The Books of the New Testament Part 26

An examination of these pa.s.sages seems to prove that 1 Peter borrows from Jude and not Jude from 2 Peter.[2] In Jude the connection of ideas seems more simple and direct. Various verses in 2 Peter become more intelligible in the light thrown upon them by the corresponding verses in Jude. Thus Jude 10 alludes to the immorality which explains why the heretics are called "animals to be destroyed" in 2 Pet. ii. 12.

Jude 13, by calling the heretics "wandering stars," explains why "darkness" is said to be "reserved" for them in 2 Pet. ii. 17. Between 2 Pet. ii. 17 and 18 there is no direct allusion to Enoch as in Jude 14, but some of the material taken from the Book of Enoch still remains.

It will be observed that this connection with Jude is confined to 2 Pet. ii. 1-iii. 7. Now, this pa.s.sage must have been either inserted in some ancient ma.n.u.script of this Epistle, or it was originally part of the Epistle. If it has been inserted, the question of the authenticity of the rest of the Epistle obviously remains {250} untouched. But if it originally formed part of the Epistle, as appears to be the case, can we regard this as a conclusive proof that St. Peter did not write it? Surely not.[3] The fact that St. Luke inserts most of the Gospel of St. Mark is not considered to be any argument against the authenticity of St. Luke's work. Both in the Old Testament and the New we are occasionally confronted by the same phenomenon. Writers repeat what has been said by other writers when their words appear to them to be the best possible words for enforcing a particular lesson.

The question of the authenticity of 2 Peter has lately become still further complicated. There has recently been discovered part of the Apocalypse of Peter mentioned in the _Muratorian Fragment_. This Apocalypse is usually thought to have been forged in Egypt in the first half of the 2nd century. It presents certain points of resemblance with 2 Peter. These points of resemblance affect the first chapter of 2 Peter as well as the second chapter. They therefore furnish an argument against the theory that ch. ii. is a late interpolation into a genuine Epistle, and they suggest that the Epistle is either wholly genuine or wholly forged. But the solution of the problem is not so easy as it seems to many scholars. If we could positively say that the Apocalypse was written in the 2nd century, and positively say that 2 Peter borrows from it, the question would be settled once for all. But this is the very thing which we cannot do with confidence. Some critics of great ability hold it certain that 2 Peter was forged by some one who borrowed from the Apocalypse. Some think that the same writer forged them both. Others think that the Apocalypse is partly derived from 2 Peter. They can strongly support their view by the fact that when Christians were familiar with both writings, it was decided to reject the Apocalypse and {251} keep the Epistle. Lastly, it might be reasonably held that the coincidences in both writings are due to the use of one earlier doc.u.ment or a common stock of ideas and phrases.

The popularity of Apocalyptic literature at the beginning of the Christian era makes this theory credible.

We may sum up the evidence for and against 2 Peter as follows:--

1. The external evidence is meagre.

2. The internal evidence is perplexing, and may reasonably be considered adverse.

On the other hand:--

1. The external evidence is not definitely adverse.

2. No convincing reason can be a.s.signed for forging such an Epistle.

The critics who believe it to be forged, hold that it was written in Egypt in order to oppose the Gnosticism of c. A.D. 150 or 160. But the Gnosticism rebuked in 2 Peter cannot definitely be a.s.signed to the 2nd century. And it is very difficult to say that the heresy rebuked in 2 Peter belongs to the 2nd century without also maintaining that the heresy rebuked in Jude belongs to the 2nd century.[4] Yet several facts in Jude point so decidedly to the 1st century that some of the ablest writers who deny the authenticity of 2 Peter strongly a.s.sert the genuineness of Jude.

We can only conclude by doubting whether we know more about the problem of 2 Peter than the Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries knew. Perhaps we do not know nearly as much. And under these circ.u.mstances we cannot effectively criticize the judgment of the Church which decided to admit 2 Peter into the Canon.

[Sidenote: To whom written.]

To the same readers as the First Epistle (iii. 1).

[Sidenote: Where and when written.]

It was probably written in Rome, and some of the earliest references to it are by writers who lived in Rome. {252} Justin Martyr lived in Rome, and if the references in Justin Martyr and other writers before Hippolytus be considered doubtful, Hippolytus is a Roman witness of the first importance.

The date is perhaps between A.D. 63 and 67. If it were later than 70, we might reasonably expect to find a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem after the allusion to G.o.d's retribution on the people of Sodom and other malefactors of old times. The errors which are denounced are akin to those which are denounced in 1 and 2 Timothy.

