||    The Orthodox Faith (Dogma)    ||    Family and Youth    ||    Sermons    ||    Bible Study    ||    Devotional    ||    Spirituals    ||    Fasts & Feasts    ||    Coptics    ||    Religious Education    ||    Monasticism    ||    Seasons    ||    Missiology    ||    Ethics    ||    Ecumenical Relations    ||    Church Music    ||    Pentecost    ||    Miscellaneous    ||    Saints    ||    Church History    ||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Patrology    ||    Canon Law    ||    Lent    ||    Pastoral Theology    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bibles    ||    Iconography    ||    Liturgics    ||    Orthodox Biblical topics     ||    Orthodox articles    ||    St Chrysostom    ||   

INTRODUCTION TO

THE SECOND LETTER OF SAINT PETER

Author The writer of the letter identifies himself as "Simon Peter" (1:1). He claims to have been an eye- and earwitness to the Transfiguration of Jesus (1:16-18); he presumes to speak on behalf of the other apostles who witnessed the event (1:18); he alleges to have written an earlier epistle to the same readers (3:1); and he regards himself a colleague of the apostle Paul (3:15). Second Peter is thus presented as a composition of the Apostle Peter. Nevertheless, ancient and modern scholars alike have raised questions about the reliability of these claims.

In the early Church, there was much hesitation regarding the authenticity of the letter. Evidence shows that a few prominent churchmen were quoting or alluding to 2 Peter in the early part of the third century (Origen, St. Hippolytus), but it was not until the fourth century that the letter was widely accepted as a canonical and apostolic writing of the New Testament. The reason for its delayed acceptance is probably twofold. First, the letter differs in style and vocabulary from 1 Peter, inclining many to think that the two epistles must have come from two different authors. Second, a number of writings appeared in the second century under the name of Peter that were obviously pious forgeries (e.g., Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Acts of Peter). With the Church on guard against the proliferation of such inauthentic works, it is understandable that a letter such as 2 Peter, which displayed some notable differences from 1 Peter, would have to face an uphill battle on its way to canonical recognition. Still, it is telling that 2 Peter, unlike those works that were falsely attributed to the apostle, was never rejected as spurious. Its status was disputed by orthodox theologians, but the Church never placed it in the same class as the apocryphal Petrine literature of the second century.

Disputes about the authorship of 2 Peter erupted again with the advent of modern scholarship. Today a majority of exegetes maintain that 2 Peter is a pseudepigraphical work, a letter written by an unknown figure several decades after the apostle's death in the mid-60s. Perhaps the author was a onetime disciple of Peter, but this is uncertain. What is critically established, say advocates of this view, is that he borrowed Peter's name and reputation to add authority to his own pastoral instructions. Several facts have been put forward to support this position, such as the stylistic differences between 1 and 2 Peter, as well as the hesitation of the early Church to accept the letter as apostolic. Beyond this, literary analysis indicates that the author borrowed thoughts and expressions from two other New Testament letters: 1 Peter and Jude. Inasmuch as scholars often date those two epistles in the late first century, 2 Peter could not, then, have been written within the lifetime of the apostle. Not only that, but some scholars feel it is highly improbable that someone of Peter's stature and authority would ever have stooped to rely on the work of a lesser-known figure such as Jude. Finally, confirmation of the pseudepigraphical hypothesis is said to come from 3:16, where the author refers to a collection of Paul's letters. Again, the argument goes, it is unlikely that all of the Pauline epistles were gathered together and venerated as a collection of scriptural writings before the late first century, well after the time of Peter.

