* Zahn’s theory as to 2 P, it should be observed, leads him to assume an (earlier) Ep. of St. Peter now lost (31), an Ep. of St. Paul now lost (315), the promise on St. Peter’s part of a Lehr- eee ee unknown to us (115), ‘other writings’ now ost (316),
+ Compare the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, Libri et epis: tule Pauli uiri iusti (Robinson, The Passwn of S. Perpetua p. 114, in ‘ Texts and Studies’ τ. ii.).
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
(11.) 3? μνησθῆναι τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίον καὶ σωτῆρος. It is possible that there is & primitive error in the text, and that διά should be after rjjs—‘the commandment of the Lord and Saviour given through your apostles’ * (cf. the title of the Didaché—i.dayh Κυρίου διὰ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, and also 2” τῆς παρα- δοθείσης αὐτοῖς ἁγίας ἐντολῆτ). But this suggestion does not affect the matter with which we are at present concerned. It is true that the phrase your apostles’ admits of the explanation that the writer is referring to those apostles who had taught the readers of the Epistle, and that, so interpreted, the phrase cannot be said to be an impossible one in a letter written by St. Peter. But, on the Bupposition that St. Peter is writing to Christians whom he had himself taught, it must be admitted that it is strange that he should use an expression so cold and so general. Two other considerations must be taken into account. In the first place, it seems certain (see art. JUDE, EPISTLE OF, vol. ii. » 802 f.) that the whole phrase is an expansion of the corresponding words in Jude’, where there is a simple and natural refer- ence to the oral teaching of the apostles (ἔλεγον). Secondly, the addition of a reference to the pro- phets changes the kind of remembrance. The idea of keeping in mind the teaching of Scripture is
introduced. Now in the 2nd cent. it was customary fospeak of Scripture either under the two divisions —the Prophets and the Apostles —(e.g. Murat. Canon, ‘neque inter prophetas completum numero aa inter apostolos’), or under the three divisions —the Prophets, the Lord (the Gospel), and the Apostles--(¢.g. Iren. i. 8. 1, ἣν [ὑπόθεσιν] οὔτε προφῆται ἐκήρυξαν οὔτε 6 Κύριος ἐδίδαξεν οὔτε ἀπόστολοι παρέδωκιν) ; see Lightfoot on Ign. Philad.v. The impression produced by 2 P 3° is that we have here a post-apostolic writer elaborating the simple phrase of Jude” and instinctively reproducing phraseology current in his own days, while the ὑμῶν is introduced as being in character with the style of a letter. This impression is strengthened when the passage under discussion is taken in connexion with 3" (see just above).
(iii). Closely connected with the pane just dealt with is the problem mupgeeted y the con- troversial element in the Epistle.
It has often been noticed that the writer speaks of the rise of certain false teachers as future (2'* 85), and then, using the present tense (24: 1% 17!» 85, cf. 3156), describes them as already active. It might be argued that he projects himself into the future, and then, from the point of view of a spectator, regards future events as actually hap- pening. But it must be remarked that (1) this change from the future to the present takes place twice (2! 35); (2) in ch. 2 perfects are used (γέγονεν 2, συμβέβηκεν 2). he most natural interpretation of these phenomena is that the writer first speaks in his assumed character of 8 prophet, and that then, forgetting that assumed character, he depicts the false teaching actually rife around him. ‘
Does the language used betray any sign of being aimed against the Gnostics? It is clear that those against whom the writer warns his readers not only practised, but taught, immorality. Their error was not only a matter of life (as appears to be the case with the libertines of St. Jude’s Epistle), but also of doctrine. They are ψευδοδι- δάσκαλοι (2'). In this connexion the language of 1 is remarkable—émiyopyyjoare . . . ἐν τῇ ἀρετῇ τὴν γνῶσιν, ἐν δὲ τῇ γνώσει τὴν ἐγκράτειαν. Here γνῶσις is used absolutely, and it is linked with
* Bo the Syriac (Harklean) version, ‘the commandment of our Lond and Saviour which (was) by the hand of the apostles
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
811
ἀρετή and ἐγκράτεια. It would seem as if the writer emphasizes the bearing of a true γγῶσις on conduct because he has in mind those whom a false γνῶσις betrayed into ἀκρασία. It will be remembered that the name ‘Gnostic’ was, as far as our knowledge goes, first claimed by sects whose teaching justified profligacy of life (Iren. i. 25. 6; Hippolytus, Her. v. 6). Again, it may be thought that the words ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγ- γελλόμενοι αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντες τῆς φθορᾶς (2") exactly express the theory of certain Gnostic teachers as to the ‘spiritual’ man’s independence of matter, and the practical results of that doctrine (cf. e.g. Iren. i. 25. 4). Again, the writer of 2 P charges the false teachers with perverting Scrip- ture (3,56). It is clear that, when St. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, there were those who depraved the doctrine of grace (Ro 6"; ef. Jude‘), But there is no trace in apostolic times of false teachers supporting their views by a reckless or dishonest interpretation of the Old Testament, which alone could then be known under the name of Scripture. Nor, indeed, is it easy to see how the controversies of that age could give occasion to a forced exegesis of the OT; the arguments which the Judaistic opponents of St. Paul may well have drawn from the OT would be of a different kind. But such violent wresting of Scripture (i.e. the OT and the NT) as is described by the word στρε- βλοῦσιν was the characteristic method by which the Gnostics of the 2nd century endeavoured to support their doctrines. Irenwus charges them with such a dishonest procedure again and again (i. Preef.; 3. 6, waparpéwovres ras ἑρμηνείας καὶ ῥᾳδι- ουργοῦντες τὰς ἐξηγήσεις ; 8. 1; 9. 1, καταχρησάμενοι τοῖς ὀνόμασιν εἰς τὴν ἰδίαν ὑπόθεσιν μετήνεγκαν) This indictment, then, of the false teachers does not appear to harmonize with what we know, or with what we can with reasonable probability conjec- ture, of the apostolic age. It does fit in with the characteristics of a later time.