Skip to main content

Full text of "Studies in the second epistle of St. Peter"

See other formats



B 3 im T22 


Sixth Form Master of Felsled School, 
Formerly Scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge 

Cambridge University Press 

C. F, Clay, Manager 

London: Fetter Lane, E.C. 

Edinburgh: loo. Princes Street 


Price ijf) net 



C. F. CLAY, Manager 
Hontion: FETTER LANE, E.G. 
GHlimburgf): 100 PRINCES STREET 







l^etJ Sork: G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 

ISomias antj Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd. 

Srornnto: J. M. DENT AND SONS, Ltd. 


All rights reserved 




Sixth Form Master of Felsted School, 
Formerly Scholar of Christ's College, Cambridge 

Cambridge : 

at the University Press 

IleTpto OS npos ras ;(p6ias 
€7701(1x0 ras BibaaKaXias. 

• The Elder' {apud Papiam). 

ov TTpos laTpov (ro(j)ov 
Bprjvdv €Tr(o8as rrpbs TOfxQtvTi infjp.aTi. 

Soph. Aias 581-2. 


npHESE Studies are published not as the last word on 
the problem of the "Second Epistle of St Peter," 
but in the firm belief that the solution of that problem 
lies at least along the lines here indicated. No new 
facts are brought forward ; that would be indeed hard to 
do after the careful labours of both English and German 
writers, notably of two Cambridge scholars, Dr J. B. Mayor 
and the Bishop of Ely. 

All available literature on the subject has been duly 
consulted ; but the learned reader will easily perceive 
that this is a first venture beyond the Pillars of Hercules 
of one who has till now merely hugged the shores of a 
narrower sea. 

If so slight a work had been worthy of a dedication, 
it would have been inscribed to two members of my own 
College, without whose more than kind encouragement it 
would not have seen the light — Dr Latimer Jackson 
and my brother, Ernest I. Robson. Both have given 
welcome help with the proofs. 

E. I. R. 

Felsted, March, 1915. 



I. The Problem of the Epistle 

II. Analysis of the Epistle .... 

III. Remarks upon the above Analysis . 

IV. (i) Text of the Epistle .... 
(ii) Notes on the Text .... 

V. Differences of Style, Vocabulary, etc 

between " E " AND " P " .... 

(i) Want of originality in E 

(ii) Paucity of vocabulary in E . 

(iii) Clear references in E to the Canonical Books of 
the N. T. . .... 

(iv) Possible references to Josephus 
(v) Certain grammatical peculiarities. Comparison 
of E with P 

(vi) Vocabulary ; Solecisms .... 
(vii) E's " Commercialisms " . 

VI. Citation Formulae in the Epistle 

(l) yLyvcocTKetv on ...... 

(ii) 8i6 

(lii) aVTO TOVTO ...... 

(iv) iTTayyfKjiaTa ...... 













VII. Some Special Notes . . . . 

(i) Su/ifcoi' ...... 

(ii) dovKos KOI aTToaroXos . . . . 

(iii) TavTTjv b(VTepav eTTlCTToXjjv 

(iv) rj evroXrj ...... 

(v) o 7rpo(Pi]TtK6s \6yos . . . . 

(vi) The Voice 

(vii) The reference to the Pauline Letters 

(viii) The Personal Pronouns 

VIII. "Jude" and 2 Peter . 












IX. Sub-apostolic References to 2 Peter ; Probable 

Date and Origin 59 

> J > 

J > 
J > 



I. The Problem of the Epistle. 

All or nearly all available facts relating to this 
Epistle have been laid before us by the labours of Chase, 
Mayor, Spitta, Bigg, and others. The problem of the 
document, however, remains unsolved. On the conserva- 
tive side we have the somewhat despairing shifts of Zahn 
and Spitta ; on the other, we have a general consensus of 
opinion that the Epistle is wholly non-Petrine and of late 
date, but we have as yet no reasonable explanation why 
it should have been written at all. It has no visible 
" tendency " ; it is not a polemical utterance. As a 
forgery or a pseudepigraphical document it has no satis- 
factory raison d'etre, nor is there any reason why, as 
such, it should have been attributed to the Apostle Peter ^ 
Its relation to the Epistle of Jude is not satisfactorily 
explained by mere borrowing on either side or by the 
elaborate re-borrowing theory of Kiihl (partially antici- 
pated by Berthold, Gess, and others)^. 

It remains only to interrogate the Epistle itself in 
order to ascertain first, whether an analysis of the subject 

^ The arguments of Chase (D.B.) against Petrine authorship are 
equally arguments against " forgery " or even capable imitation. 

'■^ The various interpolation theories are set out by Cone {Enc. Bihl.). 

R. 1 


matter suggests hv:)raogoneit3^ of the Epistle ; secondly, 
whether there is evidence of any cleavage of vocabulary 
or style between different portions of the Epistle ; and 
thirdly, whether any result so obtained will give a reason- 
able explanation of the existence of the Epistle and of its 
relation, or the relation of a part of it, to the so-called 
Epistle of Jude. 

It will be necessary to make these enquiries without 
actually assuming the genuineness of the First Epistle of 
Peter ; though an attempt will be made to show that 
such genuineness is compatible with the facts of the 
Second Epistle. 

II. Analysis of the Epistle. 
Prelwiinary Consider'atio ns. 

The Epistle may have been 

(1) written as it stands by the Apostle Peter, 

(2) written pseudepigraphically as 

(a) a " tendency " document, 

(b) an essay in the Petrine manner, by a follower 

or admirer, or 

(3) it may be a composite work. 

Of these 2 (a) can hardly be regarded seriously. As a 
pamphlet 2 Peter would be a lamentable failure. 

If we accept 1 or 2 (b) we should look for a document 
on set lines and with a definite object. Such a document 
might be 

(i) a general epistle on the scheme of Christian 
" salvation," 

(ii) a series of brief references to questions of the day, 

(iii) an answer to enquiries made by the recipients, 


(iv) a personal epistle of apology, self-justification or 

2 Peter steps into none of these niches. It stands 
neither with 1 Peter (i) nor with Jucle (iv) nor with 
1 Cor. (iii). It is a thing of shreds and patches ; it passes, 
by what seem to be happy-go-lucky sutures, from ex- 
hortation to narrative, narrative to prophecy, prophecy 
to apocalyptic. We leave it with an air of puzzle and 

The analysis which follows deals mainly with these 
transitions and breaks of thought of the Epistle. 

I. Salutation, i. 1-5 a. 

Here there seems to be some confusion of the pronouns, 
on which see below j). 50 fif. 

II. A moral exhortation, i. 56-11. 
The transition is abrupt. 

The close of verse 4 suggests as the great Christian aim ; 
first, escape from the world's corruption : secondly, the 
partaking of the Divine nature. These thoughts are not 
followed up. The section before us deals with a positive 
aspect of moral growth which will fit us for knowledge — 
iTTLyvcoaii; — but it does not look forward to any mj^stical 
union w^ith the Divine nature. 

Moreover the salutation is conceived in a frigid and 
conventional, if not undignified, fashion^ ; the exhortation 
of 56-11, if also on stereotyped or conventional lines, is 
full of genuine fire and energy ; aTrovBr} is its keyword. 
A modern writer or preacher passing thus rapidly from 
the one style to the other might arrest, but would probably 
puzzle, his hearers. 

^ Deissmann has pointed out its affinities with formal inscriptioaal 
language {Bible Studies, i. pp. 277 f.), 



Thirdly, the sahitation regards eiriyvwai^i as something 
now present with us ; the section before us regards it as 
something in the distance, a goal at the end of a long 

Next, with the particle hi6, we pass to 

III. A personal statement, vv. 12-15, following 
naturally upon the preceding passage, and passing again 
quite naturally to a personal narrative {vv. 16-18). 

The next sentence, vv. 19-21, if we regard the Epistle 
as a whole, cannot be absolved from jerkiness and in- 
consequence. It reads as if some happy thought had just 
struck the writer. Nothing has prepared us for " The 
Prophetic Word," of which the passage just preceding is 
conceived as giving us " greater confirmation." 

There is, moreover, an awkwardness in the pronouns. 
" We " in verse 18 refers to the witnesses of the Trans- 
figuration; in verse 19 "we" (unemphatic) is purely 
general in reference. 

