Ark of the Covenant - Bible History Online
Bible History Online

Sub Categories

    Back to Categories

    August 5    Scripture

    More Bible History
    2 Peter in Wikipedia The Second Epistle of Peter, usually referred to simply as Second Peter and often written 2 Peter, is a book of the New Testament of the Bible, traditionally ascribed to Saint Peter, but in modern times widely regarded as pseudonymous. It is the first New Testament book to treat other New Testament writings as scripture, 2 Peter was one of the last letters included in the New Testament canon; it quotes from and adapts Jude extensively, identifies Jesus with God, and addresses a threatening heresy which had arisen because the end and salvation had not occurred...

    Second Epistle of Peter in Easton's Bible Dictionary The question of the authenticity of this epistle has been much discussed, but the weight of evidence is wholly in favour of its claim to be the production of the apostle whose name it bears. It appears to have been written shortly before the apostle's death (1:14). This epistle contains eleven references to the Old Testament. It also contains (3:15, 16) a remarkable reference to Paul's epistles. Some think this reference is to 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11. A few years ago, among other documents, a parchment fragment, called the "Gospel of Peter," was discovered in a Christian tomb at Akhmim in Upper Egypt. Origen (obiit A.D. 254), Eusebius (obiit 340), and Jerome (obiit 420) refer to such a work, and hence it has been concluded that it was probably written about the middle of the second century. It professes to give a history of our Lord's resurrection and ascension. While differing in not a few particulars from the canonical Gospels, the writer shows plainly that he was acquinted both with the synoptics and with the Gospel of John. Though apocryphal, it is of considerable value as showing that the main facts of the history of our Lord were then widely known.

    Second Epistle of Peter in Smiths Bible Dictionary The following is a brief outline of the contents of this epistle: The customary opening salutation is followed by an enumeration of Christian blessings and exhortation to Christian duties. 2Pe 1:1-13 Referring then to his approaching death, the apostle assigns as grounds of assurance for believers his own personal testimony as eye- witness of the transfiguration and the sure word of prophecy--that is the testimony of the Holy Ghost. vs. 2Pe 1:14-21 The danger of being misled by false prophets is dwelt upon with great earnestness throughout the second chapter, which is almost identical in language and subject with the Epistle of Jude. The overthrow of all opponents of Christian truth is predicted in connection with prophecies touching the second advent of Christ, the destruction of the world by fire, and the promise of new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. ch. 3. This epistle of Peter presents questions of difficulty. Doubts as to its genuineness were entertained by the early Church; in the time of Eusebius it was reckoned among the disputed books, and was not formally admitted into the canon until the year 393, at the Council of Hippo. These difficulties, however, are insufficient to justify more than hesitation in admitting its ,genuineness. A majority of names may be quoted in support of the genuineness and authenticity of this epistle. (It is very uncertain as to the time when it was written. It was written near the close of Peter's life-- perhaps about A.D. 68--from Rome or somewhere on the journey thither from the East --Alford.)

