us enabled to maintain that the Epistle in its original form is older, in its present interpolated form more reesnt, than Jude. It should be added that the reference in 3! to an earlier Epistle, addressed by the same writer to the same readers, likewise disappears. Suspicions as to the in- tegrity of a document, when they are in- terested, are themselves suspicious. In this case they claim no external support. And the internal evidence of the Epistle is against them. The transition from 151 to 2: is natural. The thought of ancient prophecy leads to a reference to its parody in the false prophets of old days. If the writer goes on to w a parallel between the dangers of the past and the dangers which he foresees in the future, the sequence of his thought is quite simple. Again, there cannot be said to be any difference in style between ch. 2 and the rest of the Epistle. Again, if affinities with Jude are most conspicuous in ch. 2, they are not con- fined to that chapter, and, when examined, they appear to be borrowings from Jude as clearly in ch. 1 as in ch, 2 (see art. on JUDE, § 4). Lastly, it will be shown later that the coincidences between 2 P and the Apocalypse of Peter are found both inch. 1 and eh. 2 of 2 P. Habe’ diffusion Cegialadl aes Le a weighty argument for the integrity of the Epistle. The suspicions, then, of Kiihl and his predecessors in this view must be dismissed as arbitrary and un- supported by external or internal evidence.
RECEPTION ΙΝ THE CHURCH.—The investiga- tion falls under three heads—(1) the alleged use of the language and characteristic thoughts of 2 P in documents (other than Books of NT) belonging to lst and 2nd centuries ; (2) such alleged use of, and references to, 2 P in documents belonging to the period between the beginning of the 3rd century and the time of Eusebius; (3) the evidence of Eusebius and of other writers of the 4th and 5th centuries ; the reception of 2 P in the Canon of the Eastern (Greek) and Western Churches, and its rejection in the Syrian Church.
(1) Some of the alleged coincidences will be examined in detail. The rest are dealt with in the general remarks at the end of this section.
(a) Clement of Rome.—(i.) ‘We have Noah and Lot adduced in vii. 5 and xi. 1 similarly to what is done in 2 Peter ii. 5-9’ (Warfield in the January number of the Southern Presbyterian Review, 1882,
. 53). But in Clement the examples of Noah and Pot do not stand side by side as in 2 P, but are widely separated in a whole series of OT worthies. (ii.) Clem. vii. ταῦτα, ἀγαπητοί, οὐ μόνον ὑμᾶς νουϑε- τοῦντες ἐπιστέλλομεν, ἀλλὰ κ. ἑαυτοὺς ὑπομνήσκοντες || 2P 113 3.,) Beyond the fact that the common Greek word meaning ‘remind’ occurs in both wassages in reference to a letter, there is no re
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
793
semblance in phraseology or idea. (iii.) Clem. vii Νῶε ἐκήρυξεν μετάνοιαν | 2P 2, Lightfoot, how- ever, shows that Clement probably derived this conception of Noah from the Sibylline Oracles. (iv.) lem. 1x. τοὺς τελείως λειτουργήσαντας τῇ μεγαλο- ayant δόξῃ αὐτοῦ || 2P 17, It must, however, be observed that in the LXX the noun (μεγαλοπρέπεια) 1s (especially in the Psalms) a very favourite word, and that the adjective occurs in reference to God, ¢.g. 2 Mac 81:5 τὸ μι. ὄνομα). The special phrase in question is an echo of the language of the Psalms—20 (21)® δόξαν x. μεγαλοπρέπειαν, 144 (145) © 13 τὴν μεγαλοπρέπειαν τῆς δόξης τῆς ἁγιωσύνως σου . - « Thy δόξαν τῆς μεγαλοπρεπείας τῆς βασιλείας σου. In Clement the adj. is common, being used in Teference to the Divine will, gifts, worship, strength, name (ix. xix. xlv. lxi. lxiv.). The im- pression that in Clement the phrase in question and similar expressions have a itorpleal origin (t.e. that they are derived from [Greek] synagogue Pearse) is confirmed by a reference to the Greek
liturgies, e.g. Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, ἅγιος εἴ καὶ πανάγιος, καὶ μεγαλοπρεπὴς ἡ δόξα σου (Swainson p. 129), Liturgy of St. James (Swainson p. 968). (v.) Clem, xxii. A passage is quoted as Scripture containing the words, ‘ These things we did hear in the days of our fathers also; and behold we have grown old, and none of these things hath befallen us.’ The thought is not dissimilar to 2 P 34, but there is no coincidence of expression. Clement probably took the quotation (cf. “2 Clem.’ xi.) ‘from some spurious prophetic book’; see Lightfoot, in loc. (vi.) Clem. xxxv. ἀκολουθήσωμεν τ ἐν ΤΊΣ ἀληθείας I Ξ 27. But it must be remem- ere’ iat the use of ἡ ὁδός (¢.9. τῆς ζωῆς, διδαχῆς, see Harnack on Did. 1") and tee use of ἦ ΤΌΣΗΣ (6. σ. ὁ κανὼν τῆς ἀληθεία:) are very common; the combination of the two words therefore is in no way remarkable. (vii.) Clem. xxxiv. els τὸ uwerdyous ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι τῶν μεγάλων x. ἐνδόξων ἐπαγγελιῶν αὐτοῦ || 2P 14. But it must be noticed that the phrase has a parallel in an earlier chapter (xix.), μεγάλων καὶ ἐνδόξων μετειληφότες πράξεων. Compare also xxvi. τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς ἐπαγγελίας αὐτοῦ,
(δ) The Ancient Homily (‘2 Clement’) xvi. ἔρχεται ἤδη ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς κρίσεως ὡς κλίβανος καιόμενος καὶ τακή- σονταί τινες [lege αἱ δυνάμεις] τῶν οὐρανῶν, καὶ πᾶσα ἡ i ὡς μόλιβος ἐπὶ πυρὶ τηκόμενος, καὶ τότε φανήσεται τὰ κρύφια καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἢ 2 Ῥ Zi 1% 18