(vi.) There are some interesting pairs of synonyms found in the Epistle. (a) ἀγάτν, φιλαδιλφία (17), the thought apparently being that ‘love of the brethren’ must lead on to ‘love’ in the widest sense (contrast 1P 1337. 48; see Westcott on 1 John 210), (ὁ) ἄσπιλοι καὶ ἁ μώμητοι (314), οἵ, σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι (213), In 1 P 119 we have ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου. The word μῶμος (=blame, dis- grace, in classical Greek) is common in the LXX as repre- senting in sound and approximately in sense the Hebr. Ὁ (‘ blemish,’ in the case of sacrificial victims); hence also fre- quentiv in the LXX the word ἄμωμος (of a victim ‘without blemish’). Thus the two words ἄμωμος and ἄσπιλος can with propriety stand side by side. The writer of 2 P, however, connects together ἄσπιλος and d&uduvris (cf. v.. in Ph 215), apparently transferring to the latter word the special sense which had become attached to ἄωρος, though it should be noticed that μωμητός is once used in the LXX (Dt 325) in
; * It seems, however, not improbable that we have here a Primitive’ error. The writer of 2 P almost certainly had in mind Jude δ (δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τιτήρηκεν). If he wished instead of the common word δεσμοῖς to substitute the much rarer word eupais,—which, however, means ‘cords or ropes’ rather anal arg ὉΡΑΙΩΣ ἐπὰν πα Ee very likely that, with the und οἱ @ twice-re} -οἰς (δεσμοῖς xidious is mi would write eupois ΤΣ ΡΟΣ υ: μας 2s πα σα
translating 01D. (6) χλῆσιν καὶ ἐχλογήν (110), see Lightfoot on Col 813, (d) λόγος, φωνή ΟΣ There is ‘a recognized distinc- tion between λόγος and φωνή, as denoting respectively ‘‘an intelligible utterance” and an “irrational cry"’ (Lightfoot on Ignatius, Rom. 2); cf. Jn 11-1423, Here the distinction between the two words lies in the transitoriness of the τώρ (cf. Lk 936) and the permanence of ‘the prophetic λόγος." But it is remarkable that the term of inferior ity is here used of the direct utterance of God Himself. (6) τυφλός ἐστιν μυωπάζων (see above).
The vocabulary, then, of the Epistle is a singular one. The writer affects unusual, striking, poetical words. He is apt to amplify or decorate a current phrase in a way which makes its appropriateness at least questionable (e.g. σπουδὴν πᾶσαν παρεισ- φέρειν, ἄσπιλοι καὶ dudunrot). Briefly, his vocabu- lary is to a remarkable degree an ambitious one. On the other hand, the extraordinary list of repeti- tions stamps it as poor and inadequate. The reader is constantly tempted to think that the author intentionally dwells upon a sonorous word, which pleases his fancy, unconscious that the unnecessary recurrence of a word spoils the literary effect. Further, the writer can hardly be defended against the charge of using words and phrases incorrectly There is little doubt that this indictment has been exaggerated, and that our ignorance of colloquial Greek is apt to betray us into condemning words which with fuller knowledge we should accept without question. But, as a matter of fact, we do not find that good Greek writers hit upon ex- pressions which seem to us uncouth in themselves, and which lack authority, with anything like the same frequency as the writer of 2 Peter.
(ὁ) From the Vocabulary we turn to more general characteristics of Style. The writer, fond as he is of unusual words, has but a poor supply of con- necting particles (e.g. μέν. .. δέ is not found in the Epistle). Thus it is remarkable how sentence after sentence is linked to the preceding words by means of ydp—l® (4 times), 28-21 (4 times); and how relatives (sometimes involving an awkward ambiguity) are employed for the same purpose— 14 25. 8 81. δ. 15 Closely connected with this poverty, of connecting particles is the fact that we have in the Epistle involved and cumbrous sentences, e.g. 18 (where, if the reading διὰ δόξης be adopted, διά is used four times), 2-1, The following points claim notice under this general heading—In 2“: we have the phrase οὐκ ἐφείσατο ἀλλά twice used, and the repetition is made the more unpleasing by the fact that the first ἀλλά introduces a contrast differing in kind from that introduced by the second (ἀλλὰ «+. παρέδωκεν, ἀλλὰ... ἐφύλαξεν). In 218 there is an awkward involution of one participial clause in another (τοὺς. . . ἀποφεύγοντας τοὺς ἐν πλάνῃ ἀναστρεφομένους), while in ν.39 ἀποφυγόντες is used of a set of persons other than those referred to in the τοὺς ἀποφεύγοντας of v.18. Again, the piled-up geni- tives of 33 are very cumbrous, and not free from ambiguity (but on the possibility of a ‘ primitive’ error see below, p. 811). Again, the double ἀπό and the οὕτως of 34 (ἀφ᾽ ἧς οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν, πάντα οὕτως διαμένει ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς κτίσεως) confuse the meaning. Again, while in Jude” the φυσικῶς (ὅσα δὲ φυσικῶς ὡς Ta ἄλογα ζῷα ἐπίστανται) is natural and forcible, the corresponding phrase in 2P 913 (ὡς ἄλογα ζῷα γεγεννημένα φυσικὰ els ἅλωσιν) wants both simplicity and clearness. In the sentences which follow, the artificial elaboration of the writer’s style is very conspicuous,—yv.” yeyerynuéva. . . els φθοράν - ++ ἐν τῇ φθορᾷ αὐτῶν καὶ φθαρήσονται, ἀδικούμενοι μισθὸν ἀδικίας, --- while in the next verse we have the strained and eccentrie phrase ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς μοιχαλίδος. There are, indeed, passages in the Epistle in which an earnestness of exhortation or of hope moulds the language, and in which we recognize a certain grandeur and power of di:tion, e.g, 10-19-21 311-13.17f.” But this is not the impression which we gain from the Epistle as a whole. The