dependence in the Apocalypse of Peter. It is doubtful whether any of the Apostolic Fathers make use of the Epistle, but the -coincidences in word and thought in 2 Clement, Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, and Clement of Rome cannot be ignored. They at least suggest a possible atmosphere of thought for 2 Peter. On the whole, the evidence of the second century would suggest a date for the Epistle not much later than the first decade. There is .an entire absence of evidence tor the Petrine authorship.
CHAPTER I. INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF AUTHENTICITY.
1, The obvious first step to be taken is to examine the References to-
the Gospel History in the Epistle, and to consider what light they
may throw on the authorship of the Epistle. (1) Chap. i. 3. τοῦ καλέσαντος ἡμᾶς. The reference of the parti-
ciple is to ᾿Ιησοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (cf. note). Does ἡμᾶς refer to the
Apostles, and in particular to the call of St. Peter? This interpre- tation involves that ἡμῖν ini. 1 likewise refers to the Apostles. Other indications, however, in the Epistle point to a group of scattered Christian communities in Asia Minor as the recipients of the letter,
and the sense in i. 1 seems to be that the readers of the letter, who:
are isolated and harassed by false teachers, are set on equal terms
with “us,” who occupy a less difficult position, and enjoy greater
outward privileges. Again, ini. 4 the best attested reading is ἡμῖν (not ὁμῖν), and clearly there the reference is to the writer and
readers together. So ἡμῶν ought to be taken in i. 2. ἡμᾶς must
therefore consistently be referred to the body of readers with whom 2 Peter identifies himself in thought, as united in their common faith, and not to the Apostles alone. Spitta (op. czit., pp. 37 ff.),
arguing for the reference to the Gospel History, takes ἡμᾶς as. referring to the calling of the immediate Apostles, in contrast to. those who believed in response to their preaching. Such a sense
would by no means suit ἡμῖν in i. 4. Also, in i. 10 κλῆσιν clearly refers to writer and readers taken together. Moreover, καλεῖν in N.T. is by no means confined to the call of the first disciples (cf. Matt, ix. 13). In Rom. ix. 24 the thought is almost exactly parallel
to this passage, ‘‘even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews.
only, but also of the Gentiles”.
(2) Chap. i. 16 ff.—The Transfiguration—If we compare the reference here with the Synoptic accounts, there emerge some in- teresting points of difference. All three Synoptics speak as though the glory had its source from within. Such can only be the signifi-
cance of µετεμορφώθη (Matt. and Mark): and the ἐγένετο . . . ἕτερον of