Some break therefore between verses 18 and 19, as 
between verses 4 and 5, and upon similar grounds, appears 

The analysis then continues : 

IV. An introductory sentence to " The Prophetic 
Discourse." v. 19. 

V. "The Prophetic Discoursed" i. 20-ii. 19, dealing 
chiefly with a description of false prophets. 

There is no structural break between i. 21 and ii. 
The connection of thought is : 

" We get fuller confirmation of ' The Prophetic Dis- 
course.' There is, as everyone knows, true prophecy, but 
there were, are, and will be again, false prophets." 

1 See pp. 44 £f. 


The last phrase (" there will be false prophets") appears 
also in Mc. xiii. 22 as paving the way for an apocalyptic 
passage. Apocalyptic seems always to demand some sort 
of opening apology. 

VI. A comment upon, and amplification of, the pre- 
ceding statement that sin is slavery, ii. 20-22. 

Except as a comment, this passage does not fit in with 
the Prophetical passage, nor does it serve as an intro- 
duction to what follows. It closes, indeed, with two 
conventional proverbs of a vulgar type, which have the 
air of being dragged in to end the section. 

VII. A second personal explanation, iii. 1, 2. 
Here we are on much-vexed ground. If we have had 

abruptness before, we have it much more pronounced 
here. There is little, if anything, to suggest connection 
in what immediately precedes, or with what immediately 

VIII. A continuation of prophecy, merging into 
apocalypse, iii. 3-13. 

After the fine climax of verse 13 — surely a concluding 
verse — we have 

IX. Final warnings and exhortation, iii. 14-18. 

An exhortation, that is, to peaceful virtue and a rooted 
distrust of the " scoffers." It is backed by a reference to 
St Paul. 

III. Remarks upon the above Analysis. 

If the writer throughout be one and the same person, 
his idea of an epistle is indeed mysterious. He is guilty 
of abrupt transition, sudden shifts of meaning in his 
personal pronouns, and two (at least) examples of serious 
anticlimax. He is almost without literary sense. 


As for the subject mattei', let who will regard the 
Epistle as homogeneous. It is most difficult to suppose 
the Apostle — still more difficult to suppose a " forger," 
or an admirer, deliberately composing such a farrago. 
Suppose, however, certain fragmentary passages, worth 
preserving, to have been welded together by comments, 
introductions, conclusions, specially written for the pur- 
pose, the only unity at which the writer (or editor) would 
aim, and his readers expect, Avould be the unity which the 
cement imparts to the imperfect fragments of sculpture 
which we may see pieced together in the porch of a 
church. It is unity of this kind alone which the present 
writer can find in the Epistle, and the result of our 
analysis and study of the connections of the document 
will for the remainder of this essay be regarded as a 
working hypothesis to be verified in different ways. 

Out of the document, as a whole so heterogeneous, 
can be taken four passages in themselves entirely homo- 
geneous and to the point. There is a vigorous piece of 
moral exhortation, cast in a form convenient for learning 
by heart, viz. a "ladder of virtues^" (i. 56-11); there is 
an autobiographical gospel fragment (i. 16-18) laying 
obvious stress upon presence in the " Holy Mount," and 
the hearing of a voice, as apostolic credentials ; there is a 
"prophetical discourse" (i. 20-ii. 19) and there is an 
apocalyptic passage (iii. 3-13). Ki]pvy/jLa — FivayyeXiov 
— U poipijreia — ^ATroKaXvylrcs; is it a mere chance that 
three of these four, " Preaching," " Apocalypse," " Gospel," 
coming to us under the name of the Apostle Peter, are 
precisely what later ages conceived him to have written, 

^ Compare Shepherd of Hermas, Visio iii. 8, Similitudo ix. 15, for 
Bimilar " Tugendreihen," not copied from 2 Peter, as Grosch suggests. 


and " forged " for him ? Is it not at least possible that 
in these we have the genuine germs of what later were 
developed into apocryphal writings in his name ? 

At present this must remain a suggestion only ; but 
an attempt will be made in the following pages to show 
that these passages stand apart from the rest of the 
Epistle in thought, style, and vocabulary \ 

What then of the rest of the Epistle ? Every portion 
now fits into place into the mosaic. Someone (whom we 
must for convenience begin to distinguish as the editor, 
or E, as opposed to the four sections which, passing for 
Petrine, will be designated as P) introduces, connects, 
comments upon, winds up, passages not his own, in a 
manner which has indeed an element of much artificially 
but certainly no undue clumsiness. First, he prefixes, 
(juite honestly'^, a formal salutation in the name of Peter. 
He introduces the subject of Prophecy with a skilful 
sentence looking both backward and forward : he closes 
it with a natural, if not very literary, comment. After 

1 Partition or interpolation theories (Grotius, Berthold, Lange, and 
Kiihl — with whose conekisions those of this essay will in part agree — and 
others) usually confine themselves to ch, ii only. Chase argues "there 
cannot be said to be any difference of style between ch. ii and the rest 
of the Epistle." If he had said " and the bulk of the rest of the 
Epistle " he would have expressed the underlying principle of the present 
essay. Grosch {Die Echtheit des II Brief es Petri'-, Leipzig, 1914), while 
battling for Petrine authorship, yet regards chh. ii and iii 156-18 as 
a later insertion by the author, in view of disturbing news just received. 

2 "Editors" are commonly honest even to stupidity. Italian 
Literature (Symonds, Age of the Despots, pp. 188 and 189) gives us 
authors apparently referring to their own deaths. Servius' Commentary 
on Vergil, "stupidly re-edited" (Comparetti, VirgiUo nel Medio Eva, i. 
p. 75), makes the author quote himself (" ut Servius dicit " Serv. ad 
Eel. I. 12). Such instances do not need multiplying. 


giving his reasons for preferring Apostolic citations to 
his own efforts (iii. 1, 2), he quotes a passage certainly 
not his own, for the opening words are from the 7rpo(l)r)Tiic6<; 
X0709, also cited by Clement of Rome. At the conclusion 
of this passage, he writes an Epilogue which most skilfully 
sums up all that has gone before ; " Be zealous (see i. 5) 
in virtuous living; do not be led astray on the subject of 
the Trapovaia (see ii. 1, 2, iii. 36, 1) but grow in grace and 
knowledge (see i. 56, 8)." 

The whole he throws into Epistolary form, and for a 
reason which we must admit is not obvious, divides the 
subject into two letters, correctly described as " reminders," 
both based upon apostolic utterances (iii. 1, 2) and ap- 
parently both despatched to the same readers at the same 

These points, mentioned by anticipation, will be dealt 
with in detail later. 

There follows next the text of the document in which 
those passages assigned in the foregoing analysis to the 
Editor or Redactor (E) are in heavy type. 

lY. The Epistle. 

(i) Text ; E marked hy heavy type. 

The text following is the Textus Receptus, with 
variations of W.-H. given beneath ^ 

^ Liberty has been taken to deviate from the punctuation of T.R. in i. 
1, 2, 21, and ii. 13 in order to show the connections as understood 
in the analysis. In i. 5, 19, 20, iii. 3 capitals have been written, -u has 
been added to verb terminations of the indicative, and oi/rws is written 
(i, 11) for 0VTU3. Immaterial divergences of punctuation, accentuation, 
or type (e.g. i. 22, ii. 8) in W.-H. are not given. 


In cases where the choice of text affects the argument 
■of the present essay, a special note is given later on ; as 
also some speciaL notes on the state of the text and upon 
possible " primitive errors." It does not, however, belong 
to the province of the present " studies " to discuss in 
detail the textual problems which do not directly affect 
the argument. 

Zahn {Einleitung^ p. 87) gives corrections of and 
additions to Tischendorfs apparatus. 



