dressed by St. Peter to Jewish Christians, and that Gentile Christians would not be likely to take much interest in a document written for Jewish fellow-believers. The theory is open to criticism in several directions. (i.) It cannot be said that there is anything in the Epistle itself which sug-
ests that it was addressed by a Jew to Jews. The negative argument urged against the su position that 1 P was sent to Jewish Churches is valid here; see above, p. 783. (ii.) But let it be granted that internal evidence favours the sup- position that it was addressed to Jewish converts. Vould such a destination be likely to be a bar to
its recognition in other Churches? The Epistle of St. James and that to the Hebrews were both addressed to Jewish communities; and though they were by no means universally accepted in ancient times, yet their history stands in marked contrast to that of 2 P. (iii.) The argument for the authenticity of 2P, as urged by these critics, depends largely on the witness of the Ep. of St. Jude, which in their view was sent to the same Church or Churches as 2 P. Why, then, was the brief Epistle of one who was not an apostle circulated widely, while a longer Epistle of the chief of the Lord’s personal Slower was per- mitted to remain in absolute obscurity)?
The want of allusions to the Ep. and of reminis- cences of its language is more significant when two further considerations are taken into account. In the first place, the style of the Epistle is so remark- able that its phrases, if known, could hardly fail to be remembered, and, if regarded as apostolic, to be appealed to; and it must be added that, if appealed to, they could not but be reproduced in a form which would make recognition easy and obvious. In the second place, the Epistle would have been a controversial armoury for the assailants of the Gnostics. Had it been known and looked on as authoritative, it could not but have been used, as 1 John and 2 John are used by Irenzus (i. 16. 3, iii. 16. 5, 8). The first piece of certain evidence is the passage from Origen quoted by Eusebius, though it hardly admits of doubt that the Epistle was known to Clement of Alexandria. It is certain that during the 3rd cent. the Epistle gained accept- ance in certain Churches, though the evidence is too scanty and (e.g. as to the date of the Egyptian and of the Old Latin texts) too uncertain for us to define with any exactness what those Churches were. It is clear also that by the time of Eusebius the recognition of Seven Catholic Epistles had (at least in Churches which he knew best) become usual. On the other hand, the evidence of Origen, Eusebius, Didymus, and Jerome shows that those teachers whose knowledge of Christian literature prior to their own days was widest, were conscious of the doubt which attached to 2 P.
How, then, was 2 P received into the Canon? The history is very obscure, but the evidence suggests that there were three stages. (a) The information which we possess as to the Hypotyposeis of Clement leads us to think (see above, p. 803) that at Alex- andria, at the beginning of the 3rd cent., 2 P was regarded as the companion of the Apocalypse of Peter rather than of 1P. This is to some extent
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 807
confirmed by the position of Methodius, who used 2P (see above, p. 804), but who also counted the Apocalypse of Peter among ‘divinely inspired writings’ (Conviv. Virg. ii. 6; Migne, Pat. Gr. xviii. 57). (6) If this be so, yet before the time of Eusebius the two documents had parted company. Eusebius, who did not himself accept 2 P, gives us his view of the way in which before his time 2P had secured a place among the Catholic Epistles— πολλοῖς Χεήσιμο: φανεῖσα μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσπουδάσθη ΞΕ: 1en once it was ‘studied with the other
criptures,’ it could not fail to attach itself to 1 P, for it proclaimed itself as a ‘second Epistle’ of that apostle (3). This juxtaposition would necessaril con the respect already paid to it, and would, for most readers, decide at once its apostolic author- ship. Further, we may conjecture that, when other Epistles besides the three—1l P, 1 Jn, Ja— were reckoned as Catholic Epistles, there would be a natural tendency to make that group seven in number. So the collection would seem to have a sacred completeness, and also to be brought into relation with the Pauline collection. For St. Paul wrote to Seven Churches (Canon Murat. ; Jerome, ad Paul. Ep. liii. 8, Migne, Pat. Lat. xxii. 548), and his Epistles were regarded as fourteen in number. Again, the Apocalypse was addressed to Seven Churches. (c) We have already seen how, not- withstanding the doubts of the learned, the fuller Canon of the Catholic Epistles gained final recogni- tion in the Greek Churches of the East and in the Western Churches. Reviewing the whole history, we remark that the case of 2 P is unlike that of Jude. We find no trace of the Epistle in the period when the tradition of apostolic days was still living. This lack of early evidence, even when taken in conjunction with the paucity of 3rd cent. evidence, the doubts expressed by, e.g., Origen and Eusebius, and the absence of the Epistle from the NT of the Rysise-pesiong Church, does not 6 its spurious- ness. But the absolute insufficiency of external evidence creates a peer ptaan against its genuine- ness, and throws the whole burden of proof on the internal evidence of the Epistle itself.