The allusion to St. Paul's Epistles in iii. 16 suggests that some collection of these Epistles already existed, and that St. Paul was already dead. It has been urged against the genuineness of the Epistle that it includes the Pauline Epistles in _Scripture_ (iii. 16), and that this would have been impossible in the apostolic age. But the statement need not necessarily mean more than that the Epistles were on the margin of a Canon which was in process of formation. There is good reason for believing that the Pauline Epistles occupied this position at a time when men who had known some of the apostles were still living, and perhaps earlier. The manner in which St. Peter has made use of St. Paul's work in his First Epistle, makes it quite possible for us to think that he believed in the peculiar inspiration of his great comrade. And it is an interesting fact that the Syriac _Doctrine of Addai_ in speaking of the Epistles of St. Paul, adds, "which Simon Peter sent us from the city of Rome."

[Sidenote: Character and Contents.]

The key-word to the Epistle is not _hope_, as in 1 Peter, but _knowledge_ (i. 3, 8; ii. 20). We find, as in 1 Peter, a fondness or the word "glory." But in 1 Peter glory seems to be represented as given to Christ after His sufferings, and promised to Christians in the future after their sufferings (1 Pet. i. 11; iv. 13; v. 1). Here glory is rather spoken of as manifested in all the new dispensation, and especially at the Transfiguration (i. 3, 17). The apostle {253} appeals to the fact that he witnessed the Transfiguration as a guarantee of his prophecy of the second "coming" of Christ. He finds another warrant in the prophecies of the Old Testament, and a.s.serts that prophecy is not a matter for a man's own private unaided interpretation, inasmuch as it was an utterance prompted by the Holy Spirit (i. 19-21).

This description of true religious knowledge is followed by an arraignment of false prophets and speculative heresy. It is possible that the teaching of definitely false doctrine was already combined with previously existing immoral practice. The verse (ii. 1) in which the writer speaks of false _teachers_, refers to the rise of these heretics as future. But in other verses of the chapter the "self-willed" teachers are spoken of as already active. We gather from iii. 16 that the licence which is so sternly rebuked was a system in which St. Paul's doctrine of justification by faith was represented as a justification of vile indulgence. Although this part of the Epistle is a paraphrase of Jude, it is not a mere reproduction. A new feature in 2 Peter is that the heretics were sceptical concerning the second coming of Christ (iii. 4). They argued that since the death of "the fathers," _i.e._ the first followers of Christ, the world continued as before. St. Peter urges that the deluge came, though its coming was doubted, and also that it must be remembered that the Lord does not reckon time as men do. A period which is long to us is not long to Him. The day of the Lord will come suddenly "as a thief in the night,"

and in view of judgment the readers are exhorted to holiness and patience.

{254}

a.n.a.lYSIS

Salutation, a list of Christian graces which are to be successively blended with faith, a reminder of the truth of Christianity as testified by the words of G.o.d at the Transfiguration, and by the light of prophecy (i.).

Denunciation of the false teachers who are guilty of gross sin and blindly follow their lower instincts (ii.).

Allusion to the former letter, rebuke of those who disbelieve in the last judgment, the coming of the day of the Lord and the destruction of the world, exhortations to holiness, diligence needed, the long-suffering of Christ witnessed to by Paul, growth in grace (iii.).

[1] _H. E._ iii. 3.

[2] The priority of 2 Peter is strongly defended by Spitta, in his _Der Zweite Brief d. Petrus_, 1885.

[3] This is very clearly stated by Dr. G. B. Stevens in his valuable _Theology of the New Testament_, although he decides against the genuineness of 2 Peter.

[4] This is done by Harnack, who places Jude between A.D. 100 and 130.

{255}

CHAPTER XXIII

THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN

THE FIRST EPISTLE GENERAL OF JOHN

[Sidenote: The Author.]

The authenticity of this Epistle is bound up with the authenticity of St. John's Gospel. Like the Gospel, it does not contain any statement as to the name of the author. Like the Gospel, it is attributed by a very ancient tradition to the nearest friend of Jesus Christ. The external evidence is particularly good. We learn from the unimpeachable testimony of Eusebius[1] that it was used by Papias, who was a disciple of St. John. Polycarp, another disciple of St. John, directly quotes 1 John iv. 3 in his still extant letter. It is quoted by Irenaeus, the pupil of Polycarp, and was recognized as genuine in widely distant Churches at the close of the 2nd century.

The internal evidence shows that the writer claims to be an eye-witness and intimate personal friend of Jesus Christ (i. 1-3).[2] And this eye-witness must be St. John, if the fourth Gospel was written by St.