Despite the doubts that have historically surrounded the epistle, conservative scholarship continues to maintain the apostolic authorship of 2 Peter. It is not that the difficulties of holding this position are minimized or ignored; rather, the historical and literary evidence is evaluated differently. (1) The divergence in style between 1 and 2 Peter is real but does not amount to proof that the two letters come from different authors. There is reason to think that 1 Peter was penned by Peter's associate Silvanus (1 Pet 5:12); in which case, Peter may well have written the second letter himself, or perhaps he did so with the help of a different scribe. Either way, this would provide a reasonable explanation for the different writing styles evident in the two letters. (2) Acknowledgment of differences must be balanced by a consideration of the similarities between 1 and 2 Peter (compare 2 Pet 1:2 with 1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:20-21 with 1 Pet 1:10-12; and 2 Pet 2:5 with 1 Pet 3:20). Of course, one could explain these points of contact as the literary borrowing of a later writer, but it is more natural to suppose that a single author wrote both works in question. (3) The dependence of 2 Peter on the letters of 1 Peter and Jude is fairly well established. However, the dates of these letters are themselves disputed, so it is precarious to use them as fixed chronological points from which to make judgments about the authorship of 2 Peter. Moreover, the assertion that Peter would think it below his dignity to utilize the work of someone less prestigious than himself (Jude) lacks supporting evidence. Its working assumption—that Peter was more controlled by pride and a sense of superiority than by a desire to communicate Christian truth in ways that had already proven effective for other ministers of the gospel—is itself highly questionable. (4) The author assumes in 3:16 that his readers are familiar with Pauline letters that were circulating in the early Church. However, there is simply no historical evidence to substantiate the claim that such a collection could not have come together before the late first century. In point of fact, Paul encouraged communities to exchange his letters even in his own lifetime (Col 4:16).

On balance, Peter's authorship of 2 Peter has more in its favor than the modern theory of pseudepigraphical authorship. It is not strictly impossible that an unnamed and unknown author wrote the epistle posing as the Apostle Peter, but neither is it likely. The fact that 2 Peter was included in the canon of Scripture shows that the Church distinguished this letter from the corpus of pseudepigraphical writings that were falsely attributed to Peter in the second century. The sound use of literary and historical analysis can be used to confirm this distinction and to support the Petrine authorship of the letter even today.

Date Efforts to date 2 Peter hinge entirely on the question of authorship. If the letter is authentic and comes from Peter himself, then it must have been written before his martyrdom in Rome in the mid-60s. The statement in 2 Pet 1:14, in which the author anticipates that his death will come soon, implies that it was written shortly before this time. On the other hand, if the letter was written by someone impersonating Peter, then the question of dating is more open-ended. Proponents of pseudepigraphical authorship regularly claim that 2 Peter was the last book of the New Testament to have been written. Though some would date it around A.D. 80, most scholars of this persuasion date the book in the second century, some as late as A.D. 140.

Destination There are no explicit statements in 2 Peter that specify either its place of origin or its destination. Answers to these questions can only be inferred and for this reason remain tentative. The most likely location for its origin is Rome, the place from which Peter sent his first letter in the early 60s (1 Pet 5:13) and the place where tradition says he died in the mid-60s. Evidence is lacking that he left the imperial capital in Italy at any time between these two events. The most likely location of its recipients is northern Asia Minor (modern Turkey), assuming that 3:1 is referring to 1 Peter (1 Pet 1: 1) and not to a now-lost letter that had been sent to the same readership.

Themes and Characteristics Second Peter was written to Christians dangerously exposed to an outbreak of false teaching. News had reached Peter that deceivers and scoffers were starting to infiltrate missionary Churches with their errors and were openly challenging the orthodox faith taught by the apostles. Peter's letter, which he describes as his parting words (1:14-15), responds to this situation both offensively and defensively. (1) Offensively: Peter vigorously attacks both the claims and the conduct of these false prophets. Their most conspicuous error was the denial that Jesus would come again in glory as the Judge of the world. The apparent delay of the Christ's return was ridiculed (3:3-7). Other "destructive heresies" were propagated as well (2:1) and were used to justify and promote degenerate behavior. Far from being respectable teachers, these troublemakers, as depicted by Peter, led lives dominated by licentiousness (2:2), greed (2:3, 14), lust (2:10, 14, 18), insubordination (2:10), and irreverence toward angels (2:10-11). So heinous were their sins that Peter groups them together with the fallen angels, the wicked generation of Noah's day, and the depraved inhabitants of ancient Sodom (2:4-6). Readers are assured throughout the letter that certain destruction is in store for such troublemakers (2:1, 4-9, 20; 3:7). (2) Defensively: Peter attempts to immunize his readers against deceptive ideas that could lead them astray. The best protection against error, he insists, is a firm understanding and commitment to apostolic doctrine. He thus reminds them of truths they already know (1:12-15; 3:1) and challenges them to grow still more in their knowledge of God and his ways (1:3; 3:18). And to faith they must add virtue, so that the truth of the gospel will shine forth through their lives as godliness (1:5-11). All of this has been made possible by Jesus Christ, who has provided every grace we need to escape the corruption of the world before the coming Judgment (1:3-4; 3:11). The greatest of these is a participation in "the divine nature" of God himself (1:4). «