The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (178 page)

⁶⁷
Interestingly, in 1 Pet 5:1 Peter referred to himself as a “witness to the sufferings of the Messiah”; in 2 Pet 1:16, he called himself one of the “eyewitnesses of His [majesty]” at the transfiguration “when He received honor and glory from God the Father” (2 Pet 1:17). See further the discussion of the eyewitness theme under Theological Themes in 2 Peter below.

⁶⁸
The relevant Greek words are
parepidēmos
(“temporary resident” in 1:1; 2:11; see Heb 11:13; these are its only three NT occurrences) and
paroikos
(“alien” or “stranger” in 2:11; see Acts 7:6,29; Eph 2:19; these are its only four NT occurrences). Another related word not used in 1 Peter that occurs 14 times in the NT is
xenos
(“foreigner”; e.g., Eph 2:12,19; Heb 11:13).

⁶⁹
See F. Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament: A Canonical and Synthetic Approach
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 571-72.

⁷⁰
The case following the preposition
epi
(“on”) in 2:24, an accusative, suggests that Peter was not so much concerned with Jesus' bearing our sins
on
the cross (where one might have expected the dative case in the Greek), but the manner in which Jesus bore our sins
on the way to
the cross.

⁷¹
This is essentially view 4 in Sidebar 18.1 on p. 743. For a thorough articulation of this position, see Michaels,
1 Peter
, 205—13. For a very thorough exposition of the alternate view that the reference is to Christ preaching through Noah, see Grudem,
1 Peter
, 203-39.

⁷²
Brown,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 767.

⁷³
E.g., Kelly,
Epistles of Peter and of Jude
, 33, 236.

⁷⁴
Eccl. Hist.
3.3.1.

⁷⁵
Jerome,
Vir. ill.
i.

⁷⁶
M. J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter,”
JETS
42 (1999): 651. It is often stated that the Syrian church did not receive the letter into its canon until the sixth century. This is based on the absence of the book in the Peshitta (c. 411) and its subsequent reappearance in the Philoxenian Version (c. 506). Kruger (ibid., 652), citing Warfield, noted that there is some speculation that the Syriac canons actually contained the book early on.

⁷⁷
Bauckham, Jude,
2 Peter
, 276. Kruger (“Authenticity,” 654) stated, “Not only would someone of Clement's stature not be duped by a forgery that was only a few years old, but he would hardly write a commentary on a book that most of the church rejected as a recently composed imitation of Peter.”

⁷⁸
E.g., Irenaeus,
Against Heresies
3.1.1; 5.23.2.

⁷⁹
Bauckham, Jude,
2 Peter
, 162.

⁸⁰
Kruger (“Authenticity,” 655—56), who cited
1 Clem.
23.3/2 Pet 3:4 as a strong allusion on account of a common pattern of reference in the context. Cf. the following affinities: false teachers (
1 Clem. 21.5/2
Pet 2:1); future doubts
(1 Clem.
23/2 Pet 3:4); and the nearness of Christ's return (
1 Clem.
23.5/2 Pet 3:10). Moreover, both writers used the unusual phrase “the magnificent glory” in reference to God (
1 Clem.
9.2/2 Pet 1:17), and Christianity is described by both as “the way of truth”
(1 Clem.
35.5/2 Pet 2:2).

⁸¹
See R. E. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,”JSNT 33 (1988): 57-83. He concluded that many of the apostolic fathers knew, alluded to, and reflected upon 2 Peter. Picirilli also noted that these fathers did not typically mention Peter by name as the author but that they did identify Paul as the author of the letters commonly attributed to him.

⁸²
There existed a
Gospel of Peter; Preaching of Peter; Acts of Peter; Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles; Epistle of Peter to Philip; Coptic Apocalypse of Peter;
and an
Apocalypse of Peter

⁸³
Kruger, “Authenticity,” 662.

⁸⁴
One writer went as far as to call 2 Peter “baboo Greek”; see E. A. Abbott, “On the Second Epistle of St. Peter. I. Had the Author Read Josephus? II. Had the Author Read St. Jude? III. Was the Author St. Peter?”
The Expositor
2/3 (1882): 204-19.

⁸⁵
T. Callan (“The Style of the Second Letter of Peter,”
Bib
84 [2003]: 202-24) found stylistic affinities to the Grand Asian Style of Greek, particularly the bombastic style. The Asian style is an elevation of language that includes thought, vocabulary, and syntax. The bombastic variety includes long sentences, a marked rhythm, and unusual language usage that is found to a degree in 2 Peter. Cf. D. F. Watson,
Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter
, SBLDS 104 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988).

