SPECIAL INTRODUCTION TO SECOND PETER

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION TO SECOND PETER by Mykola Leliovskyi Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for BTS 500 - Introduction to Biblical Studies The Master’s College Santa Clarita, California Ocotber 26, 2011 2 When it comes to introductory matters related to New Testament books Second Epistle of Peter is usually singled out as the epistle with the most complicated background. In early church history it was classified along with James, Jude, Hebrews, Second and Third John, and Revelation as antilegomena, i.e. the disputed books. However, none of these disputed books has been questioned as persistently as Second Peter.1 Frank Thielman sums it up well in the following statement, “Second Peter is sometimes considered the one real embarrassment in the New Testament canon. It is said to have an affected and ostentatious literary style, to stoop to name-calling, to restrict the Spirit to the safety of the church’s authority, and to exchange the Christological orientation of traditional Christian eschatology for an anthropological orientation.”2 This paper is aimed at interacting with this unflattering description of Second Peter by carefully analyzing the introductory material produced by conservative Evangelical scholars. Various opinions on the introductory issues like authorship, date, recipients, opponents, form and structure, language, literary relationships, attestation will be analyzed, evaluated and followed by a conclusion in the final section of this paper. The approach taken in this analysis presupposes such hallmarks of conservative Evangelical scholarship as inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture, literal historical-grammatical hermeneutics, and the idea that God’s Word reflects the moral character of its ultimate divine Author. When beginning to analyze Second Peter one cannot notice a certain vacuum in relation to studies of Second Peter in the past. In fact, it seems that only in the second half of the 1 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986), 299. 2 Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: a Canonical and Synthetic Approach (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), 522. Hereafter, Thielman, Theology of the New Testament. 3 twentieth century scholars returned to studying this epistle. Perhaps, the lack of scholarly effort towards this epistle is due to its widespread reputation of an “ugly stepchild of the New Testament.”3 This lack of desire is understandable when all attempts to find answers lead, it seems, to even more questions. However, things have changed since John Snyder’s article that exposed scholarly neglect in this area.4 Even though such the acclaimed and respected New International Commentary Series has yet to feature a volume on Second Peter, there have been plenty of excellent recent studies of the epistle as evidenced by the Michael J. Gilmour’s article.5 At the outset of the study of Second Peter one discoveries its most acute problem, i.e. the authorship of the epistle. However, this is somewhat surprising since the epistle is not anonymous and the author of the epistle is introduced in its very first sentence as Simeon Peter, with an additional clarification, “a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ”6 (2 Pet 1:1). Therefore, it is not unreasonable “to take the designation at face value and be done with it. Whatever the problems, the inspired text says that Simon Peter wrote this work so somehow he was able to do it” as John Calvin and others did.7 The fact is, though, that scholars who affirm Petrine authorship of Second Peter are a minority. As Edwin A. Blum notes, there are at least ten major objections to Petrine authorship of Second Peter.8 3 Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 121. Hereafter, Davids, PNTC. 4 John Snyder, “A 2 Peter Bibliography,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22, no. 3 (September 1979): 265-67. 5 Michael J. Gilmour, “2 Peter in Recent Research: A Bibliography,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1999): 673-78. 6 All Scripture verses unless otherwise noted are cited from The Holy Bible: English standard version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001). 7 Davids, PNTC, 126. 4 In order to determine whether scholars have any solid reasons to contest the clear testimony of the epistle it is necessary to list their objections and carefully examine the validity of their arguments. First, as early as the fourth century, Eusebius and Jerome noted the lack of a strong tradition behind Second Peter.9 Kelly adds that “no NT document had a longer or tougher struggle to win acceptance than 2 Peter.”10 What is the basis for such claims? It must be admitted that Second Peter is in fact missing from the late second century Muratorian Fragment. However, it must also noted that there is a reason why this document is known as the Muratorian Fragment, namely the full text of the document is not extant. First Peter (which had a strong attestation in the early church), for that matter, is also missing from this early list of canonical books.11 It is also argued that Second Peter fails to be quoted directly by the Early Church Fathers, but at the same time Robert Picirilli’s careful investigation of the Apostolic Fathers reveals a strong possibility that 2 Peter is alluded to in 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, and Martyrdom of Polycarp.12 Michael Gilmour is correct in saying that Picirilli’s research 8 Edwin A. Blum, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 12. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 258. Hereafter, Blum, EBC. 9 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.1-4; Jerome, Scriptorium Ecclesiasticorum 1. 10 J. N. D. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and of Jude, The (Black's New Testament Commentary) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993), 224. Hereafter, Kelly, Peter and Jude. 11 D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), 662. Hereafter, Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament. 12 Robert E. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 (1988): 57-83. 5 doesn’t prove Peter’s authorship without a shadow of a doubt.13 Schreiner, perhaps, captures the impact of Picirilli’s study best when he writes, “Picirilli notes that the Apostolic Fathers cite Paul thirty-one times but never name him.41 Hence, the failure to name Peter is hardly decisive.”14 Furthermore, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianus and Augustine, even though in some cases expressed their doubts, all affirmed the authenticity of Second Peter.15 Therefore, it is evident that the objection based on external evidence may sometimes be exaggerated. It is important to remember that while “no book of the Canon is so poorly attested among the Fathers,” at the same time “no excluded book has nearly such weight of backing as 2 Peter.”16 Second, both Eusebius and Jerome also noted apparent differences in style between First Peter (which as noted above did not provoke any doubts in the Early church) and Second Peter. It must be noted, however, that the appeal to stylistic differences can also be overemphasized since not all scholars come to the same conclusion. ADB says that “the Greek text and syntax of the letter is uncertain at several places and its meaning often obscure. The many textual variants reflect early attempts to make sense of these obscurities.”17 In his excellent, from a scholarly 13 Michael J. Gilmour, “Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter.” Evangelical Quarterly 73 (2001): 299. 14 Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC (Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Reference, 2003), 262. Hereafter, Schreiner, NAC. 15 Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (1999): 650. 16 Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (IVP Numbered)), Reprint ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: IVP Academic, 2009), 14–15. Hereafter, Green, TNTC. 17 David Noel Freedman, ed., Vol. 5: The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday, New York: Yale University Press, 1992), 285. Hereafter, Freedman, ABD. 6 point of view, commentary Richard J. Bauckham notes that “Second Peter’s Greek style is not to the taste of many modern readers” and that modern scholars tend to characterize it as “‘at times pretentiously elaborate, ‘a striving after the pompous phrase,’ ‘a somewhat artificial piece of rhetoric,’ and ‘Baboo Greek.’”18 However, he quickly acquits it from all such accusations due to the fact that “2 Peter must be related to the ‘Asiatic’ style of Greek rhetoric which was coming into fashion in 2 Peter’s time, and which, with its love of high-sounding expressions, florid and verbose language, and elaborate literary effects.”19 It is a certain fact that scholars recognize the difference between, as Kruger put it, “‘dignified’ style of 1 Peter and the ‘high-sounding words’ of 2 Peter.”20 The heart of the issue is how they explain these differences. Those who deny Petrine authorship of the epistle like, for instance, Kelly insist that the differences prove that First and Second Peter were not written by the same person.21 Those who uphold Petrine authorship typically appeal to different amanuenses or secretaries that Peter used to write each letter, as first suggested by Jerome.22 However, Simon Kistemaker believes that “the material presented in both documents provides substantial evidence to indicate that these letters are the product of one author.”23 In light of such divergent interpretations what is the best approach to 18 Richard J. Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 50, 2 Peter, Jude (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1983), 138. Hereafter, Bauckham, WBC. 19 Ibid. 20 Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (1999): 656. 21 Kelly, Peter and Jude, 237. 22 Blum, EBC, 259. 23 Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Pub Group, 1987), 224. Hereafter, Kistemaker, Peter and Jude. 7 explaining these apparent differences in style? First and foremost, one must remain cautious in reaching firm conclusions in any direction because of the brevity of each epistle. Guthrie is absolutely right in that, “It is notoriously difficult to devise any certain criteria for the examination of style and this is particularly true where comparison is made between two short epistles. The area of comparison is so restricted that the results may well be misleading. Moreover, subjective impressions are likely to receive greater stress than is justified.”24 Furthermore, Bauckham notes that the idea of caution in reaching any verdict is supported by several studies, for example, he writes, “A. Q. Morton’s computer analysis showed 1 and 2 Peter to be linguistically indistinguishable;” and “Mayor, after his detailed comparison of the grammar and style of the two letters, concluded that ‘there is not that chasm between them which some would try to make out.’”25 Therefore, it seems best to conclude that the objections based on differences in style between the two letters are at best ambiguous and inconclusive. It must be also acknowledged that while they can be used to argue against Petrine authorship, there is also a very reasonable way to reconcile the differences.26 24 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th rev. ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1990), 832. Hereafter, Guthrie, New Testament Introduction. 25 Bauckham, WBC, 149. 26 The debate regarding grammar and style of the 1 and 2 Peter can get very technical with opponents using arguments like “illiterate use of the anarthrous noun,” etc.; and then appropriate them according to their own view (as is the case with Bauckham who uses the argument to support his view of “the probable Roman origin of 2 Peter”). So for the purposes of this paper it will suffice to say that a number of decent and respectable scholars (aside from appealing to different amanuenses argument) reconcile these differences by reasonably noting the differences in purpose of each letter. But above all Thomas Schreiner puts in the perspective when he writes, “Some who doubt the authenticity of the letter view arguments defending its authenticity as special pleading. They object that, on the one hand, we say that perhaps different secretaries were used. And then we say, on the other hand, that the corpus of the two letters is too small to establish stylistic variation. Is it the case that conservatives tack this way and then that, searching desperately for any answer to preserve their preformed theory? It may seem that way, 8 Third, the fact that a number of apocryphal Gnostic works also bear Peter’s name is used to reject Petrine authorship of Second Peter. In his commentary Bauckham includes a list of such works: Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel Peter, the Kerygma of Peter (Preaching of Peter), the Acts Peter, and the Epistle of Peter to Philip.27 Still, while it is entirely possible that the existence of these pseudepigraphical and Gnostic works hindered the circulation of Second Peter, the fact remains that “the early church accepted 2 Peter in spite of the circulation of spurious works bearing the apostle’s name shows that it recognized a difference in character between the two epistles and the other works bearing his name.”28 Again Guthrie offers a useful insight: Other pseudo-Petrine literature circulated in the early church, creating confusion about what was authentically Petrine. The church went through a process by which it sifted the authentic from the spurious. When the decision was made, 2 Peter was accepted, but other alleged Petrine writings were rejected. The early church was not inclined, therefore, to include a document just because it had Peter’s name on it. Many other “Petrine” writings were excluded, but the church recognized the legitimacy of 2 Peter. Hence, the acceptance of 2 Peter witnesses to the discrimination of the church, to their conviction that this writing, in contrast to many other alleged Petrine writings, was authentic. 29 Fourth, there is an objection based on the limited geographical distribution of the letter. Blum offers a very concise and reasonable explanation of this, “it could be that persecution, the brevity of 2 Peter, or its remote destination resulted in its not being widely circulated in the first hundred years of the church.”30 but in reality suggesting more than one answer to a problem often represents good scholarship. When we examine historical documents, we are not granted comprehensive knowledge of the circumstances in which the document was birthed. Hence, we must postulate probabilities, and in some cases, of course, more than one scenario is probable. Furthermore, in some instances the probable scenarios are not internally contradictory but both constitute plausible answers to the problem posed. Suggesting more than one solution is not necessarily a resort to desperation but may be an indication of humility—a recognition that the evidence only takes us so far” (Schreiner, NAC, 266). 28 Blum, EBC, 259. 29 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 809. 30 Blum, EBC, 260. 9 Fifth, literary dependence on the Epistle of Jude is often considered a significant argument against Petrine authorship of Second Peter. In his superb study of literary relationships of Second Peter with other works Bauckham notes that “the resemblances are largely between Jude 4–13, 16–18 and 2 Pet 2:1–18; 3:1–3.”31 Table 1. Text comparison between parallel passages in the Epistles of Jude and Second Peter. Jude 2 Peter 4–13: For certain people have crept in 2:1-18: But false prophets also arose among unnoticed who long ago were designated for the people, just as there will be false teachers this condemnation, ungodly people, who among you, who will secretly bring in pervert the grace of our God into sensuality destructive heresies, even denying the Master and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus who bought them, bringing upon themselves Christ. Now I want to remind you, although swift destruction. And many will follow their you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved sensuality, and because of them the way of a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed destroyed those who did not believe. And the they will exploit you with false words. Their angels who did not stay within their own condemnation from long ago is not idle, and position of authority, but left their proper their destruction is not asleep. For if God did dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under not spare angels when they sinned, but cast gloomy darkness until the judgment of the them into hell and committed them to chains