δ6 INTRODUCTION
suarum personat tubis” (Hom. in Fos., xii. 1. Ed. Lomm., xi. 62). These passages have had grave doubt cast on their genuineness by Dr. Chase (op. cit., p. 803b). There can, at least, be no doubt, judging from the one undisputed reference, that Origen reflects a serious division of opinion in his time, and that his own opinion tends towards rejection (ἔστω δὲ καὶ δευτέραν) of the Petrine authorship.
As regards CLEMENT oF ALEXANDRIA, the main question to be settled is whether in the Hypotyposeis he comments on 2 Peter. If we are to take the statements of Eusebius (H. Ε., VI. xiv. 1) and Photius (Bibliothec, 109), he commented “on all the Catholic Epistles”. On the other hand, Cassiodorus, who wrote some 300 years afterwards, gives most conflicting evidence. At one time he says that Clement expounded the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments “ from beginning to end,” and in another passage, where he is giving a list of the canonical Epistles expounded by Clement, he.omits 2 Peter. Moreover, in Cassiodorus’ translation of Clement’s Expositions, none are given of 2 Peter. The difficulty may be solved by supposing that in Clement’s work, 2 Peter had a place beside the Apocalypse of Peter, which was included in the Hyfoty- poseits. (So Chase, op. cit., 802 a, and Zahn. Forsch. iii. p. 154.) Clement distinctly quotes the Apocalypse of Peter as the work of Peter, and as Scripture (Ecloge ex Script. Proph., xli., xlviii., xlix). Accepting the statements of Eusebius and Photius quoted above, and supposing that for purposes of exposition 2 Peter was merged in the Apocalypse of Peter, we may find confirmation of the first statement of Cassiodorus in certain passages of Clement’s writing which have been collected by Mayor (The Epistle of St. ude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, Introd., cxix.) and Bigg (Commentary on First and Second Peter, p. 202). In these the word-parallels are striking, but they would not necessarily constitute valid evidence in themselves.
In the writings of Cyprian we find no trace of 2 Peter, but it must not be forgotten that Firmitian’s letter to him, quoted above, contains a clear allusion. In Hippotytus there are found passages that point to acquaintance with 2 Peter (Chase, 804 b, Bigg, p. 203). A portion of evidence that must not be omitted here is afforded by the division of sections in Copex B. In this manuscript there are two divisions of sections, and one is older than the other. The double division is preserved in all the Catholic Epistles except 2 Peter, where the older division is wanting. The conclusion is inevitable that in the older form of Codex B, 2 Peter was wanting.
΄