assages in the treatise de Reswrrectione, in which
e thinks that this writer alludes to 2 Ρ 3!3, They are as follows :—éxrupwOjcerat μὲν yap πρὸς κάθαρσιν καὶ ἀνακαινισμὸν καταβασίῳ πᾶς κατακλυζόμενος ὁ κόσμος πυρί, οὐ μὴν εἰς ἀπώλειαν ἐλεύσεται παντελῇ καὶ φθοράν. .. διὸ ἀνάγκη δὴ καὶ τὴν γῆν αὖθις καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν μετὰ τὴν ἐκφλόγωσιν ἔσεσθαι πάντων καὶ τὸν βρασμόν (ed. Jahn p. 78); and again, ἵνα γινώσκωμεν εὐδηλότερον ὅτι πάντων πυρὶ καταβασίῳ κατομβρουμένων τὰ ἐν ἁγνείᾳ σώματα καὶ δικαιοσύνῃ διαπρέψαντα καθ- ἀπερ ψυχρῷ ὕδατι τῷ πυρί, οὐδὲν ἀλγυνόμενα πρὸς αὐτοῦ, ἐπιβήσονται (Ρ. 94). But the words of Methodius do not contain any phrases borrowed from 2 P, and may well be speculations on the ἐκπύρωσις independent of that Epistle. There is, however, a fragment from the same treatise (Pitra, Anal. Sacra iii. p. 611) which explicitly quotes 2 P 88---χίλια δὲ ἔτη τῆς βασιλείας ὠνόμασεν τὸν ἀπέραντον αἰῶνα διὰ τῆς χιλιάδος δηλῶν" γέγραφεν γὰρ ὁ ἀπόστολος Πέτρος ὅτι μία ἡμέρα παρὰ Κυρίῳ ὡς χίλια ἔτη καὶ χίλια ἔτη ὡς ἡμέρα μία. In this connexion the evidence of the Dialogue which passes under the name of Adam- antius should be noticed. In this work, which was probably written in the later years of Con- stantine, large use is made of the works of Methodius (Hort in Dict. Christ. Biog. i. p. 39f.), and 2 P is quoted init. In one passage (§ 2, p. 58 ed. Wetstein) the orthodox interlocutor helps his Marcionite opponent out of a difficulty as to St. Paul’s authority by adducing Ac 9% and 2 P 315 (πῇ δὲ ὑπὸ Πέτρου τοῦ ἀποστόλου γεγραμμένον). In another passage (§ 1, p. 41), it should be added, words (ἕκαστος @ ἤττηται τούτῳ καὶ δεδούλωται) very near to those of 2 P 2! are appealed to as ‘the common proverb’ (ὁ ἔξωθεν λόγος).
(v.) Rome.—(a) Murat. Canon. 2 P is not men- tioned in the text of the fragmentasitstands. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. π. i. p. 110 n.), however, conjectures that in one passage some words have slipped out, and he would restore it thus: ‘ Apocalypsin etiam Johannis et Petri [unam] tantum recipimus {epistulam ; fertur etiam altera], quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt.’ For the lan- guage cf. Eus. HE wt. iii. 4. The suggestion appears a probable one, but without further evidence it must remain a conjecture. (Ὁ) Hip- polytus. The following passages claim attention :
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
—Refut. Her. ix. 7, ot πρὸς μὲν ὥραν αἰδούμενοι καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας συναγόμενοι ὡμολόγουν μετ᾽ οὐ πολὺ δὲ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν βόρβορον ἀνεκυλίοντο (2 P 259); in Dan. iii. 22, ᾧ γὰρ ἄν τις ὑποταγῇ τούτῳ καὶ δεδούλωται (2 P 2"); wb. iv. 10, εἰ γὰρ καὶ νῦν βραδύνει πρὸ καιροῦ, μὴ θέλων τὴν κρίσιν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐπενεγκεῖν (2 P 88 25); ἐδ. iv. 16, μήποτε... . . ἀπονυστάξαντες οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐκπέσωσιν τῆς ἐπουρανίου ζωῆς; ib. iv. 60, ἵνα uh. . . ἀπονυστάξαντες ἐκπέσωμεν τῆς aldtov ζωῆς (2 P 317, These coinci- dences are not such as to produce conviction.* The first two, which are not the least striking of the series, are of the nature of proverbs, and it is rash to infer literary indebtedness from the common use of such expressions. The use of ἐκπεσεῖν in the last two passages is not in itself specially remark- able (cf. e.g. Gal 54, Epist. ap. Eus. HE vu. xxx. 13; Can. Petri Alex. 8, 10, 11 (Routh, Rel. Sacr. iv. p. 31ff.)). Taken together, however, these passages in Sippoly rus eve the impression that he was acquainted with 2 P.
(vi.) The division of sections in Codex B.—In this MS there are two divisions of sections, one older than the other. This double division is carried on through the Catholic Epistles with the exception of one Epistle. In 2 P (standing between 1 P and 1 Jn) the older divisions are wanting (Gregory, Proleg.i. pp. 156, 359). The conclusion is inevitable that the ancestor of Codex B, to which these divisions were first attached, did not contain 2 P.
(vii.) Old Latin Texts.—That there were pre- Hieronymian Latin translations of 2 P (see above, p. 796) is clear. But the fragments which re- main indicate that these translations belonged to the later ‘Italian’ type of text; nor is there an. evidence that others of earlier date ever existed. This view, in regard to the absence of 2 P from older Latin translations of the Catholic Epistles, is confirmed by the fact to which Westcott (Canon p. 263 ff.) calls attention, ‘It appears that the Latin text of the Epistle [in the Vulgate] not only ex- hibits constant and remarkable differences from the text of other parts of the Vulgate, but also differs from the first Epistle in the rendering of words common to both; ... it further appears that it differs not less clearly from the Epistle of St. Jude (which was received in the African Church) in those parts which are almost identical in the Greek.’ ‘The supposition,’ he adds, ‘ that it was admitted into the Canon at the same time with them becomes at once unnatural.’
Tosum up the evidence of the 3rd cent. : 2 P was
probably commented on by Clement, but regarded
as the companion, not of 1 P butof the Apocalypse of Peter; it is not, however, quoted in his extant works. Origen certainly knew of the Epistle as accepted by some, but rejected by others; it is probable that he himself did not use it. It was received into the Canon by the Egyptian Churches, but the time of its reception we do not know. It was accepted in Asia Minor by Firmilian and Meth- odius, the latter of whom regards the Apocalypse of Peter as ‘inspired’ (Conviv. Virg. i. 6). It is probable, but not certain, that it was known at Rome in the time of Hippolytus. Neither Tertullian nor Cyprian refers to it, and it does not appear to have been included among the Catholic Epistles in any but the late pre-Hiero- nymian Latin texts. There is no Western attesta- tion of the Epistle during this period.