the most convinced, resolute, almost bigoted adherence to the most uncompromising interpretations of its own principles could have gained the Christians the courage and self-reliance that were needed ”’ (Ramsay, op. cit., 1δίά.).
3. Place of Writing.—On this topic, there is very little ground for judgment beyond vague conjecture. Chase favours the view that 2 Peter is of Egyptian origin. He founds his opinion (1) on the supposition that the Apocalypse of Peter and 2 Peter belong to the same school, (2) that Clement of Alexandria appears to have placed the two documents side by side, and commented on them together in his Hypotyposeis, (3) certain resemblances in thought and word with Philo and Clement of Alexandria (op. cit., p. 816 f.). Julicher (Introd., E. Tr., p. 239) suggests that the Epistle originated either in Egypt or in Palestine. Palestine is selected on the ground that the Epistle is directed against one of the earlier and less known Gnostic sects which flourished in that country or in Syria. Deiss- mann, on the basis of the Stratonicean inscription already quoted (op. cit., pp. 367 f.) inclines to the view that the local colouring of the Epistle belongs to Asia Minor. He awaits the result of further inquiry “how far its peculiar vocabulary has points of contact with that of literary sources (of the imperial period) from Egypt, or Asia Minor, including those of the papyri and the inscriptions’. There can be little doubt that the readers are in Asia Minor, but does not the form of address, τοῖς ἰσότιμον ἡμῖν λαχοῦσιν πίστιν, point to a writer at some distance from his readers, though well acquainted with their
circumstances? (cf. p. 114).