(3) We now pass to the 4th cent., when the place which, as will appear, 2 P had already secured among the Apostolic books became assured every- where exert in the Syrian Church. (a) Husebius. It appears from HZ I. xxiii. 25 (τῆς λεγομένης ᾿Ιούδα,
* Zahn (Gesch. Kan. τ. i. p. 316 n.) also compares with 2 P 120 Hipp. de Antichr. 2, ob γὰρ tf ἰδίας δυνάμεως ἐφθέγγοντο... ὅθεν καὶ ἡμεῖς τὰ ὑπ᾿ αὐτῶν προειρημένα καλῶς μαθητευθέντες λέγομεν oom ἐξ ἰδίας ἡμῶν ἱπινοίας. But there is no close resemblance in language.
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 805
μιᾶς καὶ αὐτῆς obsns τῶν ἑπτὰ λεγομένων καθολικῶν) that the phrase ‘Catholic Epistles’ (cf. v1. xiv. 1)
was y a recognized term, and that they were already commonly regarded as seven in number. e turn to the two great
assages in which Eus. deals with the books of the NT. In HE i. iii., after mentioning 1P as ‘certainly enuine,’ he continues, τὴν δὲ φερομένην δευτέραν οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν" ὅμως δὲ πολλοῖς ἐμὸς φανεῖσα, μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουδάσθη γραφῶν. Je then refers to the Acts of Peter, the ome the Preaching, and the Apocalypse, and, after stating the Ρ an and tad a of his references to the books of the NT, he gives his own judgment in regard to 2P—7ra μὲν ὀνομαζόμενα Ilérpov, ὧν μόνην μίαν γνησίαν ἔγνων ἐπιστολὴν καὶ παρὰ τοῖς πάλαι πρεσβυτέροις ὡμολογημένην, τοσαῦτα. In the later passage (II. xxv.) Eus. divides the books into two main classes—the accepted books (ὁμολο- γούμενα) and the disputed books (ἀντιλεγόμενα). The latter class is again subdivided. There are within it (a) ‘disputed books which are yet recog- nized by most (γνώριμα τοῖς πολλοῖς), and (8) ‘dis- uted books which are spurious (νόθα). To the atter subdivision belongs (among other books) the Apocalypse of Peter ; to the former, ‘the so-called Epistle of James, that of Jude, the Second Epistle “f Peter, and the so-named Second and Third of ohn.’ From these passages of Eus. we learn some important points about 2 P. (i.) The Catholic Epistles were, at the time Eus. wrote, regarded (at least in some quarters) as seven in number’*; (ii.) the judgment of the past, as Eus. had received it, was against 2 P—ov« ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλή- φαμεν. (111.}) The reason why 2 P had been ‘studied (ἐσπουδάσθη) in company with the other Scriptures’ was, according to Eus., that it was regarded very commonly as answering the purposes of practical edification (πολλοῖς χρήσιμος φανεῖσα). (iv.) Eus. did not himself receive 2 P as γνησία ἐπιστολή. When he speaks of 1 P, which he accepted without a doubt, as παρὰ τοῖς πάλαι πρεσβυτέροις ὡμολογημένη (ct § 1), he clearly implies that 2 P was deficient n such recognition. The opinion of Eus. is sig- nificant. His knowledge of early Christian litera- ture was wide. He was acquainted with many works which are lost to us. When, then, the modern critic fails to discover in early writings any certain trace of 2 P, his experience is only a repetition of that of Eusebius. And further, the evidence of Eus. indicates that the recovery of such lost bucks as those of Papias and Hegesippus, which were known to him, would in all probability mapply us with no fresh evidence as to 2 P.
e turn now to the great Churches of the East, and to the great writers whose influence domi- nated Western Christendom in the 4th century and onwards.
(i.) The Churches of Syria.—(a) The Syriac-speak- ing Churches. The Syriac Vulgate (Peshitta) con- tained only three of the Catholic Epistles, viz. James, 1 P, 1 Jn. There do not appear to be any quotations from or references to 2 P in Aphraat or in the Syriac works of Ephraem.t+ At a much later time (i.e. the 13th cent.) Ebed Jesu, a Nestorian bishop of Nisibis, writes, ‘Tres autem
* The fact that seven Catholic Epistles appear for the first time, so far as the present writer knows, in Eusebius of Cavsarea,
rms the suggestion of Sanday (Studia Bibl. et Eecles. iil.
