The epistle

l. INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE. Before discussing the problem of the genuineness of the Epistle we must clear out of the way the question of its integrity. Are we bound to con- sider the Epistle as a whole? May not some of the difficulties in regard to its genuineness arise from the fact that the Epistle as it stands has been interpolated? In this matter ΚΠ] has in- herited the suspicions of two earlier critics— Bertholdt and Lange. It will be sufficient to examine the case as stated by Kiihl.

He sup- poses (1) that the whole of ch. 2 is an inter- polation; (2) that in 3 words have been inserted to facilitate the dovetailing of the inter- polated passage into the original letter.

In this original document, according to Kiihl’s theory, the passage about Prophesy was succeeded im- mediately by an exhortation—dyeis δέ, ἀγαπητοί, ἀνήσθητε τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες κιτλ, He is us enabled to maintain that the Epistle in its original form is older, in its present interpolated form more reesnt, than Jude. It should be added that the reference in 3!

to an earlier Epistle, addressed by the same writer to the same readers, likewise disappears. Suspicions as to the in- tegrity of a document, when they are in- terested, are themselves suspicious. In this case they claim no external support. And the internal evidence of the Epistle is against them. The transition from 151 to 2: is natural. The thought of ancient prophecy leads to a reference to its parody in the false prophets of old days.

If the writer goes on to w a parallel between the dangers of the past and the dangers which he foresees in the future, the sequence of his thought is quite simple. Again, there cannot be said to be any difference in style between ch. 2 and the rest of the Epistle. Again, if affinities with Jude are most conspicuous in ch. 2, they are not con- fined to that chapter, and, when examined, they appear to be borrowings from Jude as clearly in ch. 1 as in ch, 2 (see art. on JUDE, § 4).

Lastly, it will be shown later that the coincidences between 2 P and the Apocalypse of Peter are found both inch. 1 and eh. 2 of 2 P. Habe’ diffusion Cegialadl aes Le a weighty argument for the integrity of the Epistle. The suspicions, then, of Kiihl and his predecessors in this view must be dismissed as arbitrary and un- supported by external or internal evidence. RECEPTION ΙΝ THE CHURCH.

—The investiga- tion falls under three heads—(1) the alleged use of the language and characteristic thoughts of 2 P in documents (other than Books of NT) belonging to lst and 2nd centuries ; (2) such alleged use of, and references to, 2 P in documents belonging to the period between the beginning of the 3rd century and the time of Eusebius; (3) the evidence of Eusebius and of other writers of the 4th and 5th centuries ; the reception of 2 P in the Canon of the Eastern (Greek) and Western Churches, and its rejection in the Syrian Church.

(1) Some of the alleged coincidences will be examined in detail. The rest are dealt with in the general remarks at the end of this section. (a) Clement of Rome.—(i.) ‘We have Noah and Lot adduced in vii. 5 and xi. 1 similarly to what is done in 2 Peter ii. 5-9’ (Warfield in the January number of the Southern Presbyterian Review, 1882, . 53). But in Clement the examples of Noah and Pot do not stand side by side as in 2 P, but are widely separated in a whole series of OT worthies. (ii.) Clem.

vii. ταῦτα, ἀγαπητοί, οὐ μόνον ὑμᾶς νουϑε- τοῦντες ἐπιστέλλομεν, ἀλλὰ κ. ἑαυτοὺς ὑπομνήσκοντες || 2P 113 3.,) Beyond the fact that the common Greek word meaning ‘remind’ occurs in both wassages in reference to a letter, there is no re PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 793 semblance in phraseology or idea. (iii.) Clem. vii Νῶε ἐκήρυξεν μετάνοιαν | 2P 2, Lightfoot, how- ever, shows that Clement probably derived this conception of Noah from the Sibylline Oracles. (iv.) lem. 1x.

τοὺς τελείως λειτουργήσαντας τῇ μεγαλο- ayant δόξῃ αὐτοῦ || 2P 17, It must, however, be observed that in the LXX the noun (μεγαλοπρέπεια) 1s (especially in the Psalms) a very favourite word, and that the adjective occurs in reference to God, ¢.g. 2 Mac 81:5 τὸ μι. ὄνομα). The special phrase in question is an echo of the language of the Psalms—20 (21)® δόξαν x. μεγαλοπρέπειαν, 144 (145) © 13 τὴν μεγαλοπρέπειαν τῆς δόξης τῆς ἁγιωσύνως σου ., « Thy δόξαν τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας τῆς βασιλείας σου.

In Clement the adj. is common, being used in Teference to the Divine will, gifts, worship, strength, name (ix. xix. xlv. lxi. lxiv.) The im- pression that in Clement the phrase in question and similar expressions have a itorpleal origin (t.e. that they are derived from [Greek] synagogue Pearse) is confirmed by a reference to the Greek liturgies, e.g. Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, ἅγιος εἴ καὶ πανάγιος, καὶ μεγαλοπρεπὴς ἡ δόξα σου (Swainson p. 129), Liturgy of St. James (Swainson p. 968). (v.)

Clem, xxii. A passage is quoted as Scripture containing the words, ‘ These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also; and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us.’ The thought is not dissimilar to 2 P 34, but there is no coincidence of expression. Clement probably took the quotation (cf. “2 Clem.’ xi.) ‘from some spurious prophetic book’; see Lightfoot, in loc. (vi.) Clem. xxxv. ἀκολουθήσωμεν τ ἐν ΤΊΣ ἀληθείας I Ξ 27.

But it must be remem- ere’ iat the use of ἡ ὁδός (¢.9. τῆς ζωῆς, διδαχῆς, see Harnack on Did. 1") and tee use of ἦ ΤΌΣΗΣ (6. σ. ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθεία:) are very common; the combination of the two words therefore is in no way remarkable. (vii.) Clem. xxxiv. els τὸ uwerdyous ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι τῶν μεγάλων x. ἐνδόξων ἐπαγγελιῶν αὐτοῦ || 2P 14. But it must be noticed that the phrase has a parallel in an earlier chapter (xix.), μεγάλων καὶ ἐνδόξων μετειληφότες πράξεων. Compare also xxvi.

τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αὐτοῦ, (δ) The Ancient Homily (‘2 Clement’) xvi. ἔρχεται ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως ὡς κλίβανος καιόμενος καὶ τακή- σονταί τινες [lege αἱ δυνάμεις] τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ i ὡς μόλιβος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκόμενος, καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ κρύφια καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἢ 2 Ῥ Zi 1% 18 he language of the earlier part of the extract is largely derived froma Mal 4), Is 344, The idea of the conflagration of the world at the judgment was somewhat widely current in the 2nd cent.

In the last clause there is in language, idea, and context a certain coincidence with 2 P 3! (γῇ καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτῇ ἔργα εὑρεθήσεται), where, however, the reading (see above, p. 796) is very doubtful. The notion, however, of a disclosure of secret things is inseparable from the notion of the judgment; and the language snd thought of the Homily are in reality nearer to Ro 2 1Co 3" 45 than to 2P 3". Spitta, Der Zweite Brief p. 534n.

, notices some other coincidences, of which the most striking are Hom. v. (ἡ δὲ ἐπαγγελία τοῦ Χριστοῦ μεγάλη κα θαυμαστή ἐστινὴ || 2P 14; Hom. ix. (ἐξ εἴλικρυ καρδίας) || 2 P 8) (but cf. Is 38, He 10°); Hom, xiv (ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν) || 2 Ῥ 3(a phrase unique in NT but not uncommon in LXX) (c) Didaché.—‘ The passage 3, 6-8,’ write (p. 534 n.), ‘shows a very remarkable kinship υ Spitta with ide and 2 Peter. We notice the rare expression γόγγυσος (cf.

Jude 35), and especially the twice repeated βλασφημία, αὐθάδης and τρέμων, and we compare 2 P 910) In Did., however, the τρέμων is art of a phrase which cle urly comes from Is 66°, Por αὐθάδης cf. Pr 915, Tit 1’. When the whole *Comp. Theoph. ad Autol. il 85, ἐν ὀσνόσωνν καλλίω, mal εἰλιαρινῶ yreun PETER, SECOND EPISTLE chapter of the Didaché is read, the idea that we have here a literary link with 2 P vanishes, (d) Ignatius.—Spitta points out coincidences be- tween ἜΑΣΙ and 2 rte xi. 1, xii.

