The conclusion I have drawn from the above comparison of the two Epistles as to the priority of J., is confirmed by the general opinion of modern critics, as by Neander, Credner, Ewald, Hilgen- feld, Holtzmann, Harnack, Bernhard Weiss, Abbott, Farrar, Salmon, above all by Dr. Chase in his excellent article on the ‘‘ Second Epistle of St. Peter” in Hastings’ D. of Β. It is true some of the best authorities speak very doubtfully both of this priority and of the authenticity of 2 P. Thus Déllinger, who, in his First Age of the Church, had maintained the priority of 2 P., wrote to Dr. Plum- mer in the year 1879 that he could no longer hold this opinion (Plummer’s St. James and St. $ude 1891, p. 400). See also Plum- mer’s St. Fude, p. 268: ‘‘ While admitting that the case is by no means proved, we may be content to retain the priority, as well as the authenticity of 2 Peter, as at least the best working hypothesis”. And Hort is quoted by Dr. Sanday (Inspiration, p. 347) as saying that ‘‘ If he were asked he should say that the balance of argument was against the epistle ; and the moment he had done so he should begin to think that he might be wrong”. On the other hand three of the most recent critics, Spitta in his Commentary on the two Epistles, 1885, Dr. Bigg in his International Critical Commentary, ed. 2, 1902, and the veteran Zahn in his Einleitung in das N.T., ed. 3, 1906, have no hesitation in maintaining the priority and authenticity of 2 P. | proceed to consider the arguments which have been adduced by them or by others in favour of that view.!
(1) Assuming the genuineness of the two Epistles, it is easier, in a case of evident borrowing, to suppose that the borrower should be the comparatively obscure Jude, rather than Peter, the foremost of the Apostles.
(2) Jude seems to acknowledge his obligations to Peter in ver. 4 οἱ πάλαι mpoyeypappévor εἰς τοῦτο τὸ Kpipa . . . τὸν µόνον δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι and in vv. 17, 18 µνήσθητε τῶν ῥημάτων τῶν προειρηµένων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὅτι ἔλεγον ὑμῖν “Ew ἐσχάτου Χρόνου ἔσονται ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἑαυτῶν ἐπιθυμίας πορευόµενοι, the former verse being regarded as an allusion to P.’s ii. 3 ἐν ὑμῖν ἔσονται Ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι . . . τὸν ἀγοράσαντα αὐτοὺς δεσπότην ἀρνούμενοι . . . οἷς τὸ κρίµα ἔκπαλαι οὐκ ἀργεῖ, the latter {ο P. iii. 2, 3 μνησθῆναι τῶν προει- ρΡηµένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἁγίων προφητῶν καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν ' ἐντολῆς τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος, τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες ὅτι ἐλεύσονται ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἐν ἐμπαιγμονῇ ἐμπαῖκται κατὰ τὰς ἰδίας ἐπιθυμίας αὐτῶν πορευόµενοι.
1] agree with Dr. Bigg that it is superfluous to consider theories which sup-
pose 2 P. to be made up of two independent epistles. Its unity, as shown in the earlier part of this chapter, forces itseif on the mind of any careful reader.