great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and of gloomy darkness to be kept until the the surrounding cities, which likewise judgment; if he did not spare the ancient indulged in sexual immorality and pursued world, but preserved Noah, a herald of unnatural desire, serve as an example by righteousness, with seven others, when he undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet brought a flood upon the world of the in like manner these people also, relying on ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when extinction, making them an example of what the archangel Michael, contending with the is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by he did not presume to pronounce a the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord that righteous man lived among them day after rebuke you.” But these people blaspheme all day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over that they do not understand, and they are their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly animals, understand instinctively. Woe to from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under them! For they walked in the way of Cain and punishment until the day of judgment, and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to especially those who indulge in the lust of Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s defiling passion and despise authority. rebellion. These are hidden reefs at your love Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they 31 Bauckham, WBC, 142. 10 feasts, as they feast with you without fear, blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels, shepherds feeding themselves; waterless though greater in might and power, do not clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees pronounce a blasphemous judgment against in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild them before the Lord. But these, like irrational waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their animals, creatures of instinct, born to be own shame; wandering stars, for whom the caught and destroyed, blaspheming about gloom of utter darkness has been reserved matters of which they are ignorant, will also forever. be destroyed in their destruction, suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 16-18: These are grumblers, malcontents, 3:1-3: This is now the second letter that I am following their own sinful desires; they are writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to stirring up your sincere mind by way of gain advantage. But you must remember, reminder, that you should remember the beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our predictions of the holy prophets and the Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the commandment of the Lord and Savior through last time there will be scoffers, following their your apostles, knowing this first of all, that own ungodly passions.” scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires. As seen shown in Table 1 and noted by Schreiner, “in a number of verses the two letters have remarkable parallels.”32 He further adds that “the parallels would be even clearer if cited in Greek.”33 32 Schreiner, NAC, 415. 11 Logically there are five possible explanations of their literary relationship: (1) Jude is dependent on 2 Peter; (2) 2 Peter is dependent on Jude; (3) dependent on a common source; (3) common authorship of both epistles; and (5) literary independence. The last one is typically not even mentioned in any discussion, including the one presented by Bauckham. It seems like most modern scholars, especially the ones who oppose Petrine authorship, agree that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude. However, it is hard to see any substantial difficulty raised by this objection in ascribing the letter to Peter. Schreiner suggests that “the real objection is that Peter as an apostle would not have used a nonapostolic writing as a source.”34 His reply to this objection is also helpful; “how do we know this is the case?” he writes. “We must beware of assuming what an apostle would do.”35 Still, the issue of literary dependence remains unresolved. Neither side has produced enough convincing evidence in their favor. In any case, Blum is absolutely right when he observes that it would “pose a problem for Petrine authorship of the letter only if (1) the dependence of 2 Peter on Jude were conclusively proved, (2) the composition of Jude were definitely dated later than a.d. 64, or (3) it could be shown that an apostle such as Peter would not have used so much material from another writer.”36 He then summarizes, The special problem of the relation between Jude and 2 Peter or their relation to some common source remains unsolved. The adoption of a particular position—viz., Jude as prior, 2 Peter as prior, or both Jude and 2 Peter used an earlier source—does not necessarily affect the authenticity, authorship, or inspiration of these letters. Any of the three views is compatible with an evangelical theology, and conservative scholars generally leave the question open.37 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid, 267. 35 Ibid. 36 Blum, EBC, 264. 