STUDIES IN THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST PETER

UC-NRLF
B
3

im

T22
E.
Sixth

ILIFF ROBSON, B.D.

Form Master
of Felsled School,

Formerly Scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge

Cambridge University Press

C. F, Clay, Manager London: Fetter Lane, E.C.
Edinburgh:
loo. Princes Street

1915
Price
ijf)

net

STUDIES IN THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST PETER

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

C. F.

CLAY, Manager
E.G.

Hontion:
GHlimburgf):

FETTER LANE,
100

PRINCES STREET

!l!^

STUDIES IN THE SECOND EPISTLE OF ST PETER

BY
E.
Sixth

ILIFF ROBSON, B.D.

Form Master
of Felsted School,

Formerly Scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge

Cambridge
at

the University Press

IleTpto OS

npos ras

;(p6ias

7701(1x0 ras BibaaKaXias.

The

Elder' {apud Papiam).

ov TTpos laTpov

(ro(j)ov
infjp.aTi.

Bprjvdv Tr(o8as rrpbs TOfxQtvTi

Soph. Aias 581-2.

PREFACE
npHESE
but
lies

Studies are published not as the last word on

the problem of the "Second Epistle of St Peter,"

in the firm belief that the solution of that

problem

at

least

along the

lines
;

here indicated.

No new

facts are

brought forward

that would be indeed hard to

do after the careful labours of both English and German

writers, notably of

two Cambridge

scholars,

Dr

J. B.

Mayor

and the Bishop

of Ely.

All available literature on the subject has been duly

consulted
that this
of one

but the learned reader will easily perceive

a
first

is

venture beyond the Pillars of Hercules

who has
sea.

till

now merely hugged the

shores of a

narrower

If so slight a
it

work had been worthy of a dedication,

to

would have been inscribed

two members of

my own
it

College, without

whose more than kind encouragement

light

would not have seen the and

Dr

Latimer Jackson

my

brother, Ernest

I.

Robson.

Both have given

welcome help with the

proofs.

E.

I.

R.

Felsted, March, 1915.

331659

CONTENTS
PAGE
I.

The Problem of the Epistle

Analysis of the Epistle

II.

....
.

III.

Remarks upon the above Analysis

(i)

IV.

Text of the Epistle

Notes on the Text
of
Style,
"

(ii)

V.

Differences

between
(i)
(ii)

"

E " AND

P"

.... .... ....

Vocabulary,

14

etc
18
18

Want

of originality in

E E
.

Paucity of vocabulary in
Clear references in

22

(iii)

to the Canonical

the N. T.
(iv)

....

Books of
23
26

Possible references to Josephus

(v)

Certain grammatical peculiarities.

of

Comparison
26

E with P
;

(vi)

Vocabulary
E's "

Solecisms
"

....
.

29
30

(vii)

Commercialisms

VI.

Citation Formulae in the Epistle

(l)

yLyvcocTKetv
8i6

on

(ii)
(lii)

aVTO TOVTO
iTTayyfKjiaTa

(iv)

...... ...... ......

33 33 36
37

37

VIU
VII.

CONTENTS
PAGE

Some Special Notes

(i)

Su/ifcoi'

(ii)
(iii)

dovKos KOI aTToaroXos

TavTTjv b(VTepav eTTlCTToXjjv

rj

(iv)

evroXrj

...... ......
.
.
.

39

39

40
41

43 44

(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)

o 7rpo(Pi]TtK6s

\6yos

The Voice The

reference to the Pauline Letters

4^
50

The Personal Pronouns

2

50
52

VIII.
IX.

"Jude" and

Peter

Sub-apostolic References to 2 Peter

Probable
59

Date and Origin

>

>

J
J

> >

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE

OF PETER"
I.

The Problem of the

nearly
all

Epistle.
relating
to
this

All

or

available

facts

Epistle have been laid before us

Mayor, Spitta, document, however, remains unsolved.

tive side

by the labours of Chase, The problem of the Bigg, and others.

On

the conserva-

we have
;

the somewhat despairing shifts of

Zahn

on the other, we have a general consensus of opinion that the Epistle is wholly non-Petrine and of late date, but we have as yet no reasonable explanation why

and Spitta

it

should have been written at

all.

It

has no visible

"

tendency

"

it

is

not a

polemical

utterance.

As a

forgery or a pseudepigraphical
factory raison
d'etre,

nor

is

document it has no satisthere any reason why, as

such,

it

should have been attributed to the Apostle Peter

Its relation to the Epistle of

Jude

is

not satisfactorily

explained by mere borrowing on either side or by the

elaborate re-borrowing theory of Kiihl (partially antici-

pated by Berthold, Gess, and others)^. It remains only to interrogate the Epistle
order to ascertain
first,

itself in

whether an analysis of the subject

are

^ The arguments of Chase (D.B.) against Petrine authorship equally arguments against " forgery " or even capable imitation.
'^

The various
R.

interpolation theories are set out by

Cone {Enc.

Bihl.).
1

STUDIES 1\ IHE "t;ECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

;

matter suggests hv:)raogoneit3^ of the Epistle secondly, whether there is evidence of any cleavage of vocabulary and or style between different portions of the Epistle
;

thirdly,

whether any result

so obtained will give a reason-

able explanation of the existence of the Epistle and of its

relation, or the relation of a part of
it,

to the so-called

Epistle of Jude.

be necessary to make these enquiries without actually assuming the genuineness of the First Epistle of
It will

Peter

though an attempt
is

will

be made to show that

such genuineness

compatible with the facts of the

Second Epistle.
II.

Analysis of the Epistle.

Prelwiinary Consider'atio ns.

The
(1)

Epistle

may have been

it

written as

stands by the Apostle Peter,

(2)
(a)
(b)

written pseudepigraphically as
a " tendency " document,

an essay in the Petrine manner, by a follower

or admirer, or
it

(3)

may be

a composite work.

Of these
If

2 (a) can hardly be regarded seriously.

failure.

As

pamphlet 2 Peter would be a lamentable

we accept

1 or

2 (b)

we should

look for a

on set lines and with a definite object. might be a general epistle on the scheme of Christian (i)
" salvation,"
(ii)
(iii)

document Such a document

a series of brief references to questions of the day,

an answer to enquiries made by the

recipients,

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

(iv)

a personal epistle of apology, self-justification or

warning.
2 Peter steps into none of these niches.
It stands

neither with
1 Cor.
(iii).

Peter

(i)

nor with Jucle

(iv)
;

nor with
it

It is a thing of shreds to

and patches

passes,

by what seem
to apocalyptic.
dissatisfaction.

be happy-go-lucky sutures, from exleave

hortation to narrative, narrative to prophecy, prophecy

We

it

with an air of puzzle and

The
I.

analysis which follows deals mainly with these

transitions

and breaks of thought of the Salutation, i. 1-5 a.

Epistle.

Here there seems to be some confusion on which see below j). 50

fif.

of the pronouns,

II.

moral exhortation,
is

i.

56-11.

The The
first,

transition

abrupt.

close of verse

4 suggests as the great Christian aim

:

escape

from the world's corruption

secondly, the

These thoughts are not followed up. The section before us deals with a positive aspect of moral growth which will fit us for knowledge iTTLyvcoaii; but it does not look forward to any mj^stical
partaking of the Divine nature.

union w^ith the Divine nature.

Moreover the salutation

conventional,
if

is

conceived in a frigid and

;

not undignified, fashion^

the exhortation
is

of 56-11, if also on stereotyped or conventional lines,

full of

genuine

fire

and energy

aTrovBr} is its

keyword.

modern writer

or preacher passing thus rapidly from

the one style to the other might arrest, but would probably
puzzle, his hearers.
^

Deissmann has pointed out

i.

its
f.),

affinities

with formal inscriptioaal

language {Bible Studies,

pp. 277

12

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

Thirdly, the sahitation regards eiriyvwai^i as something

now

present with us

the section before us regards

it

as

something in the distance, a goal at the end of a long

progress.

Next, with the particle

III.

hi6,

we pass
vv.

to

personal

statement,

12-15,

following

naturally upon

the preceding passage, and passing again

{vv.

quite naturally to a personal narrative

16-18).
Epistle

The next
consequence.

sentence,

vv.

19-21,

if

we regard the

as a whole, cannot be absolved

It reads as if

from jerkiness and in-

some happy thought had just Nothing has prepared us for " The struck the writer. Prophetic Word," of which the passage just preceding is
conceived as giving us
"

greater confirmation."

There
"

is,

moreover, an awkwardness in the pronouns.

We "

in verse 18 refers to the witnesses of the Trans-

figuration;

in

verse

19

"we"

(unemphatic)

is

purely

general in reference.

Some break
probable.

therefore between verses 18

5,

and

19, as

between verses 4 and

and upon similar grounds, appears

The
IV.

analysis then continues

An

introductory
v.

sentence

to

"

The Prophetic

Discourse."

19.
i.

V.

"The Prophetic Discoursed"

is

20-ii. 19, dealing

chiefly with a description of false prophets.

There
"

no structural break between

of thought
is
:

i.

21 and

ii.

The connection

We

get fuller confirmation of

'

The Prophetic Dis-

course.'

There

is,

as everyone knows, true prophecy, but

there were, are, and will be again, false prophets."

1

See pp. 44

f.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

The
passage.

last

phrase
xiii.

("

there will be false prophets") appears

also in Mc.

22 as paving the way for an apocalyptic Apocalyptic seems always to demand some sort

of opening apology.

VI.

comment upon, and

is

amplification
ii.

of,

the pre-

ceding statement that sin

slavery,

20-22.
fit

Except as a comment,
duction to what follows.
air of being

this passage does not

it

in with

the Prophetical passage, nor does

It

serve as an introindeed, with

closes,

two

conventional proverbs of a vulgar type, which have the

dragged in to end the section.

second personal explanation,
iii.

VII.

1, 2.

Here we are on much-vexed ground.

abruptness before, we have
here.
it

If

we have had

much more pronounced

There

is little, if

anything, to suggest connection

in

what immediately precedes, or with what immediately

VIII.

follows.

continuation
iii.

of

prophecy, merging

into

apocalypse,

3-13.

After the fine climax of verse 13

verse

surely a concluding
iii.

we have
Final warnings and exhortation,
exhortation, that
is,

IX.

14-18.

An

to peaceful virtue
It is

and a rooted

distrust of the

" scoffers."

backed by a reference to

St Paul.
III.

Remarks upon the above Analysis.

and the same person,
an epistle
is

If the writer throughout be one

his idea of

indeed mysterious.
shifts

He

is

guilty
in
his

of abrupt transition, sudden

of

meaning

personal pronouns, and two (at least) examples of serious

anticlimax.

He

is

almost without literary sense.

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

As

for

the subject mattei', let

It is

who

will

regard the

Epistle as homogeneous.

most

difficult to

suppose
" forger,"

the Apostle

still

more

difficult

to suppose

or an admirer, deliberately composing such a farrago. Suppose, however, certain fragmentary passages, worth preserving, to have been welded together by comments,

introductions, conclusions, specially written for the pur-

which the writer (or editor) would aim, and his readers expect, Avould be the unity which the cement imparts to the imperfect fragments of sculpture which we may see pieced together in the porch of a church. It is unity of this kind alone which the present
pose, the only unity at

and the result of our analysis and study of the connections of the document will for the remainder of this essay be regarded as a working hypothesis to be verified in different ways. Out of the document, as a whole so heterogeneous, can be taken four passages in themselves entirely homogeneous and to the point. There is a vigorous piece of moral exhortation, cast in a form convenient for learning by heart, viz. a "ladder of virtues^" (i. 56-11); there is an autobiographical gospel fragment (i. 16-18) laying obvious stress upon presence in the " Holy Mount," and
writer can find in

the

Epistle,

the hearing of a voice, as apostolic credentials

there
is

is

"prophetical discourse"
apocalyptic passage

(i.

20-ii.

19) and there

Ki]pvy/jLa
it

poipijreia

^ATroKaXvylrcs;
"

(iii.

3-13).
is

FivayyeXiov
"

an

a mere chance that

Gospel,"

three of these four,

Preaching,"

"

Apocalypse,"

coming

to us

under the name of the Apostle Peter, are

later ages conceived
of

precisely
^

what

him
8,

to

have written,
ix.

Compare Shepherd

Hermas, Visio

iii.

Similitudo

15, for

Bimilar " Tugendreihen," not copied from 2 Peter, as Grosch suggests.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

and

"

forged

" for

him

Is it not at least possible that

in these

we have the genuine germs

this

of

what

later
?

were
but

developed into apocryphal writings in his

name

At present
an attempt
that
these

must remain a suggestion only

in the following pages to

will

be made

show

passages stand apart from the rest of the

Epistle in thought, style,

and vocabulary

What then of the rest of the Epistle ? Every portion now fits into place into the mosaic. Someone (whom we
must
for

convenience begin to distinguish as the editor,

or E, as opposed to the four sections which, passing for

Petrine, will

be designated as P) introduces, connects,

comments upon, winds up, passages not his own, in a manner which has indeed an element of much artificially First, he prefixes, but certainly no undue clumsiness.
(juite honestly'^,

a formal salutation in the

the subject

name
:

of Peter.

He
it

introduces

of Prophecy with a skilful

sentence looking both backward and forward

he closes
After
and

with a natural,
1

if

not very literary, comment.

Partition or interpolation theories (Grotius, Berthold, Lange,

Kiihl

with whose conekisions those of this essay will in part agree

ii

and

others) usually confine themselves to ch,

only.

Chase argues "there

cannot be said to be any difference of style between ch. ii and the rest If he had said " and the bulk of the rest of the of the Epistle." " he would have expressed the underlying principle of the present Epistle
essay.

Grosch {Die Echtheit des II Briefes

Petri'-,

Leipzig, 1914), while

ii

battling for Petrine authorship, yet regards chh.

and

iii

156-18 as
Italian

a later insertion by the author, in view of disturbing news just received.

2

"Editors"

are

commonly honest even

pp.

to

stupidity.

Literature (Symonds, Age of the Despots,

188 and 189) gives us

authors apparently referring to their own deaths. Servius' Commentary on Vergil, "stupidly re-edited" (Comparetti, VirgiUo nel Medio Eva, i.
p. 75),

Eel.

I.

makes the author quote himself (" ut Servius Such instances do not need multiplying. 12).

dicit "

Serv. ad

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

giving his reasons for preferring Apostolic citations to

his

own

efforts

(iii.

1,

2),

he quotes a passage certainly

7rpo(l)r)Tiic6<;

not his own, for the opening words are from the
X0709, also cited

by Clement of Rome. At the conclusion of this passage, he writes an Epilogue which most skilfully sums up all that has gone before " Be zealous (see i. 5) in virtuous living; do not be led astray on the subject of the Trapovaia (see ii. 1, 2, iii. 36, 1) but grow in grace and knowledge (see i. 56, 8)." The whole he throws into Epistolary form, and for a reason which we must admit is not obvious, divides the subject into two letters, correctly described as " reminders," both based upon apostolic utterances (iii. 1, 2) and apparently both despatched to the same readers at the same
;

time.

These points, mentioned by anticipation,

with in detail
later.

will

be dealt

There follows next the text of the document in which

those passages assigned in the foregoing analysis to the

Editor or Redactor (E) are in heavy type.

lY.
(i)

The

Epistle. hy heavy type.

Text

E marked
is

The

text

following

the

Textus

Receptus, with

variations of
^

W.-H. given beneath

i.

Liberty has been taken to deviate from the punctuation of T.R. in

1,

2, 21,

and

ii.

13 in order to

show the connections as understood

3 capitals have been written,
-u

in the analysis.

In

i.

5, 19, 20,

iii.

has

been added
(i,

to verb

terminations of the indicative, and

in

oi/rws is written

11) for 0VTU3.

i.

Immaterial divergences of punctuation, accentuation,

ii.

or type (e.g.

22,

8)

W.-H.

are not given.

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

affects the
is

"

In cases where the choice of text

of the present essay, a special note
also

argument
;

given later on

as

some speciaL notes on the

state of the text

and upon
belong

possible " primitive errors."

It does not, however,

to the province of the present " studies " to discuss in detail the textual problems

which do not directly

affect

the argument.

Zahn {Einleitung^

p.

87) gives corrections of

and

additions to Tischendorfs apparatus.

HETPOT TOT AHOSTOAOT

EmSTOAH KAGOAIKH
1
Svfiecov
lcroTi|xov
-

AEYTEPA.
TT|(rov

IleTpos

8ov\os

Kal

airocrroXos
.

Xpicrrov,
-qp.cijv

tois

"niitv

Xaxovo-iv

ttio-tiv
X*^P''5

Iv.

