By Joseph Benson
PREFACE
This second epistle of Peter is
supposed to have been written
many years after the former,
namely, A.D. 67, a short time,
before his martyrdom, which
happened in 68, and to which he
alludes in one or two places.
The authority of it was, for
some time, doubted of in the
Christian Church, as Origen,
Eusebius, St. Jerome, and
others, have observed. What made
the ancients call it in question
was, first, its being omitted,
(together with that of James,
the 2d and 3d of John, and that
of Jude,) in the first Syriac
translation of the New
Testament, which is supposed to
have been made in the second
century. But the only conclusion
that can be drawn from the
omission is, that the author had
not seen these epistles, or
rather, that they were not
generally known, when he made
his version. Now this might
easily happen, if, as it is
probable, he was a Syrian Jew.
For Syria being at a great
distance from Pontus, Galatia,
&c., (to the Christians of which
countries these epistles were
originally sent,) it would be a
considerable time before copies
of them were dispersed among the
people, for whom the Syriac
version of the New Testament was
made. So that the author might
think it useless to translate
them. Another reason why the
authority of this second epistle
of Peter was called in question
was, the supposed difference of
its style, particularly of the
second chapter, from that of the
other parts of St. Peter’s
writings. But “I cannot,” says
Blackwall, “find any great
difference between the style of
the first and second epistle: it
is to me no more than we find in
the style of the same persons at
different times. There is much
the same energy and clear
brevity, the same rapid run of
language, and the same
commanding majesty, in them
both. Take them together, and
they are admirable, for
significant epithets, and strong
compound words; for beautiful
and sprightly figures; adorable
and sublime doctrines; pure and
heavenly morals, expressed in a
chaste, lively, and graceful
style.” As to the style of the
second chapter, thought by some
to be peculiarly different from
that of other parts of St.
Peter’s writings, Bishop
Sherlock supposes that the
apostle, describing in that
chapter the character of such
seducers as endangered the faith
of the Christian converts,
adopts the language and
sentiments of some Jewish
author, (as St. Jude also is
supposed to have done, see 1
Peter 5:14,) containing a strong
description, in the eastern
manner, of some false prophets
in that or an earlier age. But
for complete satisfaction on
that subject, the reader is
referred to that writer’s
Discourses on Prophecy, Disc. 1.
Diss. 1; and to the second part
of Dr. Lardner’s Credibility of
the Gospel History. |
|
|