John. The style is similar, and the ideas are the same. It is true that Christ is not called our "propitiation" in the Gospel as in this Epistle (ii. 2; iv. 10), that in the Gospel there is no mention of "antichrists" (as in {256} ii. 8), and that the word "Paraclete" is in the Gospel applied to the Holy Ghost, while it is here applied to our Lord (ii. 1). But the idea of propitiation is expressed in the description of our Lord as "the Lamb of G.o.d" (John i. 29), the mention of antichrists is uncalled for in the Gospel, and by naming the Holy Ghost "another Paraclete" our Lord gave St. John the best possible reason for calling Christ Himself by the same t.i.tle. The description of our Lord as "the only begotten Son" (iv. 9) is an important point of contact with John i. 14, 18. The language about "light" and "darkness," "G.o.d" and "the world," the "new commandment," the "love" of G.o.d, being "born of G.o.d," "eternal life," "abiding in Christ," recalls the Gospel at every turn.

The Epistle, however, does contain some phrases and ideas which are not to be found in the Gospel. Such are "love perfected," "a sin unto death," "the l.u.s.t of the eyes," "to come in the flesh," "to walk in the light," "to do lawlessness," "to be from above." Yet they fit quite naturally with the language and theology of the Gospel. Therefore there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for holding that it was the work of another writer. F. C. Baur and Hilgenfeld thought it to be the work of a second forger of that mysterious band to which they attributed such versatility and success. And several more recent critics who have denied the authenticity of the Gospel, have maintained with Baur that the Epistle is the work of a second forger. But these negations have led to no a.s.sured result. They are seen to be fruitless as soon as we realize that these critics have been quite unable to agree whether the Epistle was composed before the Gospel or after it.

Some consider that it was a theological balloon sent to try the credulity of Christian readers before the Gospel was despatched.

Others consider that there are "overwhelming indications" to prove that the Epistle is only a poor imitation of the Gospel. Renan and Davidson favoured the former view, F. C. Baur and C. Weizsacker the latter. At the present time the majority {257} of critics, both Christian and non-Christian, believe that it was written by the writer of the fourth Gospel.

[Sidenote: To whom written.]

It seems to be a pastoral letter addressed to all the members of the apostle's flock, intended therefore for the Christians of Asia in and around Ephesus. It is a strange fact that St. Augustine, in quoting iii. 2, describes the pa.s.sage as "said by John in his Epistle to the _Parthians_." This statement is a riddle which no commentator has been able to answer satisfactorily. As the Eastern Churches had little or no knowledge of this t.i.tle, we are compelled to regard it as a mistake.

It may have arisen from some scribe failing to read a partially illegible ma.n.u.script in which St. John may have been given the t.i.tle of _parthenos_ or virgin. But it is most likely that it arose from a confusion with the Second Epistle, which was thought in the time of Clement of Alexandria to be addressed to _parthenoi_ or virgins. The absence of quotations from the Old Testament, and the command "guard yourselves from idols" (v. 21), solemnly given at the very end of the Epistle, suggest that the recipients of the letter were converts from heathenism. The Christians of Ephesus, the mother-city of Asiatic idolatry, were peculiarly in need of such an exhortation.

[Sidenote: Where and when written.]

We can hardly doubt that it was written at Ephesus, where the apostle spent his last years. The a.s.sertion that St. John did not live at Ephesus is in direct contradiction with the best and earliest traditions. But it has been repeated at intervals during the last sixty years by several critics, who found that they would be compelled to admit the genuineness of the Revelation if they granted that St.

John lived at Ephesus, where the Revelation was evidently published.[3]

Against such criticism we can confidently marshal the express and independent statements of Apollonius of Ephesus (A.D. 196), Polycrates of Ephesus (A.D. 190), {258} Irenaeus of Lyons (A.D. 185), Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190), Tertullian of Carthage (A.D. 200), not to mention some valuable indirect evidence of earlier date. If we are to reject such evidence as this, the science of history must be laid in the tomb.

The question as to the exact date is very important for those who believe that the Epistle was not written by the author of the Gospel.

They are involved in the most intricate questions about the reproduction of the Gospel in the Epistle or of the Epistle in the Gospel. For those who do not believe in a diversity of authorship the problem is far less vital. The apostle was evidently advanced in years. He includes all his people under the affectionate name "my little children" (ii. 1). On the whole, it seems probable that it was written rather later than the Gospel. This is suggested by the teaching about the second coming of Christ. Both in the Gospel and in the Epistle we find mentioned or implied a present and a future pa.s.sing from death to life, and a spiritual presence of Christ now and another hereafter. But in the Epistle it is the future coming of Christ which is more prominent (ii. 28; iii. 2; iv. 17). In the Revelation, A.D.

96, it is still more prominent. The Epistle suggests that St. John's readers were already acquainted with the discourses in his Gospel. The heresy described, and the fact that the heretics are already _outside_ the Church, point to a comparatively late date. We can hardly place it before A.D. 85.