.StKatoorvvT]

tov 0ov

Kal
171-

(rft)TT]pOS

'lT](rOV

XptCTTOV*

VjllV

Kal

6ipi]VT]
i]p.o5v,

irXTjOvvGeiT]

3.

"yvwcrei

tov 0ov, Kal

*lT|crov

tov Kvpiov

ws irdvTa

i^fiiv

ttjs

dcias 8vvdp.ws

avTOv

tci

irpos ^wt)v Kal cvo'epcidv 88pT|p,VT]S, 8id ttjs

'>][Jids

4 7ri"Yvwo"ws
yit-yicTTa

TOV

KaX.(ravTOS

8td

86^t|S

Kal

dpeTfjs,
I'va

8i'

v Ta
tovtwv
V
liri-

r\YXv

Kal

Ti|iia

ira'yY'X[i.aTa

88(opT]Tai,
TTJS

8id

7VT](r0

0iaS

KOlVWVOl

(t>VO'()S,

d'Tro4)V'Y6vTS
8,

Iv

Koo-p,a)

5 8v|iCa (t>6opds.

Kal auTo tovto

z^irovhriv

iraaav 7rapL(T6veyt7]p dperrjv, iv

fcavre^y eTTixop'qyTJcrare ev rrj iriarei

v/jL(oi>

he rrj dperfj rrjv yvMcnv, iv he

6 iv Se

rfj yvoacrei Tr)v

iyKparetav,
ttjv

T^ iyKpareia
Title:
i.

ti]v

V7ro/jbovr}Vy

iv 8e rfj vTrofiovrj

W.-H.

KETPOT B
[marg. 2TME12N]
Idia dotrj k. dperri

1 ^liJLojv

3 marg.

4 rd

rt'/xta

k, /neyLCTTa

y]fx?i>

eirayy.

ev T(2 Koa/xu}

10
7

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

8e
rf)

)j

V(7ej3eiav, ev

evae/Seia ti]p <f)iXaB\(j)iaPy iv he

rfj

(piXaS\<pia ri]V dyciTrrjv.

ravra yap,

v/jlIv

virdpy^opra Kai
e^V

irXeovatoma. ovk dpyov<; ovSe aKapTTov^ KaOiarijacv

9 T7JV
/jL7]

Tov Kupt'ou

I'lfxwv

^hjaov ^pLcrrov iiriyvcoaiv

<p

yap

irdpeanv ravra,

ru(f>\6(; iari,

ixvwirdXwv, Xydrjv Xa^oov

10

rod KaOapLcr/JiOu ro)v rrdXat avrov dfiapnwv.

Xoyyju iroielaOai'

Aio fxdXkov,
Trraiarfre
v/xlv
i)

dSeXi^ol, aiTovhaaare /Se^alav vfioiv ri^v Kkrjaiv Kai k-

ravra yap
TrXofcr/o)?

iroiovvre'i ov

fir)

11

wore.
elaoho'^

oiirco

yap

eiri'^opriyriOi^creraL

eh

rrjv

alwvtov ^aauXeiav rov K^vplov

r)/jb(ov

Kai

awrrjpo^; ^Ijjaov ^picrrov.

12

Aio OVK

djjbeXijaw

v/jLd<;

act vrroixifjivi^crKeLv irepX rovrwv,

rfj

Kaiirep elSora^i, Kai iarr}pLy/jLevov<i iv

13

Trapovar) dXr^Oeia,
rep (TKrjvcofiari,

hiKaiOv he riyovpiai,

e^

ocrov elpX ev

rovrw

14

Bieyeipeiv u/xa? iv vTro/jLvyjaec

elBo)^

on

ra-^Lvy icrrtv

1)

arroOeai'^ rov (TKijvoo/jbaro'^ P'OV, Ka6(o<^ Kai 6 Kvpto^i

15 'I?;croi)9

rjfjLCJV

X/9tc7T09 iB/]Xroaev
/Jierd

fiOL.

airovhdcra) he Kai eKaarore

Xiv u/xa?,
TTOielaOaL.
16

rijv

i/xrjv

e^ohov, rrjv

rovrcov

/xinj/iTjv

Ov yap aeao(^iaixevoi(; ixvdoi<^ e^aKoXovO rja avre<^

crajxev vfilv rrjv

eyvwpi-

rov K^vptov

tj/jlmv

Iijaov ^picrrov hvvafiLv

rrji;

Kai rrapovoLaVy
17

aXX

iiroTrraL yevrjOevre'^

iKeivov
ri/jurfv

/ae-

yaXeLorrfro^;.

Xa^ayv yap irapa ^eov

eve'X^delarjfi
'

7rarpb<;

Kai

ho^av,

(f)(t)vfj<;

avrw

roidcrhe viro

rr]<i

fxeyaXo-

7rpe7rov<; ho^rj^,
iB

Ovro^ eariv

o vl6<; fjuov 6 dyairi^ro^;, et? ov

(fxDvrjv
rj/jLecf;

iyco evhoKTjcra.'

Kai ravrrfv rrjv

rjKovcrafJbev

i^ ovpavov ive'xOelcrav, crvv

19

avrw
v

ovre<; ev

rw

opei rd> dyiw.

Kai

'iyjoy-iv

pcPaiorcpov tov npo<})-qTiKov Ad"yov, w KaXais ttoicitc

Xv^vto
<|)aivovTi

irpo<rcx.ovTS,

avxiATipw

tottu),

ews

ov

i^^cpa

W.-H.

i.

12 fieWrjcru (oni. ovk) del 17 6 vU

fxov 6

i'/xas

ay. fiov ovtos ((ttiv

Kai TavTrtv
ti^ ay. 6pi

18 evobKifCa,

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

20 StavYcio-r], Kai
(|>a)(r<|)6pos

"

11

avaTCiXr] V rais KapStais vixtov*

'ypa(j)f]<; I8ia<;

tovto irpweirLkvcreco^

Tov 7ivw<rKovTs, oTi

2
1

Hdaa 7rpo(f)7]Tia
OeXij/jbart

dvOpooirov r)ve')(^6ri irore ov yap dXX vtto Ylv6VfjLaT0<; Aytov (pepo/juevot iXaXycrav 7rpocf)7]Tia, 2 01 (iytoL Seov avOpwiroi' eyevovTO Se Kal '\lrV^07rpo(f)rJTaL
ov
^/iveraL.

iv

T(p

\aM,

ft)9

fcal

iv

vfilv

eorovrai

yjrevSoStSdo'KaXoL,

o'LTLV<i

Trapeio-d^ouatv alpeaei<^ aTrwXe/a?, Kal tov dyopdavTov<^

SeaTrorrjp
dpvov^JievoL,

aavra
2 Ta')(^ivr}v

iirdyovre'^

eavTol<^

aiTwXeiav' Kal iroWol e^aKoXovOy^aovaiv avTom

ot)?
?;

Tal<^
3

diTwXeLaL'^, hi

oho'^

Trj<;

dXrjOeias: l3\aa(f)r}/jLr)-

di]aeTai' Kal iv ifKeove^la irXaaToif; \6yoL<; vixd<^ i/xTropev(Tovrat'

oI<?

TO Kplfxa eKiraXat ouk dpyel, Kal

r)

aTTCoXeia

avTCJV ov I'vard^ei.
4

Et yap

0eo9 dyyeXwv d fia prr] a a

^6(f)0v

if

tcov

ovk ecpelaaro,

aXXd
5

aeipal^

raprapcocra^

irapehwKev eh Kpiaiv

rerrjpij/jLevovf;'

Kal dp'^aiou Koa/jtov ovk e^eiaaro,

aXX

oyhoov
6 Koa/juay

Nwe

SLKaLO(Tvvr)<;

KtjpvKa e(f)vXa^v, KaraKXvafjLov

aae^cjv

67rd^a<i'

Kal

TroXet^^ ^oS6/jl(ov

Kal Vofioppa'^

Te^p(jO(Ta<i
7

KaTa(TTpo(f)f]

KareKptvev, viroheiyfJia fieXXovrwv

dcre^elv redetKcof;' Kal BtKatov Ao)t, Karairovov jjievov vtto

Trj<;

TMv
i^

adea/jicov

iv

aaeXyela

dvaarpocf^rj^,

ip'pvcraro'

8 (^Xe/jufjcarc

yap Kal uKofj

ifiiepa's

o hiKaio^, iyKaroiKOiV iv avTol<^y

di'6jjLOC<i

Tj/juepav

"^vx*!^ ScKalav

epyoi,<;

i^acrd-

9 vL^v')
10 ov<;

olSe KvpLo<s evae^ei'i iK Treipacrfiov pveaOai, dScK-

Se

eh

rjfiepav

Kpiaew^ KoXa^o/jivov<; TTjpelv fiaXtaTa

Karacfypovovvraf;.
tti'.

Be Tou? oTTicrw crapKO'^ iv iTTidvfila fxiaa/jiov Tropevofievov^iy

Kal

KvpiorrjTO'^
i.

ToX/jb7]Tal
dirb

avOdBeL<;,
oi)

W.-H.

21
1

Trpo<p. TTore

07.

0eoO dvdpwiroL (om.

ii.

''Yi'yevovTO

2 do'eX7etais
4 aeipols
rripovixevovs

6 om. KaTa<XTpo(prj 8

dae^eaiv

p\iJ.iJ.aTi..,^a<rdvi^ev,

10

ToXixrjTal, avOddets,

12
11

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

laxvl

So^a<; ov rpe/jLovcTL ^\aa(^rifiovvTe<;' oirov ayyeXoi,

Kal Svvd/xL
12

/j,eL^ov<;

6vt<;,

ov (fyepoucnv Kar avroyv irapa

ovtol
he, o)?

Kvplrp ^\da(f)7]/jLov fcplatu.

yeyevvr^iJieva

aXoya

^(oa

^vaiKa
ko/jllov-

eh nkwcnv Kal

(f)6opdv, ev ot?

dyvoovai /8Xa-

13 a<f)7]/j,ovvTe(;, ev rfj cfjOopa

jJievoi

avrSiv Kara^OaprjaovTai,

fXiaOov dSiKia^.

'HBovrjv rjyovfJievoL Trjv ev rj/xepa

evTpvcf)wvr<? ev

rpv(l>r]v, ctttlXol

Kal

/xwyLtot

rah

dirdTau'^

14

avTMV, crvvevco'^ov/ievoL
/jLot'^^aXiSo';
y\rv')(a<^

vfjilv,

6(f>0a\/jLov^ e')(^ovTe<^ /jbearovf;

fcal

aKaTairavcTTov^

diiapria^,

BeXed^ovre^

d(Trr)pLKTov(;, /capBiav

yeyv fjuvacr fxevrjv irkeove^iai'^

6h(p rov

15 -)^ovTe<i,

Kardpaf; reKva, KaraXt7r6vTe<y rrjv evOelav oSov,

rfi

i7rXavr)dr)aaVj e^aKoXovOrjcravTef;
i6 J^ocrop, 0?
(jllctOov

BaXaa/x rov
Be
e<T')(^ev

dhtKia^ rjydirrjaev, eXey^iv

lBia<i irapavofila'^'

viro^vytov acfxovov, ev dvOpcoTTov

Trpocfir/rov

(fioyvp

(f)6ey^dijLevov,
*7

eKcoXvaev rrjv rov

Trapa^povlav.

OvroL
/levac,

elcTL Trrjyal

dvvBpoL, ve<peXai virb Xa/XaTro? eXavvo-

ot?

^6(f)o<;

rov

aKorov^;

eh

alcova

rerrjprjrai,.

18

^TirepoyKa yap fiaracoTrjrof;

eTrcOvfJLLat'^ crapKO<s,

(f)6eyy6/jLevoi,

BeXed^ovcrLv ev

ev daeXyeiat^;, tov<; ovtco^ d7ro(^vyovra<^

19

T0U9 ev TrXdvr) dvaarpe^oiievov^;, eXevOepiav avroh eizayyeXXofMevoL, avrol BovXoi virdp')(^ovTe^ t?}9 ^Oopd<;'
o)

yap
rd

^o T9 r)TT7)7at, TOVTU) Kal BeBovXcoTai.

|xid(r|xaTa

El

-yap diro<|>v'YovTS

tov K6(r|xov kv

iiriyvdia-ii

rov Kvpiov

Kal orwTrjpos

'It^o-ov

XpicTTov, TovTois 8c TrdXiv

cijnrXaKCVTes

TiTTVTai, yiyoviv

avrots Ta

W.-H.

ii.

10

rpefiova-L, l3\a(T(f)7]/xovvTS

11 [Trapa

Kvp'ni}]

12 767. <f>V(TLKa 12, 13 avTuv

13 ddLKOVfxepoL jmcrdbv
ddt-Kias, r]5ovrjP

mar<^. dyaTrais

14 d/caraTrdoTOi's TrXeove^ias
15 17
KaraXeiTTOPTes
Kttt

om.

ttjv

Bewp

ofxix^ai (for j^e^Aat)

2'^

om.

els aiOiva

18 om. ^p

oXiyios dirocpevyoPTas

19 om. Kal

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

2
1

"

13

^o"xaTa
T-^jv

)(iipova

twv irpwrwv.
Tj

KpeiTTOV ydp

r\v

avTOis

fJ-i]

lirt'yvwKevaL

686v

TTJs 8tKaioo-vvT)s,

eiriYVOvcriv lirto-Tpe'\j/ai k ti^s Trapa8o0i<rT]s

2 2

avTois d-yias cvroXiis.

<rv|xPepT]K Sc avrois

to

ttjs d\T|0ovs Trapotp.ias,

Kvwv
3
2

Tri(rTp'\|/as

irl

to

I'Siov

t^epajia

"

Kal,

'Ys

\ov(rap,VT]

ds

KvXio'p.a

PopPopov.
t)8t],

TavTTiv
8i'Yipa)

d-yaTTTiTol,

8UTepav
tt]V

ili|xiv

ypd^oi

eiricTToXi^v,

ev

aW
tcov

v|JLwv

virop.vqo-ei

clXiKpLVT)

Sidvoiav,

ixvTjo-Ofjvai

7rpOl,pT]JJLV()V

pTJfJLaTWV VTTO

Tc3v d-yiCOV Trp0<})T]Tc5v, Kal TTjS

'

TWV

aTTOO-TO-

Xv
oTt

"qfJLwv

VtoXt|s tov T^vpiov Kal o-coTT|pos

TOUTO irpcoTov

"yi-vwo-KOVTes,

^jXevaovrat eV eV^arof
t'Sia?
T}

rcoz^ rj/juepMV efjUTral/crai,

Kara
ol

Ta9

avTMV

67rtdv/jiia<i Tropevo/ievoi, real

\6yovTe<i, Tlov
d(j)

iariv

iirayyeXLa

tt}?

irapovaiaf;

avrov ;

r/?

yap

Trarepe^;
5 /cTicreft)?.

iKOi/jiyjOrjo-av,

iravra

ovrco

hiafxevei

dir

apy^Pj^^

Aav6dvi yap avTov^ tovto OeXovra's,

hi cov

on

ovpavol

r)(Tav efciraXac, /cal yrj

6 Tft)
7

i^ v8aro<; Kal Bl vBaTO<; crvvearMaa,

o

TOV eoO Xoyo),

rore Koa/io^i
rj

KXvaQel<^ aTrcaXero'

ol Be

vvv ovpavol Kal

vhan Kaiayrj tm avrw

Xoyrp reOrjo-avpLcrfiei'OL

elcriu,

irvpl Trjpov/jLepot ei9 rjfiepau

Kpia60)<; Kal ciircoXeia'; tcov dae/Scov avOpcoircov.

8

"Ev

TOVTO

\i.r\

Xav0avTco vp,ds, d-ya-m^Tol, oTt /jiia rffjuepa Trap a

9 K.vpi(p CO? ')(LXLa 6T7],

Kal

')(^iXia

eTy

&)9 rj/juepa fila.

ov ^paBv-

vei 6 K.vpLO'^ Tt]^ eTrayyeXia's,

w^

tiv<^

^paBvTrjTa rjyovvTac'
'

10

dXXd jJLaKpoOvjJLel et? rjfjLd^i, fir] l3ovX6/xv6<^ TLva<; diroXeaOat, H^et Be r) rj/jcepa dXXd TrdvTa^ eh fieTavocav xcoprjcrat.
Vivplov
ft)?

KXe7rTr]<; ev vvktI, ev

rj

ol ovpavol pot^rjBov irapyi)

eXevcrovTaL, aTOC^eta Be Kavaov/Jieva XvOrjaovTac, Kal

Kal

W.-H.

ii.

21 22

vTToaTpixl/ai
Kv\L<JIJLbv
vfxu}v

iii.