212 P 3; xiv. 15 " 116, Trall. xiii. 3 (ἐν ᾧ εὑρεθείημεν ἄμωμοι) 12P 3%. The last is the only one in the series which deserves consideration, and about it Spitta himself allows that the phrase of Ign. may very well be ‘stereotyp gewordene Wunschformel.’ (e) Burnabas xv. συνετέλεσεν ἐν δξ ἡμέραις. τοῦτο λέγει ὅτι ἐν ἑξακισχιλίοις ἔτεσιν συντελέσει Κύριος τὰ σύνπαντα. ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα παρ᾽ αὐτῷ [σημαίνει] χίλια ἔτη. αὐτὸς δέ μοι μαρτυρεῖ λέγων" ᾿Ιδοὺ ἡμέρα Κυρίου ἔσται ὡς χίλια ἔτη!

ῶ Ῥ 35, In connexion with this passage of Barnabas it will be convenient to bring together and to discuss the whole group of passages which are alleged to be reminiscences of 2 P 3°. (i.) Justin, Dial. 81, τὸ οὖν εἰρημένον ἐν τοῖς λόγοις τούτοις, ἔφην" κατὰ γὰρ τὰς ἡμέρας τοῦ ξύλου αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἔσονται, τὰ ἔργα τῶν πόνων αὐτῶν παλαιώ- σουσι" (Is 653) νενοήκαμεν ὅτι χίλια ἔτη ἐν μυστηρίῳ μηνύει.

ὡς γὰρ τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ εἴρητο, ὅτι ἣ δ᾽ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ξύλου, ἐν ἐκείνῃ ἀποθανεῖται, ἔγνωμεν αὐτὸν μὴ ἀναπληρώσαντα χίλια ἔτη. συνήκαμεν καὶ τὸ εἰρημένον ὅτι Ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη εἰς τοῦτο συνάγειν. There then follows a reference to Rev 20%, (ii.) Iren. y. 23, 2 (Iren. has given one interpreta- tion of Gn 2" and then proceeds), ‘Quidam autem rursus in millesimum annum reuocant mortem Adz: quoniam enim dies Domini sicut mille anni, non superposuit autem mille annos sed intra eos mortuus est.

’ (iii.) In v. 28. 3 Irenzeus is discussing Gn 2'-—‘a narrative of the past and a prophecy of the future’ —7 yap ἡμέρα Κυρίου ὡς χίλια ἔτη" ἐν &€ οὖν ἡμέραις συντετέλεσται τὰ γεγονότα. (iv.) In Hipp. ἐπ Dan. 23. 24 the τγοταε, -ἡμέρα δὲ (yap) Κυρίου (ws) χίλια &rn—are adduced in reference to creation. There is no doubt that the final source of the saying is Ps 89(90).

But the question remains whether the writers just cited take the phrase directly from 2P or whether they borrow it from some source independent of 2 P, to which indeed 2 P may well itself be a debtor for it. Three points must be noticed. (1) In all the writers cited above (except 2 P) the form of the phrase consistently is ἡμέρα Κυρίου. (2) In all of them the saying is used in regard to the mystical in- terpretation of a e in Gn 2—in Barn., Iren. (v. 28. 3), Hipp.

in reference to Gn 2" ; in Justin, Tren. (v. 23. 2) in reference to Gn 27. Thus the context in all these is very similar and quite alien from the context in 2 P. (3) That speculations similar to the idea expressed in this saying were current in Rabbinical literature is clear from Schéttgen and Wetstein on 2 P 38, and from Schittgen, Hore Heb. ii. p. 497. And this evidence as to Jewish thought on the matter is carried back into the Ist cent. A.D. (Schiirer, HJP Ui. iii. p. 138 f.)

by a passage in the Book of Jubilees (sometimes called the ‘ Little Genesis’), referred to by Hilgenfeld on Barn. xv., which (see Jahrb. f. bibl. Wess. ii. p. 241) runs as follows: ‘And [Adam] lived 70 years less than 1000 years; for a thousand years are as one day according to the heavenly testimony. Therefore it is written con- cerning the tree of knowledge, ‘‘ On the day when ye eat thereof, ye shall die.” Wherefore he fulfilled not the years of that day, but died therein.

’ The subject, it will be observed, is the same as that in relation to which Justin and Iren. (v. 23. 2) adduce the saying. The evidence, then, seems clearly to point to the conclusion that the source of the in- * Compare Hippolytus, ‘Heads against Caius,’ in Hermathena vii. p. 4081. (cf. pp. 406, 418), ‘The number of the years is not the number of days, but it represents the space of one day... according to the saying, One day in the world of the righteous ig as a thousand years.

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE terpretation of a thousand years as ‘a day of the Lord’ was Jewish, probably a Haggada concerned with Gn 2. The saying are something of a commonplace in the Christian literature of the 2nd cent., and was used by the Fathers, cited above, in a sense more cognate to its Jewish origin than that in which it is found in 2 Peter. (f) The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs.— The parallels in this book ‘render it probable,’ says Warfield Ρ. 52, ‘that the author had and used 2 Peter.

’ ‘They are such,’ he continues, ‘as the very rare phrase μιασμοῖς [Oxford MS— μιάσμασι] τῆς γῆς in Benj. 8, cf. 2 P 2° —a phrase found in 2 Peter only in the NT, and in the Test. XII. Patt.

only in its age; the rare phrase τοῦ πλάττειν λόγους in Reuben 3, which seems to have been suggested by 2P 2°; the use of τηρεῖν in Reuben 5, just as it is used in 2P 2%’ As to the first of these alleged coincidences it must be noticed (1) that the word μιασμός is found in Wis 148, 1 Mac 443, and occurs elsewhere in the Testa- ments, viz. in Levil7; (2) that it has been already used in the immediately preceding context (οὐ yap ἔχει μ.

ἐν καρδίᾳ) ; (3) that the special phrase (τῆς yis) is suggested by the metaphor of the sentence (ὥσπερ yap ὁ ἥλιος οὐ μιαίνεται προσέχων ἐπὶ κόπρον . . οὕτω καὶ ὁ καθαρὸς νοῦς ἐν τοῖς μιασμοῖς τῆς γῆϑ συνεχόμενος κιτ.λ.) The phrase πλάττειν λόγους is used in Demosthenes and other classical writers. In regard to the last of the three coincidences it must be sufficient to refer to Jude*®, Book of the Secrets of Enoch 7 184; similar phrases are com- mon in the Enochian literature (see art.

on JUDE, vol. ii. Ρ' 801). (g) The Shepherd of Hermas.—Zahn (der Hirt des Hermas p. 431) and Warfield (p. 51) have collected a number of passages in the Shepherd which they auppoee to contain reminiscences of 2P. Itmust be sufficient to examine three of the passages on which special stress is laid. (i.) Vis. 1. 3. 4, τῷ ἰσχυρῷ ῥήματι πήξας τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ θεμελιώσας τὴν γῆν ἐπὶ ὑδάτων || 2 P35. In reality, however, the passage is an echo of passages in the OT, Ps 23 (24)?

103 (104) 5 135 (136) δ (N° * AT), Is 40%, and has no points of contact with the language of 2P. (ii.) Sim. viii. 11, ὁ Κύριος ἔπεμψέ με σπλαγχνισθεὶς πᾶσι δοῦναι τὴν μετάνοιαν καίπερ τινῶν μὴ ὄντων ἀξίων διὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν: ἀλλὰ μακρόθυμος ὧν ὁ Κύριος θέλει x.7.X. [2 89. Zahn urges that of the many passages in Hermas which deal with repentance, this alone connects it with the Divine μακροθυμία and em- phasises the universality of the gift.

But it must e observed (a) that the πᾶσιν is taken up from the immediately preceding context, ὕπαγε καὶ πᾶσι λέγε ἵνα μετανοήσωσι; (β) that the passage has quite as much affinity with Ac 17° Ro Ss as with 2 P 839, (ili.) Sim. vi. 4. 4, τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ ἀπάτης ὁ χρόνος ὥρα ἐστὶ μία. . ἐὰν οὖν μίαν ἡμέραν τρυφήσῃ τις καὶ ἀπατηθῇ κ-.τ.λ.

||2 P 215, But it will be noticed (a) that the μίαν ἡμέραν of Hermas points to the riot as shortlived, the ἐν ἡμέρᾳ of 2 P points to it as shame- less—‘in broad daylight’ ; (8) that both τρυφή and ἀπάτη are favourite words with Hermas. As to the former, the desire ποικίλων τρυφῶν is @ sign of the presence of ‘the angel of evil’ in a man (Mand. vi. 2. 5). Again, ἀπάτη in Mand. viii. 5 has a place among the ‘evil works’ from which ‘the bondservant of God must abstain.