37 Ibid. 12 Sixth, “the conceptual and rhetorical language is too Hellenistic for a Galilean fisherman.”38 Again, this presupposition seems too farfetched. Not much is known about Peter’s life, and that what is known about him can likewise be used to support Petrine authorship of Second Peter. Blum is argues that “the extent of Hellenistic influence Peter had in his life is not known. He lived about five miles from the region of the Greek league of ten cities known as Decapolis. We do not know whether he was bilingual or how much he learned between the Resurrection and his martyrdom.”39 Therefore, Schreiner is right in that “the Hellenistic character of 2 Peter can be overemphasized, for he could simply have used terminology that spoke effectively to his readers.”40 Seventh, another objection is related to the theology of Second Peter, and its treatment of the concept of Parousia (which is considered a second century problem). However, Green convincingly argues that the delay of the Parousia was not the hot topic exclusively in the second century; therefore, this is not a reason to move the date of the epistle into the second century.41 Also, in his commentary Bauckham is trying to make the case that the death of the fathers in 3:4, should be understood as the death of the apostles; which, in turn, means that the concept of Parousia was not realized in their time.42 That is the real reason why the false teachers are scoffing at this doctrine of the apostles and that is why a pseudonymous author is 38 Ibid, 259. 39 Ibid, 260. 40 Schreiner, NAC, 267. 41 Green, TNTC, 39-40. 42 Bauckham, WBC, 159. 13 defending it. This theory would be somewhat convincing if not for one simple fact. Schreiner is absolutely right that “the word ‘fathers’ nowhere clearly refers to the first generation of Christians but invariably refers to the Old Testament patriarchs. Hence, the verse does not constitute evidence that Peter or the apostolic generation was deceased.”43 Eighth, the fact that 2 Peter 3:15–16 refers to a collection Pauline Letters means that the letter could not be written earlier then the second century, since that is when such a collection was brought together. Yet there are no valid grounds to suppose that the fact that Peter refers to Paul’s letter implies the existence of a fixed tradition.44 All that is implied by this passage is that the “author of 2 Peter knew a collection of Pauline letters, though we cannot tell how large a collection, and regarded them as ―scriptures, i.e. inspired, authoritative writings, suitable for reading in Christian worship alongside the OT.”45 Ninth, Bauckhman notes that “in a famous essay which contains a full-scale theological attack on 2 Peter, Käsemann calls it ‘from beginning to end a document expressing an early Catholic viewpoint,’ and ‘the clearest possible testimony to the onset of early Catholicism.’”46 What have we to say about a Church, which is so concerned to defend herself against heretics, that she no longer distinguishes between Spirit and letter; that she identifies the Gospel with her own tradition, and further, with a particular religious world-view; that she regulates exegesis according to her system of teaching authority and makes faith into a mere assent to the dogmas of orthodoxy? 47 43 Schreiner, NAC, 269. 44 Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 662. 45 Bauckham, WBC, 159. 46 Ibid, 151. 47 Käsemann, “Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology,” 195, in Schreiner, NAC, 253. 14 Bauckham applies “the three alleged features of early Catholicism” to Second Peter to test the validity of Käsemann’s accusations.48 They are: (1) the fading of the Parousia hope and a lack of any Christological orientation; (2) increasing institutionalization; and (3) the crystallization of the faith into set forms.49 It is safe to say that Second Peter does not fit any of these criteria. Bauckhman is right to say that the author of Second Peter is confident that “both his opponents and his readers will experience the Parousia (1:19; 2:12; 3:14);” “[does] not insist on an authoritative interpretation of Scripture by officeholders who alone possess the Spirit;” and “Second Peter’s characteristic terms for Christianity are the ‘way’ phrases… [that] characterize Christianity not as a body of belief but as an ethical way of life.”50 Tenth, “if Peter wrote it, why is there all the doubt about it and reluctance to accept it?”51 That is a really good question, indeed. Aside from the acknowledgement of the Church Fathers noted earlier, it cannot go unnoticed that “2 Peter was recognized as fully canonical by the Canons of Laodicea and by the time of the church councils of Hippo and Carthage of the fourth century.”52 These councils “rejected 1 Clement and Epistle of Barnabas, showing that they discriminated carefully between authoritative documents and those that were merely edifying.”53 How come the conclusion of the early church is set aside so easily by some? Furthermore, 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid, 152. 50 Ibid, 153. 51 Blum, EBC, 258. 52 Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (1999): 645–71. 53 Schreiner, NAC, 264. 15 textual evidence testifies to the authenticity of 2 Peter, since it is found in the Bodmer papyrus, Codexes Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.54 Still the most convincing evidence in favor of Petrine authorship is the internal testimony of the letter. The book opens with the claim about its author. If one refuses to take it at its face value prima facie, then why shouldn’t everything else in it be questioned? The whole purpose of the letter is destroyed. However, oftentimes this is the main purpose of liberal higher critical studies in the field of Bible Introduction, i.e. to destroy the authority and the message of God’s Word. Nonetheless, some like Bauckham take a rather unusual stance. In his commentary he presents, at first glance, a convincing case for the pseudoepigraphal character of Second Peter while at the same time maintaining that this practice was widespread in the first