3 ecrxarwi/

eu ifXTraiy/j-dpr} iixiroLKTai

iiTLd.

avrwu

10 om.

v vvKTL

XvdrjaeraL

v.

8a

E, see

p. 36.

14
1

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

iv avrfj

ra

epya KaraKarjaerai.

^ovrcov ovv iravroiv

Xuo/Jie-

vcoVyiroTaTTOv; hel VTrap^etv vfxd^ iv ayiacf; dvaarpo(f)al^ Kal

12 evaejSeiac^;,

irpoaho^tiiVTa^ Kal airevhovra's rrjv irapovo-lav

i]p,epa<;, ht
rjv

T>}9 Toi)
i^

%eov

ovpavol irvpovpievoi XvOrjcrovrat,

Kal

aTOi')(^ela

Kavaoufieva T^jKeraL;

Kaivou^ 8e ovpavoiis
avrov TrpoaSoKco/xev, iv

Kal yrjv Kaivrjv

ol<;

Kara to
ravra

eirdyyeX/jia

BiKaioavvT) KaroiKel.
Aio,
aYcnriiTol,
irpo<r8oKa)VTS,
lpT|VT],

14
1

<nrou8a{raT

ao-iriXoi
T||JLCOV

Kai

5 afJLW|lT]TOl

aVTW

vp0TJvaL V
*

Kttl

TT)V TOTJ

KvpiOV
T|fi.<ov

fiaKpO"

6v[jitav (TtoTTipiav TiYcicrOe

KaGois Kal 6 d-yaTTTiTos

<ro<|>iav
^"ypaxl/tv
vjjiiv,

d8\<}>ds

IlavXos

16

Kara

tt|v

avrw

8o9i(rav
Iv

ws Kal

ev Trdo-ais rais

eirtcTToXais,

Xa\wv

avrais

irepl

tovtwv

Iv ois Icttl

8vcrv6T|Td

nva,

01 d|xa6is

Kal d(rTT|pLKTOt (rTppXovo"iv, ws Kal rds Xoiirds

yp'4*'5;

irpos TT|v iSiav

avrwv dirwXciav.
I'va
fiT)

17
1

'Yp-eis
d0'o-p.wv

ovv, d'yain]Tol, Trpo"yivw<rKOVTS 4>vXd(r<ro-0,

o-vvaTrax0'vTS, kKTria-ryn.
yviatrn.

tt]
'

twv

TrXdvT) Iv

tou l8iov
T|fj,wv

o-TT^pi-yjiov

av^d-

V6T

8e

\dpiTt Kal

tov Kvpiov

Kal ortoTfjpos 'Itjcov

dp,T]V.

Xpio-Tov.

avTw
iii.

T|

86|a Kal vvv Kal

els Tijilpav

alwvos.

W.-H.

10 evpedrjaerai (see appendix)

11 oiJrws (for ovv)
[li^iSs]

12 Tr}KTaL' "perhaps a corruption of the rare Trj^erai"

(appendix)

Kaivovs

15 bodelaav avTu> 16 avTQi> (for avrujv) 18 om.

dfirjv

(ii)

On some
i.

poiyits in

tJie

text

of the Epistle.

(a)

3.

'n? connected with the preceding clause by

W.-H., Oecum., Theoph., Vulg., Beda., Erasm., Hornej., Grot., Spitta, von Soden.
It is true that the salutation elsewhere stands apart,

but both salutation and epilogue of the present Epistle are unusual in design.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

Spitta compares

"

15

the

Ignatian Epistles

acl

Philad
iii

Smyrn., Eph., Rom., and the Pseudo-Platonic letters

and

viii.

If

we

follow W.-H., the section with its series of linked

clauses

certainly

looks

like

conscious

and
i.

laboured

imitation of Pauline connection (see esp. Gal.

1-5 and

Eph.

i.

1-14).
is

In any case the salutation

Tf]<;

highly conventional.
of

6eLa<^

8vvd/jL(o^

avrov suggests one

those

set

prefatory phrases which occur in documents of another

character, inscriptions,
(b)

and complimentary

or official letters.

Yansittart {Journal of Philology, ill. p. 357) has suggested on textual grounds that this Epistle was extant
for

some time

in a single copy^; the older chapter headings

are certainly wanting in B.

further suggestion

may

perhaps be hazarded that some part of the original document was in tachygraph, and that the misreading of
abbreviations
cnriXdhe^
for
is

responsible

for

Jude's
as

d'yciiraL^

and

aTrdrati;

and

(tttlXoi,
v.

w^ell,

perhaps, as
this as it
is

the difficult e^exvOrjaav of Jude

11-.

Be

may, the general impression of a study of the text

it is

that

probably in a corrupt state.

Four possible "primitive errors" are here noted; (a) i. 1 Ei^ here^ \a')(^(ivaiv irixTTiv ev hiicaioavvrj rod Seov rj/jLMV

presents no special difficulty, but the run of the sentence is much improved if we assume a gap after eV, in which the
was probable. The letters were The only copy of the lost letter letters, and suggests (.S'^ Paul, Eng. Tr. p. 69), to the Corinthians, as Deissmann was possibly torn up by the Corinthians themselves.
^

single copy, in the first instance,

not written for publication.

for e^y]Ko\ovd-qaa.v (2 P.

ii.

15)

but see below p. 54 note.

a similar origin.

/noLxaXidos

(for fjLOLxdas, apparently)

may have

It also

has the

appearance of a despairing attempt of a not over-skilled decipherer.

16
local

STUDIES

IN

THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

community
to

name

of the

whom

the letter
rj/jtlv

is

to

be

carried

would be inserted
,

toI<;

laonixov
r]/jLoov

Xaxovatv
(1

iricTTiv ev

hiKaioavvr) tov

eoO

The absence
i.

of any note of place

is

remarkable

Peter

1 is in strong contrast).

In the salutation of Jude, the relation of which to the present salutation will be discussed later, the eV of verse 1
is

a positive

difficulty,

and Dr Chase has there suggested

7rpo(f)r)Tia...lSia<;

a similar gap.
(6)
i.

20.

iracra

eirikvaew^

ov

Here there seems to be some primitive error, and suggestions have been made on the assumption that ^['yverai + casus genetivus properly and normally means " arises from." Thus Grotius reads eTrifkixrew^, Heinsius iirCkevo-ew^, both in the sense " non est res proprii impetus."
'yi'yveTai...

If we are to

more likely Prophecy arises out of a man's own inspiration, prophecy was never inspired (tjvexOv surely in same sense as (fyepo/nevoi) by man's (own) will but prophets spoke being inspired by the Holy Spirit." 'ETTtTTz^o/a? would be the usual word, but iiriirvevai'^ might well be used for its similarity to irvevixaro^, whereby the contrast is more clearly brought out. If on the other hand we are to keep the traditional interpretation, we should perhaps read...t3ta9 eirl Xvaew^
is

emend on these lines, e'TrtTri^euo-eco?

"

to be the original word.

No

scriptural

ov yiyverai, since yiyveadat

iirl

with genitive correctly

means
need
is

" to

be concerned with."

There
iariv'^.

is

no apparent

for

the

compound noun

and, as the text stands, there

no point in yiyveraL rather than

1

Mayor considers
seem

these words, in the traditional text, " not

unworthy

of the Apostle in

whose name they are written."

The

criticism does

certainly

to apply to

many

of the phrases, seemingly difficult

and

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

(c)
ii.

"

17

7. The repetition of BUaio^ vv. 7, 8 (bis) is though both 2 Peter and Jude show certain curious repetition phenomena. Lot was, by contrast,

strange,

BUaio^;, but hardly so as to merit a three-fold

tion.

commenda-

Is Slfcatov in

y.

a primitive error for heKarov, a

xviii. 32,

misunderstanding of Gen.
in verse 5 above
?

and a

parallel to oySoov

Some mystic
here
as

stress is laid,

no doubt,
Pirke

upon these numerals Aboth V. 1-9).

(d)
is
iii.

elsewhere

(e.g.

16.

Trpo? rrju Ihiav avroov^ aTTcoXeiav.

tSto? avroov

There

which according to some authorities (X ah) is read in iii. 3. But with Jude 6 in mind it may be questioned whether dihiov is not here
nothing strange in
original-.

Kara ra?
ligible

tSta? avrcov iTrtOv/jLca^; (if correct) is intel"

enough,

the lusts peculiar to themselves," of which

"

they

may

almost be considered the inventors: but "their

or even " their oivn (emphatic)
"

own

peculiar destruction

destruction

seems hyperbolical, dihiov here would give excellent sense,' and would be an echo (see pp. 18 ff.) of
ii.

3, 12,

iii.

7.

cf'tSto?

avruiv BvvafiL<;
(i.

occurs early in the Epistle to

the

Romans
-

20) which

may

here be in the writer's

mind.

obscure, in P, the difficulty and obscurity of which arise only from the

profundity of their meaning.

suggests a writer of great thoughts

struggling with unmanageable media of expression.

Here and in iii. 3 avrQu is probably correct. The assumption being (see below pp. 57 ff.) that our " editor" has read ".Tude's" setting of the fragment which he, later on, also incorporates into an " Epistle."
1

R.

18

STUDIES IN THE " SECOXD EPISTLE OF PETER

"

V.

Differences of Style, Vocabulary,

etc.,

BETWEEN
The

"

"

AND

"

P."

by the process of analysis have given us no more than a working hypothesis unconfirmed at present by any verification.
results tentatively arrived at

necessary to search careftiUy on the one hand the passages which, appearing to be homogeneous in themselves, have been temporarily designated as P, or possibly Petrine fragments, and on the other hand those passages which have the appearance of connecting links, comments, personal explanations, and conclusions, and have been temporarily designated as E. These symbols, however, must be understood as serving the convenience of discussion only, and not as prejudging any conclusions to be arrived at later.
It
is

now

(i)

Want of

originality in E.

The The

first

obvious mark of the

sections

is

their

want
on
3,

of originality.
salutation, as has

been already pointed

out, is

conventional lines, with conventional phrases.

especially, recalls the

Verse

language of honorific inscriptions

p.
;

(Deissmann, Bible Studies,

salutations
is

360). Its affinity with Pauline

noted below

as also its possible debt to

Josephus and Philo.

Elsewhere,

appears to pick up words from P, echoing^

the actual words, but with difference of application or

1 Chase, D.B. iii. p. 808, notes that in some cases there is a natural need for this "iteration"; but that "in the majority of cases there He accepts however this "remarkable is no such justification."

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

construction, or in the case of

"

19

some

of these, with different

meanings;
but in
In
ii.

aTrocf^vyovTe^ (P,
it

ii.

18) appears also in

i.

(i.

4),

18

is

followed by an accusative, in

4 by a

genitive.
ii.

20 (E)

it

echoes
:

ii.

18 (P> and
ii.

is

assimilated in

point of construction

but in

20

it is

(as

Chase notes)
18.

used of a set of persons other than those of

occurs in
in

ii.

^Apertj

P (i.

5) in a natural sense
i.

and context.
in

It is

used

the

salutation,

3
T.,

(E),

in

a different sense, and

one unique in the N.

Philo.

though found

Josephus and

Bo^a, used thrice in P,

(i.

and

in three different

meanings
still

17

bis,

ii.

10), is

used in the salutation (E) in

dperi],

another signification, and one which, with

suggests
use
is

a later linguistic stratum.

conventionale
eTTtOv/xla also, in E,

In

iii.

18 (E)

its

has

all
ii.

the appearance of an echo-

word.
*'

In P

it

occurs

ii.

10,

18 (plural) in the sense of

iii.

desire of,"

followed

by a
used

genitive, in

(also

P)

it is

again in the plural, in the abstract sense of

i.

" lusts."

In

(E)

it

is

in

the

singular,

without

genitive, in the sense

signification.

of " lust,"

with an entirely general

characteristic" without suggesting any possible causs.

is

"His vocabulary
as poor

ambitious, but...tlie

list

of repetitions
Ivii, Iviii)

stamps

it

and
if

in-

adequate,"

Mayor

(Introd. pp.

traces these to

"a

liking for

recurrent sounds or a desire to give emphasis."'

But many,

not

most, of the repetitions gain

integrity of the
Epistle,

little in

emphasis.
of

On

the theory of the

they are a source

in

weakness, as Chase
but Grosch's

observes.
^

The meaning

of 56^a
{oj).

ii.

10

is

very doubtful

strained interpretation

cit. p.

22) " die Herrlichkeiten des glaubigen

Christen " can hardly stand.

22

20

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

cl)6opa occurs in
ii.

12 (P) in an entirely natural sense.

created for the shambles \ applied to the
"

The animal

creation

is

In the same verse

the equally "brute" out

it is

destruction" of
it is

e/juTraLKTai.

In
In
i.

ii.

19 (P)

used in

the sense of moral corruption.

article, in
is

4 (E)

it is

used, withits

a purely general sense.

eiriOvfjiia.

In this respect

use

a parallel to that of

These words have been singled out from the salutation (others will be discussed presently) at the risk of an
appearance of hypercriticism, as exhibiting slight shades
of difference from the in the Epistle.

same words as appearing elsewhere

are
all

They

without the

article,

a fact

which in

itself

suggests that they are used without special

is

reference.

But what

remarkable about both these and

is

other expressions in the salutation

their grouping.

We

down to compose a letter may would begin with the salutation, and, on the whole, go
suppose that a writer sitting
straight forward with the development of his subject or
subjects.

Let us however postulate what, at present, only our analysis gives us any right to pre-suppose, that an
editor or redactor
his own,
is is

in possession of certain passages, not

which he
all

welding into a single document.

What
survey

would, in

probability, be his course ?

He would

his materials, an^ange them, perhaps compose his bridging

and would then settle down to the formalities of salutation and conclusion.

comments or
Is
it

amplifications,

merely fanciful to see in the salutation the overture

to

in

which the melodies

it

come are lightly indicated?

Or, to
?

put
^

more

prosaically, to see in vv.

1-4 a table of contents

off its

Wetstein gives an illustration from a rabbinic source ; a calf begged approaching doom. Eabbi Judali replied " Thou wast created for this end."

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

21

The conventional opening

possess rd
tt/do? ^(orjv

done,

we

are told that

we

Does not this describe accurately the "moral ladder" of vv. 5-11 ?^ The ^(orj is
Kal evaejSeiav.

to be attained through eTTiyvcoai^;.

What
''

does the writer of

"

verses

12-15

offer

but

knowledge ? The " knowledge " is of one who called us by So^a and We have the description of this ho^a in 17, 18 dperr).
?;z;.
;

of one manifestation, at least, thereof

We are to become "partakers of Divine nature, escaping

and verse 3 of chapter iii. are warnings how we may know, and thus escape, this (j>6opd, which is also the result of " lust."
the corruption in the world in
lust."

All chapter

ii.

And
will

finally,

chapter

iii.,

verses 7-10, with verse 12,

describes to us a final "destruction," in which those alone

be involved (see
efjiiTatyixovr).

v.

9)

who continue

the

life

of eTnOufjiia

and

The
and so

salutation

is

a conscious

summary

of

what

follows,

from suggesting a natural preface to the Epistle, bears at least a suspicion of being put together with
far

some labour and artificiality after the component parts of the rest of the documents had been arranged and studied. Yet another, and an important, " echo " appears in In i. 11 (P) we have rov K.vpLov ^/jLmv Kal adyrripo^ i. 1. In ii. 20 (E) the same phrase occurs, 'Irjaov XptaTov. without rj/jLMv. In iii. 2 (E) we have rod Kvpiov koI But in 1, (Tcorripo^, and in iii. 18 (E) as in i. 11. to the best text, we have a remarkable variation, according
i.

Tov

(^)eou

^]/jLCt)v

Kal

o-(oTrjpo<^ ^Xrfo-ov

Xpiarou, no parallel to

which can be adduced before the second century (Ignatius ad Eph. 6 Beo? ///xwi^, of Jesus Christ).
^

See discussion of eirayyeXfxaTa below,

vi. p.

37.

22

STUDIES IX THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

)5

The Sahidic
tion

version, perhaps puzzled

by the contradicis

between

vv. 1

and

2,

omits

v. 2.

Further points in the salutation (which

problems) will be dealt with
later.

full

of

A
ii.

striking example of

"

echo

"

may be
recalls

seen below in
airo^ev'yovTa
7ridv/iLaL<;

20

(E)

where
TCI

d'Tro^v<y6vT6<;

(ii.

18 P),

/jLidcr/jLara

rov

koct/jlov

recalls

aapKo^, fX7r\aKevT<; recalls heXed^ovcnv, and rjTTWVTai

recalls rJTTr]Tai.

an author would repeat thus, with comparatively weak comments, what he has
It is not altogether likely that

already said in vigorous language.

