. The exceptions are Psalm 104:17 and 118:140 (cf. Wisdom of Solomon 17:43) in which the writer says that God’s message is purified (cf. Proverbs 30:5) and purifies people. According to Proverbs 10:20 “the tongue of the righteous is purified silver.” However, in the context of 2 Peter 3:10-13 the verb is not coupled with ideas of refining metals or burning with a view to purification. As far as I can determine the metaphor of refining is not used by the writer of 2 Peter. However, he does use the idea of destruction by fire (see in addition 2 Peter 2:6 and 3:7). So if the idea of “judgment or assessment” with the intent of purification by refining is intended by the writer, then he does not express it very clearly.
And so we come to the question of what the author meant, if the variant heurethēsetai (v. 10d) is the original reading. The manuscript evidence for this text is quite mixed. There are six variants related to this reading:
- heurethēsetai — witnessed by א B P 1175 1448 1739(txt) 1852 sy(ph mss txt), sy(hmg). (“will be found/discovered”) [The various sigla are those used in Nestle-Aland 28.]
- heurethēsetai luomena — P72. (“will be found destroyed”)
- aphanisthēsontai — C. (“will be destroyed”)
- katakaēsetai — A 048 33 81 307 436 442 642 1611 1739(v.l.) 2344 Byz vg(cl) sy(ph mss v.l.) sy(h) Cyr. (“will be burned up/consumed”)
- katakaēsontai — 5 1243 1735 2492. (“will be burned up/consumed”)
- ouch heurethēsetai — sy(ph mss) sa cv(vid). (“will not be found/discovered”). This reading is regarded by NA28 as the original reading and this is change from NA 27 which simply read heurethēsetai.
What is clear from this array of variants is that early scribes struggled to understand the text and various options emerged in the transmission of the text, all intended to clarify the text’s intent. The variants involving the verbs aphanizō and katakaiō interpret the text as describing the destruction of the earth and its products/works, as does the variant heurethēsetai luomena. What heurethēsetai luomena in papyrus 72 (3rd/4th century) does show is that heurethēsetai is involved in the earliest attested reading, even though it is interpreted by the adverbial participle as including destruction. Readings involving the verb katakaiō have the best attestation next to heurethēsetai, but the textual witnesses supporting it tend to be later. aphanisthēsontai is only witnessed by one 5th century manuscript and so probably is not the original reading.
So we probably have to choose heurethēsetai as the original reading based on the quality of the witnesses and the fact that it is the more difficult reading. The negated verb form ouch heurethēsetai only occurs in some Syriac and Coptic manuscripts and as Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter Word Biblical Commentary, 317) indicates is properly an emendation, using the negative ouch, which he suggests “yields such excellent sense that it must be considered the best solution unless the reading heurethēsetai can be given a satisfactory interpretation.” The problem is that the simple verb heurethēsetai seems to make little sense in the context. Some suppose that the clause should be punctuated as a question, i.e., “Will the earth and the things in it be found/discovered?”. This is possible, but seems to be somewhat forced. And then many scholars have proposed diverse emendations as the original reading, but none have found much support among other commentators.
Given the general theme of judgment which frames 3:10-13, it is possible that the verb form heurethēsetai “will be found/discovered” may have a sense of exposure, i.e., the real nature or character of the subject will become clear. The verb form is passive and it is quite possible that the agent, which is implied, is God himself. Through the destruction process God will expose “earth and the products/works in it” for what they have become — fallen, sin-filled and under Satan’s influence. The destruction then in itself is an act of judgment which results in “earth and the products/works in it” finally “being found” wanting, i.e., not measuring u