rwp - Spitta

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE READERS The author says that this is his second Epistle to them (2Peter:3:1|), and that means that he is writing to the saints in the five Roman provinces in Asia Minor to whom the first Epistle was sent (1Peter:1:1|). Spitta and Zahn deny this on the ground that the two Epistles do not discuss the same subjects, surely a flimsy objection. Zahn even holds that II Peter precedes I Peter and that the Epistle referred to in strkjv@2Peter:3:1| has been lost. He holds that II Peter was addressed to the church in Corinth. He considers the readers to be Jews while I Peter was addressed to Gentiles. But "there is nothing in II Peter to differentiate its first readers from those of I Peter" (Bigg).

rwp@2Peter:1:20 @{Knowing this first} (\touto prton ginskontes\). Agreeing with \poieite\ like \prosechontes\ in verse 19|. {No prophecy of Scripture} (\psa prophteia ou\). Like the Hebrew _lo-kl_, but also in the papyri as in strkjv@1John:2:21| (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 753). {Is} (\ginetai\). Rather "comes," "springs" (Alford), not "is" (\estin\). {Of private interpretation} (\idias epiluses\). Ablative case of origin or source in the predicate as with \gnms\ in strkjv@Acts:20:3| and with \tou theou\ and \ex hmn\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:4:7|. "No prophecy of Scripture comes out of private disclosure," not "of private interpretation." The usual meaning of \epilusis\...discharge of a debt. Spitta urges...\epilu\, to unloose, to untie, to release, occurs twice in the N.T., once (Mark:4:34|) where it can mean "disclose" about parables, the other (Acts:19:39|) where it means to decide. It is the prophet's grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.

rwp@2Peter:3:16 @{As also in all his epistles} (\hs kai en pasais epistolais\). We do not know to how many Peter here refers. There is no difficulty in supposing that Peter "received every one of St. Paul's Epistles within a month or two of its publication" (Bigg). And yet Peter does not here assert the formation of a canon of Paul's Epistles. {Speaking in them of these things} (\laln en autais peri toutn\). Present active participle of \lale\. That is to say, Paul also wrote about the second coming of Christ, as is obviously true. {Hard to be understood} (\dusnota\). Late verbal from \dus\ and \noe\ (in Aristotle, Lucian, Diog. Laert.), here only in N.T. We know that the Thessalonians persisted in misrepresenting Paul on this very subject of the second coming as Hymenaeus and Philetus did about the resurrection (2Timothy:2:17|) and Spitta holds that Paul's teaching about grace was twisted to mean moral laxity like strkjv@Galatians:3:10; strkjv@Romans:3:20,28; strkjv@5:20| (with which cf. strkjv@6:1| as a case in point), etc. Peter does not say that he himself did not understand Paul on the subject of faith and freedom. {Unlearned} (\amatheis\). Old word (alpha privative and \manthan\ to learn), ignorant, here only in N.T. {Unsteadfast} (\astriktoi\). See on ¯2:14|. {Wrest} (\streblousin\). Present active indicative of \streblo\, old verb (from \streblos\ twisted, \streph\, to turn), here only in N.T. {The other scriptures} (\tas loipas graphas\). There is no doubt that the apostles claimed to speak by the help of the Holy Spirit (1Thessalonians:5:27; strkjv@Colossians:4:16|) just as the prophets of old did (2Peter:1:20f.|). Note \loipas\ (rest) here rather than \allas\ (other). Peter thus puts Paul's Epistles on the same plane with the O.T., which was also misused (Matthew:5:21-44; strkjv@15:3-6; strkjv@19:3-10|).

rwp@Info_Revelation @...or less bungling fashion. Spitta argued...1889. Vischer was followed by Harnack in the view there was a Jewish apocalypse worked over by a Christian. Gunkel (_Creation and Chaos_, 1895) argued for a secret apocalyptic tradition of Babylonian origin. In 1904 J. Weiss carried on the argument for sources behind the Apocalypse. Many of the Jewish apocalypses do show composite authorship. There was a current eschatology which may have been drawn on without its being a written source. It is in chapter strkjv@Revelation:12| where the supposed Jewish source is urged more vigorously about the woman, the dragon, and the man child. There are no differences in language (vocabulary or grammar) that argue for varied sources. The author may indeed make use of events in the reign of Nero as well as in the reign of Domitian, but the essential unity of the book has stood the test of the keenest criticism.

CONCORD Spitta