nN a i Pip
iy
ἡ η μαμα
INTRODUCTION. CHAPTER I.
AUTHENTICITY AND DATE. ExTERNAL EVIDENCE.
Fourth Century.—In considering the external evidence for the authenticity of 2 Peter, it will be found most convenient to proceed from the earliest date when its place was fixed in the Canon of the New Testament. This date must be found in the fourth century A.p. Even then, the Epistle was rejected by the Syrian Church, where it was not accepted till early in the sixth century, and only by the Monophysites. The view of the Church of Rome is represented chiefly by JERomeE, whose influence was paramount in the formation of the Vulgate Canon. He mentions the doubts raised by the differ- ences in style and character between 1 and 2 Peter (Quest. ad Hedib. Migne, Pal, Lat., xxii. 1002). Jerome, however, is clearly expressing only the objections of scholars. He says: ‘“Scripsit duas epistulas, quae Catholicae nominantur ; quarum secunda a plerisque eius esse negatur, propter stili cum priore dissonantiam,”’ where “a plerisque,”’ and the nature of the difficulty expressed, both point to the opinion of the learned class, which he does not himself share. The Epistle is quoted in the last quarter of the fourth century by ‘‘ AMBROSIASTER ” ! and by AMBROSE OF MILAN (de Fide, iii. 12). In an African list, CANoN MommseEniaunvus, belonging to the middle of the fourth century, 2 Peter is found inserted, but with a protest, which indicates rejection in the mind of the scribe. Dipymus, who wrote a commentary on 2 Peter, towards the end of the fourth century, uses the following words, which are a fragment come down to us in a Latin translation, ‘non igitur ignorandum praesentem epistolam esse falsatam, quae licet publicetur, non tamen in canone est”. Howare we to explain the words in italics, in view of the fact that in the De Trinitate, a later treatise, Didymus quotes repeatedly from 2 Peter? Chase suggests that the phrase represents the Greek words és νοθεύεται αὕτη ἡ ἐπιστολή, which would
Cf. Souter, Study of Ambrosiaster, p. 196 f., Pseudo-Augustine Quaestiones, etc, (Vindob. 1908), p. 499.
δ4 INTRODUCTION
mean that the writer was only stating the opinion of others, more or less contemporary. Zahn (Gesch. Kan., 1. i. p. 312) urges that Didymus is here recording a judgment of the second or third century, but there appears to be no conclusive reason to doubt that he is recording a contemporary opinion. Eusesius (H. E., iti. 3) dis- cusses the canonicity of 2 Peter, and makes the following important statement: τὴν δὲ Φερομένην αὐτοῦ δευτέραν οὐκ ἐνδιάθηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν, ὅμως δὲ πολλοῖς χρήσιμος Φανεῖσα μετὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἐσ- πουδάσθη γραφῶν. ‘‘ The opinion has been handed down to us that the so-called Second Epistle (of Peter) is not canonical, but it has been studied along with the other Scriptures, as it appears profit- able tomany”. Inthe H. E., iii. 25, 2 Peter is placed among the ἀντιλεγόμενα, although “accepted by the majority” (γνωρίµων δ οὖν ὅμως τοῖς πολλοῖς). Eusebius had a second class of ἀντιλεγόμενα which he regarded also as spurious (νόθα), and 2 Peter is classed with James, Jude, 2 and 3 John as disputed books which were also γνώριμα. The evidence of Eusebius is specially valuable (1) because he records the opinion that in his day 2 Peter was regarded as un- canonical ; (2) because he records a judgment of the past against it ; (3) he failed to find any recognition of the book as Petrine in the earlier literature known to him, and his knowledge was wide. There can be little doubt that Eusebius himself rejected the idea of Petrine authorship, but he was also one of those to whom it was a “ pro- fitatle’’ bock. Constantine entrusted Eusebius with the prepar- ation, for use in the new Capital, of fifty copies of the Scriptures, which contained 2 Peter. This quasi-official standard practically did away with the distinction between ‘acknowledged’ and ‘disputed’ books (Chase, H. D. B., iii. 806 a).