Biblical commentary on the New Testament - The Christian ...

THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER. XCUC
It is time, however, to consider more closely all that can be
urged against the genuineness of the Epistle, and to present therewith
the counter considerations which either invalidate the former
or argue the apostolic composition of the Epistle. Now the most
important circumstance which presents itself against the genuine-
ness of the book is, that it was to such g, degree unknown in Chris-
tian antiquity. Not one of the fathers of the first two centuries
mentions the second Epistle of Peter ; they aU speak of but one
Epistle from the hand of this apostle. Nor are there any passages
in their writings which must of necessity be citations from it.
Those passages which seem like parts of it may be explained either
on the score of accidental coincidence or of mutual reference to the
Old Testament. It was not till after Origen's time, in the third
century, that the Epistle came into use, and even then doubts were
always current in regard to its apostolic origin, and the learned
father Jerome expressly remarks that most denied it such an origin.
It is true, this statement cannot refer to all members of the church,
but only to such as were capable of critical investigations ;' for the
same father of the church says further, that the reason why most
denied it to be Peter's was, the difference in style which was ob-
servable on comparison with the first ; and clearly, uneducated persons
were incapable of judging as to such difference in style. But
stiU, it is extremely remarkable that even in the time of Jerome,
i. e., in the fifth century, there should be found in the church so
many opponents of the Epistle.
It is, however, to be considered, in estimating the importance of
this fact in relation to the genuineness of the Epistle, that no definite
historical arguments are adduced against the Epistle from any quar-
ter. Eecourse is had, not to the testimony of individuals, uor to the
declaration of entire churches, which denied the Epistle to be
Peter's, but merely to internal reasons, deduced by the aid of criti-
cism. This is the more strange, as it would appear that this second
Epistle of Peter was addressed to the very same readers for whom
the first was designed (Comp. 2 Pet. iii. 1), i. e., to the Christians
in several churches of Asia Minor. From these, one would think,
there must have proceeded a testimony which could not be misun-
derstood against the Epistle, if Peter had not written to them a
second time. Nor do the fathers say, that the Epistle contains
heresies or any thing else totally unworthy of the apostle : indeed
they do not make the slightest objection of this kind to the charac-
ter of its contents. If, on the other hand, we look at their objec-
tions to other evidently fictitious writings, we find them asserting
that they had an impious, detestable character, or that historical
evidence was against their pretended apostolic origin. From the
manner io which history represents the testimony of the fathers of