We have now reviewed the passages in the sub- Apostolic writings and in the Christian literature of the 2nd century, which, it is alleged, contain reminiscences of Ὁ. If we put aside the passage from the Clementine Recognitions and that from the Acts of Peter as open to the suspicion of not accurately representing the original texts, there does not remain, it is believed, a single passage in which the coincidence with 2 P can with anything sppraachine confidence be said to imply literary obligation to that Epistle. The resemblances in thought or phrase are such as are constantly found in quite independent specimens of literature, when they belong to the same general period and deal with the same general subject.
(2) It will be convenient to range the authorities which claim discussion in the next period under the several Churches.
(i.) Alexandria. —(a) Clement. _Did Clement in the Hypotyposeis comment on2P? The state- ment of, Eusebius, HE vi. xiv. 1, runs thus: ‘In the Hypotyposeis, to speak briefly, he has composed concise expositions of all Canonical (ἐνδιαθήκου) Scripture, not omitting even the dis- puted (Epistles), I mean that of Jude and the re- maining Batholic Epistles, as well as (re) Barnabas and the so-called Apocalypse of Peter.’ This evi- dence is confirmed by that of Photius (Bidbdioth,
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 803
109), who speaks of the Hypoty osets as ‘giving | in recognitione Dei; et iterum alibi Ut boni dis-
interpretations of Genesis, Exodus, the Psalms, the Epistles of St. Paul, the Catholic Epistles, and Ecclesiasticus (τοῦ ἐκκλησιαστικοῦ).᾽ The last phrase is Vaated a scribe’s blunder for τῶν ἐκκλησιασ- τικῶν ; compare Rufinus, in Symb. Apost. 38, ‘alii libri sunt, qui non canonici sed ecclesiastici a maioribus eprcllatt sunt.’ If this be so, Photius has in mind the non-Canonical books mentioned by Eusebius. On the other side must be set two neces of evidence. (a) Cassiodorus (de Jnstit. w.) in a passage of the Preface asserts that ‘it is said (ferunt) that Clement expounded the Divine Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testa- ment from the beginning to the end.’ But in a later (c. 8) of the same book he limits the scope of Clement’s work, ‘In epistolis autem canonicis Clemens Alexandrinus . . . id est in epistola S. Petri prima, S. Joannis prima et secunda, et Jacobi, q Attico sermone declarauit.’ (8) Cassiodorus goes on to speak of a translation which he had made of Clement’s expositions, but in which he omitted doctrinal statements which offended him. It is probable, on the whole, that the Latin version of Clement’s expositions which we now possess is that of Cassiodorus. This Latin version includes expositions of 1P, Jude, 1 Jn, 2Jn. It will be seen that this series of Epistles corresponds with the list given by Cassiodorus, if in the latter we suppose that James was sub- stituted by a mistake for Jude. We have, then, two conflicting views—one (based on the evidence of Eus., Photius, and the Preface of Cassiodorus) to the effect that Clement commented on all the Catholic Epistles; the other (sapported by Cassiodorus’ statement in the body of his work, and by the extant Latin version of Clement’s commentaries) to the effect that Clement com- mented on four of the Catholic Epistles, 2 P not having ἃ place among those four. The reconcilia- ticn of these two contradictory conclusions, so far as 2P at least is concerned, may be found in the supposition that Clement did comment on 2P, but that in his work it had a place by the side, not of 1 P but of the Apocalypse of Peter,* which Clement te aden as the work of Peter and as Scripture (Ecloge ex Scriptt. Proph. xli. xlviii. xlix.). In that case Cassiodorus might well exclude Clement’s comments on 2 P from his avowedly eclectic version ; or they may have had no place in his copy of Clement. It isan important fact that no e can be adduced from Clement’s works in which 2 P is referred to, still less any in which it is uoted by name. Thus the evidence, which cannot ἘΣ considered as altogether free from doubt, points to the conclusion that Clement regarded 2 P as a book hovering, like the cecal oa of Peter, on the borders of the number of the books definitely recognized as Apostolic, but that he did not place it on a level with 1P. (ὁ) Origen. The first absolutely incontrovertible reference in Christian literature to 2 P is found in the words of Origen reported by Eus. HE vi. xxv. 8, Πέτρος dé... play ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν, ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν" ἀμφιβάλλεται γάρ. No other passage is uoted from any of Origen’s works now extant th the original Greek in which he quotes from or alludes to, 2P. There are, however, sever passages in Rujinus’ translation of certain works of Origen, not extant in Greek, where 2 P is used. They are as follows. Jn Ep. ad Rom. iv. 9 (ed. Lomm. vi. p. 302), ‘ad participationem capiendam diuine nature, sicut Petrus Apostolus edocuit’ (2 P 14); ἐδ. viii. 6 (vii. p. 234), ‘Petrus in epis- tola sua dicit Gratia cubis et pax multiplicetur
* Zahn (Forsch. ill. p. 154) suggesta that In view of its prophetic contents Clement connected 2P with tho Petrine Apocalypse,