www.newadvent.org Open in urlscan Pro
2400:52e0:1e00::1082:1  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

../utility/search.htm

<form id="searchbox_000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0" action="../utility/search.htm">
  <!-- Hidden Inputs -->
  <input type="hidden" name="safe" value="active">
  <input type="hidden" name="cx" value="000299817191393086628:ifmbhlr-8x0">
  <input type="hidden" name="cof" value="FORID:9">
  <!-- Search Box -->
  <label for="searchQuery" id="searchQueryLabel">Search:</label>
  <input id="searchQuery" name="q" type="text" size="25" aria-labelledby="searchQueryLabel">
  <!-- Submit Button -->
  <label for="submitButton" id="submitButtonLabel" class="visually-hidden">Submit Search</label>
  <input id="submitButton" type="submit" name="sa" value="Search" aria-labelledby="submitButtonLabel">
</form>

Text Content

 

Search: Submit Search



 Home   Encyclopedia   Summa   Fathers   Bible   Library 

 A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z 


Home > Catholic Encyclopedia > P > Epistles of Saint Peter


EPISTLES OF SAINT PETER

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this
website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church
Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

These two epistles will be treated under the following heads: I. Authenticity;
II. Recipients, occasion, and object; III. Date and place of composition; IV.
Analysis.


FIRST EPISTLE


AUTHENTICITY

The authenticity, universally admitted by the primitive Church, has been denied
within the past century by Protestant or Rationalist critics (Baur and the
Tübingen School, Von Soden, Harnack, Jülicher, Hilgenfeld, and others), but it
cannot seriously be questioned. It is well established by extrinsic and
instrinsic arguments.

(1) Extrinsic arguments

(a) in writings of the first and second centuries, e.g., Justin's letter to the
Churches of Lyons and Vienne, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Papias, Polycarp,
Clement of Rome, the "Didache", the "Pastor" of Hermas, and others. The Second
Epistle of St. Peter, admitted to be very ancient even by those who question its
authenticity, alludes to an earlier Epistle written by the Apostle (iii, 1). The
letter therefore existed very early and was considered very authoritative. (b)
Tradition is also unanimous for St. Peter's authorship. In the second and third
centuries we have much explicit testimony to this effect. Clement and Origen at
Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian in Africa, the Peshitto in Syria, Irenaeus in
Gaul, the ancient Itala and Hippolytus at Rome all agree in attributing it to
Peter, as do also the heretics, Basilides and Theodore of Byzantium. (c) All the
collections or lists of the New Testament mention it as St. Peter's; the
Muratorian Canon, which alone is at variance with this common tradition, is
obscure and bears evident marks of textual corruption, and the subsequent
restoration suggested by Zahn, which seems much more probable, is clearly
favourable to the authenticity. Moreover Eusebius of Caesarea does not hesitate
to place it among the undisputed Scriptures.



(2) Intrinsic arguments

Examination of the Epistle in itself is wholly favourable to its authenticity;
the author calls himself Peter, the Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1); Mark, who,
according to the Acts of the Apostles, had such close relations with Peter, is
called by the author "my son" (v, 13); the author is represented as the
immediate disciple of Jesus Christ (i, 1; v, 9, 11-14); he exercises from Rome a
universal jurisdiction over the whole Church (v, 1). The numerous places in
which he would appear to be the immediate witness of the life of Christ (i, 8;
ii, 21-24; v, 1), as well as the similarity between his ideas and the teaching
of the Gospels, are eloquently in favour of the Apostolic author (cf. Jacquier,
251). Finally, some authors consider that the Epistle and the sermons of St.
Peter related in the Acts show an analogy in basis and form which proves a
common origin. However, it is probable if not certain that the Apostle made use
of an interpreter, especially of Sylvanus; St. Jerome says: "the two Epistles
attributed to St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction of the
words, which proves that according to the exigencies of the moment St. Peter
made use of different interpreters" (Ep. cxx ad Hedib.). Peter himself seems to
insinuate this: Dia Silouanou houmin . . . egrapha (v, 12), and the final verses
(12-14) seem to have been added by the Apostle himself. Without denying that
Peter was able to use and speak Greek, some authors consider that he could not
write it in the almost classic manner of this Epistle. Nevertheless it is
impossible to determine exactly the share of Sylvanus; it is not improbable that
he wrote it according to the directions of the Apostle, inserting the ideas and
exhortations suggested by him.

