INTRODUCTION TO 2 PETER
By Nathan Hobby
AUTHOR
It is difficult to know where to begin when
introducing 2 Peter. All of the issues
of background are interrelated. A
genuine Petrine epistle suggests one range of dates, addressees and
life-setting; depending on the view of the non-Petrine author adopted, another
will be suggested. At the same time,
evidence for date, addressees and life-setting are important in identifying the
likely author.
The writer identifies himself as ‘Simeon Peter, a
servant and apostle of Jesus Christ’ (1:1) and later he writes of witnessing
the transfiguration (1:17-18). Clearly,
the author is writing as Simon Peter, one of the twelve apostles.
Despite Green’s claim that the authorship of 2 Peter
is ‘hotly contested’ (1980, 1205), few contemporary scholars argue for Petrine
authorship; Green and Guthrie (1990), both evangelical scholars, are
exceptions. The scholarly consensus
seems to be derived (with variations) from Baukham’s authoritative commentary
(1983). Baukham views 2 Peter as a pseudonymous
work belonging to two genres - ‘testament’ and ‘letter’ (131ff) - and written by a member of the Petrine
circle in Rome (158ff). It is logical
that the burden of proof should rest on those who reject the epistle’s claim to
Petrine authorship. With that in mind, their
arguments - with responses in defence of Petrine authorship by both Green and
Guthrie - follow.
One of the key arguments for non-Petrine authorship is
the vast difference between 1 and 2 Peter.
It is generally thought that they could not have been written by the
same person[1]. The language is very different - Green
describes 1 Peter as ‘dignified’ while 2 Peter shows ‘vulgar
pretentiousness’. Aside from any
comparison to 1 Peter, the writer of 2 Peter seems highly educated in
Greco-Roman rhetoric - which is simply at odds with our knowledge of Peter as a
rural fisherman (Watson: 1994, 324). The
counter-argument to this is that Peter used a different scribe for each of his
two epistles.
Aside from language differences, some scholars discern
significant theological differences between the two epistles - particularly
that 2 Peter is much more concerned with the parousia than 1 Peter. To this, Green responds that the two
epistles are written to the churches in very different circumstances - the
first in times of persecution; the second, in times of false teaching.
Scholars generally agree that the author of 2 Peter
used Jude as a source[2]. If this was the case, it seems unlikely that
an apostle would use a non-apostolic document instead of simply relying on his
own authority. Although this is a sound
argument against Petrine authorship, it relies heavily on speculation - that 2
Peter is dependent on Jude and that Peter would not have used a non-apostolic
source.
Baukham (1983, 134) writes that it is apparent 2 Peter
‘was intended to be an entirely transparent
fiction’ to first century Christians familiar with the testamentary genre. In the testament genre, an authoritative
figure writes of his (never her) imminent death, making final ethical
admonitions and prophesying about the future.
These features are certainly present in 2 Peter. The transparency is partly found in the
writer’s switching between tenses. Watson
(1994, 328) see it as a ‘teaching tool that helps the churches to understand
that what has been prophesied about false teachers in the past is being
fulfilled in their present.’ To the
testament genre theory it must be said that not every testament is necessarily pseudonymous (Christ’s in John
13-17, for example) and Green (1987, 36ff) also asks how the ‘transparent’ fictional
genre of 2 Peter could go centuries without being noticed before Baukham.
Perhaps it is wisest to side with Green (1980, 1207) in
concluding that while ‘(t)he evidence does not suffice to justify a dogmatic
answer one way or the other to the question of authorship’, we should tenuously
hold to the epistle’s claim about itself until there is good enough reason to
believe otherwise.
ADDRESSEES
Despite the prologue’s very general address - ‘(t)o
those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness
of our God and Savior [sic] Jesus Christ’ (1:1) - it is generally agreed 2
Peter was addressed to a specific church or group of churches. The specificity of the situation addressed in
the letter [see ‘Life Setting’ below] speaks against 2 Peter being a catholic
letter, although it may well have been intended for use beyond its immediate
recipients.
The writer provides a clue to his addressees in 3:1 -
‘(t)his is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you...’ Most commentators take this as a reference
to 1 Peter (Green: 1987, 40) - which would place the addressees as among ‘the
exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia’
(1Pe 1:1b). Even if the reference is
not to 1 Peter, Green (1987, 40) writes that ‘the probabilities still favour
Asia Minor’ as the region of the churches being addressed.
DATE
Baukham (1983, 157) writes that ‘(n)o book in the NT
has been assigned such a wide range of dates as 2 Peter’. However, we are not without evidence both
externally and internally.
