(1) Philo. Salmon (Introduction p. 502 ff.) notes that ‘there is a whole host of 2 Peter’s rare words in Philo.’ Thus, to take a single example, the word ἰσότιμος (2 P 11) occurs in Philo, Leg. Alleg, ii. 6 (ed. Mangey i. 70, ἰσότιμον αὐτὸ ἡγησάμενος ψυχῇ); de Sacr. Abelis et Cainr 3 (i. 165, τὸν σοφὸν ἰσότιμιον κόσμῳ"); and ivorieie is found in de Cherub. 34 (i. 160), Vita Mosvs 7 (ii. 86). But more important than resemblance in mere vocabulary ig kinship in modes of thought. Thus, if 2P of God’s ἀρετή, in Philo we have the phrases τὴν ἀρετὴν χαὶ σοφίαν τοῦ θιοῦ Clog: Alleg. ii. 14, i. 75), τὰ περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν αὐτοῦ (Quis Rerum Div. Her, 22, 1. 488), τῆς θείας ἀρετῇς (tb. 23, 1. 489), τῆς ἀρετῆς τοῦ πάντα μεγάλου θιοῦ (de Somnvis i. 16, i. 635). Again, Philo supplies parallels to the phrase θείας χφινωνοὶ φύσεως, 2 P 14—¢.9, Vita Mosis ii. 11 (ii. 143), ἤδει γὰρ τὴν φύσιν τοῦ θιοῦ ἵλεω; de Spec. Leg. iv. 8 {(ii. 343), τῆς μακαρίας εὐδαίμονος θεοῦ φύσιως ; de Abram. 28 (ii. 22), οἱ μιμούμενοι τὴν θείαν fees de Somniis i. 22 (i. 647), ὅσοι λογικῆς κεχοινωνήχασι gious. Again, with the phrase τὸν προφητιχὸν λόγον in 2P 119 and with the words of the Epistle as to prophecy, 120 (στᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύ- σίως οὐ γίνεται, ob γὰρ θελήματι ἀνθρώπον x.*.A.), We Compare the use of the same phrase ὁ Aeon ae λόγος in, e.g., Leg. Alleg. iii. 14 (i. 95), de Plant. Noe 28 (i. 347); and similar expressions, such as ὁ προφήτης λόγος (de Congr. Erud. Grat. 80, i. 543), στόματι προφητικῷ (de Mut. Nom. 24, i. 599), ἐν προ- φητιχαῖς ῥήσεσιν (tb. 31, i. 604), ὁ ἱερὸς λόγος (Leg. Alleg. iii. 4, i. 89; ἴδ. 56, i. 119); and Philo’s language about prophecy in, e.g , Quis πον. Div. Heres 52 (i. 510, προφήτης yo Pier pay οὐδὲν ἀποφθέγγεται, ἀλλότρια δὲ πάντα ὑπηχοῦντος ἱτέρου); Vita Mosis i 51f. (ii. 125 f., λέγω vapielniy ἴδιον ἀλλ᾽ ἅτ' ἂν ὑπηχήσῃ τὸ θέον. ἰξαΐφνης θμοφορεῖτα!); de Monarch. i. 9 (ii. 222, προφήτης θεγφόρητος θισπιεῖ καὶ προφητεύσει, λίγων μὲν οἰκεῖον οὐδέν. . . ἑρμηνεῖς γάρ εἶσιν οἱ προφῆται θεοῦ κατα χρωμένου τοῖς ἐκείνων ὀργάνοις πρὸς δήλωσιν ἦν ἂν ἐθελήσῃ); de Spec. Leg. iv. 8 (ii. 848, προφήτης τε μὲν γὰρ οὐδεν ἴδιον ἀποφαΐνειται τὸ παράπαν ἀλλ᾽ ἔστιν ἱριηνεὺς ὑποβάλλοντος ἑτέρου πάνθ' ὅσα προφέρει... ἱπιπιφοιτηχότος δὲ χαὶ ἰνωχηκότος τοῦ θείου «πνιύματος κ.τ.λ.).
