4 ‘Dass die beiden kanonischen Petrus-Briefe nicht aus der- selben Feder stammen kénnen, muss ich mit manchen altkirch- lichen und den meisten severen Forschern unbedingt be haupten ’ (p. 530).
814 PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
of amanuenses or ‘interpreters’ can account for them unless we are prepared to admit that, in the case of either one or both of these letters, the sub- stance and the language alike were left absolutely in the hands of the apostle’s companion.
6. LITERARY AFFINITIES.*—(a) The Epistle of Jude. That there is a close literary connexion between Jude and 2 P is certain. Which of the two writers is the borrower? It must be here sufficient to refer to the article on the EPISTLE OF JUDE (vol. ii. p. 802f.), where the question is dis- cussed, Further study confirms the present writer in the conclusion there reached, that the ‘ various lines of argument converge, and, as far as demon- stration is possible in literary questions, demon- strate the priority of Jude.’+ What is the bearing of this result on the question of the genuineness of 2P? It is obvious that the fact that 2P borrows from Jude is no more prejudicial to the
enuineness of the former than the fact that 1 P
rrows from Ro and Eph tells against the authen- ticity of 1 P. The difficulties in regard to date, if we prolong the apostle’s life beyond 64, are not insuperable. The result is therefore a negative one. 2P is deprived of a witness on whose evi- dence recent defenders of the apostolic authorship of 2 P (Spitta and Zahn) have greatly relied.
(δ) Josephus.—In an article in the Expositor (2nd series, vol. iii. p. 49.) E. A. Abbott main- tained that there is a remarkable series of coin- cidences in language between 2 P and the An- tiquities of Josephus (Pref. 3, 4; IV. viii. 2 [the last words of Moses]). ‘Taken as a whole,’ Abbott concludes (p. 62), ‘the evidence in favour of the theory that the author of the Second Epistle imitated Josephus can hardly fail to appear strik- ing, if not convincing.’ The theory was examined by Salmon in his Introduction, p. 638 ff. (ed. 1; the discussion is curtailed in later editions). He points out (1) that ‘the alleged coincidences relate entirely to words, and not at all to thoughts’; (2) that ‘they do not occur in passages of [what he himself would call] ‘‘ brief compass”’; (3) that ‘they are not in the same sequence and connexion’; (4) that ‘the words common are not “‘ unusual or startling,” or such as can fairly be called hapax legomena.’ It will probably now generally
mitted that the theory broached by Abbott has broken down on examination. There is a curious series of coincidences between the Preface of St. Luke’s Gospel and Josephus Contra Apionem i. 10. The same account is probably to be given of the resemblances between Josephus and Lk and of those between Josephus and 2P. They are most likely due to the diffusion of ‘common- places’ of rhetorical study, set prefatory phrases, and ὑπο Ἧτο 7Ρ
(c) pocalypse of Peter.—When the frag- ment of this Apocalypse was published, it was Ξ once noticed (¢.g. by James, A Lecture on the Apocalypse of Peter p. 52) that between it and 2 P there is a remarkable series of coincidences. The following table includes one or two coincidences between 2 P and fragments of the Apocalypse
* An inscription from Stratonicea in Caria, on by Deiss- mann (Bibelstudien {. p. 277f.), contains the phrases, τῆς τῶν Ῥωμαίων αἰωνίου ἀρχῆς, πᾶσαν σπουδὴν ἰσφίρισθα, is τὴν πρὸς [αὐτοὺς εὐσίβγ)ιαν, τῆς θείας δυνάμιως ἀρετάς ; οἵ. ὅ Ῥ 111 1618. But these coincidences do not, as Deissmann thinks, indicate any con- nexion between the sie and the Epistle.
+ ‘The Assumption of Moses’ was used by Jude (see art. Epistis or Jun, vol. ii. p. 802). But the question arises whether 2 P does not show an acquaintance with the Assumption inde- pesies of the knowledge of it which he might have gained
m the passage of Jude. The apparent resemblance alluded to is between 2 P 218 ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν, and the Assumption vii. 4, ‘omni hora diei amantes conuluia deuoratores Καὶ. But the resemblance is seen to be a merely superficial one, when the force of omni hora is noticed. The Assumption rebukes gluttons who would feast at any hour of the day; the Epistle, leas profligates who riot in broad daylight.
preserved by Patristic writers (the numbering of these fragments being that given by James, p. 94f., who, on p. 52, pointed out most of these resem-
blances) :—
APOCALYPSE OF PETER.
1 πολλοὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἔσονται ψευδοπροφῆται, καὶ ὁδοὺς καὶ δόγματα ποικίλα τῆς ἀπωλείας διδάξουσιν " ἐκεῖνοι δὲ υἱοὶ τῆς ἀπωλείας γενήσονται. καὶ τότε ἐλεύσεται ὁ θεός... καὶ κρινεῖ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀνομίας.
τοὺς πιστούς μου τοὺς. . . ἐν τούτῳ τῷ βίῳ τὰς ψυχὰς ἑαυτῶν δοκιμάζοντας.
2 ὁ Κύριος ἔφη “Aywpev els τὸ ὄρος. .. ἀπερχόμενοι δὲ per’ αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταί.
In § 3 ‘two men suddenly appear,’ as on the Mount of
ransfiguration. The descrip- tion ef Alieie glory recalls Mt 173.
[τῶν] δικαίων τῶν ἐξελθόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου.
ποταποί εἰσι τὴν μορφήν.
6 τόπον... αὐχμηρὸν πάνυ ... σκοτινὸν εἶχον αὐτῶν τὸ ἔνδυμα κατὰ τὸν ἀέρα τοῦ τόπου. Cf. 12 ἐν τόπῳ σκοτινῷ.