| 610 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
in the Lord’s life, each of which was closely con- nected with St. Peter?
The answer to the question, when so put, is, it is believed, that in themselves these allusions do not supply any valid argument against the genuineness of the Epistle. It cannot be con- sidered strange or unnatural that the writer, if he were indeed the great apostle, should recall either of these incidents.
But there is a characteristic of the Epistle on the negative side which must be taken into account. (a) We should have expected that a personal fol- lower of the Lord, who had heard our Lord’s dis- courses, would instinctively reproduce much of his Master’s teaching. It is true that, as was pointed out above (p. 788), our knowledge of our Lord’s =e is imperfect. The Gospels do not record all our Lord’s words. But they certainly preserve a wide peUneecntenare cycle of His teaching. And we should expect a letter of St. Peter to contain some reminiscences of Christ’s words, which, with the Gospels in our hands, we could identify as such. 2 P does not fullil that expectation. There is but one of the sayings of the Lord recorded in the Gospels alluded to in 2P (2” || Mt 12%, Lk 1135), (8) Again, the Epistle does not refer to the
eat momenta of the Lord’s life on earth—the
assion, the Resurrection, and the Exaltation. Here then we have, as it appears to the present writer, two weighty arguments against the genuine- ness of the Epistle—a negative argument and a poulye argument. On the one hand, the Epistle
oes not contain what we should have confidently expected an Epistle of St. Peter to contain— allusions to the Lord’s sayings and allusions to the great events of the Lord’s life. The force of this argument is greatly increased when with 2 P we compare] P, On the other hand, the fact that the only allusions to incidents in the Lord’s life found in the Epistle are such as would support the char- acter of one writing as St. Peter, does become, in view of the silence of the Epistle as to the Passion, the Resurrection, the Ascension, and of the absence from it of allusions to the Lord’s teaching as recorded in the Gospels, a serious ground for ques- tioning the Petrine authorship of the Epistle.
(δ) Absence of personal messages and greetings.— No companion of the apostle is mentioned. The apostle himself sends no Pomel Message or greeting. On the former of these two points no stress can be laid. The latter has some weight as against the theory of Spitta and Zahn, that the a was addressed by St. Peter to a Palestinian Church (or Palestinian Churches) with which the apostle had had personal dealings; it has none as against the common view that St. Peter sends a second letter to Churches throughout the provinces of Asia Minor, which he had never visited. Apart from these two special points there is, it must be allowed, a certain indefiniteness in the Epistle as to the circumstances and surroundings of those to whom the letter was sent, and more especially of the writer. Nothing is said, for example, of the place whence the letter was written. But it would be easy to draw on the imagination for reasons which might naturally and fully explain the reticence of the letter on personal matters. The result there- fore isa pay negative one. The genuineness of the Sie e does not receive the support which it would have gained, had it Santee personal mes- sages and personal news which harmonized with known facts. On the other hand, no substantial erguient adverse to its genuineness can fairly be deduced from their absence.
_ (6) Anachronisms.—{i.) 3% Does the passage imply that in the writer’s time a collection of St. Paul's Epistles existed, and that they were regarded as Scripture? The first point to be considered is
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
the meaning of the phrase τὰς λοιπὰς γραφάς. Spitta (p. 294) holds that ‘only writings of St. Paul’s associates can be intended, addressed to the Gentile Christians who belonged to the sphere of his apostolic work.’ According to this view, it would appear that the term al γραφαί is used not in the sense of ‘Scriptures,’ but with a general non- technical meaning. Zahn (Hinl. pp. 98f., 108) follows the same general line of interpretation, but enters more into detail. In his opinion, the reference is to ‘ writings of a religious character— writings which could claim respect in Christian circles either because of the persons who composed them, or because the Christian congregations made use of them in public worship.” ‘We do not know,’ he adds, ‘how much Christian literature already existed in the years 60-64.’* He urges that, as the allusion to these writings is alto- gether incidental, and as no distinguishing epithet, e.g. ‘holy,’ ‘ prophetic,’ is added, the special sense of, al γραφαί, as applied to a collection of the Holy Scriptures, is here excluded. He further points out that, as the technical sense of the term o»507 did not prevent the Jews from using the word 150 of any book whatever, so the narrower use of al γραφαί and τὰ γράμματα did not as a matter of fact debar Greek-speaking Christians from employing the words γραφή, γραφαί, and γράμματα in a wide and general sense; if no instance of this sense of pa¢7 is found in the NT, that is a mere matter of chance. To substantiate his position as regards γραφή he refers to 2 Ch 2" (εἶπεν Xeipau .. . ἐν ypagn), Neh 7 (ἐξήτησαν γραφὴν αὐτῶν τῆς συνοδίας), Dn 5° (τὴν γρ. ἐκείνην, i.e. the writing on the wall), 1 Mac 145 48 (the writing on tables of brass), Iren. iii. 6. 4, xvii. 4, v. Prol. (in each case hec scriptura of Ireneus’ own work), Clem. Strom. vi. 3 (p. 755, ed. Potter; προϊούσης τῆς γραφῆς, i.e. the treatise itself), Eus. HE τι. xi. 1 (τὴν περὶ τούτου. . . τοῦ ᾿Ιωσήπου γραφήν). Similar uses of the word might be quoted from classical Greek (where it commonly has a formal sense [‘document’], often a legal sense [‘indictment’]), e.g. Thue. i. 129, τοσαῦτα μὲν ἡ γραφὴ ἐδήλου, Ξέρξης δὲ ἥσθη τε τῇ ἐπιστολῇ K.T.A. In all these passages, it will be noticed, it is clear, either from the phrase itself or from the context, what the γραφή in question is. They present no parallel to the absolute use of the word in the plural. The phrase al γραφαί used absolutely points to a definite and recognized collection of ‘writings,’ t.e. the Scriptures. If any further assurance of this is needed, it is given (a) by the context—the word στρεβλοῦσιν shows that the writ- ings were authoritative, and that their βὰν ort had at all costs to be secured, and (8) by the added word Aourds—ras λοιπὰς γραφάς ; compare Sir. Prol. ὁ νόμος kal al προφητεῖαι καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τῶν βιβλίων ; Iren. ii. 28. 7, ‘Dominus manifeste dixit et relique de- monstrant Scripture.’ From the καί and the ras λοιπάς---ὡς καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς ypapds—we are obliged to infer that the Epistles of St. Paul are regarded as Scripture. Again, the fact that St. Paul’s Epistles are regarded as Scripture, together with the phrase ἐν πάσαις ἐπιστολαῖς, leads to the further conclusion that the writer of 2 P possessed not merely isolated letters of St. Paul, but a collection of his Epistles, to which, as authoritative docu- ments of the faith, appeal was made.t It is im- ossible to suppose that a collection of St. Paul’s ipistles had been made and that they were treated as Scripture during the lifetime of St. Peter.