(2) Clement. 2 P 222 (ὗς λουσα μένη εἰς κυλισμὸν βορβόρου) has a close parallel in the proverb quoted by Clement, Das ἥδονται βορβόρω μᾶλλον ἢ καθαρῷ ὕδατι (Cohort. 10, p. 75, ed. Potter; Strom. i. 1, p. 317), in the earlier passage a saying of Democritus being add ἐπὶ φορυτῷ μαργαίνουσι. With the phrase τοῦ καθαρισμοῦ τῶν πάλαι αὐτοῦ ἁ μαρτιῶν (2 Ρ 19) compare Quis Dives salv. 40 (p. 957), ran μὲν οἷν τρογιγινημίνων θεὸς δίδωσιν ἄφεσιν, τῶν δὶ ἐπιόντων αὐτὸς ἴκασονι ἑαυτῷ; Strom. iv. 24 (p. 633), Sta γοῦν xpos τοῦ Κυρίου ai πρὸ τρ situs, Again, with 2 Ρ 219 (ἐλευθερίαν αὐτοῖς ἱπαγγελλόμενοι, αὐτοὶ δοῦλοι ὑπάρχοντις τῆς φθυρᾶς) compare Strom. iv. δ (p. 530)
* The words which follow—ra αὐτῷ λόγω καὶ τὸ τᾶν ἐργαζόμενοι 5.τ.λ.---ἰΠυδύταΐα 2 P 37 (τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ τεθησαυρισμένοι εἰσίν π.φτ.λ.}
PETER, SECOND EPISTLE
ebm iss ἀδιαφόρως βιωτίον οὐδὶ ἀναΐδην δουλεντίον τοῖς ἀτι
Tons
μέρεσιν 1 γαστ, αἰδοίοις, δι᾿ ἐπσιθυμώαν πολακχιυόντων τὸν ἡμέτερον νεκρόν. --- The similarity of two other passages in 2 Peter to risti es in Clement is much more
ic passag
important. (i.) In Olement’s system faith is the foundation ; on this is built a superstructure of good living ; ‘knowledge,’ with the higher virtues which spring from it (awé0ue taking a prominent place among them), is ἃ later stage of growth. See, ¢.g., the passage at the beginning of Strom. vi. where he refers to the purpose of his Padagogus—é παιδαγωγὸς... τὴν in παίδων
VTE καὶ τροφὴν παρίστησιν, τουτίστιν, ix κατηχ ἥσιως σνναΐξουσαν τῇ πίστει πολιτείαν καὶ προταρασπινάζουσαν τοῖς εἰς ἄνδρας ἐγγι ἘΣ ἐνάρετον τὴν ψυχήν, εἰς ἐπιστήμης γνωστικῆς ταραδοχήν. Ὥς itterly complains of those who divorce faith from conduct, δισ. Strom. i. 9 (p. 341), μόνην καὶ Ψιλὴν τὴν wietiy ἀπαιτοῦσιν. The ascending series of virtues in 2P 156 (πίστις, ἀρετή, γνῶσις, iyxparuc, ὑπομονή, tiviBua, φιλαδιλφία, ἀγά πη. is seen at once to have pointe of contact with that type of Alexandrian thought which finds expression in Clement’s wri With the words of 2 P compare especially Olement, Strom. ii. 6 (p. 445), ἡ πρώτη πρὸς (τῆς στὰ νεῦσις ἡ πίστις ἡμῖν ἀναφαίνεται, μεθ᾽ ἣν φόβος τι καὶ ἄνοια, σὺν τι wig καὶ ὑπομονῇ προκόπτουσαι, ἄγουσιν ἡμᾶς ἱπί τι ἀγάπην ini τι γνῶσιν ; Strom. vil. 10 (p. 865), τῷ ἴχοντι «᾽ wives τῇ uly πίστι; ἡ γνῶσις" τῇ τί γνώσι, ἡ ἀγάπν τῇ ἀγάπη δὲ ἡ πληρονομία. (ii.) It would be easy toadduce 8 very number of passages from Clement illustrating the essential of the phrase ϑιίας ποινωνοὶ φύσιως (2 P14). In the first place, he constantly dwells on man’s relation to God by creation (¢.g. Cohort. 10, p. 78); man cannot be ἄμοιρος θείας ἐννοίας (Strom. v. 18, P 698). In the second place, he raises to the highest jae οἱ jan hope the Platonic idea that ‘the end of ess is ὁμοίωσις Oia κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν' (Strom. fi. 19, p. 482; 4.0. Strom. vil. 8, p. 835). Lastly, he finds the consu: ion of man’s being in ϑιοποίησις (e.g. Cohort. 11, p. 89; Strom. vi. 14, p. 797, δύναμων λαβοῦσα κυριακὴν ἡ Ψυχὴ μελετᾷ εἶναι θεός ; ἴδ. 15, p. 803). Clement was a debtor to those who had gone before for much of his characteristic teaching. It is a reasonable conclusion from the parallels with Philo and Olement that the writer of 2 P was influenced in some of his conceptions and in his yore by the Christian school of Alexandria as it existed before Olement’s time.