recognised utterance of Scripture. Barnabas, also, is in the habit of using λέγει to introduce his quotations from Scripture. The question is whether he is quoting 2 Peter iii. 8 or some other source. The context in Barnabas is different from that in 2 Peter. He is deal- ing with the mystical interpretation of the passage Gen. ii. 16. Also, in 2 Peter no Chiliastic meaning is attached, as in Barnabas. In all probability, 2 Peter iii. 8 is regarded by Barnabas as an authority for Chiliasm, along with Rev. xx. 4 ff., which he quotes. In ΤΗΕ SHEPHERD OF Hermas (110-140, Harnack) there are certain words and phrases that are found only in 2 Peter, µιασµός (Sim. ν. 1, 2); βλέμμα (in different sense=appearance ; Sim. vi. 2,5); δυσνόητος (Sim. ix. 14, 4); αὐθάδεις, applied to false teachers (Sim. ix. 22, 1.1 In ΟΙΕΜΕΝΤ oF Rome (93-95, Harnack) we find several phrases which, in N.T., are peculiar to 2 Peter: τοὺς δὲ ἑτεροκλινεῖς ὑπάρχοντας cis κόλασιν καὶ αἰκισμὸν τίθησιν (xi. 1); ἐπόπτης (used, however, of God) (lix. 8): αὐθάδη (i. 1); μῶμος (κ. 1) ; μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δόξη αὐτοῦ (ix. 2), but μεγαλοπρεπεῖ βουλήσει occurs previously in same paragraph; Νῶε ἐκήρυξεν µετάνοιαν (vii. 6). The passage in Clem. xxxiv. may also be noted: eis τὸ peroxous ἡμᾶς γενέσθαι τῶν μεγάλων κ. ἐνδόξων ἐπαγγελιῶν αὐτοῦ (cf. 2 Peteri. 4).2 These coincidences in Barnabas, in Clement, and in the Didache are scarcely conclusive as quotations, but they suggest a mulieu of thought corresponding to 2 Peter.
To what conclusion does the evidence of the second century lead ? Chase says, “ If we put aside the passage from the Clementine Recog- nitions and that from the Acts of Peter, as open to the suspicion of not accurately representing the original texts, there does not remain, it is believed, a single passage in which the coincidence with 2 Peter can, with anything approaching confidence, be said to imply literary obligation to that Epistle” (cf. Bacon, Introd., 173). It ought, how- ever, to be noted that the passage in the Clementine Recognitions can only be set aside on the ground that Rufinus can fairly be accused of interpolation; and the evident coincidences in the Actus Petri cum Simone can be dismissed only on account of distrust of the Latin translator of the work. We have also the evidence of
1ΟΕ the passages collected by Zahn (der Hirt der Hermas, p. 431) as having affinity with 2 Peter, the most striking is Sim. vi. 4,4: τῆς τρυφῆς καὶ ἁπάτης 6 χρόνος Spa ἐστὶ µία. τῆς δὲ Bacdvov ἡ ὥρα τριάκοντα ἡμέρων δύναμιν ἔχει. ἐαν οὖν µίαν ἡμέραν τρυφήσῃ τις καὶ ἀπατηθῇ κ.τ.λ. (cf. 2 Peter ii. 13).
2 Spitta, p. 534 n., points out a passage in the Didache (iii. 6-8) having a remark- able affinity with Jude and 2 Peter. Ὑόγγνσος, a rare word (Jude 16) is used. βλασφημία, αὐθάδης and τρέµων are twice repeated (cf. 2 Peter ii. το).