moreover, imply a date subsequent to the apostolic age (cf. II Pet. hi. 3 sqq., 15-16), and the tradition of the Church is unfavorable to the authenticity of the epistle. There is no clear evidence that it was known to the apostolic Fathers or to the church writers of the second century. In the time of Origen only I Peter was considered canonical, and Eusebius reckoned II Peter among the antilegomena (Hist, eccl., III., xxv. 3), although Firmilian of Cffisarea in Cappadocia seems to have considered it authentic (Cyprian, Epist., lxxv.). Despite certain doubts of Gregory Nazianzen (Carmina, xxxiii. 35), Jerome, who himself recognized the fact that the epistle was rejected by most critics on the basis of its stylistic deviation from I Peter, was largely responsible for securing general acceptance of the epistle. At the Reformation period its authenticity was again doubted by Calvin and Erasmus, and since the time of J. S. Semler (q.v.) it has generally been deemed spurious by adherents of the critical school. (F. Sieffert.)
III. Apocryphal Petrine Literature: Of writings of this class four claim mention here, the Gospel, the Apocalypse, the Preaching, and the Acts.
1. The Gospel: That such a gospel existed has
been known since the end of the second century.
The most explicit account of it is found in several
passages in Eusebius (Hist, eccl., VI.,
1. Early xy _tne longest reference—, III., hi.
Mention. and ^^ Eng trangl in NPNF> 2d
ser. vol. i.) and it is mentioned by Origen (" Commentary on Matthew," x. 17), Jerome (De vir. ill, i., Eng. transl. in NPNF, 2d ser., iii. 361), Theodoret (Hwreticarum Fabularum, ii. 2), and in Deer-etum Gelasianum (De libris recipiendis) . The principal notice by Eusebius includes a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch 190-191—211-212, to the church at Rhossos in Cilicia, on the Mediterranean coast on the bay of Issus in Asia Minor. This church had been using the Gospel of Peter in its services, and when Serapion visited them he had granted