■1 Svfiecov IleTpos 8ov\os Kal airocrroXos TT|(rov Xpicrrov, tois 

lcroTi|xov "niitv Xaxovo-iv ttio-tiv Iv. . .StKatoorvvT] tov 0€ov -qp.cijv Kal 

- (rft)TT]pOS 'lT](rOV XptCTTOV* X*^P''5 VjllV Kal 6ipi]VT] irXTjOvvGeiT] €V €171- 

3. "yvwcrei tov 0€ov, Kal *lT|crov tov Kvpiov i]p.o5v, ws irdvTa i^fiiv ttjs 
dcias 8vvdp.€ws avTOv tci irpos ^wt)v Kal cvo'epcidv 8€8»pT|p,€VT]S, 8id ttjs 

4 €7ri"Yvwo"€ws TOV KaX.€(ravTOS '>][Jids 8td 86^t|S Kal dpeTfjs, 8i' «v Ta 
yit-yicTTa r\YXv Kal Ti|iia €ira'yY€'X[i.aTa 8€8(opT]Tai, I'va 8id tovtwv 

7€VT](r0€ 0€iaS KOlVWVOl (t>VO'€(«)S, d'Tro4)V'Y6vT€S TTJS Iv Koo-p,a) €V liri- 

5 8v|iCa (t>6opds. Kal auTo tovto 8€, z^irovhriv iraaav 7rap€L(T6vey- 
fcavre^y eTTixop'qyTJcrare ev rrj iriarei v/jL(oi> t7]p dperrjv, iv 
he rrj dperfj rrjv yvMcnv, iv he rfj yvoacrei Tr)v iyKparetav, 

6 iv Se T^ iyKpareia ti]v V7ro/jbovr}Vy iv 8e rfj vTrofiovrj ttjv 

W.-H. Title: KETPOT B 

i. 1 ^liJLojv [marg. 2TME12N] 

3 marg. Idia dotrj k. dperri 4 rd rt'/xta k, /neyLCTTa y]fx?i> eirayy. 
ev T(2 Koa/xu} 



7 €V(7ej3eiav, ev 8e rf) evae/Seia ti]p <f)iXaB€\(j)iaPy iv he rfj 
K (piXaS€\<pia ri]V dyciTrrjv. ravra yap, v/jlIv virdpy^opra Kai 

irXeovatoma. ovk dpyov<; ovSe aKapTTov^ KaOiarijacv e^V 
9 T7JV Tov Kupt'ou I'lfxwv ^hjaov ^pLcrrov iiriyvcoaiv <p yap 

/jL7] irdpeanv ravra, ru(f>\6(; iari, ixvwirdXwv, Xydrjv Xa^oov 

10 rod KaOapLcr/JiOu ro)v rrdXat avrov dfiapnwv. Aio fxdXkov, 
dSeXi^ol, aiTovhaaare /Se^alav vfioiv ri^v Kkrjaiv Kai €k- 
Xoyyju iroielaOai' ravra yap iroiovvre'i ov fir) Trraiarfre 

11 wore. oiirco yap TrXofcr/o)? eiri'^opriyriOi^creraL v/xlv i) 
elaoho'^ eh rrjv alwvtov ^aauXeiav rov K^vplov r)/jb(ov Kai 
awrrjpo^; ^Ijjaov ^picrrov. 

12 Aio OVK djjbeXijaw v/jLd<; act vrroixifjivi^crKeLv irepX rovrwv, 
Kaiirep elSora^i, Kai iarr}pLy/jLevov<i iv rfj Trapovar) dXr^Oeia, 

13 hiKaiOv he riyovpiai, e^ ocrov elpX ev rovrw rep (TKrjvcofiari, 

14 Bieyeipeiv u/xa? iv vTro/jLvyjaec elBo)^ on ra-^Lvy icrrtv 1) 
arroOeai'^ rov (TKijvoo/jbaro'^ P'OV, Ka6(o<^ Kai 6 Kvpto^i rjfjLCJV 

15 'I?;croi)9 X/9tc7T09 iB/]Xroaev fiOL. airovhdcra) he Kai eKaarore 
€X€iv u/xa?, /Jierd rijv i/xrjv e^ohov, rrjv rovrcov /xinj/iTjv 

16 Ov yap aeao(^iaixevoi(; ixvdoi<^ e^aKoXovO rja avre<^ eyvwpi- 
crajxev vfilv rrjv rov K^vptov tj/jlmv Iijaov ^picrrov hvvafiLv 
Kai rrapovoLaVy aXX iiroTrraL yevrjOevre'^ rrji; iKeivov /ae- 

17 yaXeLorrfro^;. Xa^ayv yap irapa ^eov 7rarpb<; ri/jurfv Kai 
ho^av, (f)(t)vfj<; eve'X^delarjfi avrw roidcrhe viro rr]<i fxeyaXo- 
7rpe7rov<; ho^rj^, ' Ovro^ eariv o vl6<; fjuov 6 dyairi^ro^;, et? ov 

iB iyco evhoKTjcra.' Kai ravrrfv rrjv (fxDvrjv rj/jLecf; rjKovcrafJbev 
i^ ovpavov ive'xOelcrav, crvv avrw ovre<; ev rw opei rd> dyiw. 

19 Kai 'iyjoy-iv pcPaiorcpov tov npo<})-qTiKov Ad"yov, w KaXais ttoicitc 

irpo<rcx.ovT€S, «s Xv^vto <|)aivovTi €v avxiATipw tottu), ews ov i^^cpa 

W.-H. i. 12 fieWrjcru (oni. ovk) del i'/xas 

17 6 vU fxov 6 ay. fiov ovtos ((ttiv 

18 evobKifCa, — Kai TavTrtv ti^ ay. 6p€i 


20 StavYcio-r], Kai (|>a)(r<|)6pos avaTCiXr] €V rais KapStais vixtov* tovto irpw- 
Tov 7ivw<rKovT€s, oTi Hdaa 7rpo(f)7]T€ia 'ypa(j)f]<; I8ia<; eirLkvcreco^ 

2 1 ov ^/iveraL. ov yap OeXij/jbart dvOpooirov r)ve')(^6ri irore 
7rpocf)7]T€ia, dXX vtto Ylv6VfjLaT0<; Aytov (pepo/juevot iXaXycrav 

2 01 (iytoL Seov avOpwiroi' eyevovTO Se Kal '\lr€V^07rpo(f)rJTaL 
iv T(p \aM, ft)9 fcal iv vfilv eorovrai yjrevSoStSdo'KaXoL, 
o'LTLV€<i Trapeio-d^ouatv alpeaei<^ aTrwXe/a?, Kal tov dyopd- 
aavra avTov<^ SeaTrorrjp dpvov^JievoL, iirdyovre'^ eavTol<^ 

2 Ta')(^ivr}v aiTwXeiav' Kal iroWol e^aKoXovOy^aovaiv avTom 
Tal<^ diTwXeLaL'^, hi ot)? ?; oho'^ Trj<; dXrjOeias: l3\aa(f)r}/jLr)- 

3 di]aeTai' Kal iv ifKeove^la irXaaToif; \6yoL<; vixd<^ i/xTropev- 
(Tovrat' oI<? TO Kplfxa eKiraXat ouk dpyel, Kal r) aTTCoXeia 
avTCJV ov I'vard^ei. 

4 Et yap 0eo9 dyyeXwv d fia prr] a a if tcov ovk ecpelaaro, 
aXXd aeipal^ ^6(f)0v raprapcocra^ irapehwKev eh Kpiaiv 

5 rerrjpij/jLevovf;' Kal dp'^aiou Koa/jtov ovk e^eiaaro, aXX 
oyhoov Nwe SLKaLO(Tvvr)<; KtjpvKa e(f)vXa^€v, KaraKXvafjLov 

6 Koa/juay aae^cjv 67rd^a<i' Kal TroXet^^ ^oS6/jl(ov Kal Vofioppa'^ 
Te^p(jO(Ta<i KaTa(TTpo(f)f] KareKptvev, viroheiyfJia fieXXovrwv 

7 dcre^elv redetKcof;' Kal BtKatov Ao)t, Karairovov jjievov vtto 
Trj<; TMv adea/jicov iv aaeXyela dvaarpocf^rj^, ip'pvcraro' 

8 (^Xe/jufjcarc yap Kal uKofj o hiKaio^, iyKaroiKOiV iv avTol<^y 
Tj/juepav i^ ifiiepa's "^vx*!^ ScKalav di'6jjLOC<i epyoi,<; i^acrd- 

9 vL^€v') olSe KvpLo<s evae^ei'i iK Treipacrfiov pveaOai, dScK- 
10 ov<; Se eh rjfiepav Kpiaew^ KoXa^o/ji€vov<; TTjpelv fiaXtaTa 

Be Tou? oTTicrw crapKO'^ iv iTTidvfila fxiaa/jiov Tropevofievov^iy 
Kal KvpiorrjTO'^ Karacfypovovvraf;. ToX/jb7]Tal avOdBeL<;, 