RP 258, 259), that ‘it is possible that the collection of seven
pistles may have originated (at Jerusalem); or if brought in
the first instance from t, it would seem to have been at Jerusalem that it first became established.”
¢ F. H. Woods in Studia Bidlica et Ecclesiastica 011, p. 138. In y. 342 B. Eph. has the words ‘ the day of the Lord is a thief.’ The phrase has been thought to be derived from 2 P 319, for, when it is compared with the Pesh. of 1 Th 62, it will be noticed that (1) ‘in the night’ is omitted, (2) ‘ the Lord’ takes the place of ‘our Lord.’ But such slight differences and coincidences are hardly worth consideration in the case of a common proverbial expression.
Epistole qu inscribuntur Apostolis in omni codice et lingua, Jacobo scilicet et Petro et Joanni; et Catholics nuncupantur’ (Assemani, Bidsl. Or. iii. Pars i. p. 9f.). On the other hand, the dis- coveries and investigations of Dr. Gwynn of Dublin (Royal Irish Acad. Transactions, xxvii. p. 269 ff., XXX. B 347 ff.) show that the Harklensian version Ofer, Jude, and 2, 3 Jn is a revision of the text of these Epistles published by Pococke in 1630, which is given in the printed editions of the Peshitta ;, and further, that the Pococke text of these Epistles was a part of the Philoxenian version made by Poly for Xenaias or Philo- xenus, the Monophysite bishop of Mabug about the year A.D. 500. It appears, therefore, that 2 P was rejected by the early Syrian Church, but that early in the 6th cent. 1t was accepted at least in the Monophysite branch of that Chureh. (8) The Greek School of Antioch. Among the innumerable quotations from and allusions to Scripture found in the writings of Chrysostom,” Theodore, and Theodoret, there does not appear to be one reference to 2 P. In the Synopsis com- monly ascribed to Chrysostom (Migne, Pat. Gr. lvi. 314 ff.) the phrase used—rGv καθολικῶν ἐπιστολαὶ Tpets—implies not only the acceptance of three Epes, but the rejection of others. The views of Theodore are preserved (see arts, on JUDE and 1 PETER) in Junilius’ treatise, Instituta Regularia. Of the Catholic Epistles only 1 P and 1 Jn are accepted. ‘Adiungunt quam 5 ee ane ue alias, uz apostolorum canonice nuncupantur.’ These ive Epistles, among which is 2 P, are described as being medie auctoritatis (Kihn, Theodore p. 478 ff.). Thus 2 P had no place in the Syriac NT. The great Antiochene school of exegetes joined their Syriac-speaking neighbours in its rejection. More- over, since Chrysostom’s expositions at any rate were addressed to popular audiences, the rejection of the Epistle by the great teachers in question must have reflected the usage of the Antiochene Church generally in the matter. (ii.) Asia Minor. 2 P has a place in the list of Si ΚΟΣΣ Nazianzen ; yet neither he nor Gregory of Nyssa nor Basil appears to quote or to refer to the Epistle (West- cott, Canon p. 446). An expression of doubt is found in the list of Amphilochius, bishop of Ieconium (c. 380 Α.}.)---καθολικῶν ἐπιστολῶν | τινὲς μὲν ἑπτά φασιν, οἱ δὲ τρεῖς μόνας | χρῆναι δέχεσθαι. iii.) Jeru- salem. Cyril includes 2 P in his list of books, as does his contemporary and fellow-countryman Epiphanius (cf. Zahn, Gesch. Kan, τι. i. p. 226 n.). (iv.) Alexandria. The list of NT books given by Athanasius in one of his Festal Epistles includes 2P. Towards the end of the century, however, the doubt as to 2 P finds expression in the com- mentary on the Epistle by Didymus. His words, as they are preserved in the Latin translation, are