anil deceitful way- and works of the false teachers.
There i- also a characteristic difference in the mode of quotation from the ( >. T. Quotations are abundant
in the first epi-tle. either formally introduced hy Ston yiypairrat i i. lt'> >. or by Sioti -toiJ \m lv ry ypaQy (ii, 6), or are woven into the discourse without any prefa- tory statement, as if writer and readers were equally familiar with them ii. '.' 1 : ii. :;. 1. 5, 7. 9, in. 22, 24, •-'.'.'; iii. 9, lo. 11. 15). Hut in the second epistle quotations are unfrequent, though we have Psa. xc, I in iii. 8, and Isa. lxv, 17 in iii, 13. Of a differenl kind are the allu- sions to Noah and the flood, to Lot and Sodom, and to Balaam. Lot we may -till explain that the modes of
handling ami applying the 1 1. 'l'. may differ according to the purpose which any writer has in view. In a longer and fuller epistle there may he quotations at length, hut in a shorter one only apposite allusions to facts and incidents. The objection would have been stronger if in an epistle ascribing itself to Peter there had been no use made of the 0. T. at all: hut a third of this epistle consists of references to the O.T. or to warnings drawn from it.
The peculiar similarity of a large portion of this epistle to that of dude ha- often been commented on. The second chapter and a portion of the third are SO like dude that the resemblance cannot he accidental, for it is found in words as well as in thoughts. It ha- been con- jectured by some that both borrowed from a common source. Bishop Sherhx k supposed that t his source was some ancient Hebrew author who hail portrayed the false teachers, dude having used the epistle of Peter as well a- thi- old authority (Use and Intuit of Prophecy, Dissert i. 200, Lond. L725). Herder and Ilasse. hold- ing this theory, conjecture the document common to both writers to he the /endavesta. This opinion has no foundation, and relieves us of no difficulty, < Ithers imagine that dude followed Peter, and several reasons have been alleged in favor of this opinion DJ -Milk Michaelis, Storr. Dahl, Wordsworth, Thiersch, Heydcn- reich, Hengstenberg, and Gaussen. Their general ar- gumenl is that Peter predicts whaf dude describes as actually existing (Jude L8), and that dude refers to prophecies which are found only in Peter. Put it is really doubtful if both epistles refer to the same cla-s of
errorists. Those described by Peter .are rather -pecu- lators, though their immoral practices are also noted. while those hranded hy dude are specially marked as libertines and sensualists, whose life has pervert. d and undermined their creed. Others again hold that Peter
took From dude; such is the view of 1 1 Ug, Lich horn.
Credner, Neander, Mayerhoff, De Wette, Guericke, and Pick. ( me argument of no small lore.' is that the style of dude is the simpler and hriefer. and Peter's the more ornate and amplified; that dude'.- is more pointed and Peter's more indefinite ; and that some allusions iii Peter
are -o vague that they can be under-t 1 only hy a com-
pari-oii with Jude (comp.2 Pet. ii. 1 with d u.lc C ; 'J Pet.
ii. 1 1 with dude '.i i. I bus Peter saj -. generally . " Angels bring not railing accusations;" Jude gives the special in- stance. Michael and Satan. Peter speaks oftbe " angels
that sinned ;" dude says more precisely, they " kept not their lirst estate, hut left their ovv n habitation." < Mshau- -,ii and AugUSti in part think that the similarity may- he account,!! for by a previous correspondence between the writer-; that dude may have described \~> Peter the character and practices of the false teach,!-, and that Peter, relying on the truthfulness of the statement made hi- own use of it without hesitation when he had
PETER (SECOND EPISTLE OF) 25 PETEPv (SECOND EPISTLE OF)
occasion to refer to the same or a similar class of perni- cious subverters of truth and purity. This hypothesis is scarcely probable, aiul it is more likely that Peter had read the epistle of Jude, and reproduced in his own epistle and in his own way its distinctive clauses, which must have deeply impressed him, but with such differ- ences at the same time as show that he was no mere copyist. Is it unworthy of an apostle to use another writing divinely authorized, and can Peter's appropria- tion of so much of Jude's language be stigmatized, as by Keuss, as " a palpable plagiarism V" Thus Jude uses the phrase " clouds without water," but Peter l: wells with- out water," this figure being more suited to his imme- diate purpose. The (nriXdcte; of Jude 12 was from rem- iniscence of sound before Peter's mind, but it is changed of purpose into amXoi; and Jude's phrase iv tcuq ayd- ttcuq i>fiwi> becomes in the same connection in Peter iv Talc; ciirciTaiQ avrwv. 2 Pet. ii, 17 shows a like similar- ity and difference compared with Jude 13. The claim of originality thus lies on the side of Jude. while original thinking characterizes Peter's use of Jude's terser and minuter diction. There is no ground for Bertholdt's suggestion to reject the second chapter as spurious; or for Ullmann's, to refer both second and third chapters to a post-apostolic period; or for Lange to brand as spu- rious the whole of the second chapter with the last two verses of the first chapter, and the first ten verses of the third — that is, from the first tovto irpwrov yivwffKovrtt; to the other; or for Bunsen to receive only the first twelve verses and the concluding doxology (Bertholdt, Einh it. in </. N. T. vol. vi ; Ullmann, Der zweite Brief Petri; Lange, Apostol. Zeitalter, i, 152 ; and in Herzog's Encyklop. s. v. ; Bunsen, Ignatius vonAiit'wehhn. p. 17.">t.