corroborative evidence. On the non-Petrine hypothesis a date is demanded some time before the letter of Pliny; this suits the internal evidence better than any possible on the Petrine hypothesis, but it fails to explain the really considerable and early evidence for the Petrine authorship, and necessitates some purely hypothetical suggestion, such as Harnack's view that the epistle was originally anonymous, and that the opening and closing sentences (i. I sqq., v. 12 sqq.) were added between A.D. 150 and 175, perhaps by the writer of 2 Peter.
The Provenance of the Epistle.—This is defined in 1 Peter v. I3 as Babylon. It has sometimes been argued that this is Babylon in Mesopotamia, in which there were, until the time of the emperor Caius, many Jews; but no good tradition connects St Peter with the evangelization of Mesopotamia, and this district would have had little in common with the Graeco-Roman world of Asia Minor. Another suggestion is that the Egyptian Babylon is meant (Old Cairo); but in the 1st century this was probably merely a fortress Thus there is an overwhelming weight of opinion in favour of the view that Rome, the Babylon of Apocalyptic literature, is intended. This also agrees with the tradition in 2 Tim. iv. 11, which (cf. 1 Pet. v. 13) suggests that St Mark was in Rome.
Reception in the Canon.—1 Peter seems to have been the earliest of the Catholic epistles to obtain recognition. By the year 200 it was accepted everywhere except in two places—the church of Edessa, which did not receive the Catholic epistles until the 5th century, and, if the canon of Muratori is to be trusted, the church of Rome. It should, however, be noted that Zahn emends the text of the Muratorianum (rather violently) so as to include the epistle (see also Bible: New Testament Canon.)
The Theology of 1 Peter—The simplicity of the theology is marked, and affords an argument for an early date. Jesus is the Messiah of whom the prophets had spoken, and the “Spirit of Christ” is identified with the spirit which was in them. His suffering for sin had rescued the elect, and was also an example for Christians to follow. After his death he preached to the “spirits in prison.” The source of Christian life is on the one hand belief in God who raised the Messiah from the dead, and on the other hand baptism which “saves ... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The members of the community are “a royal priesthood, a holy nation”—i.e. inherit the promises made to the Jews, but this inheritance is bound up with the strongly eschatological doctrine that Christians are strangers in the world, the end of which is at hand.
The Church Organization of 1 Peter—This also is very simple and primitive, and closely based on the Jewish model. The leaders are called presbyters or elders, and their duty is to act as shepherds to the flock. Beyond this there is no sign of a developed organization: each is to act in accordance with the gift (χάρισμα) which he has received. There is no trace of a specially set apart ministry either for the service of the community or for teaching, as to which the only limitation given is “If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God,” i.e. probably, in accordance with the Old Testament.
2 Peter
This epistle may be divided into five parts (1) The writer who describes himself as “Simon (var lect. Symeon) Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,” exhorts his readers to become perfect in knowledge and virtue, so as to enter the kingdom of Christ (i 5-11). (2) He then explains his desire once more to testify to the power of Jesus, and bases his testimony partly on his own experience in the Holy Mount (apparently a reference to the Transfiguration), and partly on the “word of prophecy” (i 12-21) (3) The mention of prophecy leads him to deal with the question of false prophets, who are accused of false doctrine and immoral practices. In this section is incorporated almost the whole of the epistle of Jude (ii. 1-22). (4) He then discusses a special feature of the false teaching, viz doubts thrown on the Parousia, the certainty of which for the future he defends (iii 1–13) Finally he warns his hearers that they must be found spotless at the Parousia, and emphasizes the agreement of his teaching with St Paul's (iii 14–18).
The main object of the epistle is to be seen in the attack made on the false teachers, and in the defence of the certainty of the Parousia of the Lord.
Authorship.—The traditional view is that it was written by St Peter from Rome after 1 Peter. This view is however untenable for the following reasons. (1) The epistle is not quoted by any writer of the 2nd century, and Origen, who is the first to mention it as Petrine, admits that its authorship was disputed. (2) The style and language differ greatly from that of 1 Peter: this argument may however fairly be met by the suggestion that it is improbable that he wrote Greek with ease, and that he may have used a variety of amanuenses. (3) The growth of immorality and false teaching to which it witnesses seems irreconcilable with a very primitive period of church life (4) It has incorporated the greater part of Jude in a wholesale manner difficult to reconcile with apostolical authorship. (5) It seems to attribute a position of scriptural authority to the Pauline epistles, and this is improbable either in the mouth of Peter, or during the 1st century.
Any one of these arguments would be weighty by itself; in combination they form an irresistible cumulative argument against the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.
Date.—If the Petrine authorship be abandoned, the terminus ad quem of the epistle is its use by Origen (or, just possibly, by Clement of Alexandria), and the terminus a quo is fixed by the following considerations: (1) the activity of an immoral Gnosticism; (2) the attainment by the Pauline epistles of great authority, and their perversion by heretics; (3) the use made of the epistle of Jude.
It is difficult to define the exact date to which these indications point, but there is a general agreement that it must be sought in the end century, and perhaps the decades immediately before and after the year A.D. 150 are the most probable.
Place of Origin.—There is hardly any evidence on this point: but the most probable place seems to be Egypt, as the letter has points of connexion with Philo, Clement of Alexandria and the Apocalypse of Peter, and seems first to have been used in the church of Alexandria. It should however be noted that Deissmann argues on lexical grounds in favour of Asia Minor (Bibel Stud. pp. 277–284).
Relation to other Early Christian Documents.—The documents with which 2 Peter has the greatest affinities are the epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse of Peter, of which a fragment was found in Akhmim in 1892 by M Bouriant. In each case the affinity is very close, and is capable of more than one explanation. Roughly speaking 2 Peter ii. reproduces Jude: it is possible therefore either that Jude is an epitome of 2 Peter or that the writer of 2 Peter used Jude. The former hypothesis has a few supporters, notably T. Zahn and Spitta, but most writers are emphatic in thinking that 2 Peter has incorporated Jude, and this view is almost certainly correct (see Jude, Epistle of). The connexion with the Apocalypse of Peter is more complicated: the evidence of a comparison between the two documents (which is made in full in F. H. Chase's article in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible) is to show that either one document is dependent on the other, or both were written by the same person, or both come from the same circle. Of these theories there is least to be said for the dependence of the Apocalypse on 2 Peter, and perhaps most for the dependence of 2 Peter on the Apocalypse.
Reception in the Canon.—2 Peter was the last of the Catholic epistles to be accepted as canonical. It was first regarded as such in Alexandria, perhaps originally in connexion with the Apocalypse of Peter rather than with 1 Peter Thence it passed into the canon used by the church of Constantinople, in the 4th century made its way into the Roman canon, and in the 6th was accepted last of all by the Syria church (see also Bible: New Testament Canon).
The Theology of 2 Peter.—The theology of the epistle is specially marked by two characteristics—its high Christology and its eschatological character. Christ is referred to as “our God and Saviour,” and the fatherhood of God is apparently only regarded as referring to the Divine Son. The work of Christ was the redemption of the elect, and this redemption awaits its consummation in the Parousia. This is the central point of the teaching of the epistle and is obviously directed against that of the false prophets. The writer looks forward to the destruction of the present world by fire,
