2 Peter.
2 Peter.
§ 283. In the early Church some people had doubts about the latter Epistle of Peter as well. Consequently, we place it also among the canonical books of the second rank. Eusebius, Hist., bk. 3, c. 3: “One Epistle of Peter, which is called ‘the Former,’ was accepted without controversy. The old presbyters used it in their writings without any hesitation. But we have accepted that the one which is called ‘the Latter’ is not legitimate and canonical. Yet because it seems useful to many, it is used along with other Scriptures.” And later: “Regarding those letters that are attributed to Peter, of which I realize that only one of them was held to be truly an epistle of that man in the estimation of the ancient presbyters, let this still be said.” In the same book, c. 22, after enumerating the canonical books of the first rank, he adds: “Those that are spoken against, though they are well-known to many, are these: the Epistle attributed to James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John.” Book 4, c. 24, from Origen in his explanation of Psalm 1: “Peter left behind one Epistle about which there is definite agreement. But let it be that he also left a second one about which there is controversy.” Didymus, Jerome’s teacher, concludes his brief commentary on this Epistle in this way: “Therefore one must be aware that this Epistle has been falsified. Although it was published, that is, read in the churches publicly, nevertheless it is not in the canon.” Jerome, Catal. viror. illustr., on Peter: “Most deny that the second Epistle of Peter is his.” It is omitted in the Syriac paraphrase.
Of the more recent writers, Cajetan reflects doubt about it in his commentary on this Epistle. Erasmus, on 2 Peter 3: “There was controversy about this second Epistle of Peter as to whose it was. The difference of style both in the words and in their sense is too clear to ignore. Consequently, when he witnesses here that he was an eyewitness of the vision on the mountain, then mentions an earlier Epistle, and finally calls Paul a brother, what Jerome says about the interpreter does not displease me.” The words of Jerome, Epistle 150 ad Hebidiam, q. 11, read as follows: “Blessed Paul had Titus as his interpreter, just as blessed Peter had Mark, whose Gospel was composed as Peter told it and Mark wrote it. Finally, the two Epistles that are called Peter’s differ between themselves in style and character, as well as in the structure of the words. From this we understand that he used different interpreters in view of the necessity of his subject matter.” In Contra D. Mentz., p. 161, Pistorius admits that “for some time there was doubt about this Epistle.”
§ 284. There are ready arguments, however, to persuade that this is an apostolic Epistle and that Peter wrote it. (1) Its author in clear words calls himself “Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ.” (2) It was entitled as written to the same people as was the first, namely, to the Jews scattered throughout the Roman Empire who had been converted to Christ and whose apostle Peter was. (3) The spirit in it is apostolic. (4) Its style and composition are in conformity with those of the first Epistle. The authors of the Hist. Magdeb., cent. 1, bk. 2, c. 4, col. 54: “Besides this one, which is said to lack the testimony of antiquity, the other seems to me to lack nothing to be considered a genuine Epistle of Peter, for its style and composition do not differ greatly from the first.” (5) The author of this letter says that “the putting off of his tabernacle had been declared by Christ” (2 Pet. 1:14). With these words he is undoubtedly looking to Christ’s prediction in John 21:18. (6) He says that he was an eyewitness of the transfiguration on the mountain (2 Pet. 1:16). But now, Peter was there along with James and John. (7) He mentions a prior Epistle (2 Pet. 3:1). (8) He calls Paul his “beloved brother” (2 Pet. 3:15). (9) It is placed in the canon under Peter’s name by the Council of Laodicea (canon 59), the third Council of Carthage, Athanasius (Synopsis), the Damascene (bk. 4, c. 18), Epiphanius (Haeres. 76), Jerome (Ad Paulin.), Augustine (De doctr. Christ., bk. 2, c. 8), Gregory (In Evangel., homily 18), etc. In his commentary, Bede wonders “in what way there could be doubt regarding the author of this Epistle, since he expresses his name and testifies in clear words that he was on the mountain with the Lord.” Origen and Jerome in many places cite testimonies from this Epistle as from Holy Scripture. Luther (Praefat. epist. ad Hebr.) places it among the canonical books.
To that which some argue to the contrary, that is, the diversity in style from the first Epistle, we respond with a denial. Even if there were a diversity of style here, the same things also occur in the Pauline Epistles. Jerome claims that this came from a difference of interpreter (Ad Hebidiam, q. 11). Because for some time there was doubt about it in the early Church, this argues that it should be referred to the canonical books of the second rank.
It was written to the same people as was the first, namely, to the converted Jews (3:1), which is also concluded from 1:19. It consists of three chapters in which are added to the apostolic introduction (1) an exhortation to a zeal for continuing and persevering in the faith; and (2) a warning to watch out for both seducers as well as mockers and scorners who deny the final coming of Christ. The whole Epistle concludes with a doxology worthy of the apostle.