PETER, SECOND EPISTLE OF

while the style of 2 Peter is almost pseudo-literary, and its words are often quite uncommon. 1 Peter quotes largely from the LXX, the use of which can hardly be detected in 2 Peter. The Divine names are different, and different conceptions of Christ's work and of the Christian life are emphasized — in 1 Peter Jesus is the Messiah whose sufferings, death, and resurrection are the leading motives for the Christian life; in 2 Peter Christ is 'Saviour,' who brings power for a godly life to all who have knowledge of Him. Hope and Joy are the notes of 1 Peter, which was written to readers who are buoyed up in suffering by faith in and love to their risen Lord. In 2 Peter false teaching instead of persecution is a source of danger; knowledge takes the place of hope, and piety that of holiness.

(ii.) Resemblances [cf. (i.)].— ^These are manifold and striking. Both Epistles are influenced greatly by Isaiah and in some measure by Proverbs and Enoch. Both teach that Jesus Christ is progressively revealed to the believer, the Parousia being the fulfilment of the Transfiguration or the Resurrection (1 P l'^ 4" 5', 2 P l^- «■ i«). Both emphasize the fact of the Parousia and of Divine judg-ment; Noah and the Flood are used as examples in both. A similar conception of the Holy Spirit, unique in the NT, is found in 1 P I'o-i^ and 2 P I's-^i. In both the Christian life is regarded as a growth from seed (1 P 12S, 2 P 18 3"); obedience to the truth, emphasized in 1 P 1^2 and 2 P Z'- ^i, brings the favourite virtue of steadfastness (1 P 2' 5i», 2 P 1" 3")- The law of holy living confers true freedom (1 P 1"- " 2"«-, 2 P 2'= 311. u). xhe virtues of 2 P !»-' are paralleled in 1 Peter, being those of a gentle, orderly, patient, kindly life of goodness; and in both the Christian life is regarded as a pilgrimage to an eternal inheritance] (1 P 1'- ', 2 P in. 13. H),

6 . Testimony of later Christian Literature . — Until the 3rd cent, the traces of 2 Peter are very few. It was evidently known to the author of the Apocalypse of Peter (c. 160 A.D.), though this is questioned without sufficient reason by some scholars. The first certain quotation is found in Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia (c. 250) ; probably it was used by Clement of Alexandria; and Origen knew it, but doubted its genuineness. While Eusebius himself did not accept the Epistle, he placed it, in deference to general opinion, among the ' disputed ' books. It is not referred to by the scholars of Antioch, nor is it in the Peshitta, the common version of the Syrian Church. The oldest Latin versions also seem not to have contained it; possibly it was absent from the original of Codex B, but it is found in the Egyptian versions. Jerome, and afterwards Erasmus and Calvin, harboured doubts about its genuineness.

6. Authorship. — It will have been evident that there is much in this Epistle to justify the doubt as to its genuineness which has been entertained by many of the greatest Christian teachers from the early centuries; and recent scholarship has not yet relieved the diffi-culties in the way of accepting the Petrine authorship. They are (1) the remarkable divergence from the First Epistle, wliich seems to be too radical to be explained by the employment of different amanuenses; (2) the inferior style of the Epistle, its lack of restraint and its discon-tinuity, notably in l"-2i and ch. 2; (3) the absence of an early Christian atmosphere, together with a tone of disappointment because the promise of Christ to return has been long deferred (3"); (4) the appeal to the three authorities of the primitive Catholic Church — the Prophets, the Lord, and the Apostles (l"-2i 32); (5) the reference to St. Paul's letters as 'Scripture'; (6) the extremely meagre external evidence.

Of these difficulties the gravest are (1) and (6). It is almost impossible to hold that the author of 1 Peter could have described his letter in the words of 2 P 3', and have regarded 2 Peter as a sequel to the same readers. It has, however, been suggested that 2 Peter was written earlier than 1 Peter, and that the Epistles

PHALEAS

were composed by different amanuenses for different readers. But this hypothesis has not met with much favour. The insufficient witness is also serious, and though singly the other difficulties may be removed, their cumulative effect is too much for a letter already heavily burdened. But if the evidence is against direct Petrine authorship, is the book to be summarily banished into the middle of the 2nd cent, as entirely pseudonymous? Probably not. (1) There are no features of the Epistle which necessarily extrude it from the 1st century. Doubts as to the Parousia and similar false teaching were not unknown in the Apostolic age, and some of the most distinctive features of the 2nd cent., such as developed Gnosticism and Chiliasm, are conspicuous by their absence. Also the reference to St. Paul's letters as 'Scripture' is not decisive, for in view of the insist-ence upon 'written prophecy' and its origin (I19-21) it is doubtful whether St. Paul is ranked with the OT prophets. But in any case, by the time of 1 Clement there was a collection of St. Paul's letters which would be read in churches with some Scriptural authority. Finally, there is much to be said for the view that not the OT Scriptures, but other Christian writings, are referred to in 3". (2) 2 Peter contains a large dis-tinctively Petrine element. It has already been shown that 1 and 2 Peter have much in common. They present a non-Pauline conception of Christianity, shared by them in common with the Gospel of Mark and the speeches of Peter in Acts. In Mk. and in 2 Peter Jesus Christ is the strong Son of God, whose death ransomed sinners, and whose return to judgment is described in generally similar outlines. In the Epistle stress is laid on repentance, as in the opening of Mk. and in Acts (2 P 3s-«), and there is a striking similarity between Ac 3'=-2i and 2 P 3'i- >2. Likewise the Christian life is regarded as the fulfilment of the new law, and the parables in Mk. of the planting and growth of the seed, supply suggestive parallels for both 1 and 2 Peter. Both Epistles, like the speeches in Acts, are Hebrew in spirit, and are influenced by prophetic motives.

Perhaps the solution that will best suit the facts is to assume that a disciple of Peter, who remembered how his master had dealt with an attack of Sadducaic sen-suality in some of the Palestinian Churches, being con-fronted with a recrudescence of similar evil, re-edited his teaching. This will do justice to the moral earnest-ness and the true Christian note of the Epistle.

R. A. Falconeh.

PETHAHIAH.— 1. The head of the nineteenth priestly course (1 Ch 24"). 2. A Levite (Ezr 10^, Neh 9>); in 1 Es 9^ Patheus. 3. A Judahite officer (Neh 11").

PETHOR.— Mentioned in Nu 22^ and Dt 23« as the home of Balaam, in N. Mesopotamia, when he was called by Balak to curse Israel. With this indication agrees the repeated statement by king Shalmaneser 11. of Assyria regarding a certain city which he calls Pitru, that it lay on the river Sagur (modern SajUr), near its junction with the Euphrates. Thus Pethor would seem to have lain a little south of Carchemish, on the west of the Euphrates. J. F. M'Curdy.

PETHUEL.— The father of the prophet Joel (Jl l').

PETRA.— See Sbla.

PEULLETHAI.— The eighth son of Obed-edom (1 Ch 26').

PHAATH MOAB (1 Es 5" S'O =Pahath-moab of Ezr 2" etc.

PHACARETH (1 Es 5») =Pochereth-hazzebaim, Ezr 2".

PHAISTJR (1 Es 922) -Ezr W^ Pashhur, 1 Es 5^ Phassurus.

PHALDEUS (1 Es 9«) =Pedaiah, Neh 8'.

PHALEAS (1 Es 5") =Padon, Ezr 2".

718