The passage ii. 20-22 has

lame and
artificial

all

the appearance of a rather

conclusion of another hand.

Other instances are wpoaSoKoovTe^; iii. 14 (E) from the previous verse (P), rfj twv dOeo-fxwv TrXdvy iii. 17 (E) see ii. 15, arrjpLy/jLov iii. 17 (E) see i. 12, cnrovhaaare
iii.

14 (E) see
i.

i.

5,

10, 15,

hieyeipw iv

virojivrjCTei

iii.

1 (E),

see

13.
(ii)

Paucity of vocabulai-y in E.
borrowings from other parts of the document

Akin
is

to E's

his paucity of vocabulary

which leads

to repetition within

each

section, repetition

which apparently has no special

2

point or purpose.

Beou,
too

'J 770-01),
i.

in

i.

and

i.

have already been noted, so

i.

eiTL'^vitiaei

2, t?}? i7n<yvwa(o<^

o,

deia^

i.

3, deia^;

i.

4. is

In

ii.

20-22

this paucity

both of words and ideas

vv.

specially marked.
thrice,

These three

say the same thing

'xeipova

is

balanced (negatively) by Kpelrrov', and

;

note iircyvooaec iTreyvcoKevai iTriyvovaiv

vTroo-Tpeyjrai eVt-

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

In
later)
iii.

"

23

l-3a (a passage requiring special discussion we have viroiJivrjcrei fii'rjadrjvai. evTo\7]<; iii. 2 see
ii.

VTo\y)<;
iii.

21

iii.

15 Kada}<; Kal 16 w? kul

(his);

dyaTrrjTOL

14 dyarrriT6<i 15 dyaTrrjTOi 17.

These repetitions suggest a conscientious but unable

writer

uneasily

making the best

of the

little

at

his

commands
While
(e.g.
iii.

it is

quite true that repetitions occur elsewhere

5, 7, 8, 10),

such repetitions are either necessary

or emphatic.
(iii)

Clea7' references in

to the

Canonical

Books of

the

N. T.
falls

The next mark

also part

of

which

under discussion
also

is

and parcel

of

this lack of originality,

reference to the N. T. books, are borrowed^.

whence

namely words and ideas

of

The

relation

of the

salutation

to

that

Jude

is

discussed later.
salutations

It has close affinities

with the Pauline

(notably
1

Rom. and

Phil.),

and

is

perhaps

indebted also to
ev eTTLyvctiaei, a

Peter with the significant addition of

to the later

word belonging

stratum of

Pauline vocabulary.

There are references, or apparent references, to single Of words or brief phrases in 1 Peter, both in E and P.
1

is

cramped
:

in vocabulary

by his want of
it.

LXX

words.

uses

the

LXX

sparingly

he

is

not steeped in

KadaptcrfMos /aw/xos aKrjviofia.

viro^uyiov are

commonest

of the

definitely suggestive of the

TrXrfdvvdeiri.
2

LXX words which P employs. Nothing LXX occurs in E, unless we so reckon elp-qv-q

As

also

allusions are

"not

His by P, but P is less dependent upon his originals. of an intimate nature" (Mayor, who collects them,

Introd.

p. Ixxviii).

24

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

these only a few are crucial, and until

knowledge in regard to the draw no reliable conclusion

1

we have surer composition of 1 Peter, we can from them^ e7ro7rTafc(i. 16 P)

be a technical

P.

ii.

12,

iii.

e7ro7rTvovT6<;, is said to

word from the language of the mysteries ^ 'ATr/^ecrt? itself occurs in the N.T. in i. 14 (P) and 1 P. iii. 21, but the verb is common, and the metaphor obvious^. Perhaps iii. 14 (E) ao-inXoL Kai d/jLco/jbtjroi may be referred directly to 1 P. i. 19, but even here there is no
necessary reference.

however to other books of the N.T. may perhaps be more clearly seen in i. 19 (E) &>? \v'yv(p ^aivovrt ev av')(^/jL7)pa) toitw, where there appears to be a clear reference to the Fourth Gospel v. 85,
References
\v')(yo<^ 6
still if

Kaio^evo^i Kal (palvcov.

The

parallel is clearer

we may suppose
its

that our writer understood avx/J^v

po9 in

correct

and original sense of "dry," "desert."

a light in a desert place
(cf.

The Baptist was

ib.

Lk.

i.

80).

e&)9

ov r)^epa Stavyday Kal

<f)(0(T(l)6po<;

dvareiXrj...

The context (prophecy) and the language strongly

suggest a reference to the Benedictus.
'irpo<}>-f|Tt]s
.

..K\r]6}]ar}.

iv ol? eiriaKey^erat

rj/xd's avaToX.TJ...Trt<})avai

tol<; ev
.

aKorei...

Mayor suggests

also 2 Cor. iv.

4-6 (avyda-at.

.eXafiylrev ev

Tat<; KapSCaL^...).

He
order of
^

points out also that the reversal of the natural

dawn and daystar

(op.
cit.)
is

is

true to the passage of 2 Cor.

Grosch

a sad proof to what lengths of rashness con-

servatism

may

go in proving the inexpertius per inexpertum,

2 These technical meanings are not to be pressed, and the word mayhave been common enough in early Christian language. The "putting off" of clothes, etc. It could hardly refer to the
^

"stowing away"

of a tent {(TKrivwfxa), as

has been suggested.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

25

and to the fact that first came the Dawn^the Messiah and then the Daystar in the individual heart both preceded by the Lamp of Prophecy. ii. 20 T e(T')(^aTa ')(^eipova rwv Trpcorcov this appears

to.

be a direct reference to Mt.

xii.

45, Lk.

xi.
vi.

26.

The
iii.

verse which follows suggests Heb.

4-6.
ii.

14 evpedrjpat
V. 3.

is

a possible reference to Gal.

17,

2 Cor.
iii.

15 o dyaTrrjrh^;

rj/jLwp

dSe\^6<i suggests St Paul's

own words
ri86\</)09

of Tvchicus

and Onesimus, but the use of

ix.

of St Paul also strongly suggests Ac.

if

17 SaovX

a^eX^e, as

brother Paul
ib.

"

we were here to render not Our beloved " but " Our beloved Brother PauP.'
"
'

Kara
1

rijv
iii.

hoOelaav
10
{y^dpiv,

{cro(f)iav)

also

from St Paul
close by).

himself
iii.

Cor.

but

o-6(f)o<; is

16.

rd<i\ot7r(U ypacpfi'^

certainly suggests the use

(e.g.

of al ypacfyai of the O.T. in the N.T.

1 Cor. XV. 3, 4).

Rom.
it

xv. 4,

Here,

if

the references given above to

refers
is

passages of the Canonical N.T. books hold good,

to those N.T. books themselves (a use of ypacj^al

which

assured by the middle of the second century 2).

Other possible N.T. references are

23, Tit.
i.

t8io<;

avTwv

(Ac. xxiv.
(intr.

12), K7rear]re (Gal. v.

4),

av^dvere

as

commonly
7, iii.
^

in N.T.), tt/jo? (v. 16) (as e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 6)

and
iii.

the doxology (the rare rj/xipa alwvo^

may be an

echo of

10 above).
we may compare what
is

If this " titular" sense holds good,

said

below on
-

8ov\os koI dirdaToXos, p. 40.

which they torture (twist) as they do also the rest of the writings" may gain point from the fact that the writer ommenting upon a series of fragments is himself putting together and without any suggestion of -'twisting." His comment;^ follow the lines of his originals precisely, almost slavishly.

The expiessiou

"

2C)

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

These indications, minute

latively,

in themselves, taken
vv.

cumu-

go to show that the passage

it

14-18

is

a cento,

were a kind of compliment to that Apostle to surround the mention of his name with a guard of honour from his own works. Certainly in v. 16 the
largely Pauline, as if

writer speaks as a conscious student of Pauline works.

(iv)

Possible references to Josephus.

adduced by Dr Abbott and others from Josephus are discounted by recent scholars ^ There was a considerable body of vocabulary which would naturally be
parallels

The

common
as

to similar contexts.
crTrovSd^co, Slkulov
etc.,

Such words and phrases

rjyrjaci/jLrjif,

criTOVOi],

KaXoo^

Troielv

Trpoaexovre^,

are

common

in epistolary Greek.

It

may

however be noted that the only reasonably clear set of parallels between a consecutive passage of Josephus and
a consecutive passage of 2 Peter
of 2 Peter (E) and the Preface
(v)
is

that of the Salutation

of the Antiquities.

( 4)

Certain grammatical peculiarities.

Comparison

of

with P.

Mayor has entered most minutely into grammatical and syntactical marks of the Epistle. From his list the
following special points

may

be noted ^.

P
that
^

alone omits the article, where

i.

we should

look for

it,

with eoO (E
is,

1,

2 rov eoO), irvevfia ayior,

title

ypa(\>i],

words,

which have something of a

also those from Philo.
is

about them.
many
viz.

As

Mayor's discussion

very full and deals with

items either
it

doubtful or of minor importance, but a complete study of

seems to
definable

confirm

what

these

"special

points"

suggest,

two

linguistic strata in the Epistle.

STUDIES IX THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER "

27

alone gives the " semi-compact " or elaborate use of

the article as in
TOL<; laoTL/jLOV njiiLV

\a')(ovcnv tticttlp,

l.

rwv

7rpo6ipr]/jLV(ov ptj/inTWv viro

twv

(ly. Trp. ill.

T>}?

Twv diroaroXwv

evro\rj<^

rov K^vpiov

ib.

gives six examples of the

"

uncompact

" use,

only one

Bid T^9 eTnyvoxrew^ rov KoXeaavTo^;

rj/id^;.

With ordinary
article.

Avords

does thrice omit an expected

Elsewhere
(i.

E
4,
ii.

is
ii.

almost obtrusively precise in the

22,
ii.

use of the article

it fi-eely
(i.

iii.

16,

iii.
ii.

17) while
15,
iii.

P omits
al.).

21,

ii.

5,

6,

10,

ii.

13,

Mayor specially remarks the

anarthrous noun

"illiterate

use of the

"as

"

more

visible in the prophetic por-

tions," in P, that is to say.

Genitives and Datives in

i.

E
on

are normal and classical, except

ev BtKatocrvvrj,

which see note above, pp.

Special to

15, 16.

are
(ii.

genitive of quality
appositional
(ii.

1 al),

6),

with adjective with verbs

(ii.

(ii.

14),

al.),

and datives of
instrument
cause
(i.

(ii,
ii.

3,

ii.

al.),

21,

al.),

respect

(ii.

8,

ii.

11),
(i.

with eV (unclassical)

13,

ii.

3,

ii. ii.

16,

iii.

3 W.-H.).
11.

uses no plural abstracts.

ii.

10,

2, ii 18, iii.

The

curiously vague connections of

(esp.

in

the

28

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

salutation) have been noted.

We may
iii.

add

iv

ah

iii.

1,

the double relative connection

16 iv aU...a preceded

by

Ka6(Jo<;

KaL..(o<; Kai...

In
i.

tenses,

is

normal,

if

not studied ^

He

affects

pairs hehcoprjiievr]'^ SeBcoprjrai, KaXecravro'^ d7rocf)vy6vT6(i in

1-4.

In

ii.

20-22 we have
In
iii.

a7ro(f)V'y6vT6<^ ifjuifkaKevTe'^,

yefyovev iTreyvcofcevai crvfi^e^rjKev, eiTLyvovo-Lv vTroaTpeyjrai,

7rLaTp'\lra<; Xovaafxevr}.

14ff.

aTTOvSdaare evpedrjvac,

hoOelaav eypayjrev,

XdXwv earlv
7,8,
9,

arpe/SXovaov.

varies

tenses at will, almost perversely:

see e.g.
ii.

6,

12, 15, 17,

TrjKerai,^,

iii. iii.
i.

12 \vdr}aovTai
5,

6 (Tvvearcoaa KaraKKvaOeh,

10 (Tirovhaaare Troieladai,
TTOLovvre^ Trratcnjre.

Of moods E

uses classical constructions in

i.

i.

19

eo)?

ov

and subjunctive (Lk. and Acts),

in N.T. except Lk.).

2,

aorist optative (rare

While

uses participles in a normal way,

P is

very

fi-ee

with them, especially in the present, where they seem to

make
In
ii.

for

dramatic

effect.

voices,
15.

is

normal.

uses active for middle

i.

5,

1,

i.

Two
iii.

special instances of
;

pleonasm occur in
16, unless this

P.

ii.

12,

3 W.-H.

compare
ii.

also
14,
i.

ii.

be classed

as periphrasis with

9, 10,

15, 17.
ii.

P has
^

a strange anacoluthon in

4-9^.

has two,

both with ytyvMaKovre^; on; on these see below vi. pp. 33ff.
2

Note his idiomatic Kpelrrov y]v ii. 21. If TTj^erai (W.-H.) were original, it
it

is

hard to see why

it

was

lost,

protected as
5

would be by

XvOrja-ovTai (-crerat).
it

If oWei'

marks the apodosis,

is

so far

removed as

to

amount

to anacoluthon.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER "

29

(vi)

Vocabulary

Solecisms.

Certain points in the vocabulary of

have already

been touched
If
Epistle,
e^epajjua
it

on.

we take Dr
is

Chase's

list

of the solecisms of the

noteworthy that not one occurs in

see below).
(f)a)pr]

(on

and

Kv\Lcr/jL6<;

P has
(of

jxeWrfaci)^

Kavaov-

aOai

fiXe/jifia

irapeLd^epw

Divine utterance)

/jLvcoira^eLv fiof)(^a\h (as

here used) irapac^povia raprapoco.

ii.

We

should add, perhaps, the form e7rd^a<^ in

i.

5,

and

jV7]0VT<^ in

16.

Of

the 56 words only in 2 Peter of

the N.T.
in P.
If

books (some occurring more than once) 39 are

we

cancel out those which being nouns have a

corresponding verb in the other part of the document,

or

verbs with

corresponding nouns, or different forms

a/jLcofirjrof;)

{arrjpi'yfjbo's

jxiaap^a

we

find in

only

avx/jLr}p6<;

Scavyd^cD

(j)(0(T(f)6po<i

in one obviously cited passage,

and

e^6pa/jba KvkLafio^

^6p/3opo^ u? in two quoted proverbs-.

icr6ri/io<;,

and /ie'yiaro<^ (on which see below), and o-rpe^Xoo), none of which can be called highly solecistic. E, as opposed to P, seems to
are left with hvav6r]To<i,

We

avoid the verhum inusitatum.

E
till

does however use certain

as
"

common words
"

in a not

common meaning, and such

late
;

we do not elsewhere
'ypa(f)d<^,

find

e.g.

ho^a (=virtus

inward and moral

acorijp.

Thayer)

(jivaL<;

{Oela),

perhaps avxP'Vpo'^,
eTrlyvaxrif;

and we may add

theyree use of
1

and

Unless Field's

fieXrjad)

be correct,

Perhaps

(as suggested

itself something near a solecism. by Wordsworth) two iambic (? scazon) lines..

so

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

(\di)

E's " Goiiimercialisuisr

There are a certain number of words in E which, studied in their context, have a curious commercial ring
about them.
In
i.

OiKaioavvrj rov ^ov, Si/caiocruvr] means,

(p. 116), Io-ott]^

the words of Clem. Alex.

koI Koivcovia rov

it is

hLKaLov..Meov
not "justice
i.

r]

avrr) tt/oo? Travra^.

In other words,

"

9).

Trio-rtv

but "just dealing" (see Westcott on 1 John laortiiov Xa^ovauf in the context all help

this idea.

Xaxovatv means " having got," and Trlariu is evidently something worth " getting," something concrete. ia-6Ti/jLo<; is used by Philo (despite Field) to mean " of equal value with" (M. i. p. 165, i. p. 70 la-on^ov ^vxfj), and the sense
would be a good one here. 7rLaTi<; will then be not fides, but fidei-commissum^, a sense which would stand well in Jude 3 " the deposit once entrusted to the saints " (note as the strong TT a pah 00 6 la 7) deditae, not traditae) for which

man armed
1

over his treasure

we must

fight bravely.

TTtcrrt? is

here a TrapaKaradyjKT).

See TriarovcrOat in

James ii. 1 where in the context are TrXovcrto^, fc\r)p6vofjLo<i, and Kpirai in (apparently) the commercial sense of " arbitrators." Such a use suits also
Tim.
iii.

14,

and

cp.

Tim.

iii.

