12—15.
[39
14. ο Matt. x. 4 10, Heb. Π.χ, Eph. ii. 12.
1 Peter iv. 1, Jas. i.
ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν συνευωχούµενοι ὑμῖν,
ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔχοντες μεστοὺς ° porxadidos Kal ἀκαταπαύστους 3 P¢ 4 ὃ λ ῃ \ > , Si , ἁμαρτίας, θελεάζοντες ψυχὰς ἀστηρίκτους, καρδίαν yeyupvacperny
οἱ Ἡ Ὀπλεονεξίας ἔχοντες, κατάρας τέκνα” 15. καταλείποντες εὐθεῖαν
NX 3 7 can a A 13. ὁδὸν ἐπλανήθησαν, ἐξακολουθήσαντες TH ὁδῷ τοῦ Βαλαὰμ τοῦ Bécop ® , Heb. iii. 12.
άαπαταις SACKLP, syrh (mg. αγαπαις), WH, Ti.; αγαπαις A®B, sah., syrP 4. Treg., WHm. At first sight it would seem probable that 2 Peter has misread ἄγαπαις in Jude 12. Confusion is common in MSS. of Ο.Τ. between ἄγαπαω and ἁπαταω, ἄγαπη and ἅπατη (e.g., Ps. Ixxviii. 36). Yet ἅπατη, ἅπαταω has been proved to be the correct reading in many cases. avtwv here is an argument in its tavour. Nestle (of. cit. pp. 324 ff.) and Zahn (of. cit. ii. p. 235 f.) argue strongly for αγαπαις and omission of υμιν (συνευωχουµενοι = “feasting with one another’’) (Mayor, Ed. cxcvii).
ἑακαταπαυστους SCKLP, 13, 31, Ti., Treg. ; ακαταπαστους AB, WH. The latter reading ‘“‘may have originated in a faulty pronunciation on the part of the reader, or the v may have been accidentally omitted at the end of the line, as in B, where one line ends with wa- and the next begins with -στους ” (Mayor, Ed. cxcvii. ef. Moulton, Proleg. p. 47).
3 Booop ScACKLP, boh., syrh, Ti., Treg.; Bewp B, syrp, sah., WH, Weiss; Βεωορσορ &. There can be little doubt that Βοσορ 's the correct reading. The reading of & is manifestly due to a combination of Booop and a marginal correc- tion -ewp. Zahn. (of. cit. ii. p. 292) says that everywhere in LXX, Josephus, Philo, only the forms Beop or Βαιορ occur, and that Bogop is inexplicable except as a mis- take on the part of 2 Peter due to ‘‘ imperfect pronunciation or defective hearing”. Nestle, however (of. cit. p. 244), after Holmes-Parsons, cites νιον του Bogop in the Georgian version of Jos. xiii. 23. Booop also occurs as name of a place in Deut. iv. 43, 1 Sam. xxx. 9, 1 Macc. v. 26. ‘‘The support of the ordinary name by B against the other MSS. may be compared with its support of Zipwv against Ἔνμεων
in i. 1’? (Mayor, Ed. cxcviii.).
mus, (Neue Fahrb. f. d. Klass, Altertum, 1903), p. 165, n. 5).
Ver. 14. ἀκαταπαύστους ἁμαρτίας. For use of genitive with this verb, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 1. See Grammatical Note. SedeaLovtes. Cf. ν. 18 and Mayor’s note on Jas. i. 14, ‘“‘entice or catch bya bait’. κατάρας τέκνα. Cf. τέκνα ὑπα- κοῆς, I Pet. i. 14.
Vv. 15, 16. Example of Balaam. “They have left the straight way and wandered from it, having followed the way of Balaam, who loved the ways of wickedness, and was rebuked for his transgression, when a dumb ass spoke with a man’s voice, and forbade the in- fatuation of the prophet.”
Ver. 15. TH 686 τοῦ Βαλαὰμ. The comparison of the conduct of the False Teachers to that of Balaam is significant as determining their character and motive (see Introduction, pp. 115 ff.). The writer of 2 Peter takes the miraculous narrative in Numbers xxii. 21-35 literally. It is no disparagement of the value of the illustration that we, in our day, can no longer do 5ο. Balaam had the gift of real spiritual vision. He is described in
Numbers xxiv. 36 as one ‘‘ whose eye was closed,” i.e. to outer things, and also as one ‘ which seeth the vision of the Almighty, falling down and having his eyes open,” 7.e. to spiritual vision. Balaam was one who allowed the greed of gain to become stronger than the prophetic impulse. He is conscious that he is tempting God, and an evil con- science makes him irritable. He fears lest God may yet interfere to rob him of his reward. When the ass starts aside he beats it, but ultimately his passion is subdued by the momentary triumph of his higher spiritual instincts, when he begins to suspect that in the stubbornness of the animal there is really the power of God exercised to hinder him in his course. The angel with the drawn sword: is often the form that men’s religion takes who are disobeying the voice of con- science. ‘“ There is a strange depth of meaning in the appealing eye of an ill- treated animal. It is an appeal, in the first place, to whatever remnant of pity and generosity may still survive in the heart of the man who ill-treats it, but it is an appeal, in the second place, to the