⁸⁶
So C. Blomberg,
From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation
(Nashville: B&H, 2006), 474-75. Bauckham
(Jude, 2 Peter
, 160) argued that this reference merely indicates that the author knew Peter personally, while Robinson (
Redating
, 194) used the reference to defend his thesis that Jude was Peter's amanuensis.

⁸⁷
For additional examples, see M. Green, 2
Peter Reconsidered
(London: Tyndale, 1960), 12—13.

⁸⁸
Kruger, “Authenticity,” 661.

⁸⁹
See Carson and Moo,
Introduction to the New Testament
, 661. The Grand Asian Style would communicate to the readers that the topic was quite important and that the author was making an emotional appeal (see Callan, “Style,” 224). This is an appropriate convention for the situation of 2 Peter, since the author was nearing death in the presence of a false teaching.

⁹⁰
E.g., Kümmel,
Introduction
, 432. Bauckham
(Jude, 2 Peter
, 156) cited H. Werdermann
(Die Irrlehrer der Judas- und 2. Petrusbriefe
, BFcT 17/6 [Gütersloh: C. Bertelsmann, 1913]) as the first to propose gnostic opponents.

⁹¹
Bauckham
(Jude, 2 Peter
, 156). His main lines of argument are summarized in the remainder of the paragraph and he stated categorically: “The opponents in 2 Peter are not Gnostics.” Bauckham agreed with the work of Neyrey, who thought that the opponents were “Christians” influenced by Epicureans and not Gnostics. See J. H. Neyrey, “The Form and Background of the Polemic in 2 Peter,”
JBL
99 (1980): 407-31.

⁹²
Guthrie,
Introduction
, 827.

⁹³
E.g., Kelly,
Epistles of Peter and Jude
, 235. Kelly also mentioned the reference in 2 Pet 3:2 to “your apostles,” but this need mean no more than the readers' emissaries.

⁹⁴
So Kruger, “Authenticity,” 667; Guthrie,
Introduction
, 829—30.

⁹⁵
See Bauckham
(Jude, 2 Peter
, 13), who dated the letter in the 50s.

⁹⁶
See the discussion of the relationship between Jude and 2 Peter below.

⁹⁷
Ibid., 159. Bauckham proposed an earliest possible date solely on the basis of his interpretation of 3:4 as referring to the postapostolic era.

⁹⁸
Ibid., 161-62.

⁹⁹
Ibid., 134.

¹⁰⁰
Schreiner
(1, 2 Peter, Jude
, 274), to whom part of this paragraph is indebted.

¹⁰¹
See the survey of the external evidence in ibid., 262—64, with reference to R. E. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,”
JSNT33
(1988): 57-83.

¹⁰²
Bauckham
(Jude, 2 Peter
, 13) claimed that the letter was written to the same audience as 1 Peter (see 2 Pet 3:1).

¹⁰³
Schreiner,
1, 2 Peter, Jude
, 274-75.

¹⁰⁴
Green,
2 Peter Reconsidered
, 37.

¹⁰⁵
Ibid.

¹⁰⁶
At the very least, humility would seem to require that interpreters recognize the limited evidence that is available to adjudicate the matter and that giving Petrine authorship the benefit of the doubt is the most reasonable option. See Davids,
2 Peter, Jude
, 129.

¹⁰⁷
For an apocryphal account of Peter's martyrdom, see the
Martyrdom of Peter
(c. 200), reproduced in J. K. Elliott,
The Apocryphal New Testament
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 421—26. Cf. Dionysius of Corinth, “Letter to Soter,” cited in Eusebius,
Eccl. Hist. 2.25.8
(original letter dated to c. 170), who spoke of “Peter and Paul, [who] together also taught in Italy in the same place and were martyred at the same time.”

¹⁰⁸
See especially the thorough discussion in Robinson,
Redating
, 140—50.

¹⁰⁹
See Bauckham,
2 Peter
, 135-38.

¹¹⁰
Many who do not consider Peter to be the author of the letter still hold Rome to be the place of origin. A case in point is Bauckham
(2 Peter, Jude
, 159), who concluded that the letter was written from Rome on the basis of close affinities to
1 and 2 Clement
and the
Shepherd of Hermas
and the association with 1 Peter.

¹¹¹
See Davids,
2 Peter, Jude
, 133.

¹¹²
Bauckham,
Jude, 2 Peter
, 154.

¹¹³
It is possible that they contended that grace released them from the obligation to obey ethical standards. So Schreiner, 1,
2 Peter, Jude, 277.

¹¹⁴
The first was Werdermann,
Irrlehrer.
More recently, see C. Talbert, “2 Peter and the Delay of the Parousia,”
VC 20
(1966): 141-43.

¹¹⁵
So Bauckham,
Jude, 2 Peter
, 156, following Neyrey, “Form and Background,” 407—31. For a brief description of Epicureanism, see chap. 2 above.

¹¹⁶
Schreiner,
1, 2 Peter, Jude
, 280. Davids
(2 Peter, Jude
, 133—36) suggested that it was more of an Epicurean influence prevalent in the day; similarly, Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 526.

¹¹⁷
See the refutation of the challenge to the unity of 2 Peter by M. McNamara (“The Unity of Second Peter: A Reconsideration,”
Scr
12 [1960]: 13—19) in Schreiner,
1, 2 Peter, Jude
, 281.

¹¹⁸
See Schreiner
(1, 2 Peter, Jude
, 218), who questioned the application of rhetorical criticism to 2 Peter by Watson
(Invention, Arrangement, and Style)
, with reference to S. E. Porter and T. H. Olbricht, eds.,
Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference
(Sheffield: JSOT, 1993); and J. A. D. Weima, “What Does Aristotle Have to Do with Paul? An Evaluation of Rhetorical Criticism,”
CTJ 32
(1997): 458-68.

¹¹⁹
See Schreiner,
1, 2 Peter, Jude
, 282; and D. J. Moo,
2 Peter, Jude
, NIVAC (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 26.

¹²⁰
A special case is Bauckham
(Jude, 2 Peter
, 135), who posited a fairly complicated outline, with Peter responding to four objections.

¹²¹
A pattern also found in 1 Peter.

¹²²
So Davids,
2 Peter, Jude
, 179.

¹²³
For a defense of Peter's use of Jude, see the treatment of Jude below.

¹²⁴
See Blomberg,
From Pentecost to Patmos
, 481. This interpretation fits well with Peter's previous statements that God knows how to preserve the righteous in the midst of a filthy world.

¹²⁵
See Kelly,
Epistles of Peter and of Jude
, 328; Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 527. Peter used the term
hodos
(“way”) four times (2:2,15 [twice], 21) as well as the related expressions
eisodos
(“entrance,” 1:11) and
exodus
(“departure” (1:15).

¹²⁶
The most unusual element of Peter's instruction is found in 1:4, where believers are said to share in the divine nature. By this Peter did not mean participation in the essence of God, but enablement to progress in Christian virtues. See Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 527, citing J. M. Starr,
Sharers in the Divine Nature: 2 Peter 1:4in Its Hellenistic Context
, ConBNT 33 (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2000), 47-48. Against Bauckham
(Jude, 2 Peter
, 182), who saw immortality as the primary reference.

¹²⁷
See further the section on “Something to Think About” below.

¹²⁸
Thielman,
Theology of the New Testament
, 535.

¹²⁹
D. J. Rowston, “The Most Neglected Book in the New Testament,”
NTS21
(1975): 554-63; see Bauckham,
Jude, 2 Peter
, xi: “No NT books have been more neglected by scholars than Jude and 2 Peter.” R. Heiligenthal (“Der Judasbrief. Aspekte der Forschung in den letzten Jahrzehnten,”
TRu
51 [1986]: 117—29) spoke of the “shadowy existence” and a “time of general neglect” of Jude.

¹³⁰
See R. Bauckham, “The Letter of Jude: An Account of Research,”
Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.25.5
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988), 3791-3826.

¹³¹
R. L. Webb, “Jude,” in
Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments
, ed. R. P. Martin and P. H. Davids (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997), 611—21.

¹³²
So R.
Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus in the Early Church
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990), 172. Bauckham noted that prior to the nineteenth century (including Calvin and the Council of Trent) Jude the apostle was considered to be the author of Jude (see Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13). However, Jude the apostle was identified with the half brother of Jesus, who is mentioned in Matt 13:55 and Mark 6:3. Jessein (1821) was the first to argue against this consensus and to distinguish Jude the half brother of Jesus and author of Jude from Jude the apostle. See the list of alternative identifications of Jude in
Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of Jesus
, 172—73.