8;

the

sinners
;

are

"fraudulent trustees"
will "

dSoKLfiot Trepl rrjv iricmv

{irpoKOTTTeiv, see L.

but they

make nothing

"

and

S. s.v. TrpoKOTrreiv itXovtol'^)

See

also 1

Tim.

vi.

21, nrepl rr)v Triartv i^aroyricrav

by it. where

1 As Heine, living in a commercial atmosphere, said [Biich le Grand) that he soon learnt that " der Glaube " meant not "la foi "' but "le

credit."

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

31

adToj^elv at least suggests /aire faillite in thf worldly

sense.

The opposite
context,
vi.

virtue

is

rrjv

irapa- {irapaKara-)

Si]Kr]v (f>v\'ia<7iVy " to

be a good trusteed"

The
perhaps

17-19

(addressed

to

the

rich

in

this world), has airokavaiv irXovrelv dirodrjaavpi^etv

and

we

may count

also

Oe^xeXiov

" capital ")

and ^'St/Xott;? TO (j)avp6v, "ready cash"; d(f>avt]<i has a similar use). Returning to our document, we continue with pbeyiara
(" floating

(= ra ap'^^ala^ wealth " opposed to

Koi
Tt/jL7]

Tipia, of

which

Ti/jLta

is

obviously connected with

the

(" price "),

"

and

/jueyiara has

appearance of a
p.

"

commercial

superlative

(see

footnote

34)

and

KOLvcovoi, a

common commercial
in
i.

word.
e^eiv

Lower down,
/Seffaiovv,
i.

19 /BefSatorepov

suggests

which has commercial connotations, but see

it is

10,

where

used quite naturall}^

25)
is

Possibly evpeOrjvat

iii.

14 (but see

p.

another word of this class " to be

for

certified," "to be found corrects" If these " commercialisms " go

anything they

may

suggest to us, in our

summary
"

of the distinguishing

marks

of E, that he writes from

some trading

centre, possibly
is

Alexandria^
in

"

Alexandrian

he certainly
;

in style
to

always tethered to some original

stilted,

precise,
;

not

say

vocabulary, syntax,

not to say laboured writer,

^

and ideas a conscious, with none of the joyous

especially to the

Such commercial metaphors or douhle-ententes would appeal Greek mind. The Greeks were the Lombards of the
is

Mediterranean in those days. 2 In Evang. Petri 6 (Robinson and James) there

of the verb
3
:

a curious use

evpedr}

wpa

eudrr}.

" It was ascertained to be..."

Egypt was avoided by St Paul, and Deissmann may be right in suggesting {S. Paul, Eng. Tr. p. 202) that it was considered to " belong
to St Peter."

32

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

rapidity of

P
iii.

(i.

5-7,

i.

17, 18,

ii.

12-14); making up
affection {ayaTrrjrol
zeal,

for his literary defects

ayairrjTo^

14-17),
"

reverence for the

and by deep Apostles of the Lord and Saviour

Against E,

by personal by fervent

and their sayings^

beyond the
circle of

is

almost reckless in
is

vocabulary, syntax, and flow of ideas-: and

ready to go

Canonical writings, so that he

a writer of fine openings.

may

make a
Traaav

point.

is

'Trapei<jev6<yKavTe<^,

Udcra
;

XttovBtji/

TrpocpTjreia (^

from some

"oracular" hexameter)..., ^EXeva-ovrat

i]fiepo)v

eV

<7')(^aTcov

tmv

and of conclusions, ei? ri^v alcovLOv ^aaikeiav rod Kvplov koI or. I. X. avv avro) yap tc<; yrrrjTai, rovray gu ovT's iv TO) dyi(p opet...^
(note iambic rhythm)

BeSov\(oraL (possibly a " scazon

hiKaioavvr] KaroiKel.

"

iambic recast)
his

ev 0I9

E, for

all

his

borrowed

plumes, and

stricter

adherence to convention, looks

unoriginal to banality.
1

poor beside him, being

Mayor

(footnote, Introd. p. xxvi) frankly

owns

to " the agreements,

as well as disagreements (of 2 Peter) with the ordinary rules."

surely suggests two strata of language.
2

This

There can be nothing in the style of P to forbid authorship by the Apostle Peter. We simply do not know what sort of Greek St Peter

might have written or did

as being " written up."

write.

How

1 Peter, if genuine, is of no help, widely works so " written up " may differ

from the same author's unaided efforts may be seen by the study of a book by M, Markino, A Japanese Artist in London, of which the style is unimpeachable, and of a later work of the same author, when he believed himself equal
is

to the writing of English, of

which the

style

often highly solecistic.

^ In passing it may be noted that this phrase does not necessarily There were H-yia op-q everywhere at Rome (Mons imply late date. Sacer), in the Thracian Chersonnese {iepbv 'Opos), etc. It was natural

to apply the title to the " Transfiguration

mountain."

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

33

VI.

Citation Formulae in the Epistle.

(i)

yiyi'waKetv (elhevai) on.

in the preceding

Even granting the main position taken

atmosphere and
rightly).
style,

pages, as a result of analysis followed by verification from

the question will be asked (and

incorporating

Why, if the Redactor was consciously

?

fragments of an earlier author, was he not at pains to make

this clear

The reply is, that he was at such pains, both by his own statement in iii. 2 and by the use, before his two
chief citations (the third

and fourth

the

first

and second

follow immediately on one another), of a recognised citation

formula, tovto irpdorov

It will

<yiyv(t)crKovT<;

ore
of
is

have been noticed that in both the instances this phrase (i. 20 and iii. 2) it is out of construction^ it
it

followed at once by a definite and direct pronouncement,

what has the appearance of a comment or "aside," and opens up something fresh
closes
2.

Dr Robinson

(Ephesians,
ere

p.

222) has pointed out that

it is "

in letters yivooo-Ketv

diXo) prepares for a piece of news,

and he quotes an instance where, as here,

disconnected," ytvcoo-Keiv ae deXco,
/jLtj

curiously

/jbeXTjadrco croi irepX

Twv

aiTLKcov.

He
1,

xi. 3,

Col.

ii.

compares Heb. xiii. 23

Phil.
for

i.

12,

Rom.

i.

13, 1 Cor.

phrases of this type.

^ In i. 20 it is possible, grammatically, to hark back to ToielTe. This however would logically be wrong, and editors by placing a colon at vf/.Qv have preferred to remove the logical rather than the grammatical

difficulty.
2

For similar auacoluthon caused by dropping into

iii.

citation

compare
3

Tim.
R.

16.

34

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

N.T. instances of this and similar phrases are noted

below, but the use
is

not confined to N.T. or late Greek.

yvcofjLT]

The phrase introduces a

Soph.
fr.
ix.

Ant
8\

188,

EL

P.V. 104, 377, 989, Eur. Med. 560, Ct/cl. 420, Phoenix
in Aesch.

In the N.T.

it

introduces solemn and formal statements,

e.g.

often recognisable citations, see

Rom.

vi.

6 (the passage
;

looks to be a crystallized bit of resurrection teaching)

iii.

Gal.

some pronouncement of our Lord's like those in Lc. xix. 9, John viii. 39 Eph. v. 5, possibly a reminiscence of some " saying of Jesus," occurring perhaps in its original
7,
;

form in

1 Cor. vi. 9,

10 (where

ovic

otSare

on

precedes),

see also 1 Cor. xv. 50 and Gal.

v.

21.
7,

2 Tim.
(itself

iii.

1,

apparently a reference to Mt. xxiv.

21

a citation).

See

also 1

John

ii.

18 and context.
i.

Cf.

James i. 3, introducing a statement found in 1 Pet. Rom. V. 4, where note elSore^; on. id. ii. 20 introduces a gnomic sentence. id. V. 20, a citation apparently made up from Prov.
Ii.

7.

viii.

12 and Ps.
KaXvTTTet
1

15 (see Mayor, ad loc),

ii.

cf.

1 Pet. iv. 8.

Resch,

supported by Didascalia
ttX.
ii.

3,

refers the

phrase aydTri]

dfjiapnwv to Jesus.
3, 5,

John

the presence of iv tovtw alters the

expression, but in both cases there follow close parallels

to sayings of Jesus.
ib.

18 the author

cites, in

order to justify, his

own
"

words.

See also id. iii. 19, 24 and iv. 3. In Lc. xii. 39 the phrase points
householder known..."
^

to a truism

had the

oi)K

dyvoelv 8ti, a natural variant, in

duces a commercial
iracruv iarl fxeyi<rT7}.

maxim

in

Dem. Pro Phormione ^bl introhexameter rhythm Trtcms d^opjui} tQv

\

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

In Mt. xxiv. 32, 33,
fact.
it

"

35

points to an obvious natural

In Pseudo-Clement

xvi.

the phrase introduces a citation

1

from Malachi, in
Polycarp, Phil.

v.

apparently from
15.

Peter.

See also

iv.

The

parallel elhevau ori^ occurs (see above)

Rom.
ih. xi.

V. 4,

see

James

i.

2, 3,

1 Pet.

i.

5, 7.

2 ...iv 'HXeta tl Xijet.

xii.

Heb.
1

17 (a well-known

fact).

John

iii.

15 (perhaps based on

Sermon on the

Mount).
ih. V.

15 seqq. (a series of four, of which two are

to
ii.

parallel

29,

where

yL>yva>crKLv ore

was
5),

used).

Compare

also

Pseudo-Clement
"

vii.

(1

Tim.

ii.

Polycarp, Phil. 15 (Lightfoot notes

Polycarp uses elhevai

on

as

formula of citation," and Chase also (D.B.)

" P. quotes

St Paul with elSore^ on, clearly marking

it

thereby as a quotation^").

We

cannot therefore accuse our Redactor of any want

of that sense of literary indebtedness which was not usually

felt in his da}^

He

goes out of his

prj/xara'^.

way

to

show that he

is

quoting ra irpoeiprnieva

^ ovK ayvoetv otl, of which a classical instance is given above, seems have a similar use in Rom. vi. 3, vii. 1, (a legal maxim), 1 Cor. x. 1. to 2 6'rt alone introduces a citation, perhaps from some well-known

manual, in Acts
hard
^

xiv. 22,
for.

where the sudden change

of person is otherwise

to

account
is

As motto of

well

known, Beati qui ante nos nostra dixerunt was the

classical writers.

The

Attic orators (and not they only) joy-

fully incorporate reasonably relevant passages of earlier speeches, without

acknowledgment.

32

86

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

(ii)

Blo.

There

is

yet another possible evidence of citation.

will

A
its

study of Bio (occasionally Btoirep) in the N.T.

show

common

presence in neighbourhood of citation.

As a

weak
is

transitional particle, originally causal

;

natural enough in this use

but

it

("and so") it seems to have become,

for that

very reason, familiarised in contexts containing

note

citations.

We may
causal (Zech.

among other instances Heb. iii. 10 (no connection in LXX), xi. 12, xii. 12, Eph. iv. 25 viii. 16), Ac. xx. 26 (cf. Ezek. xxxiii. 6), Rom. iv. 22
'^

Blo {koI)
1
*'

iXo^yladrj avT(p
i.

l<;

BtKaioavvrju."
cf.

Pet.

13 (Lk.
full

xii.

35,

ava^(oadfipot ra?

6crcf)va<;

Polycarp, Phil,

ii.)

Bto

No
8, v.

doubt the

phrase

is Bto

Xeyei

{<f>r](7ivy

or

an
iv.

equivalent (so often in Philo; and see Ac.

14,

xiii.

35,

Eph.

Heb. x. 5, Mt. xxvii. 8, Lc. i. 35, and a curious confusion in Heb. iii. 7 Bto Ka6a)<i XeyeL...). A similar use

may be
Btovep

seen in earlier Greek,

e.g. Arist.

Pol.

ii.

2,

4 (1261 a)

"to
i.

laov...(Ta)^L
2,

rd^i

7r6\et<;,"

quoted from the

Ethics', or
avfj.<pepeL

2 (1252 a) Blo " BeairoTrj koX BovXo) tuvto

"

which appears to be a slightly altered iambic

i.

line;

i.

2,

8 (1252 b);

12,

3 (1259 b);

i.

13, 11

(1260 a)

(a quotation

from the Ajax).

iii.

In Heb.
Blo in

10 Blo appears to be used merely to pick

citation.

up an already current
our Epistle
i.

Such may be the use of

iii.

12 Ato

" fMeXXijaoy..." just as

fxr]

may

be a similar reminder, ev Be rovro

XavOavhrw

vjjLd^..,

6Ti...{see the text above, pp. 10, 13).

1

Clem. Alex. Ecloga ex Scriptt. Proph.

xii.

did

/cat

Herpos iv

ttj

ATTOKaXi/'/^ei (pTjai'...

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

avTo tovto.

"

37

(iii)

There remains for discussion yet one more phrase, which (if our analysis is correct) serves also as an introduction to a citation,
i.

5 Kal avro tovto Se...^ usually

is

taken as causal
plural) in
("

but

it

not causal in Xen. Anab.

i.

9,

21 nor in Plato, Republic, 379 A, and probably not (in

id.
").

Protagoras, 310 E avTa TavTa Kal vvv

r]K(o

me

voici

The analogy
a propos
/lev

of eKelvo (Lucian, Nigr. 47,

aX>C

eKelvo, " but,

b),

"),

to ye, to

fieTci
Se,

tovto (Plato,
or equivalent

Rep. 473

tovto

followed by tovto

(Soph. Ajax 670, O.G. 440,

Ant

61, 165, Phil.

1345) does
is

not suggest a causal sense.

best..."

Here the sense of reference

through which we have received excellent eirayyekfiaTa, that by these ye may become... and, on this very
subject (possibly, as with hio,

we may understand
"

Xeyet

'

he

says'),

'

Bringing in

all zeal....'

(iv)

eTrayyeX/iaTa.

last

note upon evidence of conscious quotation must

deal briefly with the word eTrayyeXfiaTa, usually rendered

" promises," as in
iii.

13

(P).

It

may, at the present stage,

be a begging of the question to point out that elsewhere E uses P's words with different significations (pp. 18, 19
above).

But

in

any case
'

it is

strange to say " promises

')

have been given (or

for

he has given promises

;

as gifts,"

Scopeiadai

is

not StSovat

it

is

donare,
"

not dare

BeBa)p7]/jLeva

are tangible assets (see previous verse). More-

over
^

we have a strange
Kal...d^ in
iv.

anti-climax

if

we read
{de

His Divine
the

For

neighbourhood of a citation see Macarius Magnes,

165

Apocritica,

7,

p.

Kat

eKelvo
is

de

avdis Xeyei

is

copula,

KOi intensifies;

"and, what

more..,").

38

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

'>

power has given us all we luant for life and holiness through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue, by means of which He has given us the most
.precious j9rom{se5...";

the i'lrajyeXfiara should balance

fft)>/V

and explain rd
p7]ixev7]^.

tt^o?

as BeBcoprjrat balances SeBco-

Further, there
"

is

an inversion of time
" gifts "

the

"

afterwards. came at the beginning, the meaning of iirdyyeXfjua^, it is true With regard to the that it may and does occasionally hark back to the sig-

promises

nification of the
" to

middle voice of

its

corresponding verb,

but the active signification is " to announce, pronounce, command"; and the middle itself has the further meaning of "to profess," in which it is technically used of
promise
";

philosophical

schools, along

with

its

noun

iTrdyyeX/jia

{tovto eari ro eTrdyyeX/iia o eTrayyeWo/jLat, Plato, Prot.

319 a). eTrdyyek^ia may, therefore, and often does mean " a pronouncement " or " a command," and its passage into the meaning " precept " is an easy one. The eirayyekp.aTa
here are simpl}^ those " precepts
"

which, cast into a form

suggesting a memoria technica-, immediately follow (5 6-7).

The
force of the

-fxa

termination

itself is

not here in question.

Possibly from an early collection or Florilegium of moral precepts.

On Early Christian Florilegia generally see Moffat, Introd. N.T. p. 258 ; Kendel Harris, .r/)ost7or, vii. 1905, pp. 161-171. How far such Florilegia ^f prophecies, precepts, Messianic texts, ready-to-hand arguments and proof, etc., whether Jewish or Christian in origin, underlie the N.T. books and Early Christian literature generally, it is hard to say. Moffat speaks of " their sequence of texts... (1 P. ii. 6-8), their special textual " It is a fragment of such a catena forms, their editorial comments its comment (i. 5h a-Kovbrjv-y. 7 ayairriv) which is here postulated, with
duly following
(vv,

8-11).

If

our general hypothesis

iii.

is

correct,

we
and

'are given to understand by the Editor,

"with the Narrative,

1, 2,

that this passage, along

is

Prophecy, and Apocalypse,

authoritative

he, at least, does not hesitate to attribute them to the Apostle Peter.

