as follows: ‘Non est igitur ignorandum Srewrens tem epistolam esse falsatam, que licet publicetur non tamen in canone est’ (Migne, Pat. Gr. xxxix.
1774). The Latin phrase printed above in italics probably represents the Greek words ὡς γοθεύεται αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστολή. If this be so, the passage conveys not the writer’s own view, but a report of the opinion of others. Zahn (Gesch. Kan. 1. i. p. 312) urges that Didymus is here recording a judgment which is a relic of the 2nd or 3rd cent., though expressed in the language of later times. The similarity of the terms used to those employed by
Eusebius in reference to James (ΕΒ, I. xxiii, 25) suggests rather that Didymus here preserves an opinion more or less contemporary with himself,— the view probably of scholars who conceded 8
* Some of the comments on 2 P in Cramer's Catena are there
ascribed to Chrysostom. The present writer (CAryeetom p. 70 π,) has pointed out that these fragments bear some resem blance to Chrysostom's work. They are, however, too brief te warrant a positive opinion.
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
806
public use of the book—‘it seemed useful to many’ (Eus. HE ut. iii. 1),—but protested against its being placed on the same level as books whose authenticity was not questioned. (v.) Constan- tinople. The Church in New Rome was in many respects the daughter of the Church at Antioch. But she did not inherit any doubts as to the full Canon of the NT. Constantinople was the centre and the ὕ of Imperial influence on matters ecclesiasti and religious. The preparation, which Constantine entrusted to Eusebius, of ‘fifty copies of the Divine Scriptures’ for use in the new capital, had important results. It was natural that these copies should contain all the books of the NT which had gained general recognition. A quasi-official standard was thus set up; and the distinction between ‘acknowledged’ and ‘disputed’ books soon became little more than a matter of antiquarian interest (Westcott, Canon p. 427). e turn to the West. There appears to be no ante-Nicene evidence for 2P in the West. It is uoted in the last quarter of the 4th century by foniated of Milan (de Fide iii. 12, ‘ Petrus sanctus adsernit dicens Quapropter satagite,’ ete. (12°), and by Priscillian in Spain (see above, p. 796). It has a place in the list of Philastrius of Brescia (c. 385), and later in that of Rufinus (c. 410). On the other hand, in the Canon Mommsenianus, which appears to be an African list of the middle of the 4th cent., it is inserted, but inserted with a protest— eplae Iohannis ΠῚ ur CCCCL una sola eplae Petri 1 wer cco una sola. The author of the list, transcribing an older cata- logue, added an expression of his own doubt.* The decisive influences, however, in Western Christendom were those of Jerome and Augustine. The latter, though not insensible to the effect on the authority of a book caused by its rejection in some quarters (de Doctr. Chr. ii. 12, 13), yet in Prachie appealed without distinction to all the ks of our NT. Jerome was acquainted with the widespread doubts as to the genuineness of 2 P. In the section in the de Virr. Illustr. which deals with St. Peter, he says, ‘Scripsit duas epistolas qu catholics nominantur; quarum secunda a lerisque eius esse negatur propter stili cum priore NES mantiam.’ The kind of objection which they are alleged to have urged limits the reference of a plerisque : Jerome has in mind the doubts of the learned. This dissonantia he thus accounts for (Quest. ad Hedib., Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii. 1002), * Duss epistole que feruntur Petri stilo inter se et charactere discrepant structuraque uerborum. Ex quo intelligimus pro necessitate rerum diuersis eum usum interpretibus.’ These doubts, however, Jerome himself puts on one side, and in his letter to Paulinus (Migne, Patr. Lat. xxii. 548) he speaks of the books which make upour NT without any sign of differentiating between them—‘ Paulus Apos- tolus ad septem ecclesias scribit . . . Iacobus Petrus Joannes Judas Apostoli septem epistolas ediderunt.’ This view, which doubtless represents that of the Church of Rome, found expression in the Canon of the Vulgate. The recognition in this version of the Seven Catholic Epistles practically closed the uestion in the West. Thus during the course of the 4th cent. the Epistle was finally received into the NT of Greek - speaking and Latin - speaking Christendom, though the Syriac-speaking Churches still refused to it entrance into their Canon. To sum ne The evidence as to the reception of 2 Pin the Church has now been given aad sifted.
* Harnack (Theol. Ltzg. 1886, col. 178) suggests that in the repeated una sola there {is in one case a reference to James, in the other a reference to Jude. The word sola, however, would remain unexplained (see Zahn, Gesch. Kan. τι. i. p. 155n.; Janday in Studia Bibi. et Eccles. iii. p. 243 ff.).
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
It becomes necessary to interpret it as a whole. We do not find any certain trace of 2 P in the extant literature of the 2nd cent. Coincidences, which have been adduced to prove literary in- debtedness, turn out on examination to be nothin more than illustrations, literary or doctrinal. Further, the words of Eusebius, as was pointed out above, seem to exclude the possibility that books now lost contained clear references to 2 P. Spitta and Zahn (see above, p. 798) agree in find- ing an explanation of the obscurity in which the Epistle remained in the supposition that it was