’ Havin been thus spoken of separately, they are joine together in a long description of ‘the man who thinks that he has the spirit’ (Mand. xi. 12), and they reappear separately and side by side through- out the Sixth Parable. Their occurrence, therefore, in Hermas appears to be quite independent of 2 P. Other coincidences are Vis. iii. 7. 1 || 2 P 216. Vis. iv. 3. 49} 2%; Sim. v. 6. 8, 7. 1 viii. 11.1, ix. 13.

9 ||2 P 1” (but the use of ἐπίλυσις in regard to the parables is quite obvious); Sim. vi. 2. 212 P 212 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE (but καταφθορά is common in the LXX) ; Sim. vi. 2. 6||2 P 2% (but in Hermas ἐμπλέξαι is the natural word to use of sheep entangled in thorns, etc.) ; Sim. ix. 17. 5, 18. 1 || 2 P 931 (but ef. Gal 48+).

When, then, the passages in Hermas are examined, the conclusion is that they are interesting as illustra- tions of the passages in 2 P, but give no probability to a theory of literary dependence. (h) Justin, Dial. 82, ‘For with us even until now are there prophetic gifts, whereby you also yourselves [%.e. you Jews] should know that the things which of old belonged to your nation have now been transferred to us.

But as there were withal false prophets in the time of the holy prophets who arose among you, 80 also in the present day are there many false teachers (ψευδοδι- δάσκαλοι) also, of whom our Lord forewarned us to beware.’ ‘But where,’ Warfield asks (p. 51 f.), ‘can this forewarning be found? Does it exist anywhere butin 2P/2'(cfi17). Bete Sxcoodingly ifficult to see how there can be any reasonable doubt but that these passages are drawn from 2 Peter.

And if so, it isnoticeable that Justin refers to 2 Peter with respect, as Scripture, as, practically, the words of our Lord—in a word, as an authoritative book giving the Lord’s teaching.’ To Warfield’s question as to the source of this warning Justin himself supplies a decisive answer.

After a few words on our Lord’s foreknowledge, Justin continues, ‘ For He said that we should be murdered and hated for His name’s sake, and that many false prophets and false Christs should come (παρελεύσονται) in His name and lead many astray ; and this is the case.’ The reference, therefore, plainly is to Mt 24° % 1-34, There are apparently on yee reasons which can be pleaded as grounds for hesitation.

(1) The word εὐδοδιδάσκαλος does not occur in the report of our rd’s words in Mt, or indeed anywhere in the NT expent in2P. But in Christian circles, where the 8 words wWevdddedgos, ψευδαπόστολος, ψευδολόγος, ψευ- δομάρτυς, ψευδοπροφήτης, ψευδόχριστος were all current (all occurring in NT), and where a διδάσκαλος was closely allied to a προφήτης, the word ψευδοδιδάσ- xaos Was sure to arise, and its occurrence in two writers cannot be taken to imply literary obliga- tion. In Ep. Polyc.

7 we find ras ψευδοδιδασκαλίας, and in Didaché 13%? διδάσκαλος ἀληθινός ppp as well as προφήτης ἀληθινός, -ὃι phrase which implies ψευδοδιδάσκαλος. (2) A parallel is drawn in Justin, as in 2P, between the false teachers in the Chris- tian Church and the false prophets in Israel.

But it will be observed (a) that the comparison is very natural in a discussion of the presence of prophetic gifts in the Church ; (8) that Justin does not speak of it as part of the warning for which he quotes the Lord’s authority. There is a similarity between the passage in 2 P and that in Justin, but it justi- fies no other conclusion in the case of Justin than that which we reached in the case of Hermas. (i) Melito.

—A passage is quoted from a fragment of Melito’s Apology, which has been preserved in a Syriac translation (Cureton, Spicilegium Syriacum, . 5Uf.), of which the principal clauses are as Ἐπότες ‘There was once a flood and wind, and the chosen men were destroyed by a mighty north wind... but, again, at another time there was a flood of waters, and all men and living crea- tures were destroyed by the multitude of waters, and the just were preserved in an ark of wood, by the ordinance of God.

So also it will be at the last time; there shall be a flood of fire, and the earth shall be burnt up together with its moun- tains, and men shall be ἘΠΕ up together with the idols which they have made... and the sea, together with its isles, shall be burnt; and the just shall be delivered from the fury, like their fellows in the ark from the waters of the Deluge.’ It should be noticed that earlier in the fragment vol. 1Π1., ττὰὶ PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 80] (p.

50) there had been an allusion to the judgment of fire: ‘Fear Him who shaketh the earth... and removeth the mountains from their place; Him who can make Himself like fire, and burn up everything.’ Further, it will be observed (a) that Melito refers not only to the Flood and the great judgment by fire, but also to the destruction of the Tower of Babel; and (8) that the destruction of the Tower has a place in the Sibylline Oracles ili. 97 ff., while in the immediately preceding con- text (iii.

82 ff.) there is a prophecy of the destrue- tion of the world by fire. In line 109 there is an incidental allusion to the Flood, a subject which is treated at length in bk. i., the early date, how- ever, of this book not being so fully established as that of bk. iii. (Schiirer, WJ P τὰ. iii. p. 287). There are no links of phraseology or of characteristic ideas which connect Melito with 2 P. The verdict, therefore, of Westcott (Canon p. 223 n.)

seems to be the only reasonable one: ‘It is impossible therefore to aflirin that the reference in Melito is to 2 Peter, and not rather to the Sibyllines or to the wide- spread tradition on which they rested.’ (k) Theophilus of Antioch.—Two passages have been pointed out in Theophilus ad Autolychum, which, it is urged, have all the appearance of being reminiscences of 2 P. (i.) ii. 9, of δὲ rod θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, πνευματοφόροι * πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ προφῆται γενόμενοι x.t.A.

Compare 2 P 15} ὑπὸ πνεύματος ἁγίου φερόμενοι ἐλάλησαν ἀπὸ θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι (οἱ ἅγιοι θεοῦ ἄνθρωποι, NA, etc.) But it must be noticed that the key-word of the passage (xvevparopdpos) is derived from the LXX ae Hos 97 (ὁ προφήτης... ὁ πνευματοφόροΞς), Zeph 3"; that Theophilus uses the word in the sense of ‘an inspired speaker’ in ii. 22 (al ἅγιαι γραφαὶ καὶ πάντες ol πνευματοφόροι), iii.

12 (διὰ τὸ τοὺς πάντας πνευματοφόρους ἑνὶ πνεύματι θεοῦ λελαληκέναι) ; that language similar to that under discussion is habitual in Theophilus; see ii. 33, 35, iii. 17, ef. Justin, Apol. i. 33; and, lastly, that the phrase ‘man of God’ is very common in the OT (occurring some 50 times) in reference to a prophet. Thus a reference to other passages in Theophilus shows that here he is using LXXx language in reference to the Prophets. (ii.) ii. 13.

In his treat- ment of the Divine command, ‘ Let there be light,’ Theophilus observes, ἡ διάταξις οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ, τοῦτό ἐστιν ὁ λόγος αὐτοῦ, φαίνων ὥσπερ λύχνος ἐν οἰκήματι συνεχομένῳ, ἐφώτισεν τὴν ὑπ᾽ οὐρανόν. The metaphor is thought to be derived from 2P 1}, But the word οἴκημα is suggested by the previous context— ἄνθρωπος yap κάτω ὧν ἄρχεται ἐκ τῆς γῇ οἰκοδομεῖν, , the human building is contrasted with the Divine.

The metaphor of the λύχνος is obviously su rgested by the subject under discussion—the light kindled by man is contrasted with the light kindled by God. If it is thought necessary to find a ‘source’ for a metaphor so obvious in the context, 2 Es 12" (‘Tn enim nobis superasti ex omnibus pro- yhetis, sicut Zucerna in loco obscuro’) is as near to ‘heoph. as is 2 P. ’ (1) Ireneus.—We have already dealt with two passages in this writer (p. 800).

