the steps of Cain, and been carried away in the error of Balaam for gain, and lost themselves in the rebellion of Korah. These are sunken rocks in your love-feasts, where they join your feast without any feeling of religious reverence, caring only for their own enjoy- ment. They are clouds without water, scudding before the wind; trees without fruit in the fruit-bearing season, twice dead, torn up by the roots; raging waves foaming out their own shame; wandering stars for which the blackness of darkness is reserved for ever.” This passage corresponds to P. ii. 13-17, but, in the latter, the order is con- siderably altered and there are various additions and omissions. Balaam (who is also prominent in the Apocalypse ii. 14) is the only one of the old hzresiarchs referred to, but his story is given at more length in ti. 15 16: “ They (the libertines) have wandered from the straight path, following the path of Balaam, who loved the wages of un- righteousness and was convicted of his error by the dumb ass, which spoke with human voice and stayed the prophet’s madness”’. Here P. clenches the comparison made before (ii. 1) between the false prophet of the O.T. and the false teacher of the N.T., and brings out again the motive of covetousness (see above ii. 3 and ii. 15). Has he any special reason for introducing the story of the ass re- buking the prophet? We may compare other passages in which God is represented as choosing the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Cor. i. 27, Ps. viii. 2), or in which men are called upon to learn a lesson from animals, as Isa. i. 3, Jer. viii. 7, Prov. vi. 6, Job xii. 7. Possibly P. may be thinking of the scorn entertained for simple believers by those who called themselves Gnostics (see below ii. 18).
J. ver. 12 appears with some remarkable alterations in P. ii. 13, σπίλοι καὶ μῶμοι ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν συνευωχούµενοι ὑμῖν. Here σπίλοι and ἀπάταις are substituted for σπιλάδες and ἀγάπαις in J. Some editors read ἀγάπαις with B, but the addition of αὐτῶν suits much better with ἁπάταις. J. speaks of ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν. It was natural of course that the wolves should seek to find their way into the sheep-folds; but can we suppose that the faithful would enter the love feasts of the libertines? Moreover the change of an original ἀγάπαις to ἀπάταις by a copyist is hardly conceivable, while the re- verse change to suit J. is most natural. But how are we to account for the disappearance of the important—we might almost call it the indispensable word—éydmy? In my edition of 2 P., p. cxev., I have suggested that ἀγάπην was the original reading, instead of ἡδονήν, in the earlier part of this verse (ἡδονὴν ἡγούμενοι τὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ τρυφήν) ; where my explanatory note shows how hard it is to make a satis-