W.-H. i. 21 Trpo<p. TTore tti'. 07. dirb 0eoO dvdpwiroL (om. oi) 

ii. 1 ''Yi'yevovTO 
2 do'eX7etais 
4 aeipols rripovixevovs 
6 om. KaTa<XTpo(prj dae^eaiv 
8 — p\€iJ.iJ.aTi..,€^a<rdvi^ev, — 
10 ToXixrjTal, avOddets, 


11 So^a<; ov rpe/jLovcTL ^\aa(^rifiovvTe<;' oirov ayyeXoi, laxvl 
Kal Svvd/x€L /j,eL^ov€<; 6vt€<;, ov (fyepoucnv Kar avroyv irapa 

12 Kvplrp ^\da(f)7]/jLov fcplatu. ovtol he, o)? aXoya ^(oa ^vaiKa 
•yeyevvr^iJieva eh nkwcnv Kal (f)6opdv, ev ot? dyvoovai /8Xa- 

13 a<f)7]/j,ovvTe(;, ev rfj cfjOopa avrSiv Kara^OaprjaovTai, ko/jllov- 
jJievoi fXiaOov dSiKia^. 'HBovrjv rjyovfJievoL Trjv ev rj/xepa 
rpv(l>r]v, ctttlXol Kal /xwyLtot evTpvcf)wvr€<? ev rah dirdTau'^ 

14 avTMV, crvvevco'^ov/ievoL vfjilv, 6(f>0a\/jLov^ e')(^ovTe<^ /jbearovf; 
/jLot'^^aXiSo'; fcal aKaTairavcTTov^ diiapria^, BeXed^ovre^ 
y\rv')(a<^ d(Trr)pLKTov(;, /capBiav yeyv fjuvacr fxevrjv irkeove^iai'^ 

15 €-)^ovTe<i, Kardpaf; reKva, KaraXt7r6vTe<y rrjv evOelav oSov, 
i7rXavr)dr)aaVj e^aKoXovOrjcravTef; rfi 6h(p rov BaXaa/x rov 

i6 J^ocrop, 0? (jllctOov dhtKia^ rjydirrjaev, eXey^iv Be e<T')(^ev 
lBia<i irapavofila'^' viro^vytov acfxovov, ev dvOpcoTTov (fioyvp 
(f)6ey^dijLevov, eKcoXvaev rrjv rov Trpocfir/rov Trapa^povlav. 

*7 OvroL elcTL Trrjyal dvvBpoL, ve<peXai virb Xa/XaTro? eXavvo- 
/levac, ot? o ^6(f)o<; rov aKorov^; eh alcova rerrjprjrai,. 

18 ^TirepoyKa yap fiaracoTrjrof; (f)6eyy6/jLevoi, BeXed^ovcrLv ev 
eTrcOvfJLLat'^ crapKO<s, ev daeXyeiat^;, tov<; ovtco^ d7ro(^vyovra<^ 

19 T0U9 ev TrXdvr) dvaarpe^oiievov^;, eXevOepiav avroh eizay- 
yeXXofMevoL, avrol BovXoi virdp')(^ovTe^ t?}9 ^Oopd<;' o) yap 

^o T£9 r)TT7)7at, TOVTU) Kal BeBovXcoTai. El -yap diro<|>v'YovT£S rd 
|xid(r|xaTa tov K6(r|xov kv iiriyvdia-ii rov Kvpiov Kal orwTrjpos 'It^o-ov 
XpicTTov, TovTois 8c TrdXiv cijnrXaKCVTes TiTT«VTai, yiyoviv avrots Ta 

W.-H. ii. 10 rpefiova-L, l3\a(T(f)7]/xovvT€S 

11 [Trapa Kvp'ni}] 

12 767. <f>V(TLKa 

12, 13 avTuv 

13 ddLKOVfxepoL jmcrdbv ddt-Kias, r]5ovrjP mar<^. dyaTrais 

14 d/caraTrdoTOi's TrXeove^ias 

15 KaraXeiTTOPTes om. ttjv Bewp 

17 Kttt ofxix^ai (for j^e^Aat) om. els aiOiva 

18 om. ^p 2'^ oXiyios dirocpevyoPTas 

19 om. Kal 


2 1 ^o"xaTa •)(iipova twv irpwrwv. KpeiTTOV •ydp r\v avTOis fJ-i] lirt'yvwKevaL 
T-^jv 686v TTJs 8tKaioo-vvT)s, Tj eiriYVOvcriv lirto-Tpe'\j/ai €k ti^s Trapa8o0€i<rT]s 

2 2 avTois d-yias cvroXiis. <rv|xPepT]K€ Sc avrois to ttjs d\T|0ovs Trapotp.ias, 
Kvwv €Tri(rTp€'\|/as €irl to I'Siov t^epajia " Kal, 'Ys \ov(rap,€VT] ds 
KvXio'p.a PopPopov. 
3 TavTTiv t)8t], d-yaTTTiTol, 8€UTepav ili|xiv ypd^oi eiricTToXi^v, ev aW 

2 8i€'Y€ipa) v|JLwv €V virop.vqo-ei tt]V clXiKpLVT) Sidvoiav, ixvTjo-Ofjvai tcov 

7rpO€l,pT]JJL€V(«)V pTJfJLaTWV VTTO Tc3v d-yiCOV Trp0<})T]Tc5v, Kal TTjS TWV aTTOO-TO- 

3 X«v "qfJLwv €VtoXt|s tov T^vpiov Kal o-coTT|pos ' TOUTO irpcoTov "yi-vwo-KOVTes, 
oTt ^jXevaovrat eV eV^arof rcoz^ rj/juepMV efjUTral/crai, Kara 

4 Ta9 t'Sia? avTMV 67rtdv/jiia<i Tropevo/ievoi, real \6yovTe<i, Tlov 
iariv T} iirayyeXLa tt}? irapovaiaf; avrov ; d(j) r/? yap ol 
Trarepe^; iKOi/jiyjOrjo-av, iravra ovrco hiafxevei dir apy^Pj^^ 

5 /cTicreft)?. Aav6dv€i yap avTov^ tovto OeXovra's, on ovpavol 
r)(Tav efciraXac, /cal yrj i^ v8aro<; Kal Bl vBaTO<; crvvearMaa, 

6 Tft) TOV ©eoO Xoyo), hi cov o rore Koa/io^i vhan Kaia- 

7 KXvaQel<^ aTrcaXero' ol Be vvv ovpavol Kal rj yrj tm avrw 
Xoyrp reOrjo-avpLcrfiei'OL elcriu, irvpl Trjpov/jLepot ei9 rjfiepau 
Kpia60)<; Kal ciircoXeia'; tcov dae/Scov avOpcoircov. 

8 "Ev 8€ TOVTO \i.r\ Xav0av€Tco vp,ds, d-ya-m^Tol, oTt /jiia rffjuepa Trap a 

9 K.vpi(p CO? ')(LXLa 6T7], Kal ')(^iXia eTy &)9 rj/juepa fila. ov ^paBv- 
vei 6 K.vpLO'^ Tt]^ eTrayyeXia's, w^ tiv€<^ ^paBvTrjTa rjyovvTac' 
dXXd jJLaKpoOvjJLel et? rjfjLd^i, fir] l3ovX6/x€v6<^ TLva<; diroXeaOat, 

10 dXXd TrdvTa^ eh fieTavocav xcoprjcrat. ' H^et Be r) rj/jcepa 
Vivplov ft)? KXe7rTr]<; ev vvktI, ev rj ol ovpavol pot^rjBov irap- 
eXevcrovTaL, aTOC^eta Be Kavaov/Jieva XvOrjaovTac, Kal yi) Kal 

W.-H. ii. 21 vTToaTpixl/ai 

22 Kv\L<JIJLbv 

iii. 2 vfxu}v 

3 ecrxarwi/ eu ifXTraiy/j-dpr} iixiroLKTai iiTLd. avrwu 

10 om. €v vvKTL XvdrjaeraL 

v. 8a ? E, see p. 36. 


1 1 ra iv avrfj epya KaraKarjaerai. ^ovrcov ovv iravroiv Xuo/Jie- 
vcoVyiroTaTTOv; hel VTrap^etv vfxd^ iv ayiacf; dvaarpo(f)al^ Kal 

12 evaejSeiac^;, irpoaho^tiiVTa^ Kal airevhovra's rrjv irapovo-lav 
T>}9 Toi) %eov i]p,epa<;, ht rjv ovpavol irvpovpievoi XvOrjcrovrat, 

i^ Kal aTOi')(^ela Kavaoufieva T^jKeraL; Kaivou^ 8e ovpavoiis 
Kal yrjv Kaivrjv Kara to eirdyyeX/jia avrov TrpoaSoKco/xev, iv 
ol<; BiKaioavvT) KaroiKel. 

