must be an exact replica of the passage in John, if the reference is to be the same.
(4) Chap. ii. 20 (Ὑέγονεν αὐτοῖς τὰ ἔσχατα Χείρονα τῶν πρώτων) is clearly areminiscence of the words of Jesus recorded in Matt. xii. 45, Luke xi. 29.
These four references to the Gospel history have now been examined. The first may be set aside, and the other three may be regarded as indicating no more than a knowledge of the Gospels, and especially of two incidents in the life of St. Peter. They do not nearly amount to evidence that the writer is the Apostle himself.
The paucity of references to the Gospel history, in an Epistle pur- porting to be written by the Apostle Peter, isremarkable. It contains only one reference to the actual words of Jesus (ii. 20), but indirectly these may be referred to in ii. 1 = Matt. x. 33; i. 8 = Luke xiii. 7-8 ; iii. 4 = Matt. xxiv. 37-42. We would expect that the mind of an in- timate disciple would have been saturated with reminiscences of our Lord’s teaching, and would have dwelt easily on the great events of His Life. In this respect we may compare 2 Peter most unfavourably with the genuine first Epistle. In the former there is no mention of the Passion or Resurrection, and there is a strange absence of that vivid sense of the Risen Lord as living and reigning in grace, which is so characteristic of the writings of the Apostles, who “ had been begotten again unto a living hope”. It is also a matter for serious consideration as against the genuineness of the Epistle, that the references to the Gospel history are introduced apparently to support the character of one writing as St. Peter, and to distinguish his state- ments from σεσοφισμµένοι μῦθοι (1. 16). (But cf. Bigg. p. 231.)
2 The Personality of St. Peter in the Epistle—(1) Chap. i. 1 Συμεὼν Πέτρος δοῦλος καὶ ἀπόστολος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The significance of the form Συμεὼν is very obscure. The point to be emphasised at present is that St. Peter is here represented as the writer of the Epistle. If, however, the Petrine authorship is untenable, how is the expression to be justified? In this connexion, one or two questions call for consideration.
(2) Does the form of the words afford any indication that the name of St. Peter is being used by a later writer? His own description of himself in 1 Peter i. 1 is Πέτρος ἀπόστολος Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The form Συμεὼν is used only in one other passage, viz., Acts xv. 14, in the address of St. James at the Council of Jerusalem. δοῦλος is found in Jude 1, and in view of the evident dependence of 2 Peter on Jude, this fact may be regarded as significant. Again, if Spitta is right in supposing that by the use of the pre-Christian name, Συμεὼν, the writer
/ 98 INTRODUCTION
puts himself on a level with those whom he addresses, and prepares the way for the epithet ἰσότιμον (‘equally privileged,” as between Jew and Gentile), it is evident that the whole title given to St. Peter is carefully chosen by a process of reflection. There is, therefore, a presumption that another mind is at work here, which has also borrowed largely from Jude in chap. ii.
(b) Ifthe name of St. Peter has been thus used, the Epistle is pseu- donymous. What is the distinction between pseudonymity in early Christian writings and forgery? Does pseudonymity imply ethical fault, and does it affect the authority of a writing? A most uncom- promising position in this regard is characteristic of the older criti- cism. Westcott (Canon, pp. 352 f.) in speaking of the disputed books of the Canon, says: ‘‘The Second Epistle of St. Peter is either an authentic work of the Apostle, or a forgery; for in this case there can be nomean. . . . It involves a manifest confusion of ideas to compensate for a deficiency of historical proof by a lower standard of canonicity. The extent of the Divine authority of a book cannot be made to vary with the completeness of the proof of its genuineness. The genuineness must be admitted before the authority can have any positive value, which from its nature cannot admit of degrees; and till the genuineness be established, the authority remains in abeyance.” In a note, Westcott adds, “ These books (2 Peter, James, Jude, Hebrews) have received the recognition of the Church in such a manner that, if genuine, they must be canonical”.