In two other passages he has been supposed to be relying on QP. (i.) iii. 1. 1, μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων [sc. Petri et Pauli] ἔξοδον || 2P 1% But that ἔξοδος (extus) was not an uncommon word in this sense in early Christian literature has been pointed out on p. 770. (ii.) ‘We come in the fourth book’ (xxxvi. 4), Warfield writes (p. 49), ‘to another passage in which [Irenseus] adduces Noah, then Sodom and Gomorrah, and Lot, to show that God will punish the wicked and save the holy.

Our minds go im- mediately to 2 Peter ii. 4-7, whence the framing * The word is printed here as it appears in Otto's od. of Theophilus and in the Cambridge LXX. But it is possible thas it should be accented as a Sead: ormuarigges. See Light foot’s note on Ignatius Bova. 803 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE PETER, SECOND EPISTLE of this passage seems to have been derived.’| ‘tale lumen... Here, too, it is important to look at the previous context.

The object of the chapter is to show that Chiist came from the Father, who had sent the prophets in earlier days. Irenieus lier therefore, from Christ’s sayings the unity of God’s character in the old and in the new dispensation. In the course of the argument he quotes Lk 21** 12%. 173-81 (Noah, Lot, Sodom), Mt 24%.

He then draws the inference, ‘Unum et eundem annun- tians Dominum, qui in temporibus Noe propter inobedientiam hominum superduxit diluuium, et in temporibus Lot propter multitudinem pecca- torum Sodomitarum pee em a ceelo; et in nouissimo . . superducet diem iudicii.’ There then follows the passage to which Warfield refers, the ‘framing’ and the ideas of which are clearly drawn from the passage just quoted from the Gospels.

(m) There are one or two passages from heretical documents belonging (in their original form) prob- ably to the 2nd cent. which must be examined. The first of these is a phrase of Ptolemus, a follower of Valentinus, still living when Irenzus wrote. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. i. p. 759) compares a hrase of this writer’s, preserved by Epiphanius Her. xxxiii. 6)—rapotons δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας, with 2 P 14. But the context in Ptolemzus (i.)

shows that the word d\#@ea is used in different senses in the two passages, and (ii.) itself naturally accounts for the use of the phrase. It runs thus: al γὰρ εἰκόνες «ον καλῶς ἐγίνοντο μέχρι μὴ παρῆν ἀλήθεια. παρούσης δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας δεῖ ποιεῖν. (n) The Clementine Literature.—(i.) Recog. v. 12, ‘Unusquisque illius fit seruus cui se ipse sub- jecerit’ || 2P 2% Salmon (Introd. Ἔ 488) com- pares Origen, In Exod. Hom. 12, ‘ Unusquisque & qo uincitur huic et seruus addicitur.

’ Both passages occur in a translation by Rufinus, and may therefore be interpolations. Salmon, how- ever, points out that ‘the difference of the Latin makes it likely that in both cases Rufinus is translating, not interpolating.’ But it is equally possible that Rufinus, translating two different oks at two different times, interpolated different free renderings of 2P 219, The question whether Rufinus did interpolate when he was translating will come before us again in connexion with Origen.

(ii.) Hom. xvi. 20. Salmon (p. 488 n.) calls attention to the words ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον paxpo- θυμεῖ, els μετάνοιαν καλεῖ. In these words, ‘taken in connexion with the whole context, there is very robably a use of 2 Pet. iii. 9.’ In the context eter speaks of the blasphemies of Simon Magus and of ‘the boundless long-suffering of God.’ The earth had not opened; fire had not come down from heaven; rain was not poured out; beasts were not sent forth from the thicket to avenge this spiritual adultery.

‘But, on the contrary, He is long-suffering; He calls to repentance.’ It is difficult to see what there is in the context which specially recalls 2 P, while the particular phrase is nearer to Ro 24 (τῆς μακροθυμίας καταφρονεῖς... τὸ gables τοῦ θεοῦ els μετάνοιάν σε ἄγει) ἜΣ to 2 39, ough, in fact, it is too natural and obvious to require any literary source. (0) Actus Petri cum Simone xx. (ed. Lipsius p. 67) ‘Unusquisque enim nostrum sicut capiebat uidere, prout poterat uidebat.

Nune quod uobis lectum est iam uobis exponam. Dominus noster uolens me maiestatem suam uidere in monte sancto, uidens autem luminis splendorem eius cum filiis Zebedei, cecidi tamquam mortuus et oculos meos conclusi et wocem eius andiui talem qualem referre non possum, qui me putaui exorbatum ab splendore eius . . et exurgens iterum talem ewm uidi qualem capere potui.’ A phrase in the next chapter (ed. Lipsius pp. 68, 32) must be compared, uod enarrare nemo hominum yossit.

” The Gnostic Acts of Peter, of which this ocument forms part, belong in all probability to the 2nd cent. (see above, p. 774). The only authority, however, for this particular document is a 7th cent. MS, presenting a Latin version of the original Greek. Can we be certain, then, that the whole passage quoted above is not inter- polated by some editor or translator? It was shown above (p.

774) that the Gnostic Acts of Peter probably formed part of the series of Leucian Acts, to aise the Acts of John also belong. Now in the Acts of John (James, Apocr. Anecdota ii. p. 7) there is a long account of the Transfiguration, and this account contains a phrase (as James, p. xxvi, notes) of the same type as phrases which occur several times in the Petrine Acts at this point— φῶς τοιοῦτον ὁποῖον οὐκ ἐστὶν δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ χρώμενον (lege χρωμένῳ) λόγῳ φθαρτῷᾷ ἐκφέρειν οἷον ἦν.

It seems to be a legitimate inference that there is every probability that the Leucian Acts of Peter, like the Leucian Acts of John, contained (i.e. in their original form) a reference to the Transtfigura- tion, and that the Latin version reproduces char- acteristic phrases of the original. Now there are three coincidences with 2 P in the Latin passage of the Petrine Acts quoted above—(i.) ‘maiestatem suam uidere’; (ii.) ‘in monte sancto’ ; (iii.) ‘ uocem eius talem.

’ Of these the last has strong claims to be considered a phrase of the original Leucian Acts; it seems at first sight a complete parallel to the φωνῆς τοιᾶσδε of 2 P 17; but in 2P the ‘ voice’ is the Father’s ‘ voice,’ in the Acts it is the utter- ance of the Son; and again, in 2P the τοιᾶσδε introduces the actual words, while in the Acts the ‘talem’ is followed by a ‘qualem.’ Thus the parallel, when examined, is less striking than on the surface it appears. Of (i.) (ii.)

it can only be said, that if we could be certain that these phrases represented corresponding expressions in the original Leucian Acts, the conclusion would be irresistible that there is some direct connexion between the Petrine Acts and2 P. But we have no right to asswme that these phrases are not due to an editor or translator, and consequently it would be lost labour to speculate on the kind of connexion between the two documents which, if original, they would imply.

Clearly this is an important point in relation to the problem of 2 P on which fresh light would be very welcome. We have now reviewed the passages in the sub- Apostolic writings and in the Christian literature of the 2nd century, which, it is alleged, contain reminiscences of Ὁ.

If we put aside the passage from the Clementine Recognitions and that from the Acts of Peter as open to the suspicion of not accurately representing the original texts, there does not remain, it is believed, a single passage in which the coincidence with 2 P can with anything sppraachine confidence be said to imply literary obligation to that Epistle.

The resemblances in thought or phrase are such as are constantly found in quite independent specimens of literature, when they belong to the same general period and deal with the same general subject. (2) It will be convenient to range the authorities which claim discussion in the next period under the several Churches. (i.) Alexandria. —(a) Clement. _Did Clement in the Hypotyposeis comment on2P? The state- ment of, Eusebius, HE vi. xiv.

1, runs thus: ‘In the Hypotyposeis, to speak briefly, he has composed concise expositions of all Canonical (ἐνδιαθήκου) Scripture, not omitting even the dis- puted (Epistles), I mean that of Jude and the re- maining Batholic Epistles, as well as (re) Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.

’ This evi- dence is confirmed by that of Photius (Bidbdioth, PETER, SECOND EPISTLE PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 803 109), who speaks of the Hypoty osets as ‘giving | in recognitione Dei; et iterum alibi Ut boni dis- interpretations of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Catholic Epistles, and Ecclesiasticus (τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ).᾽ The last phrase is Vaated a scribe’s blunder for τῶν ἐκκλησιασ- τικῶν ; compare Rufinus, in Symb. Apost.

