Introduction

ON THE SECOND CATHOLIC EPISTLE OF THE HOLY APOSTLE PETER

The author of the epistle, known in the canon as the second epistle of the Apostle Peter, in the very signature calls himself Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, that is, by the same names by which he called himself in the first epistle, with the addition of two: Simon, servant (1 Pet 1:1). The content itself contains many similarities to that of the first epistle, as well as references to the person of the great first-ranking Apostle Peter. At the very beginning of the epistle, 2 Pet 1:2-4, the Apostle, as if continuing his speech from the end of the first epistle, 1 Pet 5:12, speaks of the greatness of the goods of Christian faith and the heights of the grace-blessed state of Christians. Then the Apostle speaks of himself as a witness to the greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the glory of His transfiguration (2 Pet 1:16-17), and in 2 Pet 3:1 notes that he is already writing a second epistle to his readers. The spirit of the epistle, the fervor of speech reflecting the burning zeal of the Apostle Peter, in turn witness to his authorship of the second epistle. Finally, in the attitude of the sacred author toward the Apostle Paul, whom he calls his beloved brother (2 Pet 3:15) and about whose teachings being distorted by the ignorant he grieves (2 Pet 3:16), one can also see the stamp of the apostolic spirit of St. Peter. In general, by the totality of all the content of the 2 epistle of the Apostle Peter, it is “a reminder of what was written before” (Blessed Theophilus), and specifically by the Apostle Peter himself.

But despite these internal testimonies to the authorship of the 2 epistle of the Apostle Peter by the first-ranking Apostle, many modern scholars, beginning with Erasmus, Calvin, and Hugo Grotius, dispute the authenticity of this epistle and consider it written by an unknown apostolic disciple. For this they point above all to the absence, until the beginning of the third Christian century, of direct testimonies about the 2 Petrine epistle, and doubts have been expressed more than once about its authorship by the holy Apostle Peter. The second Catholic epistle of the Apostle Peter is not found in the Syriac translation Peshitta (2nd century), and there is no mention of it in the so-called Muratorian fragment. However, if indeed the whole Church recognized this epistle as genuine only at the end of the fourth century, and in the preceding centuries in some churches it remained unknown, this testifies above all to that extreme caution and discernment with which the Church conducted the establishment of the New Testament canon. However, indirect testimonies of the familiarity of 2 Peter to the earliest church writers indisputably exist, as is shown by certain expressions and ideas that closely resemble corresponding passages from 2 Peter. This must be said specifically about the first epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (ch. IX, cf. 2 Pet 1:17; ch. XXXV, cf. 2 Pet 2:2), about the “Shepherd of Hermas” (Vision III, 7; see 2 Pet 2:15), about the work of St. Justin Martyr “Dialogue with Trypho the Jew” (ch. LXXXI, cf. 2 Pet 3:8) and the work of Theophilus of Antioch, Epistle to Autolycus II, 9; cf. 2 Pet 1:21. According to the testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, Clement of Alexandria even wrote a commentary on 2 Peter (Ecclesiastical History VI 14, 1), which certainly indicates deep respect for this epistle in the ancient Church. And Origen, mentioning that the authenticity of 2 Peter is disputed by some, himself nevertheless recognizes it as genuine, saying, for example: “Peter speaks through two labors of his epistles” (Migne. s. gr. t. XII, 857). St. Didymus and Athanasius of Alexandria decisively recognized the authenticity of 2 Peter (Resurrection Reading. 1877. No. 38).

In modern times attempts have been made to prove the spurious nature of the 2 epistle of the Apostle Peter also from internal grounds—from the observed dissimilarities in the content, differences in comparison with the content of 1 epistle. Thus, they say, in the theology of epistle 1, the main concept is hope (ἐλπίς), in epistle 2 the concept is knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις). In epistle 1, there is frequent mention of the nearness of the parousia of the second coming, in epistle 2 we read only of its suddenness, but not its nearness. In epistle 1, there is repeated mention of persecutions of Christians, in epistle 2 there is mention of the possible or actual appearance of false teachers, from whom the Apostle warns his readers. In the first epistle the Apostle Peter very often uses the books of the Old Testament, while in the second epistle there are almost no literal quotations from the Old Testament; the language of the first epistle abounds in Hebraisms, while the language of the second approaches the Hellenistic dialect. But all these marks of difference between the two epistles are often greatly exaggerated; for example, the concept of Christian hope is unquestionably present in the author of 2 Peter (2 Pet 1:4), just as the idea of Christian knowledge is not at all alien, but on the contrary is present in the sacred author of the first epistle of the Apostle Peter (1 Pet 1:12); partly they are entirely subjective or even illusory, such as differences in language and style; and partly they are entirely natural in the works of a single author, written at different times and therefore reflecting different events or circumstances: when the first epistle was written, Christians faced external persecutions, and at the time the second epistle was composed, the beginnings of heretical teachings were appearing within Christian society; both found appropriate response from the great Apostle. Thus, neither the external testimonies about the epistle nor the internal data of its content contain anything that would compel us to depart from the church view of 2 Peter as a genuine work of the first-ranking Apostle Peter.

The immediate impetus for writing this epistle was the desire of the aged Apostle, who had already drawn near to death (2 Pet 1:14-15), to give a warning and weapon to Christians against the false teachings that were being born. Having much in common in the depiction of the latter with the 2 epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy (2 Tim 3), the second epistle of the Apostle Peter is probably contemporary with that last writing: as 2 Timothy is the last epistle of the Apostle to the Gentiles and comprises the deathbed testament of his Church, so also 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter shortly before his death and is likewise a work of prophetic utterances of the great Apostle at the end of his life; both epistles were written in Rome, around 66–67 AD.

In Russian literature, besides the often-mentioned work of the Reverend Bishop Michael—Explanatory Apostle, part 2 (Kiev, 1905), there are also: 1) Archimandrite (now Archbishop) Nikanor—“Accessible explanation of the second Catholic epistle of the holy Apostle Peter.” Kazan, 1889, 2) Hieromonk (now Bishop) Theodor—“Explanation of the most difficult passages of 2 Peter.” Simferopol, 1901, and 3) Professor Fr. Archpriest D. I. Bogdashevsky—“The second Catholic epistle of the holy Apostle Peter” (in “Essays on the study of the Holy Scripture of the New Testament, Issue I”) Kiev, 1909.