Other objections against the epistle may be briefly alluded to. According to Mayerhoff p. 187) the writer in iii. 2 separates himself from the apostles ; Bleek. (Einleit., p. 576) and others supposing that he intended to characterise himself as an apostle, and having before him the some what parallel expression of Jude, he so far altered it, but in the alteration has failed to give lucid utterance to his purpose. The phrase, with the double genitive Kra rc/sroiv loroaroMov en.a2v evroXijs rod Kvpiov, naturally means, ' and the command ment of the Lord given by your apostles.' The pronoun is the best sustained reading, and the English version does violence to the position of the words. As Olshausen and Windischmann have shown, the use of iv./uiv does not exclude Peter, even though it be rendered ' the commandments of your apostles of the Lord Jesus.' In fact, it neither denies nor affirms his apostleship ; though if iguli' had been employed, and the phrase rendered `our apostles,' the conclusion against its genuineness would certainly have some weight. But this ob jection that the writer excludes himself from the apostles neutralizes another, to wit, that the writer betrays too great anxiety to show himself as the apostle Peter. He could not certainly do both in the same document without stultifying himself. Does not the apostle Paul when it serves his object use pointedly the first person singular, refer to himself, and assert his apostolic office as Peter does, in i. 12, z3, 14, 15? The use of the name w.tethp in i. i can neither tell for the genuineness, as Dietlein supposes, nor against it, as Mayerhoff argues. The reference in iii. i to a former epistle is not for the purpose of identifying himself with the author of that epistle, but naturally comes in as a proof of his anxiety for ins readers that they should bear in memory the lessons already im parted to them.
Three arguments have been adduced to prove that the epistle must belong to post-apostolic times. i. It is alleged that the doubts about Christ's second coming, referred to in iii. 3, 4, could not have arisen in apostolic times, when the belief in it was so firm and glowing, and a period of some length must have elapsed ere it could be said that the fathers had fallen asleep.' But the scoffers referred to were probably Gnostics who never believed that event, or at all events spiritualized the truth of it away ; and after one generation had passed they might use the language imputed to them ; or ' the fathers' may denote the Jewish patriarchs, since whose decease uniformity had characterised all the processes and laws of nature. The Gnostic spirit ualism which treated the resurrection as past early troubled the church, and its disciples might cast ridicule on the faith and hopes of others in the challenge which Peter quotes.
2. It is said that the allusion to Paul's epistles indicates a late date, as it supposes them to he collected in part at least, and calls them by the sacred name of ^ypacbai (iii. 15, i6). But surely it may be granted that toward the close of Peter's life several epistles of Paul may have been brought together and placed in point of authority on the same level as the O. T. ; and that other docu ments also—rets Xotras -ypaOds, already occupied a similar place. Whatever exegesis be adopted, this is the general result. The writings of Paul, so well known to the readers of this epistle, are mentioned not as a completed whole ; the phrase ev etc., is not to be taken absolutely, but relatively, as if denoting `in al] his epistles which he writes.' The `things' referred to as discussed in these epistles are not their genera] contents, but the coming of our Lord and the end of the world, and in these discussions ' are some things hard to be understood.' The allusion certainly presupposes a late age, and the writer, as he in forms us, was very near his death. The date of
Peter's death is not precisely known, and the common traditions concerning it may therefore be modified. As Alford says, a later date than the usual one may be assigned to it.
3. Again, it is held, as by Neander, that the epithet holy mount,' as applied to the hill of trans figuration, indicates a late period, for Zion only was so designated ; and Mayerhoff affirms that the epithet suits Mount Zion alone. But the scene on which the glory of Jesus had been so displayed might many years afterwards be well called holy' by one who was an eyewitness, when he referred to it as a proof and symbol of the power and coming of the Lord Jesus.' Still, while a partial reply may be given to ob jections based on difference of style and of doctrinal representation, it must in honesty be added that these differences are not all of them wholly ac counted for. The style and matter, as a whole, are so unlike the first epistle, that one has con siderable difficulty in ascribing both epistles to the same author. While there is similarity in some words or phrases, the spirit, tone, and manner of the whole epistle are widely diverse. Minute criticism may discover CiaraE Xe^y6/.4eva, and arrange them in proof parallel to similar usage in the first epistle ; but such minutia do not hide the general dissimilitude. It may be argued, and the argu ment is not without weight, that a forger would have imitated the salient peculiarities of the first epistle. No one of ordinary critical discernment would have failed to attempt the reproduction of its characteristic features of style and thought. But the absence of such studied likeness is surely in favour of the genuineness. It may be added also, that as there are in the first epistle statements so peculiar to it as to be found nowhere else, the same specialty in what seems to be undesigned coinci dence marks the second epistle in the declarations of its third chapter. It would have been difficult in the zd century to have imposed on the churches a second epistle forged in Peter's name, and so unlike in many points to his first. A direct imitation of his style might have deceived some of the churches by its obvious features of simi litude, but the case is widely different when a writing so obviously unlike the first epistle won its way into circulation unchallenged in its origin and history, and was not doubted save at length by scholars and mainly on critical grounds. Why did not Origen and others tell us of the time of its first appearance, and how and by whom it was placed in the canon ? Possibly on such points they were ignorant, or at least they knew nothing that war ranted suspicion. Still the difference of manner be tween the two epistles remains, and perhaps one might account for it, as Jerome has hinted and Calvin has supposed, by the supposition that Peter dictated the epistle in Aramaic, and that the amanu ensis was left to express the thoughts in his own forms and phrases. Difference of condition and purpose may account for difference of topic, and the change of style may be ascribed to the Greek copyist and translator. The genuineness of the epistle has been maintained more or Less decidedly by Michaelis, Nitzsche, Flatt, Angusti, Stori, Dahl, Hug, Heydenreich, Lardner, Windischmarm, Guericke, Thiersch, Stier, Dietlein, Hofmann, Luthardt, Bruckner, and Olshausen. Feilmoser and Davidson incline to the same side. These are great names, and though we agree with their opinion, we cannot venture to say, with Bonnet, that of all the books of the N. T. which have been controverted at certain times, there is not one whose authenticity was so certain as the second epistle of Peter' (Nouv. Test., Introduct., vol. ii. p. 7or, Geneve 183z).