To sum up the evidence of the third century, we find that 2 Peter was in use so far as to influence the thought of Hippolytus in Rome, to be commented on by Clement of Alexandria, and to be expressly quoted by Firmilian and Methodius in Asia Minor. Although no reference is found in the writings of Cyprian of Carthage, yet Firmilian’s letter with the quotation is addressed to him. This is scarcely evidence, but it certainly implies Cyprian’s knowledge of the Epistle, and also that he would concur in its use as a source of quotation. Again, the two great Egyptian versions of this cen- tury, the ΞΑΗΙΡΙΟ and Bonairic, both contain 2 Peter. If we accept a conjectural emendation of Zahn’s in the language of the Mura- TORIAN CANON, there is contained in it a reference to the division of opinion in the Church with regard to this Epistle (Gesch. Kan. i., p. 110 n.).! Origen’s statement that “it is disputed,’ represents a widespread doubt as to its genuineness. This attitude, combined with a general willingness to respect its contents, must be regarded as the mind of the church about 2 Peter in the third century.
Second Century.—In a document which is preserved in a seventh century MS. entitled Actus Petri cum Simone (xx., ed. Lips., p. 67) there occurs a passage which contains several striking parallels with 2 Peter. The following phrases may be noted (1) “ majestatem suam videre in monte sancto,” (2) “ vocem eius audivi talem qualem referre non possum”. In (2) there is a parallel to the rather remark- able phrase, φωνῆς τοιᾶσδε, of 2 Peter 1. 17. It is true that the extant MS. only represents a Latin translation of the original Greek, and that editors and translators may interpolate. At the same time, it is difficult not to regard Chase as over-sceptical in seeking to discredit the parallel by regarding the whole passage as an interpolation (0. cit., 802 0). There seems no reason why we should not accept the passage as an important second century attestation of 2 Peter, and as an indication that the Epistle had already some position in the Church. Turning next to the CLEMENTINE LITERATURE, we have in the Recognitions (v. 12) what appears to be a reference to 2 Peter ii. 19: “ Unusquisquis illius fit servus cui se ipse subjecerit’’. Rufinus
1The passage in question reads, as amended by Zahn, “ Apocalypses etiam Johannis et Petri (unam) tantum recipimus (epistulam; fertur etiam altera), quam- quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt”. The emendations are apt, but is it possible, if we have regard to the loose grammatical construction everywhere in the document, that no change is needed? The Apocalypse of Peter may be referred to as the document “ quam quidam, etc.,” and we have seen reason to believe (ε.ρ., in case of Clement of Alexandria), that 2 Peter and the Apoc. Petri were sometimes regarded as one whole