of the Transfiguration as the only incident in the Synoptic account of St. Peter's life, to which reference is made, is an indication that the writer has made choice of this incident as suitable to his theme. At the same time, if it was legitimate for him to write under the honoured name at all, he could hardly have done so more naturally than he does in i. 16-18, especially as it is extremely probable that here he is making use of an actual reminiscence of the teaching of St. Peter himself (cf notes on the passage).
(3) Chap. iii. 15.—6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς Παῦλος, The exami- nation of the whole passage in the Commentary leads to the conclu- sion that the Epistles of St. Paul are regarded as in the same rank with the O.T. Scriptures. The date thus implied makes it impossible that the actual writer is St. Peter. Why, then, the conjunction of the two names? There can be little doubt that 2 Peter wishes to impress upon his readers the consistency of the teaching of St. Peter and St. Paul against the Antinomian interpretation of the Christian faith. The affectionate terms in which St. Paul is spoken of are exactly those that might have been used by St. Peter himself of his fellow-apostle, and if St. Peter were known to be already dead, how could there be any sane intention to deceive the readers? The phrase 6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν ἀδελφὸς is used by St. Paul of Tychicus (Eph. vi. 21; Col. iv. 7) and of Onesimus (Col. iv. 9; Philem. v. 16). No doubt the readers of this Epistle were acquainted with the dis- agreement between the two Apostles described in Galatians ii. 11-14. 2 Peter only reiterates the fact that there was never any fundamental opposition between their teaching. St. Peter’s full sympathy with the Pauline teaching is evident in the First Epistle, and this passage may easily be true to his mind. It is indeed significant that the attitude taken up towards the Pauline teaching is not without reserve (iii. 16, ἐν ais ἐστὶν δυσνόητά τινα), but the warm-hearted reference may be a real reminiscence.
TOL. ν 7
CHAPTER III. INTERNAL EVIDENCE AS TO DATE.
We have next to examine any hints that may be given in the
/ Epistle itself as to the Date of its composition.
/ (1) Chap. i. 15—Here reference is made to the death of St. Peter as imminent. Other considerations render it impossible to hold that this Epistle was published during the lifetime of the Apostle who died ο. 64 Α.Ρ. (see pp. 97 f.). The context shows that if the words μετὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔξοδον are put into the mouth of St. Peter by a later writer, the period of writing must have been some time after his decease. ἑκάστοτε (as occasion arises) in v. 15 implies that occasion has arisen more than once to refer to the posthumous teaching. ἔχειν ὑμᾶς, κ.τ.λ., implies a document or documents already in the possession of the Church. Again, if we are to see in this verse a reference to the tradition connecting St. Peter with the Gospel of Mark, we know that this tradition is at least much earlier than the time of Papias (140- 160), who is quoted by Eusebius (H. Ε., iii. 99) as saying, καὶ τοῦτο 6 πρεσβύτερος ἔλεγε, Μάρκος μὲν ἑρμηνευτὴς Πέτρου γενόμενος ὅσα ἐμνημόνευσεν ἀκριβῶς ἔγραψεν, οὗ μέντοι τάξει, τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ λεχθέντα ἢ πραχθέντα. Ῥαρίας himself is reporting the testimony which he had received orally from the Presbyter. From the perfectly natural way in which the reference is introduced, we would conclude that 2 Peter has not in view a tradition which he found in such a writer as Papias, but betrays either a personal knowledge of the intentions of St. Peter himself, or an acquaintance with those who did know his mind. Hence a date not very much later than the end of the first century is probable.