century and the intention of the real author was not to deceive his audience. Students of Scripture who turn for help to his commentary are told that the author of Second Peter composed it as a sort of “transparent fiction” in accordance with the cultural practice of his era. How should Bauckham’s approach be evaluated? Is it really as harmless as it seems? First of all we must agree with Gempf who says, “We must conclude that if pseudonymous works got into the canon, the church fathers were fooled by a transparent literary device that was originally intended not to fool anyone”55 Second, Blum asks the question: “Did the first-century Christians adopt the practices of the pagan world as to pseudonymity, or did their concern for truth cause them to repudiate it?”56 The answer was obvious then and is obvious now. Pseudonimity, being a form of 54 Ibid. 55 Conrad Gempf, “Pseudonymity and the New Testament,” Themelios 17, no. 2 (1992): 9. 56 Blum, EBC, 261. 16 deception, was neither acceptable among early Christians (as evidenced by Tertullian’s story of the presbyter who wrote the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla pseudonymously and was deposed), nor by Evangelical Christians today.57 And while it is true that there are many apparent difficulties related to the authorship of Second Peter, it is also true that it is more reasonable to believe the testimony of the inspired Word of God, then to attempt inventing another explanation. It must be noted that even though the main thrust of arguments revolves around the authorship of the epistle and was analyzed above, there are still some introductory issues concerning Second Peter that need to addressed. Genre of the book has also drawn significant attention. Bauckman’s view is that Second Peter combines the elements of both a letter and a testament. As noted above this approach serves his purpose of establishing pseudonymity of the book. While his ultimate conclusion is not preferred in this paper his argumentation of the genre demands a closer look. The fact that Second Peter is a letter is not disputed and doesn’t require much explanation. Bauckman is correct when he says, “Second Peter is also a genuine letter in that it was written and sent to specific addressees: a church or group of churches which had been (among) the recipients of 1 Peter (3:1) and to which one or more letters of Paul had been addressed (3:15).”58 Next, he states that “it is equally clear that 2 Peter belongs to the genre of ancient Jewish literature known to modern scholars as the ‘farewell speech’ or ‘testament.’”59 Common examples of such works are The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Testament of Moses, The Testament of Job as well 57 Ibid. 58 Bauckham, WBC, 132. 59 Ibid. 17 as parts of other writings, such as 1 Enoch, Tobit, 2 Baruch, Jubilees.60 The characteristic feature of this genre of Jewish literature is, according to Bauckman a combination of ethical admonitions and revelations of the future.61 The rest of the argument is not hard to predict. As Van Houwelingen observes, “the reasoning usually followed is an invalid syllogism such as this: ‘Some Jewish letterform testaments are fictional; II Peter is a Jewish letter-form testament; ergo, II Peter is fictional.’ It is fallacious, to draw conclusions about a particular letter from general or typical characteristics of a genre with which it may have some affinity.”62 Van Houwelingen is correct in that “the overarching genre category to which 2 Peter belongs is the letter,” since it is in fact defined so by the author in 3:1.63 The testamental genre of Second Peter is also questioned by Schreiner, Green and Charles.64 Due to the fact that there is anything but a consensus in scholarly circles, perhaps, it is best remain cautious about embracing Bauckman’s approach since it was always understood to be a letter by those who read it since the Early Church. The next important introductory issue is the date of Second Peter. Obviously, the way one determines the date of the epistle is closely tied with one’s opinion on authorship. Bauckman notes, “Even within the last twenty years, commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter in almost every decade from 60 to 160 a.d. (only the decade 70–80 seems to be 60 P. H. R. Van Houwelingen, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions.” European Journal of Theology 19:2 (2010): 121. 61 Bauckham, WBC, 132. 62 P. H. R. Van Houwelingen, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions.” European Journal of Theology 19:2 (2010): 121. 63 Ibid. 64 Schreiner, NAC, 275; Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 37–38; and J. Daryl Charles, “Virtue amidst Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement 150, (Sheffield, ENG: Academic Press, 1997), 75. 18 unrepresented).”65 However, depending on one’s view of the author, there seems to be three main views regarding the date. First, Kistemaker notes that “scholars who dispute the apostolic authorship of II Peter face a dearth of historical facts and therefore are forced to choose an arbitrary date somewhere in the first half of the second century.”66 Those who think that it was written by someone from the so-called “Petrine circle,” i.e. possibly a disciple of Peter or a member of the church in Rome, choose a late first century date, e.g. Bauckman believes it was written somewhere in 80-90 AD.67 The evidence presented in this paper supports Petrine authorship, therefore, Peter must have written the letter shortly before his death. A fairly reliable tradition suggests that Peter was martyred in Rome during emperor Nero’s persecution.68 Consequently, the epistle was composed between 64-68.69 Not much is known about the recipients of the letter. However, since the preference is given to Petrine authorship, according to 2 Pet 3:1 and 1 Pet 1:1, the letter is addressed to believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.70 Much more is written about Peter’s opponents. As it is often the case with other New Testament epistles it is hard to put an exact label on the group. In his helpful sketch of the false- teachers Bauckham correctly emphasizes two distinct features of their heresy: (1) eschatological 65 Bauckham, WBC, 159. 