Objections: (a) The relation between the First Epistle of Peter and the Epistles
of Paul, especially Romans and Ephesians, does not prove, as has been claimed
(Jülicher), that the Epistle was written by a disciple of Paul. This relation,
which has been much exaggerated by some critics, does not prove a literary
dependence nor prevent this Epistle from possessing a characteristic originality
in ideas and form. The resemblance is readily explained if we admit that Peter
employed Sylvanus as interpreter, for the latter had been a companion of Paul,
and would consequently have felt the influence of his doctrine and manner of
speaking. Moreover, Peter and Sylvanus were at Rome, where the letter was
written, and they would naturally have become acquainted with the Epistles to
the Romans and the Ephesians, written some months before and intended, at least
in part, for the same readers. (b) It has been claimed that the Epistle
presupposes an official and general persecution in the Roman Empire and betokens
a state of things corresponding to the reign of Vespasian, or even that of
Domitian or Trajan, but the data it gives are too indefinite to conclude that it
refers to one of these persecutions rather than to that of Nero; besides, some
authors consider that the Epistle does not at all suppose an official
persecution, the allusions being readily explained by the countless difficulties
and annoyances to which Jews and pagans subjected the Christians.


RECIPIENTS OF THE EPISTLE; OCCASION AND OBJECT

It was written to the faithful of "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and
Bithynia" (i, 1). Were these Christians converted Jews, dispersed among the
Gentiles (i, 1), as was held by Origen, Didymus of Alexandria, etc., and is
still maintained by Weiss and Kuhl, or were they in great part of pagan origin?
The latter is by far the more common and the better opinion (i, 14; ii, 9-10;
iii, 6; iv, 3). The argument based on i, 7, proves nothing, while the words "to
the strangers dispersed through Pontus" should not be taken in the literal sense
of Jews in exile, but in the metaphorical sense of the people of God,
Christians, living in exile on earth, far from their true country. The opinions
of authors admitting the authenticity are divided with regard to the historical
circumstances which occasioned the Epistle, some believing that it was written
immediately after Nero's decree proscribing the Christian religion, in which
case the difficulties to which Peter alludes do not consist merely of the
calumnies and vexations of the people, but also include the judicial pursuit and
condemnation of Christians (iv, 14-16; v, 12; ii, 23; iii, 18), while iv, 12,
may be an allusion to the burning of Rome which was the occasion of Nero's
decree. This is the opinion of Hug, Gloire, Batiffol, Neander, Grimm, Ewald,
Allard, Weiss, Callewaert, etc., while others date the Epistle from the eve of
that decree (Jacquier, Brassac, Fillion, etc.). The Epistle, they say, having
been written from Rome, where the persecution must have raged in all its horror,
we naturally look for clear and indisputable indications of it, but the general
theme of the epistle is that the Christians should give no occasion to the
charges of the infidels, but that by their exemplary life they should induce
them to glorify God (ii, 12, 15; iii, 9, 16; iv, 4); besides, the way of
speaking is generally hypothetical (i, 6; iii, 13-14; iv, 14), there being no
question of judges, tribunals, prison, tortures, or confiscation. The Christians
have to suffer, not from authority, but from the people among whom they lived.



The Apostle Peter wrote to the Christians of Asia to confirm them in the Faith,
to console them amid their tribulations, and to indicate to them the line of
conduct to follow in suffering (v, 2). Except for the more dogmatic introduction
(i, 3-12) and a few short instructions strewn throughout the letter and intended
to support moral exhortations, the Epistle is hortatory and practical. Only an
absurd a priori argument could permit the Tübingen critics to assert that it had
a dogmatic object and was written by a second-century forger with the intention
of attributing to Peter the doctrines of Paul.


PLACE AND DATE OF COMPOSITION

The critics who have denied Peter's sojourn at Rome must necessarily deny that
the letter was written from there, but the great majority of critics, with all
Christian antiquity, agree that it was written at Rome itself, designated by the
metaphorical name Babylon (v, 13). This interpretation has been accepted from
the most remote times, and indeed no other metaphor could so well describe the
city of Rome, rich and luxurious as it was, and given over to the worship of
false gods and every species of immorality. Both cities had caused trouble to
the people of God, Babylon to the Jews, and Rome to the Christians. Moreover
this metaphor was in use among the early Christians (cf. Revelation 14:8; 16:19;
17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). Finally, tradition has not brought us the faintest memory
of any sojourn of Peter at Babylon. The opinions of critics who deny the
authenticity of the Epistle range from A.D. 80 to A.D. 160 as the date, but as
there is not the slightest doubt of its authenticity they have no basis for
their argument. Equally diverse opinions are found among the authors who admit
the authenticity, ranging from the year A.D. 45 to that accepted as that of the
death of Peter. The most probable opinion is that which places it about the end
of the year 63 or the beginning of 64; and St. Peter having suffered martyrdom
at Rome in 64 (67?) the Epistle could not be subsequent to that date; besides,
it assumes that the persecution of Nero, which began about the end of 64, had
not yet broken out (see above). On the other hand the author frequently alludes
to the Epistle to the Ephesians, making use of its very words and expressions;
consequently the Epistle could not be prior to 63, since the Epistle to the
Ephesians was written at the end of Paul's first captivity at Rome (61-63).


