(1) Ireneus.—We have already dealt with two passages in this writer (p. 800). In two other passages he has been supposed to be relying on QP. (i.) iii. 1. 1, μετὰ δὲ τὴν τούτων [sc. Petri et Pauli] ἔξοδον || 2P 1% But that ἔξοδος (extus) was not an uncommon word in this sense in early Christian literature has been pointed out on p. 770. (ii.) ‘We come in the fourth book’ (xxxvi. 4), Warfield writes (p. 49), ‘to another passage in which [Irenseus] adduces Noah, then Sodom and Gomorrah, and Lot, to show that God will punish the wicked and save the holy. Our minds go im- mediately to 2 Peter ii. 4-7, whence the framing
* The word is printed here as it appears in Otto's od. of Theophilus and in the Cambridge LXX. But it is possible thas it should be accented as a Sead: ormuarigges. See Light foot’s note on Ignatius Bova.
803 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
of this passage seems to have been derived.’| ‘tale lumen...
Here, too, it is important to look at the previous context. The object of the chapter is to show that Chiist came from the Father, who had sent the prophets in earlier days. Irenieus lier therefore, from Christ’s sayings the unity of God’s character in the old and in the new dispensation. In the course of the argument he quotes Lk 21** 12%. 173-81 (Noah, Lot, Sodom), Mt 24%. He then draws the inference, ‘Unum et eundem annun- tians Dominum, qui in temporibus Noe propter inobedientiam hominum superduxit diluuium, et in temporibus Lot propter multitudinem pecca- torum Sodomitarum pee em a ceelo; et in nouissimo . . . superducet diem iudicii.’ There then follows the passage to which Warfield refers, the ‘framing’ and the ideas of which are clearly drawn from the passage just quoted from the Gospels.
(m) There are one or two passages from heretical documents belonging (in their original form) prob- ably to the 2nd cent. which must be examined. The first of these is a phrase of Ptolemus, a follower of Valentinus, still living when Irenzus wrote. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. i. p. 759) compares a
hrase of this writer’s, preserved by Epiphanius Her. xxxiii. 6)—rapotons δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας, with 2 P 14. But the context in Ptolemzus (i.) shows that the word d\#@ea is used in different senses in the two passages, and (ii.) itself naturally accounts for the use of the phrase. It runs thus: al γὰρ εἰκόνες «ον καλῶς ἐγίνοντο μέχρι μὴ παρῆν ἀλήθεια. παρούσης δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας τὰ τῆς ἀληθείας δεῖ ποιεῖν.
(n) The Clementine Literature.—(i.) Recog. v. 12, ‘Unusquisque illius fit seruus cui se ipse sub- jecerit’ || 2P 2% Salmon (Introd. Ἔ 488) com- pares Origen, In Exod. Hom. 12, ‘ Unusquisque & qo uincitur huic et seruus addicitur.’ Both passages occur in a translation by Rufinus, and may therefore be interpolations. Salmon, how- ever, points out that ‘the difference of the Latin makes it likely that in both cases Rufinus is translating, not interpolating.’ But it is equally possible that Rufinus, translating two different
oks at two different times, interpolated different free renderings of 2P 219, The question whether Rufinus did interpolate when he was translating will come before us again in connexion with Origen. (ii.) Hom. xvi. 20. Salmon (p. 488 n.) calls attention to the words ἀλλὰ τοὐναντίον paxpo- θυμεῖ, els μετάνοιαν καλεῖ. In these words, ‘taken in connexion with the whole context, there is very
robably a use of 2 Pet. iii. 9.’ In the context eter speaks of the blasphemies of Simon Magus and of ‘the boundless long-suffering of God.’ The earth had not opened; fire had not come down from heaven; rain was not poured out; beasts were not sent forth from the thicket to avenge this spiritual adultery. ‘But, on the contrary, He is long-suffering; He calls to repentance.’ It is difficult to see what there is in the context which specially recalls 2 P, while the particular phrase is nearer to Ro 24 (τῆς μακροθυμίας καταφρονεῖς... τὸ gables τοῦ θεοῦ els μετάνοιάν σε ἄγει) ἜΣ to 2 39,
ough, in fact, it is too natural and obvious to require any literary source.
(0) Actus Petri cum Simone xx. (ed. Lipsius p. 67) ‘Unusquisque enim nostrum sicut capiebat uidere, prout poterat uidebat. Nune quod uobis lectum est iam uobis exponam. Dominus noster uolens me maiestatem suam uidere in monte sancto, uidens autem luminis splendorem eius cum filiis Zebedei, cecidi tamquam mortuus et oculos meos conclusi et wocem eius andiui talem qualem referre non possum, qui me putaui exorbatum ab splendore eius . . . et exurgens iterum talem ewm uidi qualem capere potui.’ A phrase in the next chapter (ed. Lipsius pp. 68, 32) must be compared,
uod enarrare nemo hominum yossit.” The Gnostic Acts of Peter, of which this ocument forms part, belong in all probability to the 2nd cent. (see above, p. 774). The only authority, however, for this particular document is a 7th cent. MS, presenting a Latin version of the original Greek. Can we be certain, then, that the whole passage quoted above is not inter- polated by some editor or translator? It was shown above (p. 774) that the Gnostic Acts of Peter probably formed part of the series of Leucian Acts, to aise the Acts of John also belong. Now in the Acts of John (James, Apocr. Anecdota ii. p. 7) there is a long account of the Transfiguration, and this account contains a phrase (as James, p. xxvi, notes) of the same type as phrases which occur several times in the Petrine Acts at this point— φῶς τοιοῦτον ὁποῖον οὐκ ἐστὶν δυνατὸν ἀνθρώπῳ χρώμενον (lege χρωμένῳ) λόγῳ φθαρτῷᾷ ἐκφέρειν οἷον ἦν. It seems to be a legitimate inference that there is every probability that the Leucian Acts of Peter, like the Leucian Acts of John, contained (i.e. in their original form) a reference to the Transtfigura- tion, and that the Latin version reproduces char- acteristic phrases of the original. Now there are three coincidences with 2 P in the Latin passage of the Petrine Acts quoted above—(i.) ‘maiestatem suam uidere’; (ii.) ‘in monte sancto’ ; (iii.) ‘ uocem eius talem.’ Of these the last has strong claims to be considered a phrase of the original Leucian Acts; it seems at first sight a complete parallel to the φωνῆς τοιᾶσδε of 2 P 17; but in 2P the ‘ voice’ is the Father’s ‘ voice,’ in the Acts it is the utter- ance of the Son; and again, in 2P the τοιᾶσδε introduces the actual words, while in the Acts the ‘talem’ is followed by a ‘qualem.’ Thus the parallel, when examined, is less striking than on the surface it appears. Of (i.) (ii.) it can only be said, that if we could be certain that these phrases represented corresponding expressions in the original Leucian Acts, the conclusion would be irresistible that there is some direct connexion between the Petrine Acts and2 P. But we have no right to asswme that these phrases are not due to an editor or translator, and consequently it would be lost labour to speculate on the kind of connexion between the two documents which, if original, they would imply. Clearly this is an important point in relation to the problem of 2 P on which fresh light would be very welcome.