38, ‘alii libri sunt, qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maioribus eprcllatt sunt.’ If this be so, Photius has in mind the non-Canonical books mentioned by Eusebius. On the other side must be set two neces of evidence. (a) Cassiodorus (de Jnstit. w.) in a passage of the Preface asserts that ‘it is said (ferunt) that Clement expounded the Divine Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testa- ment from the beginning to the end.’ But in a later (c.

8) of the same book he limits the scope of Clement’s work, ‘In epistolis autem canonicis Clemens Alexandrinus . . id est in epistola S. Petri prima, S. Joannis prima et secunda, et Jacobi, q Attico sermone declarauit.’ (8) Cassiodorus goes on to speak of a translation which he had made of Clement’s expositions, but in which he omitted doctrinal statements which offended him.

It is probable, on the whole, that the Latin version of Clement’s expositions which we now possess is that of Cassiodorus. This Latin version includes expositions of 1P, Jude, 1 Jn, 2Jn. It will be seen that this series of Epistles corresponds with the list given by Cassiodorus, if in the latter we suppose that James was sub- stituted by a mistake for Jude. We have, then, two conflicting views—one (based on the evidence of Eus.

, Photius, and the Preface of Cassiodorus) to the effect that Clement commented on all the Catholic Epistles; the other (sapported by Cassiodorus’ statement in the body of his work, and by the extant Latin version of Clement’s commentaries) to the effect that Clement com- mented on four of the Catholic Epistles, 2 P not having ἃ place among those four.

The reconcilia- ticn of these two contradictory conclusions, so far as 2P at least is concerned, may be found in the supposition that Clement did comment on 2P, but that in his work it had a place by the side, not of 1 P but of the Apocalypse of Peter,* which Clement te aden as the work of Peter and as Scripture (Ecloge ex Scriptt. Proph. xli. xlviii. xlix.)

In that case Cassiodorus might well exclude Clement’s comments on 2 P from his avowedly eclectic version ; or they may have had no place in his copy of Clement. It isan important fact that no e can be adduced from Clement’s works in which 2 P is referred to, still less any in which it is uoted by name.

Thus the evidence, which cannot ἘΣ considered as altogether free from doubt, points to the conclusion that Clement regarded 2 P as a book hovering, like the cecal oa of Peter, on the borders of the number of the books definitely recognized as Apostolic, but that he did not place it on a level with 1P. (ὁ) Origen. The first absolutely incontrovertible reference in Christian literature to 2 P is found in the words of Origen reported by Eus. HE vi. xxv. 8, Πέτρος dé...

play ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν, ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν" ἀμφιβάλλεται γάρ. No other passage is uoted from any of Origen’s works now extant th the original Greek in which he quotes from or alludes to, 2P. There are, however, sever passages in Rujinus’ translation of certain works of Origen, not extant in Greek, where 2 P is used. They are as follows. Jn Ep. ad Rom. iv. 9 (ed. Lomm. vi. p. 302), ‘ad participationem capiendam diuine nature, sicut Petrus Apostolus edocuit’ (2 P 14); ἐδ.

viii. 6 (vii. p. 234), ‘Petrus in epis- tola sua dicit Gratia cubis et pax multiplicetur * Zahn (Forsch. ill. p. 154) suggesta that In view of its prophetic contents Clement connected 2P with tho Petrine Apocalypse, pensatores multiplicis gratie Dei’ (2 P 17,1 P 4%); m Exod. xii. 4 (ix. p. 149), ‘Scio enim scriptum esse, quia unusquisque a quo uincitur huic et sernus addicitur’ (2 P 2); in Levit. iv. 4 (ix. Ῥ.

221), ‘Et iterum Petrus dicit Consortes, inquit, facti estis divine nature’ (2 P 1‘); in Num. xiii. 8 (x. p. 157), ‘Et ut ait quodam in loco Scriptura Mutum animal humana voce respondens arguit prophete dementiam’ (2 P 216); in Lid. Jesu Naue Vii. 1 (xi. p. 63), ‘ Petrus etiam duabus epistolarum suarum personat tubis.’ Compare the allusions in the two following passages—in Num. xviii. 4 (x. p. 228), ‘Consuetudinem propheticam ...

de qua dicitur Omnis prophetia non potest propria absolutione constare’ (2 P 1”); in Ezech. v. 3 (xiv. p. 74), ‘Multo nobis utilius fuerat diuino non credidisse sermoni, quam post credulitatem adhue rursum peccata conuerti, que ante com- misimus’ (2 P 2), The question remains— Are these references to, and quotations from, 2 P part of the original text of Origen, or insertions by Rufinus? (1) It is a fact worth noticing, that while it would have been consonant with Eusebius’ plan (HE Ul. iii.

τίνες τῶν κατὰ χρόνους ἐκκλησιαστικῶν συγγραφέων ὁποίαις κέχρηνται τῶν ἀντιλεγομένων) ἴο record the use which Origen made of the Epistle, had he found in the Greek text of Origen the assages given above from the Latin translation, he oes not notice their existence.

(2) It would not have been against the probabilities of the case if no reference to 2P had occurred in the extant Greek works of Origen, and yet a single allusion or so had been made to that Epistle in a work which chanced to survive only in a Latin trans- lation. But it is certainly strange that not one reference is to be found in the works of Origen extant in Greek, but that half a dozen present themselves in those works of Origen which exist only in Rufinus’ Latin.

The idea of θεοποίησις, for example, is a characteristic thought with Origen (as indeed it is with Clement). We are surprised that twice in the works which are preserved to us in Rufinus’ translation Origen illustrates the idea from 2 P, while in his other works he never does so. Thus the number of references to 2 P in Rufinus’ translation creates a suspicion as to their genuineness.

(3) Each of these references to, or quotations from, 2 P can, it is believed, be cut out without injury to the context.* But whatever be the truth as to the references to 2 P found in those works of Origen which have reached us only through the medium of Rufinus’ translation, the deliberate statement of Origen as to 2 P remains.

The phrase ἀμφιβάλλεται γάρ clearly conveys, not an opinion of Origen’s, but information as to the division of opinion in his time; it may further be thought to suggest that 2 P had already secured a position, which was assailed. The words of the revious clause—forw δὲ καὶ Sevrépay—leave us in ittle doubt that Origen’s judgment was unfavour- able to the Epistle. d : (ii.) Egypt.—The two great Egyptian versions, the Sahidic and the Bohairic, contain all the seven Catholic Epistles.

The date of these versions, however, has not been put beyond doubt. Light- foot placed ‘the completion or codification of the Memphitic [i.e. Bohairic) version’ at the middle of the 3rd cent. (Scrivener, Plain Introduction Ρ. 343). Headlam, in his completion of Lightfoot’s article In one ὁ referred to above—‘ Petrus in epistola sus dicit Gratia uobis et pax multiplicetur in recognitione Del: et iterum alibi Ut boni dispensatores multiplicis gratia Dei’ (Lomm. vii. p.

234)—there seems to be some positive evidence for the theory of interpx , It would be most unnatural for Origen to refer to 2 P with the words in epistela aua ; to quote the salutation of 2 P, which only differs from that of 1 P by an immaterial addition (in recognitions Dei); and then to add ὁ quotation from 1 P, introducing it with the phrase σέ erum alili. PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 804 (in the fourth edition of Scrivener, ii. p. 104f.)

, holds that ‘it has been sufficiently proved that translations into Coptic existed in the 3rd cent., very probably in the 2nd.’ F. Robinson (art. on EGYPTIAN VERSIONS in vol. i. p. 670ff) urges that such conclusions are in danger of outrunning the evidence, and that ‘historical evidence, on the whole, points to the 3rd cent. as the period when the first Coptic translation was made.’ The investigation desiderated by Westcott (Canon p. 370), ie.

‘how far an older work underlies the printed text, and whether that can be attributed to one author,’ has not yet been accomplished. We must therefore acquiesce in his verdict as to the Bohairic version, a verdict which is even more applicable to the Sahidic—‘ till this has been deter- mined, no stress can be laid upon the evidence which the version affords for the disputed Cath. Epp.’ (iii.) Carthage.—There is no evidence that Ter- tullian or Cyprian was acquainted with2P. (iv.) Asia Minor.