STUDIES IN THE
First

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER "

39

we get the

"

Ladder of Virtues," and then a note

If you have them,
:

on their value
vv.

8 (affirmatively)
;

you

will not

be

you have them not, you are 10, 11 (affirmatively): If you carry them into practice, you will never stumble, and only by doing so can you enter the Kingdom of Christ^
unfruitful

9 (negatively)

If

blind;

The repeated ravra, with suggests reference to what has

commendation"^.

ovtux; of

v.

11, certainly

just preceded, by

way

of

The passage

vv.

5 b-11 may, in fact, well have been the

may

opening passage of some collection, and "'EirayyeXfjLara" well have been its title.

In any case

it

is

striking

enough that the narrative,

is

the Story of the Transfiguration,

here literally flanked

by Moses and Elias, the (moral) Law, and the Prophets the " Ladder of Virtues," and the " Prophetic Discourse."

VII.

Some Special Notes.

(i)
'Ev/jLCi)V.

The reading ^vfxecnv

is

the better attested.

Names
meanings,

transliterated into another tongue

for

might not
its

always be suitable
^vfieayv

use by reason
it

of embarrassing

as

stands

is

well,

but

correfail

sponding viroKopLdixo^ (Theoj)hylact),

^

ll^tficov,

could not

Nate also that we have a kind of Pilgrim's Progress sketched out

rrji/

d7ro0ir/6/'Tes, (nrovddaare, ov ^r] TrTaiarjTe, e'laodos els

^

jSaaLXeiav.

seeming parallel in
is

Tim.

iv.

11 IlapdyyeWe ravra Kal 5i5aaK.

r.

ravra

apparently the contents of

(cf. ib.
i.

10,

a citation introduced by

TTKxrbs 6

\6yos

15).

40

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

aifxo^,

to suggest connection with

an uncomplimentary

term (Theocr.
travels,

iii.

8),

as l^rpd^ayv suggests arpa^o^, etc.^

St Paul evades the use of l^avXo^ when he begins his

as
llfMcov,

in

narrative,

is

dropped

after

the

Mission of the Twelve.

use neT/oo9, as in 1 Pet.
itself

Writing
i.

in

Greek St Peter could

K7](j)d^,

1,

the translation of

apparently a twin form of Caiaphas^.

in its only other occurrence in

Xv/jLQ)i^

N.

T. (Ac. xv.
it is

used of Peter in a formal pronouncement as the present instance, according to our hypothesis.
14)
is (ii)

in

hov\o<^ Koi aTroaToXo^;.

The words
In
Tit.
i.

are coupled under a single Genitive.

S.

i.

they are opposed,

ai^e

Oeov

air.

8e

'I.

l^piarov.

In Rom.

they

apparently opposed.

Jude and James

have Sov\o<; only; and these instances suggest equally In the case of Jude that 8ov\o(i is a title of humility.

and James, if they are the " Brethren of the Lord," the word may be a palinode in brief (John vii. 5). Where the word is used of someone else, it is apparently a title of honour (Col. iv. 12 "probably points to exceptional services in the cause of the Gospel on the
part of Epaphras," Lightfoot
;

see also Apoc.

x. 7,

xv. 3).

Self-depreciation, even if only as a matter of courtesy,

comes natural

to the Oriental mind.

It is difficult to feel

that St Peter would have used Bov\o<; in what appears to

be a honorific sense, of himself

^

It

is

also difficult to
as

Occasionally a
for

honorific

sense

might

result,

with

Sargon

("mighty")

Sharru-Ukin. Chignell {Outpost in Papua,

desiring the

p.

355) mentions the diflSculty of a

Papuan
dialect
-

name Arfur
i.

(Arthur), which

means
ad

in the local

" a plague-sore, an embossed carbuncle."

1.

Hort's note on 1 Peter

Compare

also Bigg,

loc.

STUDIES IN THE
believe that

''

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

41

anyone merely impersonating the Apostle

to apply it to him.

would make such a mistake as

is

But

it

easy to imagine which he considered Petrine, and prefixing a salutation, would go out of his way to speak both with solemnity
CEvfjLecov)

that a writer collecting fragments

and with appreciation

(iii)

{Sov\o<i k. aTroaroXo^^^) of

his master.

TavTrjv hevrepav 67ri(Tro\r)v.

iii.

It ma}^

seem that discussion of

has been unduly

its

postponed.

The

relation of the verse,

It

and

context, to

Jude

is

deferred.

must however be

clear at once that

the one description given of the two Epistles suits our

present Epistle well, but does not suit
to " 1 Peter,"
" 1

Peter-."

A
his

writer impersonating the Apostle, and intending to refer

would certainly have made sure that

description tallied.
It is

not say
It
is

" I

moreover almost certain that an Apostle would remind you of the command of your apostles."
so.

almost equally certain that a writer impersonating

are

St Peter would not have represented him as saying

The words

apparently quite honest.

lost
letter,

We may
but there

suppose with Zahn and Spitta a

appears to be an easier way.

First the words of the verse need inspection.

ravrrjv
Sevr.
iir

iv

at?... is
"

not,

of course, "this

second Epistle
"

I write, in which...

but

This (letter) I
letters,

am
'

writing to you, as a second-^ letter,

'

and in both
1

one
1

and
i.

'

two,' I
12

attempt
ff.

to..."

Syr''"'",

perhaps misunderstanding bov\os, omits

Peter
1
f.,

Koi dir6<xTo\os.

Harnack suggests that

still

v.

are " editorial,"

and

by the " author" of 2 Peter.

of the Epistles to 1 Peter
3

But the
remains.

inapplicability of the description

The meaning "secondary," not "second,"

is

quite possible.

"This

42

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

iv

ah, without antecedent,

is

obviously the relative

connection, pure and simple.

TavTr)u,

by

all

laws,

means

" this

now

in hand."
its full

ypd^o), the present tense, has obviously

value.
" I

present
" "...I

am now writing you

.

this letter as

No. 2

am

notu stirring up.

Next we observe
second letter^"

TJBrj.

It calls attention, apparently to

" I

the numeral, as elsewhere.

am

writing what

is

now

Next, we must note the position of the verse

four-fifths of the

nearly

way down the

Epistle.

Authors referring
;

to

their

immediate context write

v. 12,

ypd(f>co

referring to

what goes

before, or the Epistle as a whole, they

normally
26,
v.

write erypayjra (1 Pet.

Gal.

vi.

11, 1

John
;

ii.

13,

contrast with ypd(j)o as used elsewhere)

course, if referring to
Is
it

the more
ii.

so,

of

an

earlier letter (2 Cor.

3, 4).

not,

in

view of these considerations, at least

^'jSr]

reasonable to suppose that ravrrjv

al?... merely

Bevr. jp. tV. eV

after

is resuming his pen an interval?- He has said all that the occasion seemed to warrant (according to the present hypothesis, he has quoted the Apostolic pTj/jLara which best suited his

notes that the writer

purpose) and has concluded with a formal and definite,

second letter" would be Tavrrjv
devrepai'
^

if

Tr]v

devr^pav

eiria-ToXriu,

or, better,

rrji/

eTr.

Tavrrju....
:

7]8t]

almost suggests surprise

or

"I

How,

why, one document in

had only intended one." ancient times might become

"tacked" on to another must often remain a mystery: e.g. the " Ephesian letter " at the end of "Eomans," the " Little Apocalypse " in St Mark, and the possibly earlier letters embedded in later ones in The opening ravT-r^v ijd-n k.t.X. is no 2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1 and x.-xiii. 10. more abrupt than avrbs 5^ eyih IlaOXos or than liVpiaTrj/xL 5e vfxlv ^ol^tjv... As Harnack (on 1 Peter, Chronologie, p. 458 ff.) points out, salutations

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER "

;

43

rather lame, conclusion

letter " is

some delay occurs

;

the

"

former

perhaps not yet despatched he takes up his pen again, and writes, quite naturally " See I am writing you now a second letter. In it, as in the former, I am not original, but am quoting passages which I wish you to lay to heart." The apparent solecism of iv ah suggests that the two Epistles are really one. ravryv ypdcpco refer to what is " second " in relation to what stands now in hand. It is
!

already written ^

(iv)

7]

ivToXrj.

What is the kvroXrj of verse 2 ? It is the " Lord's command through your Apostles" a strange phrase in ivToXrj may be collective itself, but it is certainly

r]

capable of another explanation.

The context
with the

gives
is

us

also
;

" prophets."

The only
is

Apostle mentioned

St Paul

but the Epistle

headed

name of St Peter. This suggests, at the least, that " Your Apostles " are the Apostles Peter and Paul. Where do we find prophets, Peter, and Paul together
in a single context elsewhere
?

They

are so found

in

Acts XV. 6

ff.

Peter speaks, in words which cannot help reminding us

of the present Epistle (verses 8 and
9, cf.

2 Pet.

i.

a fact were easily removable, and as Deissmanu has pointed out sufficiently obvious papyrus rolls were most liable to damage at the

beginning and the end,

1

The doxology
of

of 2 Peter
ii.

would come much more appropriately

iii.

at

the end

Chapter

Verse 17 refers clearly to the contents of that

Chapter, not to those of Ch.

its

May

it

perhaps have been shifted to

iina-ToX'q ?

present place after the addition of the devr^pa

44

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

ii.

"

IcroTifiov Trianv, verse 10, cf.

18 supra); James sums

up,

using the
"

formal ^vfiecov (on

which

see

above)

Barnabas and Paul having presented a

once quotes
the prophets

report,

James

at

" (Jer. xii. 15).

And when
is

the two delegates, Barnabas and Paul, are

sent, there are joined to

them Judas and

Silas, of
xiii.

whom
1)

it

specially said

that

they also (cf Acts

are

pivphets.

The

particular
;

command
mind

there issued was no doubt

false

now
first

out of date

but in face of

teaching of a

different kind the

of our writer goes back to the

encroachment of false teachers {ifxiraiKTai, Acts xv. 24) and to the particular command sent also to Churches composed of Jews and Gentiles (Mayor, Introd. p. cxxxvi)
as the result of important declarations

made by

those

whom
21) to

the writer calls

"

your Apostles," namely Peter and Paul,

latter of these
(ii.

and actually handed over by the

the Churches in question.

(v)
i.

o irpo^riTiKO'^ \6yo<i.
7rpo(f>7]TiK6p

19 e^ofxev ^e^aiorepov rov

is

\6yov.

The general meaning

of the Prophetic word,"
^'

"

We

have

fuller confirmation

i.e.

The

vision just
:

described
is

permanently strengthens

"

(Mayor

the present tense

to be noticed) our faith in the " Prophetic Word."

)(^.

For
e^^eti/,

/3e/3.

Mayor
Trap'

(after

Field)

quotes

Isocr.

ad Dem.

p.

10

TTjv

6K6LVC0V

evvoLav

/Se^aiorepav

Chaeremon
(piXiav,

ap. Stob. Flo7\ 79, 31 jSe^aiorepav e%e rrjv

for

and

e%

in

this

usage, 1
ib. iv. 8.

Pet.

ii.

12

ttjv

ava(TTpo(f>r}v

e')(^ovTe<i

Ka\r)v,

cf.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

45 had

We may

fairly

say that
))/jLiv

it

is

as if the author

written Kai ^e^alcoTai

6 irp. X0709.

In what way then

firmed by
"

is

o irp.

\6yo<i

"

more

fully con-

suggestion that the comparison

what has immediately preceded ? ( Alford's is between miracle and prophecy from their apologetic standpoint can hardly be
sustained.)

The

reply

is,

that irapovaia, a " presence

"

in

some sense of God with man, is the main subject of prophecy, and that actual first-hand proof of such irapovaia is a very high confirmation of prophecy in general. Such a first-hand proof the writer has just given, attested by the citation of the words actually spoken by the Heavenly The Transfiguration, viewed as a irapovaia, is a Voice. remarkable confirmation of " the Prophetic Word." The
two, taken together, supply
all

the data of faith (Clem.

rrjf;

Alex. p. 778 ireirlaTevKev Sod re

irpocf)r]reLa<;

Sid re

T^9 irapovaias:).

But what then is meant by taken to mean the whole body

o irp. Xoyo^;

It is usually It

of Messianic prophecy.
it

may be
xvi.

questioned whether in this case

would not have

been necessary

to write al irpo^TjTiKal ypa(j)aL (see

irpocjirjTiKODv).

Rom.
place

26 Std re ypacpoju

In the

first

the collective use of X070?, properly used

literary
essay, is
unit,

of a single

whether speech, or dialogue, or historical strange and unnecessary, and in the second the
as

article (in the use of which,

Mayor has pointed

out,

2 P.

is

N. T.)
6 IT p.

more seems

classical

than most of the books of the

to

to

point

a definite X0709, a definite

literary unit,

X0709 in the following passages (from

i.

which the writer had in view. We find Mayor) Philo,

p.

de Plantat. M.
(j)r]aLv

347

Leg. All. M.

i.

p.

95

6 irp.

X0709
i.

(obviously = " the prophetic book"); Justin, Apol.

46
56
(p.

STUDIES IX THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

(p.

276) Seov avrov ovra

6 TTp.
;

o irp.

\6'yo<=;

arjfiaivec,

77

302)

X0709
while

ecfyr]

and elsewhere in

this sense in
it p.

the singular

it is

used in the plural (ol

Xoyoi)
is

when

it

is

intended to be used more generally, as

critical case of o irp. Xoyo^; for

usually postulated for the present instance.

But the
purpose
\6yo<;.
is

our immediate
nrp,

that in

"

Clement

" xi.

Xeyet yap koI 6

Here there can be no doubt whatever that (as in Philo and Justin) 6 tt/o. X0709 refers to a definite prophetic work which Lightfoot conjectures to have been "Eldad The quotation which follows here is and Modad." 7rp. X0709 is also given in 1 Clement, where instead of
given
97

ypa(j)r]

avTrj

very clear proof that a single

will

wa'iting is

intended.

These two passages

best be

considered in parallel columns,

but we shall add at the

same time the

Clem. Eom.
(1

similar passage from our

2 Clement.

own

Epistle.
2 Peteb.

Clement.)
...[raXaiTTCjpoL iaojueda.]

iroppcj yevecrdoi} dcp' ij/xQv

1]

-Ypa(f>i]

avTT], oTTOv

Xiyn
X670S

"Ydp 6 Trpo<})T]TiK6s

TaXaLTTwpoi elaiv
OL di'ij/vxoL, oi

TaXaiTTcopoi elaiv
oi di\pvxot oi

iii.

3.

.\_iXevaovTai eir
TiJov

eax^-Tiop

rjiuepuiv

dicrrd^ovTes ttjv

diaTd^'ouTes rrj
Kapdiq., oi

ifjLTralKTaL]

"ipvxw^

ot

\eyovTes'

Xeyopres'

Xiyovres'
7}

irov

iffriv

ravra i^Kodaaixev
Kai
iirl

Tavra iravra r^Kovaafxev

Kai ewi tCiv Trarepoop
i]fMQu [r^/ueis 56 rj/j.epav i^
7}[jiipas

iwayyeXia
oi

ttjs irap;

tCov irarepoiv

ovaias avrov

d0'

ijs

TjfiQp, Kal

ydp

Trarepes

iKoi/u,-/]-

ido6, yeyrjpaKaiiiev

irpoadexofJ-evoi ovdev

6r}<xap,
diafjiPi.

irdvTa
drr

oOtu)

Kui ovdev

tj/juv

To^iTcov eupaKa/mev.]

dpxv^

TOVTWV
u.

<TVV[3e^r]KV.

KTiVe ws...
'AVOTJTOI,

dt/orjTOi,

[freely adapted,

and
to

<rvfJi^a\T eairroi/s

(rvfi^dXere iavTovs
^uXu)
'

exaggerated,

^v\ip-

Xd^ere

Xa/Sere

suit the spirit of

afxireXov

dpLireXov

the

ifMira^KTaL.]

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

Clem. Kom.

47

48

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

The Trees
(In ''Jude")

)>

The Vine (In "Clement")

shows signs of death
revives

show signs of death

do not bear

in

autumn

do not revive
fruit (aKapira)
"

bears fruit

There

is

the

Nature death

" of

autumn.

That both
are then, as

vine and trees share.

But the

trees die both with this

mimic death and with actual death.

cumberers of the gi'ound, rooted up\

They

To return now
"

to our Epistle.

We

have, thanks to the

fuller

Hapovaia
of the
"
?

of the

Transrepl}\

figuration'^,

confirmation
"
ii.

Prophetic Disthat,

course."