14 Aio, aYcnriiTol, ravra irpo<r8oKa)VT€S, <nrou8a{raT€ ao-iriXoi Kai 

1 5 afJLW|lT]TOl aVTW €vp€0TJvaL €V €lpT|VT], Kttl TT)V TOTJ KvpiOV T||JLCOV fiaKpO" 

6v[jitav (TtoTTipiav TiYcicrOe * KaGois Kal 6 d-yaTTTiTos T|fi.<ov d8€\<}>ds IlavXos 

16 Kara tt|v avrw 8o9€i(rav <ro<|>iav ^"ypaxl/tv vjjiiv, ws Kal ev Trdo-ais rais 
eirtcTToXais, Xa\wv Iv avrais irepl tovtwv Iv ois Icttl 8vcrv6T|Td nva, 
d 01 d|xa6€is Kal d(rTT|pLKTOt (rTp€pXovo"iv, ws Kal rds Xoiirds ■yp°'4*°'5; 
irpos TT|v iSiav avrwv dirwXciav. 

17 'Yp-eis ovv, d'yain]Tol, Trpo"yivw<rKOVT€S 4>vXd(r<r€o-0€, I'va fiT) tt] twv 

1 8 d0€'o-p.wv TrXdvT) o-vvaTrax0€'vT€S, kKTria-ryn. tou l8iov o-TT^pi-yjiov ' av^d- 
V6T€ 8e Iv \dpiTt Kal yviatrn. tov Kvpiov T|fj,wv Kal ortoTfjpos 'Itjcov 
Xpio-Tov. avTw T| 86|a Kal vvv Kal els Tijilpav alwvos. dp,T]V. 

W.-H. iii. 10 evpedrjaerai (see appendix) 

11 oiJrws (for ovv) [li^iSs] 

12 Tr}K€TaL' "perhaps a corruption of the rare Trj^erai" 
(appendix) Kaivovs 

15 bodelaav avTu> 

16 avTQi> (for avrujv) 
18 om. dfirjv 

(ii) On some poiyits in tJie text of the Epistle. 

(a) i. 3. 'n? connected with the preceding clause by 
W.-H., Oecum., Theoph., Vulg., Beda., Erasm., Hornej., 
Grot., Spitta, von Soden. 

It is true that the salutation elsewhere stands apart, 
but both salutation and epilogue of the present Epistle are 
unusual in design. 


Spitta compares the Ignatian Epistles acl Philad , 
Smyrn., Eph., Rom., and the Pseudo-Platonic letters iii 
and viii. 

If we follow W.-H., the section with its series of linked 
clauses certainly looks like a conscious and laboured 
imitation of Pauline connection (see esp. Gal. i. 1-5 and 
Eph. i. 1-14). 

In any case the salutation is highly conventional. 
Tf]<; 6eLa<^ 8vvd/jL€(o^ avrov suggests one of those set 
prefatory phrases which occur in documents of another 
character, inscriptions, and complimentary or official letters. 

(b) Yansittart {Journal of Philology, ill. p. 357) has 
suggested on textual grounds that this Epistle was extant 
for some time in a single copy^; the older chapter headings 
are certainly wanting in B. A further suggestion may 
perhaps be hazarded that some part of the original docu- 
ment was in tachygraph, and that the misreading of 
abbreviations is responsible for Jude's d'yciiraL^ and 
cnriXdhe^ for aTrdrati; and (tttlXoi, as w^ell, perhaps, as 
the difficult e^exvOrjaav of Jude v. 11-. Be this as it 
may, the general impression of a study of the text is that 
it is probably in a corrupt state. 

Four possible "primitive errors" are here noted; (a) i. 1 
\a')(^(ivaiv irixTTiv ev hiicaioavvrj rod Seov rj/jLMV — Ei^ here^ 
presents no special difficulty, but the run of the sentence 
is much improved if we assume a gap after eV, in which the 

^ A single copy, in the first instance, was probable. The letters were 
letters, and not written for publication. The only copy of the lost letter 
to the Corinthians, as Deissmann suggests (.S'^ Paul, Eng. Tr. p. 69), 
was possibly torn up by the Corinthians themselves. 

2 ? for e^y]Ko\ovd-qaa.v (2 P. ii. 15) ; but see below p. 54 note. /noLxaXidos 
(for fjLOLxdas, apparently) may have a similar origin. It also has the 
appearance of a despairing attempt of a not over-skilled decipherer. 


local name of the community to whom the letter is to be 
carried would be inserted — toI<; laonixov rj/jtlv Xaxovatv 
iricTTiv ev , hiKaioavvr) tov ©eoO r]/jLoov 

The absence of any note of place is remarkable (1 Peter 
i. 1 is in strong contrast). 

In the salutation of Jude, the relation of which to the 
present salutation will be discussed later, the eV of verse 1 
is a positive difficulty, and Dr Chase has there suggested 
a similar gap. 

(6) i. 20. iracra 7rpo(f)r)T€ia...lSia<; eirikvaew^ ov 
'yi'yveTai... Here there seems to be some primitive error, 
and suggestions have been made on the assumption that 
^['yverai + casus genetivus properly and normally means 
" arises from." Thus Grotius reads eTrifkixrew^, Heinsius 
iirCkevo-ew^, both in the sense " non est res proprii impetus." 
If we are to emend on these lines, e'TrtTri^euo-eco? is more likely 
to be the original word. " No scriptural Prophecy arises 
out of a man's own inspiration, prophecy was never inspired 
(tjvexOv surely in same sense as (fyepo/nevoi) by man's (own) 
will but prophets spoke being inspired by the Holy Spirit." 
'ETTtTTz^o/a? would be the usual word, but iiriirvevai'^ might 
well be used for its similarity to irvevixaro^, whereby the 
contrast is more clearly brought out. 

If on the other hand we are to keep the traditional 
interpretation, we should perhaps read...t3ta9 eirl Xvaew^ 
ov yiyverai, since yiyveadat iirl with genitive correctly 
means " to be concerned with." There is no apparent 
need for the compound noun and, as the text stands, there 
is no point in yiyveraL rather than iariv'^. 

1 Mayor considers these words, in the traditional text, " not unworthy 
of the Apostle in whose name they are written." The criticism does 
certainly seem to apply to many of the phrases, seemingly difficult and 


(c) ii. 7. The repetition of BUaio^ vv. 7, 8 (bis) is 
strange, though both 2 Peter and Jude show certain 
curious repetition phenomena. Lot was, by contrast, 
BUaio^;, but hardly so as to merit a three-fold commenda- 

Is Slfcatov in y. 7 a primitive error for heKarov, a 
misunderstanding of Gen. xviii. 32, and a parallel to oySoov 
in verse 5 above ? Some mystic stress is laid, no doubt, 
upon these numerals here as elsewhere (e.g. Pirke 
Aboth V. 1-9). 

(d) iii. 16. Trpo? rrju Ihiav avroov^ aTTcoXeiav. There 
is nothing strange in tSto? avroov which according to some 
authorities (X ah) is read in iii. 3. But with Jude 6 in 
mind it may be questioned whether dihiov is not here 

Kara ra? tSta? avrcov iTrtOv/jLca^; (if correct) is intel- 
ligible enough, " the lusts peculiar to themselves," of which 
they may almost be considered the inventors: but "their 
own peculiar destruction " or even " their oivn (emphatic) 
destruction " seems hyperbolical, dihiov here would give 
excellent sense,' and would be an echo (see pp. 18 ff.) of 
ii. 3, 12, iii. 7. 

cf'tSto? avruiv BvvafiL<; occurs early in the Epistle to 
the Romans (i. 20) which may here be in the writer's 
mind. - 

obscure, in P, the difficulty and obscurity of which arise only from the 
profundity of their meaning. P suggests a writer of great thoughts 
struggling with unmanageable media of expression. 

1 Here and in iii. 3 avrQu is probably correct. 

2 The assumption being (see below pp. 57 ff.) that our " editor" has 
read ".Tude's" setting of the fragment which he, later on, also in- 
corporates into an " Epistle." 

R. 2 


V. Differences of Style, Vocabulary, etc., 

BETWEEN " E " AND " P." 