ANALYSIS

The Epistle as a whole being but a succession of general ideas without close
connection, there can be not strict plan of analysis. It is divided as follows:
the introduction contains, besides the address (superscription and salutation,
i, 7), thanksgiving to God for the excellence of the salvation and regeneration
to which He has deigned to call the Christians (3-12). This part is dogmatic and
serves as a basis for all the moral exhortations in the body of the Epistle. The
body of the Epistle may be divided into three section: (a) exhortation to a
truly Christian life (i, 13-ii, 10), wherein Peter successively exhorts his
readers to holiness in general (13-21), to fraternal charity in particular (i,
22-ii, 1), to love and desire of the true doctrine; thus they shall be living
stones in the spiritual house of which Christ is the cornerstone, they shall be
the royal priesthood and the chosen people of the Lord (2-10). (b) Rules of
conduct for Christians living among pagans, especially in time of persecution
(ii, 11-v, 19). Let their conduct be such that the infidels themselves shall be
edified and cease to speak evil of the Christians (11-12). This general
principle is applied in detail in the exhortations relating to obedience to
civil rulers (13-17), the duties of slaves to their masters (18-25), the mutual
duties of husband and wife (iii, 1-7). With regard to those who, not having the
same faith, calumniate and persecute the Christians, the latter should return
good for evil, according to the example of Christ, who though innocent suffered
for us, and who preached the Gospel not only to the living, but also to the
spirits that were in prison (8-22). The Apostle concludes by repeating his
exhortation to sanctity in general (iv, 1-6), to charity (7-11), to patience and
joy in suffering for Christ (12-19). (c) Some special recommendations follow (v,
1-11): let the ancients be careful to feed the flock entrusted to their keeping
(1-4); let the faithful be subject to their pastor (5a); let all observe
humility among themselves (5b); let them be sober and watchful, trusting the
Lord (6-11).

In the epilogue the Apostle himself declares that he has employed Sylvanus to
write the letter and affirms that the Divine grace possessed by his readers is
the true grace (12); he addresses to them the salutations of the Church in Rome
and those of Mark (13), and gives them his Apostolic blessing.


SECOND EPISTLE


AUTHENTICITY

In the present state of the controversy over the authenticity it may be affirmed
that it is solidly probable, though it is difficult to prove with certainty.

(1) Extrinsic arguments

(a) In the first two centuries there is not in the Apostolic Fathers and other
ecclesiastical writers, if we except Theophilus of Antioch (180), a single
quotation properly so called from this Epistle; at most there are some more or
less probable allusions in their writings, e.g., the First Epistle of St.
Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, the "Didache", St. Ignatius, the Epistle of
Barnabas, the "Pastor" of Hermas, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians,
the Dialogue of St. Justin with Trypho, St. Irenæus, the Clementine
"Recognitions", the "Acts of Peter", etc. The Epistle formed part of the ancient
Itala, but is not in the Syriac. This proves that the Second Epistle of Peter
existed and even had a certain amount of authority. But it is impossible to
bring forward with certainty a single explicit testimony in favour of this
authenticity. The Muratorian Canon presents a mutilated text of I Peter, and
Zahin's suggested restoration, which seems very probable, leaves only a doubt
with regard to the authenticity of the Second Epistle.

(b) In the Western Church there is not explicit testimony in favour of the
canonicity and Apostolicity of this Epistle until the middle of the fourth
century. Tertullian and Cyprian do not mention it, and Mommsen's Canon (360)
still bears traces of the uncertainty among the Churches of the West in this
respect. The Eastern Church gave earlier testimony in its behalf. According to
Eusebius and Photius, Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) commented on it, but he
seems not to have ranked it with the first. It is found in the two great
Egyptian versions (Sahidic and Bohairic). It is probable that Firmilian of
Caesarea used it and ascribed it to St. Peter, as Methodius of Olympus did
explicitly. Eusebius of Caesarea (340), while personally accepting II Peter as
authentic and canonical, nevertheless classes it among the disputed works
(antilegomena), at the same time affirming that it was known by most Christians
and studied by a large number with the other Scriptures. In the Church of
Antioch and Syria at that period it was regarded as of doubtful authenticity.
St. John Chrysostom does not speak of it, and it is omitted by the Peshitto.
That the Epistle formerly accepted in that Church (Theophilus of Antiocy) was
not yet included in the canon was probably due to dogmatic reasons.