66 Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, 231. 67 Ibid; Bauckham, WBC, 159. 68 Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, and Jude, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997), 24. 69 Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, 231. 70 Davids, PNTC, 132. 19 skepticism; and (2) licentious lifestyle.71 Some have traditionally tried to identify them as Gnostics or proto-Gnostics, but as Schreiner correctly notes, “Gnostic thesis is unpersuasive… We see no evidence of cosmological dualism in 2 Peter, nor is it clear that the false teachers propounded a realized eschatology or even that their ethical libertinism stemmed from such dualism.”72 More recently, however, they are seen as Epicureans.73 Davids summarizes the Epicurean theory as follows: “(1) God does not intervene in the world, and (2) therefore there is no reward for good or punishment for evil, (3) including no resurrection o f the dead, and (4) no final judgment.”74 Yet, Schreiner is correct again, “it is unlikely that the opponents were full- fledged Epicureans. It is difficult to see how the false teachers could be Christian in any sense of the word if they embraced Epicurean thought. Any notion of Jesus as the Christ would be precluded by Epicureanism.”75 Hence, it is more appropriate for sound scholarship to express certain reservations in regard to identifying the heretics, rather than dive into speculations. Perhaps, Schreiner said it best, New Testament scholars have a penchant for attaching a name and a full-fledged theology to opponents so that they can be classified precisely. But in this instance we are limited to a rather sketchy outline of the theology of the false teachers. We face our distance from the original events here since the letter was written to Peter’s churches, who knew the false teachers very well, and not to us. 76 71 Bauckham, WBC, 157. 72 Schreiner, NAC, 278. 73 Freedman, ABD, 286; Davids, PNTC, 133-136. 74 Davids, PNTC, 135. 75 Schreiner, NAC, 280. 76 Ibid. 20 Kistemaker offers a somewhat more factual and practically useful description of the false- teachers: 1. They reject Jesus Christ and his gospel (2:1). 2. They repudiate Christian conduct (2:2). 3. They despise authority (2:10a). 4. Arrogantly they “slander celestial beings” (2:10b). 5. Their lives are characterized by immorality (2:13–14). 6. Although they teach freedom, they are slaves of depravity (2:19). 7. They ridicule the doctrine of Christ’s return (3:4). 8. They refuse to acknowledge the coming judgment (3:5–7). 9. They distort the teachings in Paul’s epistles and live in sin (3:16).77 The issue of literary relationships was already mentioned in the discussion of authorship of Second Peter. Yet, only its relationship with the Epistle of Jude was discussed. In his commentary Bauckham offers a useful survey of other literary relationships of Second Peter.78 They include: Old Testament; Jewish pseudepigrapha (only if literary dependence of Jude is assumed); Other Jewish writings (e.g. Josephus and Philo); Pauline letters; Gospel traditions; and other Petrine pseudepigrapha.79 In relation to First Peter, Bauckham cites an interesting study by Holzmeister, which revealed that “38.6 percent are common to 1 and 2 Peter, 61.4 percent peculiar to 2 Peter, while of the words used in 1 Peter, 28.4 percent are common to 1 and 2 Peter, 71.6 percent peculiar to 1 Peter.”80 Bauckham adds “These percentages do not compare badly with those for 1 and 2 Corinthians: of the words used in 1 Corinthians, 40.4 percent are common to 1 and 2 Corinthians, 59.6 percent are peculiar to 1 Corinthians; of the words used in 2 Corinthians, 49.3 percent are common to 1 and 2 Corinthians, 50.7 percent are peculiar to 2 Corinthians.”81 77 Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, 231. 78 Bauckham, WBC, 140-151. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid, 144 81 Ibid. 21 Another distinguishing feature of Second Peter, which has yet to be mentioned in this paper, is language. 2 Peter has fifty-seven hapax legomena (words not found elsewhere in the NT), which is the highest proportion in any New Testament book.82 Of these fifty-seven only twenty-five occur in the LXX.83 Out of the thirty-two words not found elsewhere in biblical literature, fifteen are used in the works of Hellenistic Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus.84 Out of the fifty-seven hapax legomena seventeen appear in such apostolic fathers as First and Second Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas.85 This makes it easier to understand why some suggested the Second Peter came out of either Hellenistic Judaism or Apostolic Fathers. In his useful study of the language of Second Peter Bauckham includes the following observation, “the list of hapax legomena includes enough extremely rare words to show that the author is widely read, and fond of rather literary and poetic, even obscure words. They do not on the whole seem to be used arbitrarily where common words would suffice as well, but contribute to the author’s literary and rhetorical effects.”86 He also adds that “the language is employed with the uneasy touch of one who has acquired the language in later life.”87 In terms of structure of Second Peter it is safe to say that no one has cast any significant doubt on the unity of the letter.88 A fairly popular academic approach of rhetorical criticism was 82 Davids, PNTC, 131. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Bauckham, WBC, 138. 87 Ibid. 88 Schreiner, NAC, 281. 22 applied to the epistle by Duane Watson.89 He “has analyzed the letter in terms of Greek rhetoric, seeing an Epistolary Prescript (1:1–2), an Exordium (1:3–15), the Probatio (1:6–3:13), and the Peroratio (3:14–18).”90 Schreiner is right, however, that Watson’s case for Second Peter is not very convincing and he is also correct to note that “at some points rhetorical analyses are helpful because New Testament writers were effective communicators, and hence they inevitably used elements of Greek rhetoric. Nevertheless, it is quite another thing to argue that the letters were consciously structured in accord with such rhetoric.”91 So what should be said of Second Peter at the conclusion of this paper? As this study has hopefully shown, this New Testament book hardly deserves the reputation assigned by some and described by Thielman at the outset of the paper. Certainly, it offers some unique challenges in the area of Bible Introduction; however, none of them are insurmountable in regard to authenticity, authorship and character of the letter. It certainly does not take one to sacrifice his intellect to accept Petrine authorship. A major objective of this analysis is to provide scholarly support and a firm foundation of trusting God’s unchanging Word and taking it at its face value in the world of ever-changing scholarly opinions. Of course, new perspectives and innovative approaches are always welcomed and appreciated even in the field of biblical studies. Yet they must be aimed at providing assistance in Bible exegesis and exposition and not at undermining the authority and the message 89 Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 104. (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), in Schreiner, NAC, 281. 90 Ibid. 91 Ibid. 23 of Scripture. This study of special introduction to the Second Epistle Peter allows exegetes to confidently proceed to a more difficult task of faithfully expounding the truth communicated by its Author to His church. The sincere hope underlying this study is that when expositors of Scripture approach Second Peter, they will be aided and not hindered in their exposition by the introductory material and encouraged to faithfully carry out their responsibility to shepherd and nourish their flocks according to the truth of Scripture. In order to do so they must know that “Second Peter is far from an embarrassment to the New Testament canon. It provides an exemplary attempt to emphasize an important theological principle in the face of specific attacks on it, and to do so in a way that is sensitive to the culture in the face of specific attacks on it, and to do so in a way that is sensitive to the culture of those whom it addresses.”92 92 Thielman, Theology of the New Testament, 535. 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauckham, Richard J. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 50, 2 Peter, Jude. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1983. Blum, Edwin A. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 12. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982. Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005. Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006. Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York: Yale University Press, 1992. Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and expanded. ed. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986. Gempf, Conrad, “Pseudonymity and the New Testament,” Themelios 17, no. 2 (1992): 8-10. Gilmour, Michael J. “2 Peter in Recent Research: A Bibliography.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1999): 673-78. ______ “Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter.” Evangelical Quarterly 73 (2001): 291–309. Green, Michael. 2 Peter and Jude (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (IVP Numbered)). Reprint ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: IVP Academic, 2009. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th rev. ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 1990. Kelly, J. N. D. Epistles of Peter and of Jude, The (Black's New Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1993. Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Pub Group, 1987. Kruger, M. J. “The Authenticity of 2 Peter.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (1999): 645–71. 25 Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter, and Jude, NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997. Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Reference, 2003. Snyder, John. “A 2 Peter Bibliography.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22, no. 3 (September 1979): 265-67. Picirilli, Robert E. “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33 (1988): 57-83. Van Houwelingen, P. H. R. “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions.” European Journal of Theology 19:2 (2010): 119–129. Wall, Robert W. “The canonical function of 2 Peter.” Biblical Interpretation 9 (2001): 64-81. Walvoord, John, and Roy Zuck. Vol. 2, The Bible Knowledge Commentary An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.