—(a) In a letter to Cyprian (Cyprian, Zp. lxxv. 6), Firmilian, bp. of Csarea in Cappadocia, writes: ‘Stephanus ... adhue etiam infamans Petrum et Paulum beatos apostolos . . qui in epistolis suis hereticos execrati sunt et ut eos euitemus monuerunt.’ The reference, it would seem, must be to 2 P, since 1 P contains no indictment of heretics. (δ) Methodius, bp. of Olympus and afterwards of Patara, who appears to have suffered in the Diocletian persecution. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. 1. i. p.

313) points out some assages in the treatise de Reswrrectione, in which e thinks that this writer alludes to 2 Ρ 3!3, They are as follows :—éxrupwOjcerat μὲν yap πρὸς κάθαρσιν καὶ ἀνακαινισμὸν καταβασίῳ πᾶς κατακλυζόμενος ὁ κόσμος πυρί, οὐ μὴν εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἐλεύσεται παντελῇ καὶ φθοράν. διὸ ἀνάγκη δὴ καὶ τὴν γῆν αὖθις καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν μετὰ τὴν ἐκφλόγωσιν ἔσεσθαι πάντων καὶ τὸν βρασμόν (ed. Jahn p.

78); and again, ἵνα γινώσκωμεν εὐδηλότερον ὅτι πάντων πυρὶ καταβασίῳ κατομβρουμένων τὰ ἐν ἁγνείᾳ σώματα καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ διαπρέψαντα καθ- ἀπερ ψυχρῷ ὕδατι τῷ πυρί, οὐδὲν ἀλγυνόμενα πρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἐπιβήσονται (Ρ. 94). But the words of Methodius do not contain any phrases borrowed from 2 P, and may well be speculations on the ἐκπύρωσις independent of that Epistle. There is, however, a fragment from the same treatise (Pitra, Anal. Sacra iii. p.

611) which explicitly quotes 2 P 88, -χίλια δὲ ἔτη τῆς βασιλείας ὠνόμασεν τὸν ἀπέραντον αἰῶνα διὰ τῆς χιλιάδος δηλῶν" γέγραφεν γὰρ ὁ ἀπόστολος Πέτρος ὅτι μία ἡμέρα παρὰ Κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια ἔτη καὶ χίλια ἔτη ὡς ἡμέρα μία. In this connexion the evidence of the Dialogue which passes under the name of Adam- antius should be noticed. In this work, which was probably written in the later years of Con- stantine, large use is made of the works of Methodius (Hort in Dict. Christ. Biog. i. p. 39f.)

, and 2 P is quoted init. In one passage (§ 2, p. 58 ed. Wetstein) the orthodox interlocutor helps his Marcionite opponent out of a difficulty as to St. Paul’s authority by adducing Ac 9% and 2 P 315 (πῇ δὲ ὑπὸ Πέτρου τοῦ ἀποστόλου γεγραμμένον). In another passage (§ 1, p. 41), it should be added, words (ἕκαστος @ ἤττηται τούτῳ καὶ δεδούλωται) very near to those of 2 P 2! are appealed to as ‘the common proverb’ (ὁ ἔξωθεν λόγος). (v.) Rome.—(a) Murat. Canon.

2 P is not men- tioned in the text of the fragmentasitstands. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. π. i. p. 110 n.), however, conjectures that in one passage some words have slipped out, and he would restore it thus: ‘ Apocalypsin etiam Johannis et Petri [unam] tantum recipimus {epistulam ; fertur etiam altera], quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt.’ For the lan- guage cf. Eus. HE wt. iii. 4. The suggestion appears a probable one, but without further evidence it must remain a conjecture.

(Ὁ) Hip- polytus. The following passages claim attention : PETER, SECOND EPISTLE —Refut. Her. ix. 7, ot πρὸς μὲν ὥραν αἰδούμενοι καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας συναγόμενοι ὡμολόγουν μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν βόρβορον ἀνεκυλίοντο (2 P 259); in Dan. iii. 22, ᾧ γὰρ ἄν τις ὑποταγῇ τούτῳ καὶ δεδούλωται (2 P 2"); wb. iv. 10, εἰ γὰρ καὶ νῦν βραδύνει πρὸ καιροῦ, μὴ θέλων τὴν κρίσιν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐπενεγκεῖν (2 P 88 25); ἐδ. iv. 16, μήποτε... . ἀπονυστάξαντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐκπέσωσιν τῆς ἐπουρανίου ζωῆς; ib. iv.

60, ἵνα uh. . ἀπονυστάξαντες ἐκπέσωμεν τῆς aldtov ζωῆς (2 P 317, These coinci- dences are not such as to produce conviction.* The first two, which are not the least striking of the series, are of the nature of proverbs, and it is rash to infer literary indebtedness from the common use of such expressions. The use of ἐκπεσεῖν in the last two passages is not in itself specially remark- able (cf. e.g. Gal 54, Epist. ap. Eus. HE vu. xxx. 13; Can. Petri Alex. 8, 10, 11 (Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. p.

31ff.)) Taken together, however, these passages in Sippoly rus eve the impression that he was acquainted with 2 P. (vi.) The division of sections in Codex B.—In this MS there are two divisions of sections, one older than the other. This double division is carried on through the Catholic Epistles with the exception of one Epistle. In 2 P (standing between 1 P and 1 Jn) the older divisions are wanting (Gregory, Proleg.i. pp. 156, 359).

The conclusion is inevitable that the ancestor of Codex B, to which these divisions were first attached, did not contain 2 P. (vii.) Old Latin Texts.—That there were pre- Hieronymian Latin translations of 2 P (see above, p. 796) is clear. But the fragments which re- main indicate that these translations belonged to the later ‘Italian’ type of text; nor is there an. evidence that others of earlier date ever existed.

This view, in regard to the absence of 2 P from older Latin translations of the Catholic Epistles, is confirmed by the fact to which Westcott (Canon p. 263 ff.) calls attention, ‘It appears that the Latin text of the Epistle [in the Vulgate] not only ex- hibits constant and remarkable differences from the text of other parts of the Vulgate, but also differs from the first Epistle in the rendering of words common to both; ...

it further appears that it differs not less clearly from the Epistle of St. Jude (which was received in the African Church) in those parts which are almost identical in the Greek.’ ‘The supposition,’ he adds, ‘ that it was admitted into the Canon at the same time with them becomes at once unnatural.’ Tosum up the evidence of the 3rd cent.

: 2 P was probably commented on by Clement, but regarded as the companion, not of 1 P butof the Apocalypse of Peter; it is not, however, quoted in his extant works. Origen certainly knew of the Epistle as accepted by some, but rejected by others; it is probable that he himself did not use it. It was received into the Canon by the Egyptian Churches, but the time of its reception we do not know.

It was accepted in Asia Minor by Firmilian and Meth- odius, the latter of whom regards the Apocalypse of Peter as ‘inspired’ (Conviv. Virg. i. 6). It is probable, but not certain, that it was known at Rome in the time of Hippolytus. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian refers to it, and it does not appear to have been included among the Catholic Epistles in any but the late pre-Hiero- nymian Latin texts. There is no Western attesta- tion of the Epistle during this period.

(3) We now pass to the 4th cent., when the place which, as will appear, 2 P had already secured among the Apostolic books became assured every- where exert in the Syrian Church. (a) Husebius. It appears from HZ I. xxiii. 25 (τῆς λεγομένης ᾿Ιούδα, * Zahn (Gesch. Kan. τ. i. p. 316 n.) also compares with 2 P 120 Hipp. de Antichr. 2, ob γὰρ tf ἰδίας δυνάμεως ἐφθέγγοντο... ὅθεν καὶ ἡμεῖς τὰ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν προειρημένα καλῶς μαθητευθέντες λέγομεν oom ἐξ ἰδίας ἡμῶν ἱπινοίας.

But there is no close resemblance in language. PETER, SECOND EPISTLE PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 805 μιᾶς καὶ αὐτῆς obsns τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν) that the phrase ‘Catholic Epistles’ (cf. v1. xiv. 1) was y a recognized term, and that they were already commonly regarded as seven in number. e turn to the two great assages in which Eus. deals with the books of the NT. In HE i. iii.