(c) In the second half of the fourth century these doubts rapidly disappeared in
the Churches of the East owing to the authority of Eusebius of Caesarea and the
fifty copies of the Scriptures distributed by command of Constantine the Great.
Didymus of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Jerusalem,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, the Canon of Laodicea, all regard the letter as
authentic. The addition to the text of Didymus, according to which it was the
work of a forger, seems to be the error of a copyist. So in the West relations
with the East and the authority of St. Jerome finally brought about the
admission of its authenticity. It was admitted to the Vulgate, and the synod
convoked by Pope Damasus in 382 expressly attributes it to St. Peter.

(2) Intrinsic arguments

If tradition does not appear to furnish an apodictic argument in favour of the
authenticity, an examination of the Epistle itself does. The author calls
himself Simon Peter, servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ (i, 1), witness of the
glorious transfiguration of Christ (i, 16-18); he recalls the prediction of His
death which Christ made to him (i, 14); he calls the Apostle Paul his brother,
i.e., his colleague in the Apostolate (iii, 15); and he identifies himself with
the author of the First Epistle. Therefore the author must necessarily be St.
Peter himself or some one who wrote under his name, but nothing in the Epistle
forces us to believe the latter. On the other hand there are several indications
of its authenticity: the author shows himself to be a Jew, of ardent character,
such as the New Testament portrays St. Peter, while a comparison with the ideas,
words, and expressions of the First Epistle affords a further argument in favour
of the identify of the author. Such, at least, is the opinion of several
critics.

In examining the difficulties raised against the authenticity of the Epistle,
the following facts should be remembered: (a) This Epistle has been wrongly
accused of being imbued with Hellenism, from which it is even farther removed
than the writings of Luke and the Epistles of Paul. (b) Likewise the false
doctrines which it opposes are not the full-blown Gnosticism of the second
century, but the budding Gnosticism as opposed by St. Paul. (c) The difference
which some authors claim to find between the doctrine of the two Epistles probes
nothing against the authenticity; some others have even maintained that
comparison of the doctrines furnishes a new argument in favour of the author's
identify. Doubtless there exist undeniable differences, but is an author obliged
to confine himself within the same circle of ideas? (d) The difference of style
which critics have discovered between the two Epistles is an argument requiring
too delicate handling to supply a certain conclusion, and here again some others
have drawn from a similarity of style an argument in favour of a unity of
authorship. Admitting that the manner of speaking is not the same in both
Epistles, there is, nevertheless, not the slightest difficulty, if it be true as
St. Jerome has said (see above under FIRST EPISTLE), that in the composition of
the Epistles St. Peter made use of different interpreters. (e) It is also
incorrect to say that this Epistle supposes the Epistle of St. Paul to have been
already collected (iii, 15-16), for the author does not say that he knew all the
Epistles of St. Paul. That he should have regarded Paul's letters as inspired
forms a difficulty only to those who do not admit the possibility of a
revelation made to Peter on this point. Some authors have also wrongly contested
the unity of the Epistle, some claiming that it consists of two distinct
epistles, the second beginning with ch. iii, others maintaining that the ii,
1-iii, 2, has been interpolated. Recently M. Ladeuze (Revue Biblique, 1905) has
advanced an hypothesis which seems to end numerous difficulties: by an
involuntary error of a copyist or by accidental transposition of the leaves of
the codex on which the Epistle was written, one of the parts of the Epistle was
transposed, and according to the order of sections the letter should be restored
as follows: i-ii, 3a; iii, 1-16; ii, 3b-22; iii, 17-18. The hypothesis seems
very probable.

Relations of II Peter with the Epistle of Jude

This Epistle has so much in common with that of Jude that the author of one must
have had the other before him. There is no agreement on the question of
priority, but the most credited opinion is that Peter depends on Jude (q.v.).