The results tentatively arrived at by the process of 
analysis have given us no more than a working hypothesis 
unconfirmed at present by any verification. 

It is now necessary to search careftiUy on the one 
hand the passages which, appearing to be homogeneous 
in themselves, have been temporarily designated as P, 
or possibly Petrine fragments, and on the other hand 
those passages which have the appearance of connecting 
links, comments, personal explanations, and conclusions, and 
have been temporarily designated as E. These symbols, 
however, must be understood as serving the convenience 
of discussion only, and not as prejudging any conclusions 
to be arrived at later. 

(i) Want of originality in E. 

The first obvious mark of the E sections is their want 
of originality. 

The salutation, as has been already pointed out, is on 
conventional lines, with conventional phrases. Verse 3, 
especially, recalls the language of honorific inscriptions 
(Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 360). Its affinity with Pauline 
salutations is noted below ; as also its possible debt to 
Josephus and Philo. 

Elsewhere, E appears to pick up words from P, echoing^ 
the actual words, but with difference of application or 

1 Chase, D.B. iii. p. 808, notes that in some cases there is a natural 
need for this "iteration"; but that "in the majority of cases there 
is no such justification." He accepts however this "remarkable 


construction, or in the case of some of these, with different 
meanings; aTrocf^vyovTe^ (P, ii. 18) appears also in E (i. 4), 
but in ii. 18 it is followed by an accusative, in i. 4 by a 

In ii. 20 (E) it echoes ii. 18 (P> and is assimilated in 
point of construction : but in ii. 20 it is (as Chase notes) 
used of a set of persons other than those of ii. 18. ^Apertj 
occurs in P (i. 5) in a natural sense and context. It is used 
in the salutation, i. 3 (E), in a different sense, and 
one unique in the N. T., though found in Josephus and 

Bo^a, used thrice in P, and in three different meanings 
(i. 17 bis, ii. 10), is used in the salutation (E) in still 
another signification, and one which, with dperi], suggests 
a later linguistic stratum. In iii. 18 (E) its use is 

eTTtOv/xla also, in E, has all the appearance of an echo- 
word. In P it occurs ii. 10, ii. 18 (plural) in the sense of 
*' desire of," followed by a genitive, in iii. 3 (also P) 
it is again in the plural, in the abstract sense of " lusts." 

In i. 4 (E) it is used in the singular, without 
genitive, in the sense of " lust," with an entirely general 

characteristic" without suggesting any possible causs. "His vocabulary 
is ambitious, but...tlie list of repetitions stamps it as poor and in- 
adequate," — Mayor (Introd. pp. Ivii, Iviii) traces these to "a liking for 
recurrent sounds or a desire to give emphasis."' But many, if not 
most, of the repetitions gain little in emphasis. On the theory of the 
integrity of the Epistle, they are a source of weakness, as Chase 

^ The meaning of 56^a in ii. 10 is very doubtful ; but Grosch's 
strained interpretation {oj). cit. p. 22) " die Herrlichkeiten des glaubigen 
Christen " can hardly stand. 



cl)6opa occurs in ii. 12 (P) in an entirely natural sense. 
The animal creation is created for the shambles \ 

In the same verse it is applied to the " destruction" of 
the equally "brute" e/juTraLKTai. In ii. 19 (P) it is used in 
the sense of moral corruption. In i. 4 (E) it is used, with- 
out article, in a purely general sense. In this respect its 
use is a parallel to that of eiriOvfjiia. 

These words have been singled out from the salutation 
(others will be discussed presently) at the risk of an 
appearance of hypercriticism, as exhibiting slight shades 
of difference from the same words as appearing elsewhere 
in the Epistle. They are all without the article, a fact 
which in itself suggests that they are used without special 
reference. But what is remarkable about both these and 
other expressions in the salutation is their grouping. We 
may suppose that a writer sitting down to compose a letter 
would begin with the salutation, and, on the whole, go 
straight forward with the development of his subject or 
subjects. Let us however postulate what, at present, only 
our analysis gives us any right to pre-suppose, that an 
editor or redactor is in possession of certain passages, not 
his own, which he is welding into a single document. What 
would, in all probability, be his course ? He would survey 
his materials, an^ange them, perhaps compose his bridging 
comments or amplifications, and would then settle down to 
the formalities of salutation and conclusion. 

Is it merely fanciful to see in the salutation the overture 
in which the melodies to come are lightly indicated? Or, to 
put it more prosaically, to see in vv. 1-4 a table of contents ? 

^ Wetstein gives an illustration from a rabbinic source ; a calf begged 
off its approaching doom. Eabbi Judali replied " Thou wast created 
for this end." 


The conventional opening done, we are told that we 
possess rd tt/do? ^(orjv Kal evaejSeiav. Does not this describe 
accurately the "moral ladder" of vv. 5-11 ?^ The ^(orj is 
to be attained through eTTiyvcoai^;. 

What does the writer of verses 12-15 offer but 
'' knowledge " ? 

The " knowledge " is of one who called us by So^a and 
dperr). We have the description of this ho^a in ?;z;. 17, 18 ; 
of one manifestation, at least, thereof 

We are to become "partakers of Divine nature, escaping 
the corruption in the world in lust." All chapter ii. and 
verse 3 of chapter iii. are warnings how we may know, and 
thus escape, this (j>6opd, which is also the result of " lust." 

And finally, chapter iii., verses 7-10, with verse 12, 
describes to us a final "destruction," in which those alone 
will be involved (see v. 9) who continue the life of eTnOufjiia 
and efjiiTatyixovr). 

The salutation is a conscious summary of what follows, 
and so far from suggesting a natural preface to the Epistle, 
bears at least a suspicion of being put together with 
some labour and artificiality after the component parts of 
the rest of the documents had been arranged and studied. 

Yet another, and an important, " echo " appears in 
i. 1. In i. 11 (P) we have rov K.vpLov ^/jLmv Kal adyrripo^ 
'Irjaov XptaTov. In ii. 20 (E) the same phrase occurs, 
without rj/jLMv. In iii. 2 (E) we have rod Kvpiov koI 
(Tcorripo^, and in iii. 18 (E) as in i. 11. But in i. 1, 
according to the best text, we have a remarkable variation, 
Tov (^)eou ^]/jLCt)v Kal o-(oTrjpo<^ ^Xrfo-ov Xpiarou, no parallel to 
which can be adduced before the second century (Ignatius 
ad Eph. 6 Beo? ///xwi^, of Jesus Christ). 

^ See discussion of eirayyeXfxaTa below, § vi. p. 37. 



The Sahidic version, perhaps puzzled by the contradic- 
tion between vv. 1 and 2, omits v. 2. 

Further points in the salutation (which is full of 
problems) will be dealt with later. 

A striking example of " echo " may be seen below in 
ii. 20 (E) where d'Tro^v<y6vT6<; recalls airo^ev'yovTa 
(ii. 18 P), TCI /jLidcr/jLara rov koct/jlov recalls €7ridv/iLaL<; 
aapKo^, €fX7r\aKevT€<; recalls heXed^ovcnv, and rjTTWVTai 
recalls rJTTr]Tai. 

It is not altogether likely that an author would repeat 
thus, with comparatively weak comments, what he has 
already said in vigorous language. 

The passage ii. 20-22 has all the appearance of a rather 
lame and artificial conclusion of another hand. 

Other instances are wpoaSoKoovTe^; iii. 14 (E) from the 
previous verse (P), rfj twv dOeo-fxwv TrXdvy iii. 17 (E) see 
ii. 15, arrjpLy/jLov iii. 17 (E) see i. 12, cnrovhaaare 
iii. 14 (E) see i. 5, 10, 15, — hieyeipw iv virojivrjCTei iii. 1 (E), 
see i. 13. 

(ii) Paucity of vocabulai-y in E. 

Akin to E's borrowings from other parts of the document 
is his paucity of vocabulary which leads to repetition within 
each E section, repetition which apparently has no special 
point or purpose. 

Beou, 'J 770-01), in i. 1 and i. 2 have already been noted, so 
too eiTL'^vitiaei i. 2, t?}? i7n<yvwa€(o<^ i. o, deia^ i. 3, deia^; i. 4. 