Of what

Discourse
20,

Of

we

which extends from

opening appropriately with the

ultimately merging into
of another " Prophetic

w^ords Ilao-a 7rpocf>7]TeLa...(ind

Apocalypse), in which use

Discourse,"
1

is

made

known

also as such to other writers.

(see R. A.

Jude here as elsewhere

Falconer in Expositor,

vi. series vi.)^

using either 2 Peter or that which underlies 2 Peter, "verifies his Neither he references" and adds from the context of the original.

nor the author of 2 Peter

scheu."
2

ii.

20 seqq. can be accused of " Apocryphenis

is

Chase's analysis, "

What

possess in the prophetic word,"

more abiding than a fleeting voice we surely wrong. The One Voice direct
TroXvfjLepws

from heaven
prophets.

is of

more value than utterances given

through

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND

EPISTI.E

OF PETER

"

49

(vi)
i.

The

Voice.
is

17.

The Wapovaia of che Transfiguration'

is

con-

firmation of the Prophetic Discourse of which, in general,

Trapovaia

a subject.
is

But there
Words.

more.

The
;

writer has heard Heavenly

Other

Apostolic

qualifications

(Acts

iv.

41)

might be shared with others to have heard these words on the Holy Mount was a qualification shared by three only, of whom one at least ^ met an early death.
St Paul quotes also ipsissima ver-ba (Acts
not heard by others
;

xxii.
xii.

7-9),
4) to

and

also claims (2 Cor.

have heard
utter.

cipprjra prjfjbara,

words which no

man might

The Transfiguration
being out of place,
sign manual of one
is

Narrative, therefore, so far from

of the highest importance as the

need credentials

Prophecy and Apocalyptic the Prophets and Apocalyptists of the

who knows.
the

Old

Testament,

and

Apocalyptist

of

the

New,

relate their visions

especially,
(cf.

and their commissions.

to

Apocalyptic,
or apology

seems even
4).

demand some excuse

can the
?

Mc.

xiii.

What

i/jLTralKrat

answer to

credentials such as these

1

Chase

is

troubled by the mention of the Transfiguration, while other

events of our Lord's life, e.g. the Resurrection, are omitted. If the " fragments" are Petrine (see below, pp. 64, 65, notes) we have a reason

why

that which had been already enshrined in the earliest gospel, at

is

St Peter's prompting, was not here repeated, except what purpose.

directly to the

All such arguments against Petrine authorship

is

tell

also against

authorship by any sort of " forger."

2

Our present point

strengthened

if

we accept with Bousset and

others the early death of John also.

R.

50

STUDIES IN THE
(vii)

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

to the

"

The reference

Pauline

letters.

In the mouth of an Editor, writing in the second

century, the reference to the Pauline letters
is

natural

noteworthy that 2 Peter, as a whole, shows a remarkable absence of traces of Pauline thought. If
It is

enough.

the writer of

iii.

15 were the writer of 2 Peter as a whole,

would not such an admirer of the Pauline letters have tinged his whole " Epistle " with Pauline reminiscences ?

As

it is,

the cleavage

is

clearly

marked

here,

and in other
flattery

"editorial "sections^

we have open admiration, or the

of imitation

elsewhere almost complete detachment.

(viii)

The Personal Pronouns.

first

The

salutation gives both

and second personal

person does not

pronouns.

The pronoun
or
is

of

the

first

then (as so often with a modern preacher) include the

audience
recipients.

On
too,

the

contrary the
gifts

thought
possess,

" lue'^

possess

certain

run of which you may

partakers of

and by which you,

is

may become

the Divine Nature."

"
first

We "

not necessarily the Apostles or

(" 2

even the
.

generation of Christians
7]/Jia<i

Clement

" 9, l^piaTo<^.

iyivero (Top^ koi ovtw<^

eKoXeaev).

It

seems

to be

used generally of a
writer
is

body of Christians of
yet

whom

the

one, either Jewish or at least in possession of

special privileges not

extended to the recipients of

the "letter."

In

i.

12-18,

we

find first person plural

and

first

person

singular alternating.

Here the speaker and

those classed

with him have already made known

^

" the

power and

In the preface especially, as we have seen.

The evidence

is

for rjfuv in

i.

4,

STUDIES IX THE
presence" of him

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER "

they
is

51

whom

call " Oui^

Lord."

In verse

18 the

first

person plural

obviously used by, or pretends

to be used by, Apostles only.

It is
difficult therefore to reconcile

the "
"

We "

of

i.

l-5a with the

"We"

of

i.

12-18.
i.

As those who

to the second persons, in

l-5a

are to look forwcwd to

;

iTrlyi^cocrcf;

you " denotes and Koivwvia

12-18 "you" denotes those who are so far " instructed and confirmed in the truth " by the facts already " made known " that the writer must positively apologise for "reminding" them.
Selaii (f)vaa)^

in

i.

It is difficult
i.

therefore

to
i.

reconcile the

"

You
but

"

of

l-5a with the In i. 19 the first person

looking
is,
i.

"You"

of

12-18.
used, as in
i.

is

18,

it is

not emphatic, and, once more, those

are

who
;

are addressed
in

forward
as the
"

to

illumination
"

the

same

stage, that

You

of

i.

l-5a, and not as the

"You"
In

of
iii.

12-18.
dis-

1-2 the speaker in the singular directly

sociates himself from the Apostles,

whom

he

calls "

your

His purpose is similar to that of i. 12-13, but the "I" of i. 12-13 merges into the "We," used
Apostles."

obviously of Apostles, in

i.

18.

The
" I "

" I "
i.

of

iii.

is

therefore incompatible with the

of

1 2.

In
("

iii.

14-18

"

We
"
is

"

occurs thrice in general reference

our brother Paul

does not suggest necessarily that the

writer or speaker

an Apostle).

42

52

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

VIII.

"Jude" and
been
if it
is

2 Peter.

Hitherto we have

largely

in

the

region of

mere conjecture, even of style and language.

bare
fact.

borne out by indications

to a question of

We

now come

It is no part of the present essay to collect once

and against the priority of very fact that arguments either way appear to their maintainers to be of equal cogency seems to show that on traditional lines we shall never reach a conclusion. It will have appeared all along that, supposing " 2 Peter " to be a frame-work supporting and uniting certain documents, these documents may have been accessible without the frame-work and that both Jude and 2 Peter (as we now know it) may have made use of the common document or documents. The " document-theory " has by most modern editors been rudely cast aside but they have, without it, led us to no sort of finality. The crucial question is, does " Jude " quote what we
for
;
;

arguments

more Jude. The

have designated as

Or does he quote P (our

"

docu-

ments

")

only

Of

course he might possess our present

Epistle, and, recognising the

frame-work as such, cast

it

aside as useless for reproduction.

The

probability how-

ever

is

that

if

he knew

he would quote
place,

also.

no originality. He writes in haste, in an emergency, and seizes what comes to hand. This material is that which we possess
"Jude," in the
first

professes

in

the present

Epistle

and Jude follows carefully

its

present order.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

53

The
parallels
iii.

salutation will be discussed presently, as also the

Jude

17,

||

Peter

iii.

Jude

24,

||

Peter

17.

The mass
2 Peter
ii.

of the parallel verses

occur Jude 4-16,

of

1-18.

We

must be cautious

making

too

much

of individual words.

few observations follow on

such parallels as appear to need special note.

Jude 6, 2 Pet. ii. 4 Jude 7, id. The saving of Lot does not
;

ii.

6.

suit

Jude's

sterner

teaching.

Jude 9, 2 Pet. ii. 11. Jude particularises. Apparently tV^ut suggests to him apx-ayyeXo^. Jude apparently notes the reference to Enoch, and while not using this particular instance, recurs to the book later on\ Jude 11, 2 Pet. ii. 15. Jude is fond of sets of three (vv. 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20) and adds two further examples to that of Balaam. He Hanks Balaam (covetousness) with Cain (blasphemy, not murder Cain was the early type of a materialist) ^ and Korah (gainsaying of authority). All three meet a
:

disastrous end.

be a chance that jjiicrdov d8LKLa<i occurs twice in a few verses in 2 Peter ^ and there may be a Verse 12 r^er^evvrifxeva special reason for the recurrence.
It can hardly
1

Of "

2 Peter's" construction here

(see Spitta's efforts).

it is

almost impossible to make

anything

remedy

of despair is to

suppose a verb
be
dative

omitted before (pepovaiv

(e.g. dvnXeyovffiv),

and

(pipovcnv to

plural..." do not gainsay those

who

are the bearers of an adverse verdict

from
-

(or,

in the presence of) the

Lord against them."

See Jude 11

dvTLko'^ia,

which a

lost dvTiXeyovcnv

may have

suggested.

Targum
Also

Hierosol. ad Gen.

iv. 7.

(in St Peter's

solemn speech)

in Acts

i.

18.

54
et9

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

(f)6opdv

suggests, at

least,

Mt. xxvi, 24, of Judas.

dBiKovfievot fxiaOov

dBcKla's,

difficult

now

meaning " Judas found his " payment " a loathing for wrong-doing." It drove him to a kind of repentance, but it also to him. drove him to a terrible death. The coveted silver turned on him, like a traitorous accomplice. He was " wronged
receives its full in respect of wrong's reward."

though it appears, wronged in respect of pay

Other possible references to Judas are Kardpat; reKva in 2 Peter, and possibly (Jude again seizing and elaborating a suggestion) i^e^vOv^^^^ ^i^d ovat (only used in the Gospels by Christ Himself) of Jude 11.

Jude

12, 2 Peter

ii.

13.
(if original)

In 2 Peter dydiraLt;

meant

" lusts "

(see

dyairdv in verse 15), an abstract plural like daeXyeiai, evae^eiaL But Jude apparently understands it in the
technical

sense

of

"feasts,"

helped

by

the

context

{ivTpv(f>a)VT(i, avvevcoxov/Jievoi).

This suggests that Jude

and

his original belong to different strata of language.

"Rock," in the
able sound.
It
circle to use it in

name

K7j(j)d^ or HeV/jo?,

had an honour-

would be strange

for

anyone in the Apostolic

Unless a suggestion
)( o-ttlXol

a derogatory sense.

already made, that the variant o-TrtXaSe?

arises in

some way from incorrect transcription of tachygraph, has any value, we can only suppose that Jude again touches up his original and coins cr7ri\d<; from o-ttZXc?, believing it in
or in a derived sense easily underused of water " spilt " Ps. xxii. 15, stood, except here. a natural image of utter annihilation (cf. Lam. ii. 19 ; Job xxx. 16, In the case of Judas the verb could Is. liii. 12 ; Zeph. i. 17). X, 10
1

In N.T. KXiv

(-xi'^ei") is literal,

In the

LXX.

it is

be

used whether
i.

literally

or metaphorically,

both of

body or soul

(Acts

18).

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

this shape

"

55

(compare ^uya?,

Spo/jLd<i,

c^otra?, etc.) to

have a

more contemptuous ring. Jude 12, 13, 2 Peter ii. 17. The rainless cloud, the waterless oasis, the mists, the angry waves (the sea being a strange element to the Jew) ^re natural symbols for emptiness and violence. 2 Peter in heXed^ovaiv (18) seems to suggest mirage also, and in a hairbreadth escape from wandering rov^ oXt^o)? K.T.X
Bedouins.

we are at all ments we designate

If

correct in the belief that the fragas

P formed part
it is

of

some popular,
")^

perhaps

official,

Florilegium,

clear that the arrange"

ment
the
(i.

of the moral
repetitions

Fragment
in

(the

ladder of virtues

contained

8-11),

the

imagery of
ov

comments thereon these comments (w/capTrou?,

the
TrraicrrjTe,

TV(j>Xo<;

/jLV(07rd^a)v,

/nr)

the
"

Pilgiim's
ry

Progress
etaoSoi;

through

the

Twilight,

eirtxoprjr^rjOrjaeTai

the

Triumphal

Entry
of

into

the
its

Light)

the

its

personal note of the Narrative, with

appeal to the Prophetic Dis-

Heavenly Voice

the

vigour

the

course," its appeals to history

Palestinian tropes
into the darkness
contrasts,

the
;

Noah,

Lot,

Balaam
its

oasis waterless, the mists

swept

the

Apocalypse with
all

elemental
" hell-fire

water and
;

fire,

and the vigorous

appeal at the close

these are, at

events, admirably

suited for their special purpose, whatever else

we may

think of them.

We
that

return

now

to three instances

where

it

may appear

Jude
3,

cites

not these

original

fragments but the

redactor or editor himself

Jude

2 Peter

ii.

21.
i.

This verse of Jude probably has reference to 2 Peter

56

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

its

"

12 (P), and
single
(I Cor.

supposed reference to
(-779).

ii.

21
is

is

based on a

word TrapaSoOeiay
xi. 2,

irapdhoai^
6),

a Pauline word
is

2 Thess.

ii.

15,

iii.

and there

no reason

why

the verb should have been borrowed here.

is
;

What

is

important

that Jude completely ignores the context,

stress

verses 20-22
fjLLalvovaiv)

we cannot lay and crwrripo's.

salutations.

on fxcaafxara (Jude 8

Next the

Salutations follow regular

easier to prove
lies in 'It/ctoO

lines,

and coincidence
'I.

is

than connection.
roL<^,

The coincidence here

^6ov(-o)),

XpicrTou Bov\o<;,

'Ktw(-ov),

vfjblv elprjvri irXr^OvvOeiri, all

words of a type met elsewhere-

There is a distinct difference of feeling or "atmosphere" between the salutations. 8ovXo<; in J is apparently
a
title

of

humility,

in

Pet.

it

suggests a
recipients
is
k.

title

of

honour.

The

description

of

the

quite
dyaTrr],

different, as also the greeting (J eXeo? k. elprjvr]

Peter

^a/jt?

k.

elprjvrjY.

We

cannot

here

prove

connection.

The

conclusions also differ.

if at all, to
v.

Jude's irpoaBexofJ^evoL (21) belongs rather,

the TTpoaBoKav of 2 Peter

iii.

12, 13,

than to that of

14.

The only
more

real parallel is
iii.

(J); but see 2 Peter

dainXoL (2 Peter) ia-TrCkcofxevoi 13 (P) where the context much

closely suggests that of Jude.

J's

doxology reflects none of the striking peculiarities

of that of 2 Peter.

dirTai(JTov<i (J) harks back to 2 Peter i. 10 (P) which J seems to have studied, but has not
^

It

may

be that
feel

E who

readers would
superfluous.

that to wish

uses dyarrjTol so readily in addressing his them " abundance of dydxTj " might be

While

dyair-qToi suggests
its

personal affection,

note a suspicion that in

use

" doth protest too

we may here much."

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

incorporated,
in J.
rffiepav
al(ovo<;

"

57

of 2

Peter has no echo

"

While therefore we can prove consecutive use of the " by Jude, we can find nothing to 7rpo(f>7)TLK6^ A-0709
There remain Jude 17 and 2 Peter iii. 2. Here a connection of some kind appears obvious.
Not, however, that
it is

prove connection in salutation or conclusion.

necessary.

Jude has

told us
"

that while intending to write an

explicit letter

on

the

common
instead,

salvation"

circumstances drove him to

^^Tite

and at once (contrast the

a letter
is

tenses), a brief exhor-

tation to fight for the faith.

Now

in verse 17 he tells
It is a

us further that such

not original.

reminder of Apostolic utterances.

such utterance
(v.

He
is

then quotes one

also confessedly

18).

The

writer in our present Epistle

unoriginal.

He

too recalls both "prophetic" and

Apo-

stolic utterances.

That he who so leans upon the words

of others cannot himself be the Leader of the Apostles,

seems obvious.

He

also

quotes

{<yiv(t)(TKovT<;

otl)

the

same utterance. The purpose being the same and the citation the same,
there
is

small

marvel that the introductory sentences

should be similar.
connection appears

On

the face of

it,

however, a real
of the

likely.

Hitherto Jude

has been the particulariser

9,

general statements of 2 Peter (see Jude

11).

Now
Avays
:

it is

2 Peter

who

is

particular,

first

he
not

speaks,

correctly,

and that in two of " prophets," and

genitive,
"

secondly, at the risk of an

awkward quadruple
"

he

speaks

of

"

Apostles

merely,

but of

your

Apostles," apparently Peter and Paul.