The Apocalypse
of Peter, dated between 110 and 140CE, is generally
agreed to be dependant on 2 Peter[3]. Thus we have 140CE as a latest date.
Internally, several features point to a sub-apostolic
date. Paul’s letters seem to be
acknowledged as Scripture in 3:15b-16:
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the
wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to
understand, which the ignorant and the unstable twist to their own destruction,
as they do the other Scriptures.
However, the passage can also be interpreted as distinguishing Paul’s letters from
Scripture (Green: 1987, 160). If the
more obvious interpretation is taken and Paul’s letters are being equated with Scripture,
this would suggest a later date - perhaps even second century. Yet even this is no conclusive argument;
Green (1987, 161) claims ‘that long before AD 60 Christian writings were being
read in church alongside the Old Testament, and consequently were well on the
way to being rated as equivalent in value to it.’
At 3:4 we read (depending on the translation) ‘ever
since our fathers died...’ (NIV) or ‘ever since our ancestors died’
(NRSV). The NRSV textnote acknowledges the
original Greek as ‘ever since our fathers fell asleep’. The important question is whether the author
means ‘ancestors’ or the ‘church fathers’ - the latter implying that the first
generation of leaders were dead by the time of composition. Baukham (1983, 158) takes this
interpretation and thus dates the epistle at the estimated death of the youngest
apostle - c 80-90 CE. Baukham’s
argument that the ‘scoffers’ doubting the parousia would not have made sense
earlier than this is compelling. If,
however, the total weight of evidence makes Petrine authorship more likely then
one is forced to insist on an earlier date - before 68 CE (Guthrie: 1990, 844)
- and a less plausible understanding of the ‘fathers’/ ‘scoffers’ passage.
LIFE SETTING
The author of 2 Peter writes to a group of churches facing
the problem of false teachers. The
writer’s central concern is the false teachers’ eschatological scepticism -
they are saying ‘“Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our
ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of
creation!”’ (3:4). Neyrey (1980, 417)
calls it a ‘practical atheism’. This
denial of the parousia and the judgement has resulted in moral
libertinism. Some commentators have
seen this as a misinterpretation of the Pauline doctrine of freedom in Christ[4];
parallels to the Epicurean doctrine of complete transcendence have also been
noted (Neyrey, 1980) .
SPECIAL ISSUES -
Canonical status
2 Peter is one of the most marginalised books of the
New Testament - not only is it neglected in scholarship and in churches, but its
canonical status is challenged even today[5]. In its enigmatic, uncertain status, 2 Peter
not only asks of us the question of its own canonicity but also questions our
understanding of the canon. We are encouraged to ask whether the canon is
fixed forever. The Reformers, perhaps,
did not think so, with Luther declaring 2 Peter second class Scripture. We are also encouraged to ask what it is about
2 Peter that moved the church to recognise it as canonical. Does its canonicity depend on us maintaining
Petrine authorship? Or is it enough
that it is in line with the apostolic message?
Perhaps in the midst of this uncertainty surrounding
almost every aspect of 2 Peter’s background we should focus on what we can and
do know about it - that it is a call to remain faithful to the apostolic
message and that over the centuries the Holy Spirit has spoken to the church
through it.
SELECT
BIBLIOGRAPHY
(except where indicated otherwise, Scripture quotations
are taken from the NRSV)
Bauckham, R. J., 2
Peter and Jude (Word Biblical Commentary, Vol 50; Waco: Word, 1983)
Elliot, J.H., ‘Peter, Second Epistle of’ in Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday: NY,
1992) 282-287
Green, E.M.B., ‘Peter, Second Epistle of’ in Douglas,
J.D. (ed), The Illustrated Bible
Dictionary (Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1980) 1205-1207.
____ 2 Peter and Jude (Tyndale New Testament
Commentaries; Leicester: Inter-Varsity, 1987)
Knight, J., 2
Peter and Jude (New Testament Guides; England: Sheffield Academic Press,
1995)
Leaney, A.R.C., The
Letters of Peter and Jude (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967)
Neyrey, J.H., ‘The Form and Background of the Polemic
in 2 Peter’ Journal of Biblical
Literature 99 (1980) 407-431
____ 2 Peter,
Jude (The Anchor Bible, 37C; New York: Anchor, 1993)
Senior, D., 1
and 2 Peter (Delaware: Glazier, 1980)
Sidebottom,
E.M., James, Jude, 2 Peter
(The New Century Bible Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967; this edn 1982)
Watson, D.F., ‘The Second Letter of Peter -
Introduction’ The New Interpreter’s Bible
Vol XII (Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 323-331.