RECIPIENTS, OCCASION, AND OBJECT

It is believed that this Epistle, like the First, was sent to the Christians of
Asia Minor, the majority of whom were converted Gentiles (iii, 1-2; ii, 11-12;
etc.). False teachers (ii, 1), heretics and deceivers (iii, 3), of corrupt
morals (ii, 1) and denying the Second Advent of Christ and the end of the world,
sought to corrupt the faith and the conduct of the Christians of Asia Minor.
Peter wrote to excite them to the practice of virtue and chiefly to turn them
away from the errors and bad example of the false teachers.


DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

While those who reject the authenticity of the Epistle place it about 150, the
advocates of its authenticity maintain that it was written after 63-4, the date
of the First Epistle, and before 64-5, the date believed to be that of the death
of St. Peter (i, 14). Like the First, it was written at Rome.


ANALYSIS

In the exordium the Apostle, after the inscription and salutation (i, 1-2),
recalls the magnificent gifts bestowed by Jesus Christ on the faithful; he
exhorts them to the practice of virtue and all the more earnestly that he is
convinced that his death is approaching (3-15). In the body of the Epistle (i,
16-iii, 13) the author brings forward the dogma of the second coming of Christ,
which he proves, recalling His glorious transfiguration and the prediction of
the Prophets (i, 16-21). Then he inveighs against the false teachers and
condemns their life and doctrines: (a) They shall undergo Divine chastisement,
in proof of which the Apostle recalls the punishment inflicted on the rebel
angels, on the contemporaries of Noah, on the people of Sodom and Gomorrah (ii,
1-11). (b) He describes the immoral life of the false teachers, their impurity
and sensuality, their avarice and duplicity (12-22). (c) He refutes their
doctrine, showing that they are wrong in rejecting the second coming of Christ
and the end of the world (iii, 1-4), for the Judge shall certainly come and that
unexpectedly; even as the ancient world perished by the waters of the flood so
the present world shall perish by fire and be replaced by a new world (5-7).
Then follows the moral conclusion: let us live holily, if we desire to be ready
for the coming of the Judge (8-13); let us employ the time given us to work out
our salvation, even as Paul taught in his Epistles which the false teachers
abuse (14-17). Verse 18 consists of the epilogue and doxology.




SOURCES

DRACH-BAYLE, Epitres catholiques (Paris, 1873); HUNDHAUSEN, Die beiden
Pontificalhereiben des Apostelfursten Petrus (Mainz, 1878); CORNELY, Hist. Et
crit. Introductio in U. T. libros sacros, III, Introductio specialis (Paris,
1886); BEELEN, Hetniewe Testament (Bruges, 1891); JULICHER, Einleitung in das
neue Testament (1894); KUHL, Briefe Petri und Judoe (Gottingen, 1897); HORT, The
First Epistle of St. Peter (London, 1898); VON SODEN, Briefe des Petrus
(Freiburg, 1899); HARNACK, Gesch. der altchrist. Literatur, die Chronologie
(Leipzig, 1900); MONNIER, La premiere epitre de Pierre (Macon, 1900); ZAHN,
Grundriss der Gesch. des neutestamntlichen Kanons (Leipzig, 1901); TRANKLE,
Einleitung in das neue Test. (Freiburg, 1901); BIGG, A Critical and Exegetical
Commentary on the Ep. of St. Peter and St Jude (Edinburgh, 1902); CEULEMANS,
Comment. in epist. catholicas et apocalypsim (Mechlin, 1904); HENKEL, Der zweite
Brief des Apostelfursten petrus gepruft auf seine Echtheit (Freiburg, 1904);
BELSER, Einleitung in das neue Test. (Freiburg, 1905); CALMES, Epitres cathol.
Apocalypse (Paris, 1905); WEISS, Der erste Petrus brief und die neuere Kritik
(Lichterfelde, 1906); DILLENSEGER, L'authenticite' de la II Petri in Melanges de
la faculte' orientale (Beirut, 1907); CALLEWAERT in Revue d'hist. eccles.
(Louvain, 1902, 1907); JACQUIER, Hist. des livres du N. Test. (Paris, 1908);
BRASSAC, Manuel bibl. (Paris, 1909); VANSTEENKISTE-CAMERLYNCK, Comment. in
epist. cathol. (Bruges, 1909).


ABOUT THIS PAGE

APA citation. Vander Heeren, A. (1911). Epistles of Saint Peter. In The Catholic
Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm

MLA citation. Vander Heeren, Achille. "Epistles of Saint Peter." The Catholic
Encyclopedia. Vol. 11. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Judy Levandoski.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D.,
Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address
is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I
greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical
errors and inappropriate ads.

Copyright © 2023 by New Advent LLC. Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

CONTACT US | ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT