Article

Jörg Frey dates 2 Peter to somewhere between 140-160 CE. This is based on Frey’s conclusion that 2 Peter is dependent on ‘Apocalypse of Peter’ (c. 130s CE?).

Mayor’s examination of such citations suggested that they do not demonstrate attestation of the letter prior to Clement of Alexandria at the earliest. Mayor next turned to analysing the internal features of the letter to gain clues to the date of composition. His first piece of textual evidence is 2 Pet 3:4 concerning ‘the passing away of the first generation of Christians’ (Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter (London: Macmillan, 1907), cxxv). 8 From this piece of evidence alone he concludes that the date of the letter cannot be earlier than 90 CE. The second piece of evidence involves the reference to a collection of Pauline writings in 2 Pet 3:16, both referred to as γραφαί, and which have been in circulation for sufficient time to be misinterpreted. Thus he concludes that, ‘125 AD is about the earliest possible date for 2 Peter’.

Recently, Grünstäudl has argued for the literary dependence of 2 Peter not only upon the Apocalypse of Peter, but also on the writings of Justin Martyr. In particular, he argues that 2 Peter is dependent upon Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, with the key parallels being found between Justin, Dial. 81.1–3; 82.1–3 and 2 Pet 1:18, 21–2:1; 3:8, 13 (Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 206–226, esp. 207). The key elements revolve around the shared phrases ‘there will be a new heaven and a new earth’ (Dial. 81.1) and ‘we are looking for new heaven and a new earth’ (2 Pet 3:13), and Justin’s statement that ‘the day of the Lord is as a thousand years’ (Dial. 81.3) and the Petrine comment ‘one day with the Lord is as a thousand years’ (2 Pet 3:8). Not only are there a few differences in the phraseology, but more significantly these are both memorable and stock phrases. Grünstäudl’s dating of 2 Peter to the second half of the second century was also suggested by earlier scholars, although not advanced with such detailed analysis. For instance, Knopf proposed the similar date range of 150–180 CE (Rudolf Knopf, Die Briefe Petri und Judä, 7th ed., KEK (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1912), 257). Frey states that ‘2 Peter postdates the Apocalypse of Peter and responds to it. Even more significantly he states that ‘Second Peter draws on certain elements of the Apocalypse, but it does so from a critical distance.

1. The Priority of the Apocalypse of Peter Relative to 2 Peter
2. Presupposing that 2 Peter is independent of Matthew,57 Bauckham reads the scene in Apoc. Pet. 15–17 as a combination of traditions from the Synoptics and 2 Peter.58 If 2 Peter is in fact aware of the Synoptic tradition and most probably the Gospel of Matthew,59 another reconstruction becomes more plausible: 2 Peter differs from Matthew only in those instances where 2 Peter and Apoc. Pet. agree. Thus, the reference to the transfiguration in 2 Peter is better understood as a brief and focused combination of a reference to the Synoptic accounts, with the addition of particular features (“holy mountain,” heavenly voice, “honor and glory”) from the Apocalypse of Peter (E).

The idea that Jesus has revealed Peter’s death in the near future (2 Pet 1:13–14) has puzzled exegetes; the only prophecy of Peter’s martyrdom in the New Testament provides no adequate explanation (John 21:18–19), since it only foretells that Peter will be an old man when he dies.

The parallels in the extensive description of the conflagration (Apoc. Pet. [E] 4–6) and the shorter and focused reception of the motif in 2 Pet 3:7, 10, 12 provide further confirmation for the view that 2 Peter draws on the Apocalypse of Peter. Thus, the literary connection with the Apocalypse of Peter can also explain the problem of the almost totally non-christological argument in 2 Pet 3:5–13.

A further striking argument is based on the fact that the problem of the eschatological delay is nowhere reflected in the Apocalypse of Peter. It would be hard to understand why the Apocalypse of Peter would adopt the eschatological scenario from 2 Peter without any trace of its intense discussion about the delay of the parousia.

A final argument can be taken from 2 Peter’s literary connection with Jude. While 2 Peter draws heavily on Jude, there are absolutely no common elements between Jude and the Apocalypse of Peter. More plausible is the assumption that the Apocalypse of Peter did not know Jude, whereas the author of 2 Peter has adopted elements from Jude and from the Apocalypse of Peter and interpreted both to serve his own aims (Thus Grünstäudl, Petrus Alexandrinus, 137–41). These arguments convincingly demonstrate that 2 Peter postdates the Apocalypse of Peter and responds to it, that is, to the criticism uttered against some of its views. Second Peter draws on certain elements of the Apocalypse, but it does so from a critical distance, particularly correcting the claim that Peter’s death would inaugurate eschatological salvation.

Arguments for the Literary Dependence of 2 Peter on the Apocalypse of Peter

The Transfiguration Accounts

Frey suggests that the highly compressed first-person plural account of the transfiguration contained in 2 Peter (2 Pet 1:16–18) is aware of the Matthean version of the transfiguration story, but that it also draws some key elements from the enlarged version of the story contained in the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter (Eth. Apoc. Pet. 15–17).

Parallels:

There is also an obvious similarity in the form of words spoken by the divine voice. In 2 Peter the utterance is ‘This is my beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased’ (2 Pet 1:17). Whereas in the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter the voice declares, ‘This is my Son whom I love, and I have been pleased with him. Obey him!’ (Eth. Apoc. Pet. 15–17). These sayings need to be placed alongside their synoptic counterparts to properly assess the degree of unique textual affinity between 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter. The differences being the transposition of the οὗτός ἐστιν which stands as the opening two words in Matthew,102 and the change of preposition from Matthew’s ἐν with dative relative pronoun to the preposition εἰς with the accusative relative pronoun.103 Despite these minor differences the significant agreement in the Greek wording of 2 Pet 1:17 and Matt 17:5 suggests a literary relationship between these two texts, most plausibly with the more likely direction of dependence being that of the dependence of 2 Peter on the Matthean text. Hence, Frey’s observation, against Bauckham, that 2 Peter is not independent of Matthew appears to find support.

Frey’s more substantive point concerns the perceived similarities between the transfiguration accounts in 2 Peter and in the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter. The synoptic tradition is uniform in referring to a voice from the cloud. However, the substitution of what is perhaps the more common idea of a voice from ‘heaven’, in place of the ‘cloud’ is a very natural change of lexeme. The agreement of this single word is not strong enough evidence to support the supposition of direct literary dependence. Moreover, it is important to take into account the significant differences between the narratives as they occur in turn in the synoptic tradition, in the version in 2 Peter, and in the expanded story in the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter. Thus, it appears appropriate to conclude that this agreement in the word ‘heaven’ does not constitute a sufficiently strong similarity between the two of the texts to propose a case of literary dependence.

The second similarity is that both the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter and 2 Peter agree in describing the mountain as ‘holy’, as opposed to Matthew’s description of a ‘high’ mountain (cf. ‘high mountain’, Mk 9:2; ‘mountain’ Lk 9:28). At first consideration this may be seen as a significant agreement, although admittedly it involves a single word. However, a third version of the transfiguration story contained in the Acts of Peter also refers to the ‘holy mountain’, and also uses the word ‘majesty’ to describe ‘our Lord’. Thus while the text of the Ethiopic version of the Apocalypse of Peter appears to have some affinities with 2 Peter this is unlikely to be due to literary dependence, but rather may reflect the natural substitution of the more common referent heaven for the origin of the heavenly voice in place of ‘the cloud’. Since this substitution is also made in the Acts of Peter, as cited below, it is plausible that this is not a case of literary dependence but reflects a more widely circulating change to the transfiguration story as it was retold in later Christian literary accounts.

1. The third example is perhaps the most significant of the three points listed by Frey, since it involves a three-word phrase ‘honour and glory’ inserted by both authors of 2 Peter and the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter in their respective retellings of the transfiguration account. Again this phrase is not without precedent in the New Testament in this precise order (1 Tim 1:17), or with reverse order ‘glory and honour’ (Rom 2:7, 10; Heb 2:7, 9; Rev 21:26).
2. Prediction of the Death of Peter
3. The second parallel that Frey finds to be of significance for establishing the literary dependence of 2 Peter on the Apocalypse of Peter is the perceived similarity in the predictions of Peter’s martyrdom contained in 2 Pet 1:13–14 and in Ethiopic Apoc. Pet. 14. Once again the tradition concerning the impending death of Peter is not present in the Akhmîm Greek fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter. However, the tradition is present in a small fragment of the Apocalypse of Peter known as the Rainer fragment, or as P.Vindob.G 39756, to give it its catalogue number. Therefore, the case for this tradition being part of the original text of the Apocalypse of Peter has a higher degree of probability than was the case with the expanded transfiguration account contained in the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter.

1. The two most striking similarities are the shared use of the verb δηλόω although in slightly different forms (ἐδήλωσά//ἐδήλωσέν), and the use of first person narratives—although in the Apocalypse of Peter it is Jesus speaking, whereas in 2 Peter it is Peter describing his impending fate.
2. The Eschatological Conflagration
3. The material in Apoc. Pet. 4 is certainly integral to the larger section dealing with the coming day of God. It provides the textual and theological basis for asserting that nothing is impossible for God, and hence God will raise up all people for judgment. The chief parallel with 2 Peter is thematic, namely that the heavens and the earth—along with ‘ungodly men’—are being stored up for judgment (2 Pet 3:7). Here there is a well-known and widespread idea that punishment and justice will be dispensed by God on a final day of judgment. The verbal parallels are slight and far too generic to permit any case to be mounted for direct literary dependence between the two texts at this point. The verbal parallels may increase slightly in strength between 2 Peter and Apoc. Pet. 5–6. Both texts speak of fire at the final assize. This is done in a truncated manner in 2 Peter, with the cosmos being preserved ‘for fire’ (2 Pet 3:7). By contrast in the Apocalypse of Peter the references to fiery destruction are recurrent and much more fulsome. As the agent of destruction ‘cataracts of fire will be opened up’, water will be transformed ‘into coals of fire and everything which is in it will burn up and even the ocean will become fire.’ In addition to terrestrial fire, the cosmos will be incinerated: ‘from under heaven a bitter fire which does not go out … will flow for the judgment of wrath.’ In addition, the celestial bodies will be consumed with fire (Apoc. Pet. 5).
4. The description continues throughout Apoc. Pet. 5–6 with recurrent descriptions of the fire of judgment. It is helpful to consider Buchholz’s explanation of the textual relations to Apoc. Pet. 5. He states, The conflagration of the universe in this chapter is based in large part on Isaiah 13:6–13. 2 Pt 3:5–7, 10–13 is the only place in the New Testament where the dissolution of the world by fire is expressed (cf. Rev. 20:9). But in 2 Peter the first creation was through water in order to have it ready, it seems, to be destroyed with fire ( Buchholz, Your Eyes Will Be Opened, 298).(edited)
5. Lack of Concern Over Parousia Delay in the Apocalypse of Peter
6. In contrast with 2 Peter, Frey notes that the Apocalypse of Peter is lacking any concern in relation to the delay of the return of Christ. From the identification both of this concern over the delay of the parousia in 2 Peter and the absence of this same concern in the Apocalypse of Peter, Frey advances the following argument concerning the relative order of the documents. A further striking argument is based on the fact that the problem of the eschatological delay is nowhere reflected in the Apocalypse of Peter. It would be hard to understand why the Apocalypse of Peter would adopt the eschatological scenario from 2 Peter without any trace of its intense discussion about the delay of the parousia.

1. Omission of Material From Jude in the Apocalypse of Peter
2. Given that consensus, which Frey has skilfully argued in his own commentary on the two epistles, he builds upon the argument of Grünstäudl,125 that if the Apocalypse of Peter had drawn on 2 Peter then one would expect to find in the Apocalypse of Peter material that paralleled the traditions drawn from Jude which had been incorporated from 2 Peter. Instead, since there are no instances of parallels in the Apocalypse of Peter to those traditions from Jude that were used by 2 Peter, then the corollary follows. Namely, that it is 2 Peter that draws on the Apocalypse of Peter, and moreover that the author of 2 Peter combines traditions from the Apocalypse of Peter with material from Jude. Frey expresses this observation in the following manner. While 2 Peter draws heavily on Jude, there are absolutely no common element between Jude and the Apocalypse of Peter. Is it realistic to think that the Apocalypse may have used 2 Peter but omitted all the elements from Jude? More plausible is the assumption that the Apocalypse of Peter did not know Jude, whereas the author of 2 Peter has adopted elements from Jude and from the Apocalypse of Peter and interpreted both of them to serve his own aims.