The foregoing resemblances are remarkable as extending to the uses of the same words or ideas in similar connexions. The following single words may be noted as being largely confined, in their use in the N.T. to 1 and 2 Peter :—
2 Peter. Ἑ Εσείς, Rest of Ν.Τ. ἀναστροφή . «. 2 5 5 ἀπόθεσις 1 1 0 ἄρετην ο ον τς 3 1 (pl.) 1 ἀσεβής . . « 1 1 6 (3 in Jude.) ἀσέλγεια 3 | 6 (1 in Jude.) ἄσπιλος. 1 1 4 προγινώσκω 1 1 3
(b) Including these already mentioned, Mayor, op. cit., pp. Ixix., Ixx. gives a list of 100 words common to both Epistles. He also gives a list of 369 words occurring in 1 Peter and not in 2 Peter, 230 words occurring in 2 Peter and not in 1 Peter.
(c) One remarkable difference is in the word used for the Second Advent. In 2 Peter παρουσία (i. 16, iii. 4, 12), in 1 Peter ἀποκάλυψις (i. 7, 13, iv. 13) is used.
The facts contained in (a) are sufficient at least to suggest literary dependence between the two Epistles, but (4) and (c) entirely negative the possibility that they are by the same hand.
(2) Style. ‘The style of 1 Peter is simple and natural, without a trace of self-conscious effort. The style of 2 Peter is rhetorical and laboured, marked by a love for striking and startling expressions ” (Chase, D. B., iti. 812 a). As against this estimate, it may be ques- tioned whether the two Epistles are so far apart in style as it is usual to say they are. Mayor says, “There can be no doubt that the style of 1 Peter is, on the whole, clearer and simpler than that | of 2 Peter, but there is not that chasm between them which some would try to make out” (p. civ.). As regards grammatical similarity, he sums up the results of a most learned discussion (chap. iv.) as follows: “As to the use of the article, they resemble one another more than they resemble any other book of the N.T. Both use the genitive absolute correctly. There is no great difference in their use of the cases or of the verbs, except that 1 Peter freely employs the articular infinitive, which is not found in 2 Peter. The accusative with the infinitive is found in both. The accumulation of prepositions is also common to both. The optative is more freely used in 1 Peter than in 2 Peter. In final clauses 2 Peter conforms to classical usage in attaching the subjunctive to ἵνα, while 1 Peter, in one place, has the future indicative. 2 Peter is also more idiomatic in the use of such elliptical forms as ἕως οὗ, ἐφ᾽ ὅσον, ἀφ᾽ Fs. On the other hand, 1 Peter shows special elegance in his use of ὡς in comparisons, and emphasises the contrast between the aorist and the present impera- tive by coupling τιµήσατε with τιμᾶτε in ti. 7” (pp. civ., cv.). It is