(i. 10, 19); ὑπομιμνήσκειν, ἐν ὑπομνήσει, µνήµην ποιεῖσθαι (i. 12, 13, 15; iii, 1); ἐνεχθείσης, ἐνεχθεῖσαν (i. 17, 18); ἀπώλεια (1. 13, ΠΠ. 7-16) ; ἐφείσατο (11. 4, 5); τηρεῖν (il. 4, 9, 17; iii. 7); στοιχεῖα καυσούµενα (iii. 16.19).
Chase asserts that “the extraordinary list of repetitions’ stamps the vocabulary as “ poor and inadequate ” (op. cit., 808). In reply, it may be urged, (1) This sweeping condemnation is scarcely consistent with the occasional use of very rare words on the part of the writer. (2) Reiteration may arise from other causes than a limited vocabu- lary. It may arise ‘either from a liking for resonant sounds, or from a desire to give emphasis by the use of line upon line, or from both” (Mayor, p. lvii. f.). (3) A similar habit of repeating words is found in 1 Peter (cf. Bigg, pp. 226 f.).
The foregoing remarks on the vocabulary and style of 2 Peter are necessary and timely, in view of the current tendency to depreciate these. Many of the phrases in 2 Peter have found a permanent place in the religious language of the Christian Church. It would be rash to acquit the writer entirely of all faults of style that have been attributed to him, but his ordinary intelligence must at least be vindicated. Chap. iii., “On the Style of 2 Peter,” of Mayor's edition is worthy of close study, as tending to restore the style of 2 Peter to that respect which enabled it to be studied in the time of Aurelius, though not regarded as canonical, along with other Scriptures, ‘‘as it appears profitable to many”’.
CHAPTER VI." CIRCUMSTANCES OF WRITING.
1. Readers——To whom was the Epistle written? The crucial passage in this connexion is iii. 1, where the Epistle referred to is most naturally understood to be 1 Peter. The objection is urged by Spitta, Zahn, and more recently by Mayor, that the description of the contents in iii, 1, 2 is inapplicable to 1 Peter. Yet in 1 Peter i. 10-12 we have almost an exact parallel to τῶν προειρηµένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν, and 1 Peter is full of reminiscences of the teaching and example of Jesus (τῆς . . . ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος) (cf. 1 Peter i. 15, 16, ii. 19-17, 23, etc.; cf. also ii. 1, τοῦτο δέ ἐστιν τὸ ῥῆμα τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν εἰς ὑμᾶς). The ethical difficulty caused by this interpretation of the reference, if the two Epistles are not by the same author, is no greater than that aroused by the use of the apostolic name in i. 1 (see Jntrod., pp. 97-99). | Moreover, we have no reason to expect anything but a statement in iii. 1 of what the two Epistles have in common. ‘The words do not exclude the supposition that their contents differ in many respects. The readers, then, are, in general, those mentioned in 1 Peter i. 1, viz., Christian communities of Asia Minor.
Mayor (op. cit., pp. cxxxvii. ff.) has again defended the view that 2 Peter is written to the Roman Church.) He founds his argument on 2 Peter ili. 15, καθὼς καὶ 6 ἀγαπητὸς ἡμῶν Παῦλος ἔγραψεν ὑμῖν, holding that καθώς must be explained by the immediately preceding admonition, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμών µακροθυµίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε, which is more distinctly stated in Romans ii. 4, iii. 25, 26, ix. 22, than elsewhere. Various objections may be urged against this view. (1) It is extremely doubtful whether the reference καθώς can be thus narrowed, so as to include only ver. 14. The introduction of the comparison with Paul seems to arise from a desire to show that in general there is no dis- crepancy between the Petrine and the Pauline teaching. (2) Even although the Epistle to the Romans is meant, it would be no proof that 2 Peter was written to the Roman Church, as it is evident from
1So Grotius, Dietlein.