48 οἱ ἐν ταῖς xodceseiy κρινόμενοι, 44Ψ 89 εἰς ἡμίραν κρίσιως é κολαζεμίνους τυρῶν.
24 σωροῖς ζόφον ταρταρ-
σάντιε οἱ iv ταῖς κολάσισιν. Ε δ0 ἐγώ εἰμι Νῶε. .. καὶ οὐκ ἱπαυσά- ἦ y τοῖς ἀνθρώποις κηρύσσειν Μιτανοίτε"
nes γὰρ κατακλυσμὸς ἴρχιεται.
6) ‘The Apocalypse οἵ Esdras’ endorf, w. pp. 24-33).
APOCALYPSE OF EspRas. 2 Parmar, 14, 50 εἰς κρίσιν wmpidemnc. 24 σαρίλωκεν ale πρισὶν Tepeusireus.
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
815
APOCALYPSE oF Espras. 43 idm, δίσποτα, tiv καὶ τὰ κατῶώ- Tipe μέρν φτοῦ ταρτάρου, 53 κατήγαγόν με κατώτερον is ταρτὰ ροις.
2 Perea.
24 vaprapécas.*
Towhat conclusion does astudy of the coincidences between 2 P and the Apocalypse of Peter lead us? There are five possible views which may be taken. (1) The coincidences may be boldly put aside as mere chance resemblances without significance. This view hardly needs discussion. It can scarcely be held by a serious critic, who considers the coinci- dences as a series, and appreciates the nature of the most striking of them. Πὰν will hesitate as to the correctness of Salmon’s view, that ‘the agreements of our fragment [i.e. the Apocalypse of Peter) with the second Epistle of Peter... are more than accidental’ (Appendix to Introduction p. 591). So Sanday (Inspiration 347), ‘The resemblances are so marked as I think to prove that the two writings are nearly connected.’ (2) Did the writer of the Apocalypse borrow from 2P? This view seems to be impossible in view of (a) the natural- ness of the words and phrases as they stand in their several contexts in the Apocalypse ; (8) the fact that some of them are repeated in the Apoc. (sometimes with the form varied), and are found also in kindred documents; (y) the fact that we find in the Apocalypse none of the strange and remarkable phrzses of 2 P which would fix them- selves in the mind of a reader who remembered
τς ἐν constantly to borrow. (3) Did the writer of 2P borrow from the Apocalypse? This view
appears to be a quite possible one. two documents the work of one writer? the view to which Sanday (/nspiration p. 347) seems to incline. ‘It is no doubt possible,’ he writes, ‘that the writer of the Apocalypse may have imitated the Epistle, or that both may have been affected by some common influence. If there had been on the whole better reason than not for believing the Epistle to be the genuine work of St. Peter, it would be natural to fall back upon some such assumption. But, as the balance of argument is really the other way, the question is forced upon us whether it is not on the whole more probable that the two writings are both by the same hand. This is at least the simplest of the different hypo- theses which are open to us.’ The present writer ventures to think that this explanation is excluded by a consideration of the literary style of the two
(4) Are the This is
documents. The Apocalypse is simple and natural in style. There is nothing remarkable in its voca-
bulary. It is, in a word, wholly free from the literary peculiarities which are so strongly marked in 2P. (5) Are the two documents the work of two writers who belonged to the same school, whose thoughts moved in the same directions, and
*The word τάρταρος occurs in three passages of the LXX none of which is there anything answering to it in the
ebrew)—Job 4015 (2) 4122 (23), Pr 245) (3018); also in Enoch 20% Οὐριὴλ . . . ὁ ἰσὶ τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τοῦ ταρτάρουι Thus the word is found in Jewish writings, which it ls quite possible that St Peter may have read. On the other hand, we should not have expected that the apostle would have applied to the judgment of God a derivative of a word so characteristic of heathen mythology. Further, the use of the derived verb raprayers implies that the word τάρταρος Was Δ recognized term, in con
nexion with a Christian representation of Divine punishments, with the writer of 2 P and those for whom he wrote. We find the ideas essentially connected with the conception of Tartarus, emphasized in the Apocalypse of Peter; we find the word Tartarus itself in one kindred document (A poe. of Hedras) and the derivative ταρταροῦχεοε in another (4 poe.
exceedingly probable that Hippolytus knew,
from, the Apoc. of Peter (James p. 671... Ν
Refutatio (x. 84) we read, δι" be ἐσιγνώσιμ ἐκ ζοφερὸν ὅμωα ἀφώτιστον. .. καὶ ταντα»ε
éuus =A; and in a fragment of the κ ὁ writer on the Song of ‘the three Children,’ prose iby Theodoret (Migne, Pat. Gr. x. 868), the words oocur, iru crm ὠνεμασαν συν -- capraseirer ἀγγίλων. Tho use then of the word ταγταροῦν ie in itself a distinct argument for the view which regards? P as
a document closely connected with the 4 pocalyper of rae
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
816
to whom the same expressions and words had grown familiar? Among these five possible ex- planations the choice seems to lie between (3) and (5). The fact that there is a similarity between the two writings, not only in words or in definitely marked ideas, but also in general conceptions—e.g. in both there is the picture drawn of Christ on a mountain with His apostles, the latter being ad- mitted to a secret revelation which they should afterwards use for the confirmation of their dis- ciples—seems to be an argument of some strength in favour of the view that the two documents are the product of the same school.