καὶ φανερὰ ἔργα τῶν ἀνθρώπων (xvi. 3). One or two interesting points are raised by this passage.
(1) Where does the writer derive the conception of the day of judgment as meaning the destruction of the universe by fire? He clearly quotes Mal. iv. 1, Isa. xxxiv. 4, but these passages are not sufficient to suggest the idea unless to one already familiar with the doctrine. Bigg (Comm. pp. 214-15) argues at some length that this doctrine is ultimately to be traced to 2 Peter. Justin (Afol., i. 20) traces the belief in the world-fire to the Sybil (Book iv.) and Hystaspes. Bigg holds that both these belong to the same familv as the pseudo-Petrine literature. The destruction of the world by fire was not an article of faith among the Jews, and Philo argues strongly against it (On the Incorruptibility of the World). The office of fire in the Ο.Τ. is to purify, and not to destroy (Isa. xxxiv. 4, li. 6, Ixvi. 15, 16, 22; Mal. iv. 1). In the N.T. (e.g., Heb. xii. 26-29; 1 Cor. iii. 13; 2 Thess. i. 8; Apoc. xxi. 1) the conception of fire is distinctly that of a purifying agency. It is to be noted, however, against Bigg’s view, that the conception of 2 Peter is not altogether at variance with the doctrine of the N.T. about the office of fire. The destruction of the present universe is vividly described in Chapter III., but the writer evidently has the idea of purification in his mind, and not of annihilation. ‘‘ Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness ”’ (iii. 13). Accordingly, if the passage quoted from 2 Clement is to be taken in the sense of annihilation by fire, it cannot be regarded as founded exclusively on 2 Peter.
(2) Is there anything in the language to connect the two? ἡμέρα κρίσεως is found in N.T. only in St. Matthew's Gospel (x. 15, xi. 22, 24), in 1 John (iv. 17), and in 2 Peter (ii. 9, iii. 7). In 2 Peter iii. 10, however, the expression is ἡμέρα κυρίου. τήκοµαι is also a word common to 2 Peter (iii. 12) and the passage in 2 Clem. An import- ant coincidence is φανήσεται . . . έργα, which may be an attempt to make sense of the very doubtful reading in 2 Peter iti, 10 (έργα εὑρεθήσεται). On the whole, the similarity of language and the affinity of thought in the two passages must be regarded as estab- lishing a connexion. (For other coincidences, see Spitta, Der zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des $udas, p. 534 η.) ;
In the ΕΡΙΘΤΙΒ oF Barnapas (130-31, Harnack), in a Chiliastic passage, the words occur, ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα map’ αὐτῷ χίλια έτη. αὐτὸς δέ μοι μαρτυρεῖ λέγων, ἰδοὺ ἡμέρα Κυρίου έσται ὡς χίλια έτη (αν. 4). It has been pointed out that map’ αὐτῷ is very close to 2 Peter’s παρὰ κυρίω, and the repetition of the words points to the quotation of some