45

58

STUDIES IN THE
It is

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

therefore who,

apostolic
use, looks

passage, of

when incorporatmg a presumably which Jude has previously made

editorial remarks,

up Jude's introductory or and makes them precise and definite

and general.

in place of

vague

Our
2 Peter

reconstruction
is

of

the

relation

of

Jude

and

as follows

Certain detached passages, Fliegende Blatter^, called

into existence

by

special circumstances, of apostolic date,

were at some early time collected together, perhaps under the title iTrayyeX/jLara, perhaps These passages, reminiscent of actual teaching, pyj/juara.

and (probably)

origin,

were

specially

adapted

for

use

by

early

Christian

teachers,

and were thrown memory, or to impress and arrest an audience. They were of various kinds exhortation {Kripvjfxa), narrative {evayyekiov), prophecy (irpocfirjTeia), apocalyptic (aTTo/cd\v'\lrL<;), and had come to be associated with the Apostle Peter, whose imprimatur would be necessary, even if they were not actually his work. After the first outburst of oral teaching, and as the need for a formal literature arose, these selections would be less in request, though we cannot say how far such handbooks of selections have not contributed to our present Ncav Testament literature. They would also be laid under contribution for later apocryphal works, which indeed they may actually have suggested. Four of these passages, of a striking kind, and
into convenient form either for

traditionally (perhaps accurately) ascribed to the Apostle

Peter, existing
^

perhaps

as

separate
often,

brochure, have
rightly,

The "

little

Apocalypse" of Mc.

xiii. is

and no doubt

described as a " fly-sheet" of this kind.

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

59

certainly survived (five, if the "Little Apocalypse" be

one

more, perhaps, are embedded in the Pastorals).

Jiide (whoever he was) having need to write a hasty

Epistle of exhortation, finds nothing

more ready

to

hand

than one of these passages (the

\6yo<;,

irpocprjreLa or irpocfujrLKOf;

itself

containing
writes,

an

apocryphal
say
:

citation).

At

what time he
of the
first

we cannot

probably at the end

century ^

He

does not quote the ipsissima

verba of his document, but paraphrases, alters, adds.

good deal later there arise similar circumstances elsewhere. A devout and conscientious worker, with
Jude's letter probably at hand, writes a similar, but
longer letter (or letters), in and by which he preserves not

only one but four of the documents bearing the

Peter.

name

of

He

consults "Jude's" editing.

Soon the

original

documents, existing perhaps in rare copies, are

their titles remain;
titles

lost,

while

and works are written up

to these

by

later controversialists.

The question
engages
us.

of date of this final composition

now

The suggestions made above,

for

convenience of discussion, are

pp. 63
ff.

repeated more fully in the

summary on

60

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

IX.

Sub- Apostolic References to 2 Peter;

Probable Date and Origin.

"

Phrases quoted from the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic

"

Fathers as indicating an acquaintance with 2 Peter are

wholly inconclusive
others ^

(M. R. James).

Such phrases are collected by Mayor, Spitta, Bigg, and Of these a few only require special mention here. (1) Clement of Rome xxiii. 2 (the relation of the 7rpoif)7]TtK6^ Xoyof; of Clement and of " 2 Clement " to
that of
2

Peter has been discussed),

Koi
ivBo^OL^
Scopeal^;

eVt ral^ vireplb-

^aWovaac^
(E)
:

avrov,

35

tcov
i.

iTrrjyyeX/jievayv Bcopecbv

have been referred to 2 Peter

a very doubtful reference, possibly an adaptation of

iii.

2 Cor.
rrj

10.

Nor can anything be made

of dKo\ovdr]a(ofi6i/

6Bq)

t^9 aKr)Oeia<i in the same passage, even though

precedes.
safely be predicted

d/jLco/LKp

Nor can anything

17
rrj<;

of
cf.

id.

ix.

2
i.

'XtTovpy7]<Tavra<; rfj jxeyaXoTrpeTTel

Bo^y avrov,

2 Peter

pieyakoTr pe7rov<s

S6^r)<;^.

From "2 Clement"

Spitta quotes explicit x^eferences.

That the homily reflects the general spirit of " 2 Peter seems more sure than the correspondence of individual phrases. No reference to any passage which we have regarded as " editorial " can be proved e.g. elXiKpivrj^ in
:

^ They are made a good deal too much of by Grosch {op. cit.), whose general arguments, however, for the " genuineness " of 2 Peter can (with

those of others) be whole-heartedly accepted so far as affects P.

2

6(ia

dvva/jiis,

Expressions like these, references to gifts, and honorific titles like with similar phrases, seem to belong to the language of
official

imperial adulation or bureaucracy (see the Carian inscription referred

to

by Deissmann and any of the

papyri

e.g.

Pap. Tebt. 33, line

6,

fKyaXoirpeireaTepov iydex&V'^i^, " let

of splendour ").

him be

received with a certain

amount

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

61

2 Clement ix. 8 is used apparently in a different sense from that of 2 Peter (etXt/cptz/r/? Sidvoca, " Pure Reason "), namely in the sense in which the adjective once, and the

noun

thrice, occurs in

Pauline writings.
:

Possible references to non-" editorial " passages are

Clement 2 Clement 2 Clement 2 Clement

2

vii.

1=2
3

Peter
Peter

ii.

15

xvi.
viii.

2 Peter

iii.
ii. ii.

10 and possibly
4,

4=2
3= 2

and
Justin

xiii.

Peter

10.

Passages

from

Irenaeus,

Melito,

Martyr,
i.

Aristides (Bigg remarks on Aristides, Apol. xvi.,=2 Peter

11,
ii.

"this

seems a clear case"),

Tatian
"

(0?*.

ad

Graecos, xv.) are all

from the non-" editorial

passages, the
"

documents, that
in
or

is,

which we believe to have been extant

some collection before being utilised either by " Jude by the redactor of our present Epistle. The first reference to which any weight can be

attached

to any
(d.

" editorial " section occurs in

ii.

Theophilus

of Antioch

183-5), ad Autol.
o Aojo^^

c.

13,

r)

Stdra^c^ ovv

Tov ^eov TOVTO eariv,

'iv

avrov

(patvajv (oairep \v^vo<^

ttjv

0LK7]fjLaTL

avve^oixivw

icfxoTiaev

vit

ovpavov

compare 2 Peter i. 19. But we are probably

reference to
*'

justified

in

seeing

direct

" editorial "

as well as other passages in the

Apocalypse of Peter," which

may

probably be dated

between 120 and 140, inclining to the latter date. It " cannot be at all certain that the " Apocalypse of Peter mentioned in the Muratorian Canon is this Apocryphal Apocalypse ^ It may reasonably be held that the Muratorian um refers to the Apocalypse which now forms part of 2 Peter, and which existed at Rome perhaps in some
1

See Zahu's arguments in N.T. Kanon,

ii.

pp. 105

ff.

62

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

with the
" Little

"

''

mysterious conjunction
of the

Apocalypse

Marcan Gospel, and similar documents. The references fi'om the "Apocalypse of Peter" are
all

nearly

to chapter
i.

ii.

of 2

Peter, with apparently a

is

clear reference to
to
"

19 (E)\

What
is

our

present
"

contention

the

importance abruptness of the

of
first

Apocalypse

itself
is

We

cannot say

how much

of the

opening portion

lost,

but as the main subject of the

book the Apocalyptic Vision is opened in section 2, it seems certain that the discourse of which section 1 is a fragment cannot have been very long, as it would otherwise have delayed seriously the opening of the central thought of the book. There is no actual evidence that the fragments given by Macarius Magnes really preceded
section
2.

The author of the " Apocalypse " appears, therefore,, to make use of the Evangelistic Fragment, the Prophetical Fragment, and the Apocalyptic Fragment of our present
Epistle,

He

but not in the order in which they there occur. begins at once with the " irpo^r^TiKo^ X6yo<;," harks
(|

back to the Narrative ^

2 to

6po<i),

apparently refers^
'^

by a mere phrase {totto^ av^f^VP^^) ^^ ^^ " editorial comment, and then enters upon his main subject of Apocal}^se^, in which also occur at least two references to
" editorial " sections of 2 Peter.
^

A.

E.

Simms
To

in Expositor, Series v.

Vol.

viii.

minimises these
is

parallels, pointing
different.

out that the atmosphere, spiritual and verbal,

the Transfiguration narrative he sees direct reference

and concludes that the author of the Apocalypse seeks to suggest Petrine authority by a parade of coincidences with 2 Peter. 2 The Ethiopic version contains an appearance of Moses and Elias, and the utterance of a Voice. 3 The same version gives a description of the final conflagration.

STUDIES IX THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

68
"

The

fact

that the beginning of the

"

Apocalypse

coincides with the beginning of the iTpo^r}TLKo<; Xoyo^;

of 2 Peter

is

important.

The impression we
"

receive from
is

a study of the parallels between the two documents

that

(i)

the author of the

Apocalypse

"

recognises the

documents which underlie the present Epistle as separate documents. The first he ignores as not germane to his purpose but he opens with the opening of the second, (ii) He does not feel tied to the order in which he finds them. It is more convenient to him to wedge in the Narrative, as giving weight to the Prophecy, between the opening Avords, taken from the Prophecy, and the Apocalyptic passage which is the main portion of his work.
;

Thus he uses the Narrative

(2 Pet.
(iii)
i.

" as " additional confirmation

19) not so

much

for

Prophecy as

for

Apocalypse,

He

knows, but makes only passing reference to

little

as

if

they were of

account

the

"

editorial " bridges

between the different fragments \ He condescends to borrow from them a word or two (au)(/jLi]p6^ possibh^ in

a different sense

/36p/3opo(;, eKvXiovro).
"

The
it

"

Apocalypse

cannot accurately be dated^

letter

but as

may

precede the Muratorian Fragment {circa 170-200)

(c.

and probably must precede the Viennese

177),

we cannot Avell date it Our present Epistle

suggests,
it

later

than circa 150.

then, as
;

we now know

it,

was put

together before that date

and, as the history of the

Canon

may have been

so put together in Egypt.

^ The same statement applies to the conjectural portions of the Apocalypse as pieced together from the " Testament " and the " Apocalypse

of Paul,"
2

both being based on " The Apocalypse of Peter." For strong reasons supporting the view given above, that the
is later than 2 Peter in Commentary, pp. 207.

Apocalypse
Crit.

its

present form, see Bigg, Int.

64

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

be finally reconstructed thus.

The

history

may perhaps

There were certain documents of a fragmentary nature,

fly-sheets \ either written, or at least collected, for the use

of Christian instructors.

If not of Apostolic origin, they

had at

least

some Apostolic impr^imatur.

prj/jLara,

They were
Xoyoc,

KTrayyeXfiara, Ylpoetpyfjueva

Ylpo(f)r]TLKol

perhaps 'TTrofMvnaec^ or

'TTrofjuvr/fiara (the

word

is

used

by Appian and by Thucydides (iv. 126) in the sense of " Reminders " its use of the " Memoranda " of philosophers and others is well known). They could either actually be traced to, or came to be attributed to, certain Apostles, and the fragments which form our present Epistle were attributed to Peter-. Apparently the fourth fragment, the Apocalyptic passage, was not circulated with, or bound up with, the others. Such documents, circulated probably privately, could not fail to be of value when attacks on the Mth began. The author of " Jude " is the first to use them. He was
;

purposing a general Epistle, when the discovery of

teachers on the spot (TrapeicreBvTjaav yap
TL,ve<^

false

avOpwrroi)
"

caused him to write a brief Epistle of exhortation based

from beginning to end upon a

"

prophetic document

^ The use of this term in reference to the " Little Apocalypse " of the Marcan Gospel has already been noted. It also was esoteric and if it existed as a separate document was at first intended only for private
;

circulation.
-

See Streeter in Oxford Studies.

must be given to the arguments of R. A. Falconer, Zahn, Spitta, Groscb, and others, which go to prove that 2 Peter may well be genuine work of tbe Apostle, rough hewn, so far as style goes, in contrast to 1 Peter, which, if genuine, has had the benefit of scholarly rewriting by some friend of the Apostle. Of tliose marks of the Epistle which go to prove late date, all are in " editorial " sections, with
Full weight

the exception of the reference to "the fathers"

iii.

3,

and

this,

being

expressly a citation, cannot be pressed as a proof of date.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

"

6o

which accurately described the very type of deceiver which he had to fear. So striking an instance of " the
cap fitting" could not be ignored.

He

utilises

freely,

without actually quoting, this prophetic document, the appropriateness of which perhaps justifies his hasty
publication.

He

" verifies

his

references "
so

as

he goes

along and adds striking

instances

suggested \

He

quotes indirectl}^ as does his original directly, a passage

from

Eldad and Modad," and acts upon suggestions given by this citation. In his haste he seems to misunderstand his original (see note on dydiraif; above).

"

But he produces a vigorous brochure, and sets a precedent which is followed about 130 A.D. by a writer in Alexandria'^,
who, scared at the appearance of a different form of
beliefs,

false

not yet dangerous, but certain to become

"

so,

follows

the example of

Jude," and publishes what had been

intended for private circulation.

all

Our new editor publishes

that he finds: not only the "Prophetic Discourse"

utilised

by

"

Jude

"

but also a moral fragment (apparently

rather difficult to explain his additions.

intended for committal to memory) and a Narrative*

1

In two instances

it

is

V.

15

afxapTixjXol dcre/3ers, v.

18 rQu aae^eiwv

neither of

which

is

required

in their respective

the author's part.

2

sentences almost suggest indignant exclamations on With the latter, if so, compare Eur. Bacchae, 263.

For the probability of Alexandrian origin of 2 Peter see Chase D.B. The history of the Canon tends the same way. pp. 816 If. 3 Perhaps the Carpocratian heresy (? circa 125-130) in its early days. The future tenses of 2 Peter ii. show that the original document was also written at the beginning of a heretical movement (on which see Falconer,
III.

Expositor,

VI. vi.,

who

considers that there

is

evidence of early date in the

absence of a developed theosophical system, of Chiliasm, and of a marked

ecclesiastical organisation).
*

The present writer confesses

is

to the belief, based

on internal grounds,

that this fragment at least

e silentio

genuinely Petrine.

Dr Chase's arguments

against Petrine authorship cannot be held cogent.

66

STUDIES IN THE

"

SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

to Prophecy.
;

"

specially adapted as

an introduction

Having
also,

welded these together he closes his Epistle

but further
letter,"

search or enquiry reveals an Apocalyptic document

and
the
yjSi)

this
first

he hastens to incorporate in a "second

having been alread}^ sealed, though not

sent.

In

the Editor expresses his delight at the timely appear-

ance of his fourth document.

his

He

is

entirely honest in

disclaimer of

all

originality.

He

uses

recognised

formulae of citation.

He

is

on friendly or affectionate

terms with the mixed Jew and Gentile community to

which he writes

or at least he desires to appear to be on

such terms. The Apostle Paul has written a letter to the same address^ of him and of his writings he speaks in
;

terms of reverence.
In his salutation and doxology he
is

not ashamed to
in

make
"

use

of those

of

Jude,

his

predecessor

the

editing " of one of these very documents.

Publication suggests publication.

The words
first

of the

second Fragment

(i.

15)

now

for

the

time made

common

property, actually

seemed

to invite a series of

Pseudo-Petrine literature 2.
"irresistible

The

first

writer to take the

hint"

is

the author of the "Apocalypse,"

who makes free but discriminating use of his materials as he finds them in our present 2 Peter. The writers of the
"Preaching," the "Gospel," and the "Acts" follow suit the

two latter not in any way quoting or copying 2 Peter, and arising perhaps not in Egypt but in Asia Minor. Theophilus of Antioch is apparently the first to cite 2 Peter in its present form after the author of the
"

Apocalypse
1

"

from

then onwards
;

our

Ep^'stle

finds

Rome, possibly
So Bigg

but we can never know.

215.

"

{op. ciL), p.

STUDIES IN THE "SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER

echoes,
especially in

"

67
It
it

the

Alexandrian Clement.
in

is
is

received

as

Canonical

first

Egypt.
It

Elsewhere
is

looked

upon with some

suspicion.

deliberately

rejected by the Churches of Syria, possibly as being, in

their opinion, a

pirated work.

It

wins

its

way

in the

West apparently under the aegis of the " Apocalypse," and is at length grudgingly admitted to have " been
proved useful to many."
of utility which
preserved,
in

Eusebius perhaps came nearer

It

the mark than he was aware.

was just

this

element
to
It

caused
"

the

Fliegende

Blatter

be

adapted, and
their
;

at length

published.
"

was
were

hopes of

proving useful

that

they
"

originally written

perhaps actually by the Apostle whose

"

name they

bear,

who

taught as the needs dictated

and

left his leaflets to

light, like

gossamer filaments, where

they would.

Cantbriljge

PKINTED BY JOHN CLAY, M.A.

AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

THIS BOOK IS

DUE~^

j_

^ ^

/!/>;?

87

IS3i

zUafeocr

REG D
MAYS

L.^
I960

75m-7,'30

YB 27962

331659

7? 6

UNIVERSITY OF CAUFORNIA LIBRARY