* Cursives4, Lgyptt(boh sah), Syr-hkl add ἡμῶν. But, in the
ease of an addition of this nature, the evidence of versi - of little value. , ersions is
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
—_——
teaching as reported in the Acts. But in this Epistle, when the writer (115) has occasion to appeal to the guarantee of the truth of his teach- ing as to ‘the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,’ the Resurrection is ignored, and the apos- tolic witness to Christ is made to rest on the Transfiguration. The Transfiguration was doubt- less an event of deep meaning; but its meaning was relative to the time when it took place, and to the circumstances of those who were present on the mountain. Its glory was in the days of the Lord’s humiliation a transitory anticipation of the Resurrection. It belongs to an order of events different from that to which the Resurrection be- longs. It would be difficult to exaggerate the significance of the fact that in the Epistle gener- ally, and especially at this particular point in it, the Resurrection is unnoticed. A subordinate but not unimportant matter is the language used by the writer of 2 P in this reference to the Trans- figuration—érémrar γενηθέντες τῆς ἐκείνου μεγαλειό- τητος (116. The word ἐπόπτης is borrowed from the Greek mysteries, where it denoted one who was ad- mitted to the third and highest stage. For the word itself οἵ, Plut. Alcib. 22, rods ἄλλους ἑταίρους μύστας mpocayopevovra καὶ ἐπόπτας; CIG 716, 2158 (in both of which places it is closely associated with μύστης) ; Clement of Alexandria is fond of using words of this group in reference to the spiritual vision of God (e.g. Ped. i. 6 (p. 113), 7 (p. 129); Strom. i. 28 (p. 424), ii. 2 (p. 431). The metaphor is not one which we shoul have expected St. Peter to use. It is artificial, and savours of a later time when the Church borrowed such terms, often probably through the medium of the Gnostics, from the language of the Greek mysteries. *
5. RELATION TO 1 PETER.— Under this head little more has to be done than to bring together results which have been already reached as to the two Epistles neperitely.
(a) Vocabulary and literary style. — As to the former point, Warfield (p. 67) writes thus: ‘These resemblances are seen not only in peculiar phrases, such as the form of salutation, ‘Grace and peace be multiplied,” found in these two Epistles and nowhere else, but also in the recurrence in both of rare combinations, such as ἀμώμου καὶ ἀσπίλου, 1 P 119 repeated 2 P 2° and 3 and nowhere else, and also the common possession of a very peculiar vocabulary such as is represented by the occurrence in both of ἐποπτεύσαντες (1 P 2", 2 P 118), ἰσότιμος (1 P 17, 2P 1-4), reinforced by the like com- munity in such as φιλαδελφία (1 P 1%, 2P 1’); χορηγεῖν (1 P 44, 2P 1511); ἀπόθεσις (1 P 37, 2P 113); ἀρετή (1 P 2°, 2P 18); ἀναστροφή (1 P 1,2 P 2"); ἀλήθεια in a peculiar sense (1 P 122, 2 P 112); κομίζεσθαι (1 P 19, 2 P 218), ete., all of which are rare words in the New Testament.’ It seemed best to quote this passage at length. A glance reveals how this list needs careful sifting. Thus Warfield’s mode of statement is confusing; the word ἰσότιμος, for example, does not occur in 1 P, but πολύτιμος (17) and τίμιος (119), Again, the plural αἱ ἀρεταί in 1 P 2°(a reminiscence of Is 4331) is clearly far from being a parallel to the Ἐν τ ἀρετή, 2P 1%, though in both passages the reference is to God. But in fact verbal coincidences, however abundant, between 2 P on the one hand and on the other 1 P and the Petrine speeches in the Acts (Speaker’s Com. iv. He 226), would be of but little weight in support of the genuineness of 2 P ; for if that Epistle is not genuine, but was written in the 2nd cent., it is clear that both 1 P and the Acts must have been accessible to its author, and that therefore he may have derived words or phrases
“The habit of using language derived from the mysteries, in reference to communications supposed to be made by ous Lord to His disciples, runs riot in the Gnostic Pistis Sophia.
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE 813
eS
from them. The real question is whether a com- parison of the two Epistles reveals that kind of similarity which suggests that they are the pro- duct of the same mind. It must said briefly that the two documents are in complete contrast in reference to literary style. This contrast is obvious whether we regard smaller points of expression (e.g. the connexion of sentences and clauses) or the broader literary characteristics of the two Epistles. The style of 1 P is simple and natural, without a trace of self-conscious effort. The style of 2 P is rhetorical and laboured, marked by a love for striking and startling expressions.
(δ) Use of the OT.—The writer of 1 P formally quotes the OT ; he deliberately adopts its language (e.g. 2% 2); he instinctively, and apparently un- consciously, falls into its phraseology. The writer of 2 P, on the other hand, as we have seen, never formally quotes the OT, and uses but few dis- tinetively OT expressions. This is precisely the reverse of what we should have expected to be the case if the theory of Spitta and Zahn were true, namely, that St. Peter wrote the First Epistle to Gentile, the Second Epistle to Jewish, Christians.