“Cf. Ramsay, Church in Roman Empire, pp. 492-3; Moffatt, Historical New Testament, p. 598.
what might be regarded as the utterances of the Apostle, but a presumption in favour of the hypothesis of actual reminiscence may be obtained from a comparison of 1 and 2 Peter (see chap. iv.). Weiss has said that “no document in the N.T. is so like 2 Peter as 1 Peter”. Moreover, there is probably a reference in the second Epistle itself (i. 15), which is corroborated by tradition, to the fact that St. Peter’s teaching was subsequently embodied in the Gospel of St. Mark (so Jiilicher, Introd., E. Tr., p. 240). Mayor (p. cxliii. ff.) also favours this view, and successfully defends it against the objections of Zahn (Introd., ii., pp. 200-9).1 Bigg considers that the statement in i. 15 gave rise to the whole body of pseudo-Petrine litera- ture (op. cit. p. 265). It is to be noted also that in two passages in the Epistle the pseudonymous writer betrays the consciousness that he is faithfully and honestly setting forth nothing inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostle. In iii. 1 he is not afraid to set the con- tents of his Epistle alongside those of 1 Peter without fear of contra- diction,? and again in iii. 15, his concern is evidently to show that there is no inconsistency between the Petrine and the Pauline teach- ing. These, and the other considerations adduced above ought to be a guarantee at least of the good faith of the writer of this Epistle. (2) Another instance where the personality of St. Peter is allowed to obtrude itself is found in i. 16, in the use of the word ἐπόπται. The word means eye-witness, with perhaps an added sense, derived from Gnostic sources, of spiritual vision. In the Apocalypse of Peter, there is an account of the Transfiguration which contains the words ἡμεῖς οἱ δώδεκα μαθηταὶ ἐδεήθημεν ὅπως δείξη ἡμῖν ἕνα τῶν ἀδελφῶν . τῶν ἐξελθόντων ἀπὸ τοῦ κόσμου, ἵνα ἴδωμεν ποταποί εἶσι τὴν µορφήν (cf. Mayor, cxxv. note). Similarly in i. 18, of the Voice at the Trans- figuration, 2 Peter has ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν. Jiilicher, in commenting on the pseudepigraphic character of 2 Peter, says that “the author never loses consciousness of the part he is playing,” and “constructs his fiction methodically’’. Among other instances, he cites this passage describing the Transfiguration. He sees in the structure of the Epistle only ‘an artificial production of learned ingenuity ” _(Introd., E. Tr., pp. 240, 241). It may be granted that the choice 1 Ἡ the words μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον are taken as implying that the Apostle was not yet dead, we are immediately involved in all the insuperable difficulties connected with a date for the Epistle earlier than Α.Ρ. 64, the traditional date of Peter’s martyr- dom. On the other hand, it is easy to see how this expression might be put into the mouth of Peter by a later disciple, who well knew his mind and the preparations he had made for preserving his teaching after his death.
2 For consideration of the question whether the reference here is really to 1 Peter, see p. 113.