In ii. 20-22 this paucity both of words and ideas is 
specially marked. These three vv. say the same thing 
thrice, 'xeipova is balanced (negatively) by Kpelrrov', and 
note iircyvooaec iTreyvcoKevai iTriyvovaiv ; vTroo-Tpeyjrai eVt- 


In iii. l-3a (a passage requiring special discussion 
later) we have viroiJivrjcrei fii'rjadrjvai. evTo\7]<; iii. 2 see 
€VTo\y)<; ii. 21 ; iii. 15 Kada}<; Kal 16 w? kul (his); dyaTrrjTOL 
iii. 14 dyarrriT6<i 15 dyaTrrjTOi 17. 

These repetitions suggest a conscientious but unable 
writer uneasily making the best of the little at his 

While it is quite true that repetitions occur elsewhere 
(e.g. iii. 5, 7, 8, 10), such repetitions are either necessary 
or emphatic. 

(iii) Clea7' references in E to the Canonical 
Books of the N. T. 

The next mark of E which falls under discussion is 
also part and parcel of this lack of originality, namely 
reference to the N. T. books, whence also words and ideas 
are borrowed^. 

The relation of the salutation to that of Jude is 
discussed later. It has close affinities with the Pauline 
salutations (notably Rom. and Phil.), and is perhaps 
indebted also to 1 Peter with the significant addition of 
ev eTTLyvctiaei, a word belonging to the later stratum of 
Pauline vocabulary. 

There are references, or apparent references, to single 
words or brief phrases in 1 Peter, both in E and P. Of 

1 E is cramped in vocabulary by his want of LXX words. P uses 
the LXX sparingly : he is not steeped in it. KadaptcrfMos /aw/xos aKrjviofia. 
viro^uyiov are commonest of the LXX words which P employs. Nothing 
definitely suggestive of the LXX occurs in E, unless we so reckon elp-qv-q 

2 As also by P, but P is less dependent upon his originals. His 
allusions are "not of an intimate nature" (Mayor, who collects them, 
Introd. p. Ixxviii). 


these only a few are crucial, and until we have surer 
knowledge in regard to the composition of 1 Peter, we can 
draw no reliable conclusion from them^ e7ro7rTafc(i. 16 P) 
1 P. ii. 12, iii. 2 e7ro7rT€vovT6<;, is said to be a technical 
word from the language of the mysteries ^ 'ATr/^ecrt? 
itself occurs in the N.T. in i. 14 (P) and 1 P. iii. 21, but 
the verb is common, and the metaphor obvious^. 

Perhaps iii. 14 (E) ao-inXoL Kai d/jLco/jbtjroi may be 
referred directly to 1 P. i. 19, but even here there is no 
necessary reference. 

References however to other books of the N.T. 
may perhaps be more clearly seen in i. 19 (E) &>? 
\v'yv(p ^aivovrt ev av')(^/jL7)pa) toitw, where there appears 
to be a clear reference to the Fourth Gospel v. 85, 
\v')(yo<^ 6 Kaio^evo^i Kal (palvcov. The parallel is clearer 
still if we may suppose that our writer understood avx/J^v 
po9 in its correct and original sense of "dry," "desert." 
The Baptist was a light in a desert place (cf. Lk. i. 80). 

ib. e&)9 ov r)^epa Stavyday Kal <f)(0(T(l)6po<; dvareiXrj... 

The context (prophecy) and the language strongly 
suggest a reference to the Benedictus. 

'irpo<}>-f|Tt]s . ..K\r]6}]ar}. . . 
iv ol? eiriaKey^erat rj/xd's avaToX.TJ...€Trt<})avai tol<; ev aKorei... 
Mayor suggests also 2 Cor. iv. 4-6 (avyda-at. . .eXafiylrev ev 
Tat<; KapSCaL^...). 

He points out also that the reversal of the natural 
order of dawn and daystar is true to the passage of 2 Cor. 

^ Grosch (op. cit.) is a sad proof to what lengths of rashness con- 
servatism may go in proving the inexpertius per inexpertum, 

2 These technical meanings are not to be pressed, and the word may- 
have been common enough in early Christian language. 

•^ The "putting off" of clothes, etc. It could hardly refer to the 
"stowing away" of a tent {(TKrivwfxa), as has been suggested. 


and to the fact that first came the Dawn^the Messiah — 
and then the Daystar — in the individual heart : both pre- 
ceded by the Lamp of Prophecy. 

ii. 20 T« e(T')(^aTa ')(^eipova rwv Trpcorcov : this appears 
to. be a direct reference to Mt. xii. 45, Lk. xi. 26. 
The verse which follows suggests Heb. vi. 4-6. 

iii. 14 evpedrjpat is a possible reference to Gal. ii. 17, 
2 Cor. V. 3. 

iii. 15 o dyaTrrjrh^; rj/jLwp dSe\^6<i suggests St Paul's 
own words of Tvchicus and Onesimus, but the use of 
ri86\</)09 of St Paul also strongly suggests Ac. ix. 17 SaovX 
a^eX^e, as if we were here to render not " Our beloved 
brother Paul " but " Our beloved ' Brother PauP.' " 

ib. Kara rijv hoOelaav {cro(f)iav) also from St Paul 
himself 1 Cor. iii. 10 {y^dpiv, but o-6(f)o<; is close by). 

iii. 16. rd<i\ot7r(U ypacpfi'^ — certainly suggests the use 
of al ypacfyai of the O.T. in the N.T. (e.g. Rom. xv. 4, 
1 Cor. XV. 3, 4). Here, if the references given above to 
passages of the Canonical N.T. books hold good, it refers 
to those N.T. books themselves (a use of ypacj^al which is 
assured by the middle of the second century 2). 

Other possible N.T. references are t8io<; avTwv (Ac. xxiv. 
23, Tit. i. 12), €K7rear]re (Gal. v. 4), av^dvere (intr. as 
commonly in N.T.), tt/jo? (v. 16) (as e.g. 2 Cor. iv. 6) and 
the doxology (the rare rj/xipa alwvo^ may be an echo of iii. 
7, iii. 10 above). 

^ If this " titular" sense holds good, we may compare what is said 
below on 8ov\os koI dirdaToXos, p. 40. 

- The expiessiou " which they torture (twist) as they do also the 
rest of the writings" may gain point from the fact that the writer 
is himself putting together and c ommenting upon a series of fragments 
without any suggestion of -'twisting." His comment;^ follow the lines 
of his originals precisely, almost slavishly. 


These indications, minute in themselves, taken cumu- 
latively, go to show that the passage vv. 14-18 is a cento, 
largely Pauline, as if it were a kind of compliment to that 
Apostle to surround the mention of his name with a guard 
of honour from his own works. Certainly in v. 16 the 
writer speaks as a conscious student of Pauline works. 

(iv) Possible references to Josephus. 

The parallels adduced by Dr Abbott and others from 
Josephus are discounted by recent scholars ^ There was a 
considerable body of vocabulary which would naturally be 
common to similar contexts. Such words and phrases 
as criTOVOi], crTrovSd^co, Slkulov rjyrjaci/jLrjif, KaXoo^ Troielv 
Trpoaexovre^, etc., are common in epistolary Greek. It may 
however be noted that the only reasonably clear set of 
parallels between a consecutive passage of Josephus and 
a consecutive passage of 2 Peter is that of the Salutation 
of 2 Peter (E) and the Preface (§ 4) of the Antiquities. 

(v) Certain grammatical peculiarities. Comparison 

of E with P. 

Mayor has entered most minutely into grammatical 
and syntactical marks of the Epistle. From his list the 
following special points may be noted ^. 

P alone omits the article, where we should look for it, 
with ©eoO (E i. 1, 2 rov ©eoO), irvevfia ayior, ypa(\>i], words, 
that is, which have something of a title about them. 

^ As also those from Philo. 

2 Mayor's discussion is very full and deals with many items either 
doubtful or of minor importance, but a complete study of it seems to 
confirm what these "special points" suggest, viz. two definable 
linguistic strata in the Epistle. 


E alone gives the " semi-compact " or elaborate use of 
the article as in 

TOL<; laoTL/jLOV njiiLV \a')(ovcnv tticttlp, l. 1 

rwv 7rpo6ipr]/jL€V(ov ptj/inTWv viro twv (ly. Trp. ill. 2 
T>}? Twv diroaroXwv evro\rj<^ rov K^vpiov ib. 

P gives six examples of the " uncompact " use, E only one 
Bid T^9 eTnyvoxrew^ rov KoXeaavTo^; rj/id^;. 