    Second Epistle of Peter in the Bible Encyclopedia - ISBE The Second Epistle of Peter comes to us with less historical support of its genuineness than any other book of the New Testament. In consequence, its right to a place in the Canon is seriously doubted by some and denied by others. There are those who confidently assign it to the Apostolic age and to the apostle whose name it bears in the New Testament, while there are those who as confidently assign it to post- apostolic times, and repudiate its Petrine authorship. It is not the aim of this article to trace the history of the two opinions indicated above, nor to cite largely the arguments employed in the defense of the Epistle, or those in opposition to it; nor to attempt to settle a question which for more than a thousand years the wisest and best men of the Christian church have been unable to settle. Such a procedure would in this case be the height of presumption. What is here attempted is to point out as briefly as may be some of the reasons for doubting its canonicity, on the one hand, and those in its support, on the other. I. External Evidence in Favor of Its Apostolic Authority. 1. Ancient Opinion: It must be admitted at the very outset that the evidence is meager. The first writer who mentions it by name is Origen (circa 240 AD). In his homily on Josh, he speaks of the two Epistles of Peter. In another place he quotes 2 Pet 1:4: "partakers of the divine nature," and gives it the name of Scripture. But Origen is careful to say that its authority was questioned: "Peter has left one acknowledged Epistle, and perhaps a second, for this is contested." Eusebins, bishop of Caesarea, regarded it with even more suspicion than did Origen, and accordingly he placed it among the disputed books (Antilegomena). Jerome knew the scruples which many entertained touching the Epistle, but notwithstanding, he included it in his Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) Version. The main reason for Jerome's uncertainty about it he states to be "difference of style from 1 Peter." He accounts for the difference by supposing that the apostle "made use of two different interpreters." As great teachers and scholars as Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, e.g. Athanasius, Augustine, Epiphanius, Rufinus and Cyril, received it as genuine. At the Reformation Erasmus rejected 2 Peter; Luther seems to have had no doubt of its genuineness; while Calvin felt some hesitancy because of the "discrepancies between it and the First." In the 4th century, two church councils (Laodicea, circa 372, and Carthage, 397) formally recognized it and placed it in the Canon as equal in authority with the other books of the New Testament. 2. Modern Opinion: The opinion of modern scholars as to references in post- apostolic literature to 2 Peter is not only divided, but in many instances antagonistic. Salmon, Warfield, Zahn and others strongly hold that such references are to be found in the writings of the 2nd century, perhaps in one or two documents of the 1st. They insist with abundant proof in support of their contention that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache, and Clement of Rome, were all acquainted with the Epistle and made allusions to it in their writings. Weighing as honestly and as thoroughly as one can the citations made from that literature, one is strongly disposed to accept the evidence as legitimate and conclusive...

    The Epistles of Peter in Fausset's Bible Dictionary SECOND EPISTLE. Authenticity and genuineness. "Simon Peter a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ" stands at its heading. He reminds us at the close of his life that he is the Peter who was originally "Simon" before his call. In 2 Peter 1:16-18 he mentions his presence at the transfiguration, and Christ's prophecy of his death; and 2 Peter 3:15 his brotherhood to his beloved Paul. In 2 Peter 3:1 he identifies himself as author of the former epistle. The second epistle includes in its address the same persons as the first epistle. He presumes their acquaintance with Paul's epistles, by that time acknowledged as Scripture; 2 Peter 3:15, "the longsuffering of God," alluding to Romans 2:4. A late date is implied, just before Peter's death, when Paul's epistles (including Romans) had become generally circulated and accepted as Scripture. The church in the fourth century had, beside the testimony which we have of its acceptante though with doubts by earlier Christians. other external evidence which, under God's guiding Spirit, decided them in accepting it. If Peter were not the author the epistle would be false, as it expressly claims to be his; then the canon of the council of Laodicea, A.D. 360) (if the 59th article is genuine) and that of Hippo and Carthage (A.D. 393 and 397) would never have accepted it. Its whole tone disproves imposture. The writer writes not of himself, but "moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21). Shame and suffering were all that was to be gained by a forgery in the first age. There was no temptation then to "pious frauds," as in after ages. A wide gulf separates its New Testament style from the earliest and best of the post apostolic period. "God has allowed a fosse to be drawn by human weakness around the sacred canon, to protect it from all invasion" (Daille). Hermas (Simil. 6:4; 2 Peter 2:13, and Shep. 3:7; 4:3; 2 Peter 2:15; 2 Peter 2:20) quotes its words. Clemens Romans (ad Cor. 7; 9; 10) alludes to its references to Noah's preaching and Lot's deliverance (compare 2 Peter 2:5-7; 2 Peter 2:9). Irenaeous (A.D. 178) and Justin Martyr allude to 2 Peter 3:8. Hippolytus (de Antichristo) refers to 2 Peter 1:21. But the first writer who expressly names it as "Scripture" is Origen, third century (Hem. on Josh., 4th Hom. on Lev., and 13th on Num.), quoting 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Peter 2:16. In Eusebius H. E. 6:24 he mentions that some doubted the second epistle. Tertullian, Clemens Alex., Cyprian, the Peshito Syriac (the later Syriac has it), and Muratori's Fragm. Canon do not mention it. Firmilian of Cappadocia (Ep. ad Cyprian) says Peter's epistles warn us to avoid heretics; this warning is in the second epistle, not the first. Now Cappadocia (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 3:1) is among the countries addressed; so it is from Cappadocia we get the earliest testimony. Internally it professes Peter is its writer; Christians of the very country to whose custody it was committed confirm this. (See CANON; NEW TESTAMENT.)...