, after mentioning 1P as ‘certainly enuine,’ he continues, τὴν δὲ φερομένην δευτέραν οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν" ὅμως δὲ πολλοῖς ἐμὸς φανεῖσα, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουδάσθη γραφῶν.

Je then refers to the Acts of Peter, the ome the Preaching, and the Apocalypse, and, after stating the Ρ an and tad a of his references to the books of the NT, he gives his own judgment in regard to 2P—7ra μὲν ὀνομαζόμενα Ilérpov, ὧν μόνην μίαν γνησίαν ἔγνων ἐπιστολὴν καὶ παρὰ τοῖς πάλαι πρεσβυτέροις ὡμολογημένην, τοσαῦτα. In the later passage (II. xxv.) Eus. divides the books into two main classes—the accepted books (ὁμολο- γούμενα) and the disputed books (ἀντιλεγόμενα).

The latter class is again subdivided. There are within it (a) ‘disputed books which are yet recog- nized by most (γνώριμα τοῖς πολλοῖς), and (8) ‘dis- uted books which are spurious (νόθα). To the atter subdivision belongs (among other books) the Apocalypse of Peter ; to the former, ‘the so-called Epistle of James, that of Jude, the Second Epistle “f Peter, and the so-named Second and Third of ohn.’ From these passages of Eus. we learn some important points about 2 P. (i.)

The Catholic Epistles were, at the time Eus. wrote, regarded (at least in some quarters) as seven in number’*; (ii.) the judgment of the past, as Eus. had received it, was against 2 P—ov« ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλή- φαμεν. (111.}) The reason why 2 P had been ‘studied (ἐσπουδάσθη) in company with the other Scriptures’ was, according to Eus., that it was regarded very commonly as answering the purposes of practical edification (πολλοῖς χρήσιμος φανεῖσα). (iv.) Eus.

did not himself receive 2 P as γνησία ἐπιστολή. When he speaks of 1 P, which he accepted without a doubt, as παρὰ τοῖς πάλαι πρεσβυτέροις ὡμολογημένη (ct § 1), he clearly implies that 2 P was deficient n such recognition. The opinion of Eus. is sig- nificant. His knowledge of early Christian litera- ture was wide. He was acquainted with many works which are lost to us.

When, then, the modern critic fails to discover in early writings any certain trace of 2 P, his experience is only a repetition of that of Eusebius. And further, the evidence of Eus. indicates that the recovery of such lost bucks as those of Papias and Hegesippus, which were known to him, would in all probability mapply us with no fresh evidence as to 2 P.

e turn now to the great Churches of the East, and to the great writers whose influence domi- nated Western Christendom in the 4th century and onwards. (i.) The Churches of Syria.—(a) The Syriac-speak- ing Churches. The Syriac Vulgate (Peshitta) con- tained only three of the Catholic Epistles, viz. James, 1 P, 1 Jn. There do not appear to be any quotations from or references to 2 P in Aphraat or in the Syriac works of Ephraem.t+ At a much later time (i.e. the 13th cent.)

Ebed Jesu, a Nestorian bishop of Nisibis, writes, ‘Tres autem * The fact that seven Catholic Epistles appear for the first time, so far as the present writer knows, in Eusebius of Cavsarea, rms the suggestion of Sanday (Studia Bibl. et Eecles. iil. RP 258, 259), that ‘it is possible that the collection of seven pistles may have originated (at Jerusalem); or if brought in the first instance from t, it would seem to have been at Jerusalem that it first became established.” ¢ F. H.

Woods in Studia Bidlica et Ecclesiastica 011, p. 138. In y. 342 B. Eph. has the words ‘ the day of the Lord is a thief.’ The phrase has been thought to be derived from 2 P 319, for, when it is compared with the Pesh. of 1 Th 62, it will be noticed that (1) ‘in the night’ is omitted, (2) ‘ the Lord’ takes the place of ‘our Lord.’ But such slight differences and coincidences are hardly worth consideration in the case of a common proverbial expression.

Epistole qu inscribuntur Apostolis in omni codice et lingua, Jacobo scilicet et Petro et Joanni; et Catholics nuncupantur’ (Assemani, Bidsl. Or. iii. Pars i. p. 9f.) On the other hand, the dis- coveries and investigations of Dr. Gwynn of Dublin (Royal Irish Acad. Transactions, xxvii. p. 269 ff., XXX. B 347 ff.)

show that the Harklensian version Ofer, Jude, and 2, 3 Jn is a revision of the text of these Epistles published by Pococke in 1630, which is given in the printed editions of the Peshitta ;, and further, that the Pococke text of these Epistles was a part of the Philoxenian version made by Poly for Xenaias or Philo- xenus, the Monophysite bishop of Mabug about the year A.D. 500. It appears, therefore, that 2 P was rejected by the early Syrian Church, but that early in the 6th cent.

1t was accepted at least in the Monophysite branch of that Chureh. (8) The Greek School of Antioch. Among the innumerable quotations from and allusions to Scripture found in the writings of Chrysostom,” Theodore, and Theodoret, there does not appear to be one reference to 2 P. In the Synopsis com- monly ascribed to Chrysostom (Migne, Pat. Gr. lvi. 314 ff.) the phrase used—rGv καθολικῶν ἐπιστολαὶ Tpets—implies not only the acceptance of three Epes, but the rejection of others.

The views of Theodore are preserved (see arts, on JUDE and 1 PETER) in Junilius’ treatise, Instituta Regularia. Of the Catholic Epistles only 1 P and 1 Jn are accepted. ‘Adiungunt quam 5 ee ane ue alias, uz apostolorum canonice nuncupantur.’ These ive Epistles, among which is 2 P, are described as being medie auctoritatis (Kihn, Theodore p. 478 ff.) Thus 2 P had no place in the Syriac NT. The great Antiochene school of exegetes joined their Syriac-speaking neighbours in its rejection.

More- over, since Chrysostom’s expositions at any rate were addressed to popular audiences, the rejection of the Epistle by the great teachers in question must have reflected the usage of the Antiochene Church generally in the matter. (ii.) Asia Minor. 2 P has a place in the list of Si ΚΟΣΣ Nazianzen ; yet neither he nor Gregory of Nyssa nor Basil appears to quote or to refer to the Epistle (West- cott, Canon p. 446).

An expression of doubt is found in the list of Amphilochius, bishop of Ieconium (c. 380 Α.}.), -καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν | τινὲς μὲν ἑπτά φασιν, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς μόνας | χρῆναι δέχεσθαι. iii.) Jeru- salem. Cyril includes 2 P in his list of books, as does his contemporary and fellow-countryman Epiphanius (cf. Zahn, Gesch. Kan, τι. i. p. 226 n.) (iv.) Alexandria. The list of NT books given by Athanasius in one of his Festal Epistles includes 2P.

Towards the end of the century, however, the doubt as to 2 P finds expression in the com- mentary on the Epistle by Didymus. His words, as they are preserved in the Latin translation, are as follows: ‘Non est igitur ignorandum Srewrens tem epistolam esse falsatam, que licet publicetur non tamen in canone est’ (Migne, Pat. Gr. xxxix. 1774). The Latin phrase printed above in italics probably represents the Greek words ὡς γοθεύεται αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστολή.

If this be so, the passage conveys not the writer’s own view, but a report of the opinion of others. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. 1. i. p. 312) urges that Didymus is here recording a judgment which is a relic of the 2nd or 3rd cent., though expressed in the language of later times. The similarity of the terms used to those employed by Eusebius in reference to James (ΕΒ, I.

xxiii, 25) suggests rather that Didymus here preserves an opinion more or less contemporary with himself,— the view probably of scholars who conceded 8 * Some of the comments on 2 P in Cramer's Catena are there ascribed to Chrysostom. The present writer (CAryeetom p. 70 π,) has pointed out that these fragments bear some resem blance to Chrysostom's work. They are, however, too brief te warrant a positive opinion. PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 806 public use of the book—‘it seemed useful to many’ (Eus.

HE ut. iii. 1),—but protested against its being placed on the same level as books whose authenticity was not questioned. (v.) Constan- tinople. The Church in New Rome was in many respects the daughter of the Church at Antioch. But she did not inherit any doubts as to the full Canon of the NT. Constantinople was the centre and the ὕ of Imperial influence on matters ecclesiasti and religious.

The preparation, which Constantine entrusted to Eusebius, of ‘fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures’ for use in the new capital, had important results. It was natural that these copies should contain all the books of the NT which had gained general recognition. A quasi-official standard was thus set up; and the distinction between ‘acknowledged’ and ‘disputed’ books soon became little more than a matter of antiquarian interest (Westcott, Canon p. 427). e turn to the West.

There appears to be no ante-Nicene evidence for 2P in the West. It is uoted in the last quarter of the 4th century by foniated of Milan (de Fide iii. 12, ‘ Petrus sanctus adsernit dicens Quapropter satagite,’ ete. (12°), and by Priscillian in Spain (see above, p. 796). It has a place in the list of Philastrius of Brescia (c. 385), and later in that of Rufinus (c. 410). On the other hand, in the Canon Mommsenianus, which appears to be an African list of the middle of the 4th cent.

, it is inserted, but inserted with a protest— eplae Iohannis ΠῚ ur CCCCL una sola eplae Petri 1 wer cco una sola. The author of the list, transcribing an older cata- logue, added an expression of his own doubt.* The decisive influences, however, in Western Christendom were those of Jerome and Augustine. The latter, though not insensible to the effect on the authority of a book caused by its rejection in some quarters (de Doctr. Chr. ii.

12, 13), yet in Prachie appealed without distinction to all the ks of our NT. Jerome was acquainted with the widespread doubts as to the genuineness of 2 P. In the section in the de Virr. Illustr. which deals with St. Peter, he says, ‘Scripsit duas epistolas qu catholics nominantur; quarum secunda a lerisque eius esse negatur propter stili cum priore NES mantiam.

’ The kind of objection which they are alleged to have urged limits the reference of a plerisque : Jerome has in mind the doubts of the learned. This dissonantia he thus accounts for (Quest. ad Hedib., Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii. 1002), * Duss epistole que feruntur Petri stilo inter se et charactere discrepant structuraque uerborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diuersis eum usum interpretibus.

’ These doubts, however, Jerome himself puts on one side, and in his letter to Paulinus (Migne, Patr. Lat. xxii. 548) he speaks of the books which make upour NT without any sign of differentiating between them—‘ Paulus Apos- tolus ad septem ecclesias scribit . . Iacobus Petrus Joannes Judas Apostoli septem epistolas ediderunt.’ This view, which doubtless represents that of the Church of Rome, found expression in the Canon of the Vulgate.

The recognition in this version of the Seven Catholic Epistles practically closed the uestion in the West. Thus during the course of the 4th cent. the Epistle was finally received into the NT of Greek, speaking and Latin, speaking Christendom, though the Syriac-speaking Churches still refused to it entrance into their Canon. To sum ne The evidence as to the reception of 2 Pin the Church has now been given aad sifted. * Harnack (Theol. Ltzg. 1886, col.

178) suggests that in the repeated una sola there {is in one case a reference to James, in the other a reference to Jude. The word sola, however, would remain unexplained (see Zahn, Gesch. Kan. τι. i. p. 155n.; Janday in Studia Bibi. et Eccles. iii. p. 243 ff.) PETER, SECOND EPISTLE It becomes necessary to interpret it as a whole. We do not find any certain trace of 2 P in the extant literature of the 2nd cent.

Coincidences, which have been adduced to prove literary in- debtedness, turn out on examination to be nothin more than illustrations, literary or doctrinal. Further, the words of Eusebius, as was pointed out above, seem to exclude the possibility that books now lost contained clear references to 2 P. Spitta and Zahn (see above, p. 798) agree in find- ing an explanation of the obscurity in which the Epistle remained in the supposition that it was dressed by St.

Peter to Jewish Christians, and that Gentile Christians would not be likely to take much interest in a document written for Jewish fellow-believers. The theory is open to criticism in several directions. (i.) It cannot be said that there is anything in the Epistle itself which sug- ests that it was addressed by a Jew to Jews. The negative argument urged against the su position that 1 P was sent to Jewish Churches is valid here; see above, p. 783. (ii.)

But let it be granted that internal evidence favours the sup- position that it was addressed to Jewish converts. Vould such a destination be likely to be a bar to its recognition in other Churches? The Epistle of St. James and that to the Hebrews were both addressed to Jewish communities; and though they were by no means universally accepted in ancient times, yet their history stands in marked contrast to that of 2 P. (iii.)

The argument for the authenticity of 2P, as urged by these critics, depends largely on the witness of the Ep. of St. Jude, which in their view was sent to the same Church or Churches as 2 P. Why, then, was the brief Epistle of one who was not an apostle circulated widely, while a longer Epistle of the chief of the Lord’s personal Slower was per- mitted to remain in absolute obscurity)? The want of allusions to the Ep.

and of reminis- cences of its language is more significant when two further considerations are taken into account. In the first place, the style of the Epistle is so remark- able that its phrases, if known, could hardly fail to be remembered, and, if regarded as apostolic, to be appealed to; and it must be added that, if appealed to, they could not but be reproduced in a form which would make recognition easy and obvious.

In the second place, the Epistle would have been a controversial armoury for the assailants of the Gnostics. Had it been known and looked on as authoritative, it could not but have been used, as 1 John and 2 John are used by Irenzus (i. 16. 3, iii. 16. 5, 8). The first piece of certain evidence is the passage from Origen quoted by Eusebius, though it hardly admits of doubt that the Epistle was known to Clement of Alexandria. It is certain that during the 3rd cent.

the Epistle gained accept- ance in certain Churches, though the evidence is too scanty and (e.g. as to the date of the Egyptian and of the Old Latin texts) too uncertain for us to define with any exactness what those Churches were. It is clear also that by the time of Eusebius the recognition of Seven Catholic Epistles had (at least in Churches which he knew best) become usual.

On the other hand, the evidence of Origen, Eusebius, Didymus, and Jerome shows that those teachers whose knowledge of Christian literature prior to their own days was widest, were conscious of the doubt which attached to 2 P. How, then, was 2 P received into the Canon? The history is very obscure, but the evidence suggests that there were three stages. (a) The information which we possess as to the Hypotyposeis of Clement leads us to think (see above, p.

803) that at Alex- andria, at the beginning of the 3rd cent., 2 P was regarded as the companion of the Apocalypse of Peter rather than of 1P. This is to some extent PETER, SECOND EPISTLE PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 807 confirmed by the position of Methodius, who used 2P (see above, p. 804), but who also counted the Apocalypse of Peter among ‘divinely inspired writings’ (Conviv. Virg. ii. 6; Migne, Pat. Gr. xviii. 57).

(6) If this be so, yet before the time of Eusebius the two documents had parted company. Eusebius, who did not himself accept 2 P, gives us his view of the way in which before his time 2P had secured a place among the Catholic Epistles— πολλοῖς Χεήσιμο: φανεῖσα μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουδάσθη ΞΕ: 1en once it was ‘studied with the other criptures,’ it could not fail to attach itself to 1 P, for it proclaimed itself as a ‘second Epistle’ of that apostle (3).

This juxtaposition would necessaril con the respect already paid to it, and would, for most readers, decide at once its apostolic author- ship. Further, we may conjecture that, when other Epistles besides the three—1l P, 1 Jn, Ja— were reckoned as Catholic Epistles, there would be a natural tendency to make that group seven in number. So the collection would seem to have a sacred completeness, and also to be brought into relation with the Pauline collection. For St.

Paul wrote to Seven Churches (Canon Murat. ; Jerome, ad Paul. Ep. liii. 8, Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii. 548), and his Epistles were regarded as fourteen in number. Again, the Apocalypse was addressed to Seven Churches. (c) We have already seen how, not- withstanding the doubts of the learned, the fuller Canon of the Catholic Epistles gained final recogni- tion in the Greek Churches of the East and in the Western Churches.

Reviewing the whole history, we remark that the case of 2 P is unlike that of Jude. We find no trace of the Epistle in the period when the tradition of apostolic days was still living. This lack of early evidence, even when taken in conjunction with the paucity of 3rd cent. evidence, the doubts expressed by, e.g., Origen and Eusebius, and the absence of the Epistle from the NT of the Rysise-pesiong Church, does not 6 its spurious- ness.

But the absolute insufficiency of external evidence creates a peer ptaan against its genuine- ness, and throws the whole burden of proof on the internal evidence of the Epistle itself. 3. VOCABULARY AND STYLE.—({a) Vocabulary. A full examination of the remarkable vocabulary of 2 P is beyond the limits of this article. The following are the main points :—