eecond tho simple name is never used. This is not quite true (see eh. i. 1): but, if it were, it would seem 11, point of very little importance in a short Epistle like this, separated from the first by an interval probably of two or three years. (5) We come now to the relation between eh. ii. of this Epistle and the Epistle of St. J ode. There can be no doubt but that one of the two sacred writers borrowed from the other, unless both derived their materials from a common source. No such common source is knoWIJ: which then, we cannot but ask, was the original composition-St. J ode's Epistle or 2 Pet. ii. ? I£ St. Peter wrote first, the difficulty is shifted from our Epistle; bat, while commentators are divided on the subject, the balance of authorities is in favour of the priority of St. Jude. And this seems the more probable alternative. When we compare the two Epistles, we see that St. Jude is much stronger in his denunciation, fiercer in his invective ; his words seem · to flow out of e. burning indignation, an intense horror. He, perhaps, had been brought into personal contact with the wicked men whom he describes; St. Peter had only heard from others of their evil lives and false doctrine. It seems more likely that the vehement, fervid Epistle ,vas the original rather than the calmer chapter; it is more probable that St. Peter, repro- ducing, perhaps from memory, the warnings of St. Jude, would soften some of its sterner language, than that St. Jude should have taken the words of St. Peter and breathed fire and passion into them. It is more probable that St. Peter should have omitted the reason which St. Jude apparently gives for the fall of the angels, and the dispute between Michael the arch- angel and the devil, than that St. Jude should have made these additions to St. Peter's words from apocryphal books or Jewish legends. It does not eeem likely that St. Jude, while adopting a portion of St. Pater's Epistle, would have omitted all reference to the remainder; it is especially unlikely that he should have altogether omitted the solemn description of the day of the Lord in the third chapter, so suitable for his purpose. On these grounds, therefore, we believe that- St. Peter, having heard of the doings of the false teachers, inserted into his Epistle much of the earlier Epistle of St. Jude, from which, it may be, he derived his knowledge. There is nothing inconsistent with his apostolic dignity in doing so, while it is in accordance with his character, always open to impressions from without. During his residence at Antioch (as St. Paul tells us in Gal. ii. 11, 12), when" certain came from James," he was led by their influence to separate himself from the Gentiles. His First Epistle, written while he was in the society of Mark and Silvanus, was largely coloured by the Epistles of St. Paul; it is not surprising that in his second, if he had just read the Epistle of St. Jude, he should have made use of a. large portion of that vehement and striking letter. (6) Dr. Abbott, has called attention, in the Exposito1·, to some verbal coincidences between this Epistle and the writings of Josephus, especially two passages in the 'Antiquities.' In the fourth section of the Preface, :di INTRODUCTION TO
Josephus says that Moses deemed it exceedingly necessary to consider the Divine nature ; that " other legislators followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human sins unto the gods; " bnt that Moses demonstrated that "God was possessed of perfect virtue;" and that there is nothing in his writings "disagreeable to the majesty (11-rya.>..norTJ,;;) of God." The coincidences between this passage and eh. i. 4, 16, 3 are obvious ; yet we must remember that ctp£T'17 is ascribed to God in 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; that 11-v0o,;; occurs four times in St. Paul's pastoral Epistles; and that ()lio,;; is not uncommon in the Septuagint. Again, in bk. IV. viii. 2, where Josephus is relating the last address of Moses, he uses seven or eight words which are found in this Epistle; such as " departure " in the sense of death, " the present truth," etc. Dr. Abbott has also pointed out several other scattered paralle:;s, besides those con- t:ained in the two passages referred to; as well as some remarkable coincidences with the writings of Philo. St. Peter could not have seen the 'Antiquities' of Josephus, which were not published earlier than A.D. 93. It seems most unlikely that Josephus, who shows no acquaintance with any other part of the New Testament, should have read this one Epistle. But, on the other hand, it does not seem much more probable that a Christian writer of the second century (and no one assigns a later date to this Epistle) would care to reproduce the words and phrases of the Jewish historian, especially if he wished that his production should be regarded as the work of St. Peter ; he would be adopting one of the surest means to show that it was not the writing of the apostle. It is quite possible that these resemblances may be accidental ; many of the words instanced by Dr. Abbott are ordinary expressions in common use. It is possible, again, that they may have been derived from a co=on source, such, as the writings of Philo. Philo had visited Rome in the reign of Caligula ; Ensebius (' Hist. Eccl.,' ii. 17) accepts the legend that be then had intercourse with St. Peter. It is at least probable that Philo's influence would have made itself felt during his embassy among the Roman Jews, and so St. Peter, if writing at Rome, might have derived some words and phrases directly or indirectly from his writings. At any rate, Dr. Salmon has proved, in his 'Historical Introduction to the Books of the New Testament,' that" affinity with Philo is a point of likeness, not of unlikeness, between the two Petrine Epistles " (pp. 650, 651); and also that "even St. Paul's letters, written from Rome, present coincidences with Philo" (see note, p. 652, furnished by Dr. Gwynn). It is probable that, as Philo's works became known to educated Jews, many words and thoughts derived from them would find their way into popular use among the scattered Hebrew nation. This seems a much more likely explanation of the coincidences (the most remarkable of which had been already noted by many commentators) than the hypothesis that the writer of this Epistle borrowed from the Jewish historian. On the whole, the internal evidence seems decisive. The Epistle bears the strongest testimony to its own genuineness. The writer's claims are '!'HJ~ SECOND EPISTLE GDIRRAL OF PETER. xiii