With ordinary Avords E does thrice omit an expected 
article. Elsewhere E is almost obtrusively precise in the 
use of the article (i. 4, ii. 22, iii. 16, iii. 17) while P omits 
it fi-eely (i. 21, ii. 5, ii. 6, ii. 10, ii. 13, ii. 15, iii. 4 al.). 

Mayor specially remarks the "illiterate use of the 
anarthrous noun "as " more visible in the prophetic por- 
tions," in P, that is to say. Genitives and Datives in E 
are normal and classical, except i. 1 ev BtKatocrvvrj, on 
which see note above, pp. 15, 16. 
Special to P are 

genitive of quality (ii. 1 al), 
appositional (ii. 6), 
with adjective (ii. 14), 
with verbs (ii. 5 al.), 
and datives of 

instrument (ii, 3, ii. 6 al.), 
cause (i. 21, ii. 8 al.), 
respect (ii. 8, ii. 11), 

with eV (unclassical) (i. 13, ii. 3, ii. 16, iii. 3 W.-H.). 
E uses no plural abstracts. P ii. 10, ii. 2, ii 18, iii. 11. 
The curiously vague connections of E (esp. in the 


salutation) have been noted. We may add iv ah iii. 1, 
the double relative connection iii. 16 iv aU...a preceded 
by Ka6(Jo<; KaL..(o<; Kai... 

In tenses, E is normal, if not studied ^ He affects 
pairs hehcoprjiievr]'^ SeBcoprjrai, KaXecravro'^ d7rocf)vy6vT6(i in 
i. 1-4. In ii. 20-22 we have a7ro(f)V'y6vT6<^ ifjuifkaKevTe'^, 
yefyovev iTreyvcofcevai crvfi^e^rjKev, eiTLyvovo-Lv vTroaTpeyjrai, 
€7rLaTp€'\lra<; Xovaafxevr}. In iii. 14ff. aTTOvSdaare evpedrjvac, 
hoOelaav eypayjrev, XdXwv earlv arpe/SXovaov. — P varies 
tenses at will, almost perversely: 

see e.g. ii. 6, 7,8, 9, 12, 15, 17, 

iii. 12 \vdr}aovTai TrjKerai,^, 
iii. 5, 6 (Tvvearcoaa KaraKKvaOeh, 
i. 10 (Tirovhaaare Troieladai, 
TTOLovvre^ Trratcnjre. 

Of moods E uses classical constructions in i. 19 eo)? ov 
and subjunctive (Lk. and Acts), i. 2, aorist optative (rare 
in N.T. except Lk.). 

While E uses participles in a normal way, P is very fi-ee 
with them, especially in the present, where they seem to 
make for dramatic effect. 

In voices, E is normal. P uses active for middle i. 5, 
ii. 1, i. 15. 

Two special instances of pleonasm occur in P. ii. 12, 
iii. 3 W.-H. ; compare also ii. 16, unless this be classed 
as periphrasis with ii. 14, i. 9, 10, 15, 17. 

P has a strange anacoluthon in ii. 4-9^. E has two, 
both with ytyvMaKovre^; on; on these see below §vi. pp. 33ff. 

^ Note his idiomatic Kpelrrov y]v ii. 21. 

2 If TTj^erai (W.-H.) were original, it is hard to see why it was lost, 
protected as it would be by XvOrja-ovTai (-crerat). 

•5 If oWei' marks the apodosis, it is so far removed as to amount 
to anacoluthon. 


(vi) Vocabulary ; Solecisms. 

Certain points in the vocabulary of E have already 
been touched on. 

If we take Dr Chase's list of the solecisms of the 
Epistle, it is noteworthy that not one occurs in E (on 
e^epajjua and Kv\Lcr/jL6<; see below). P has jxeWrfaci)^ Kavaov- 
aOai fiXe/jifia irapeLd^epw (f)a)pr] (of Divine utterance) 
/jLvcoira^eLv fiof)(^a\h (as here used) irapac^povia raprapoco. 
We should add, perhaps, the form e7rd^a<^ in ii. 5, and 
j€V7]0€VT€<^ in i. 16. Of the 56 words only in 2 Peter of 
the N.T. books (some occurring more than once) 39 are 
in P. If we cancel out those which being nouns have a 
corresponding verb in the other part of the document, 
or verbs with corresponding nouns, or different forms 
{arrjpi'yfjbo's jxiaap^a a/jLcofirjrof;) we find in E only avx/jLr}p6<; 
Scavyd^cD (j)(0(T(f)6po<i in one obviously cited passage, and 
e^6pa/jba KvkLafio^ ^6p/3opo^ u? in two quoted proverbs-. 

We are left with hvav6r]To<i, icr6ri/io<;, and /ie'yiaro<^ 
(on which see below), and o-rpe^Xoo), none of which can 
be called highly solecistic. E, as opposed to P, seems to 
avoid the verhum inusitatum. 

E does however use certain common words in a not 
common meaning, and such as we do not elsewhere find 
till late ; e.g. ho^a (=virtus : " inward and moral " Thayer) 
(jivaL<; {Oela), perhaps avxP'Vpo'^, 'ypa(f)d<^, and we may add 
theyree use of eTrlyvaxrif; and acorijp. 

1 Unless Field's fieXrjad) be correct, itself something near a solecism. 

2 Perhaps (as suggested by Wordsworth) two iambic (? scazon) lines.. 


(\di) E's " Goiiimercialisuisr 

There are a certain number of words in E which, 
studied in their context, have a curious commercial ring 
about them. 

In i. 1 OiKaioavvrj rov ^€ov, Si/caiocruvr] means, m 
the words of Clem. Alex. (p. 116), Io-ott]^ koI Koivcovia rov 
hLKaLov..Meov r] avrr) tt/oo? Travra^. In other words, it is 
not "justice " but "just dealing" (see Westcott on 1 John 
i. 9). Trio-rtv laortiiov Xa^ovauf in the context all help 
this idea. 

Xaxovatv means " having got," and Trlariu is evidently 
something worth " getting," something concrete. ia-6Ti/jLo<; 
is used by Philo (despite Field) to mean " of equal value 
with" (M. i. p. 165, i. p. 70 la-on^ov ^vxfj), and the sense 
would be a good one here. 7rLaTi<; will then be not fides, 
but fidei-commissum^, a sense which would stand well in 
Jude 3 " the deposit once entrusted to the saints " (note 
TT a pah 00 6 la 7) deditae, not traditae) for which — as the strong 
man armed over his treasure — we must fight bravely. 

TTtcrrt? is here a TrapaKaradyjKT). See TriarovcrOat in 

1 Tim. iii. 14, and cp. James ii. 1 where in the context 
are TrXovcrto^, fc\r)p6vofjLo<i, and Kpirai in (apparently) the 
commercial sense of " arbitrators." Such a use suits also 

2 Tim. iii. 8; the sinners are "fraudulent trustees" 
dSoKLfiot Trepl rrjv iricmv ; but they will " make nothing " 
{irpoKOTTTeiv, see L. and S. s.v. TrpoKOTrreiv itXovtol'^) by it. 
See also 1 Tim. vi. 21, nrepl rr)v Triartv i^aroyricrav where 

1 As Heine, living in a commercial atmosphere, said [Biich le Grand) 
that he soon learnt that " der Glaube " meant not "la foi "' but "le 


adToj^elv at least suggests /aire faillite in thf worldly 
sense. The opposite virtue is rrjv irapa- {irapaKara-) 
Si]Kr]v (f>v\'ia<7€iVy " to be a good trusteed" 

The context, vi. 17-19 (addressed to the rich in 
this world), has airokavaiv irXovrelv dirodrjaavpi^etv and 
perhaps we may count also Oe^xeXiov (= ra ap'^^ala^ 
" capital ") and ^'St/Xott;? (" floating wealth " opposed to 
TO (j)av€p6v, "ready cash"; d(f>avt]<i has a similar use). 

Returning to our document, we continue with pbeyiara 
Koi Tipia, of which Ti/jLta is obviously connected with 
Tt/jL7] (" price "), and /jueyiara has the appearance of a 
" commercial " superlative (see footnote p. 34) ; and 
KOLvcovoi, a common commercial word. 

Lower down, in i. 19 /BefSatorepov e^eiv suggests 
/Seffaiovv, which has commercial connotations, but see 
i. 10, where it is used quite naturall}^ Possibly evpeOrjvat 
iii. 14 (but see p. 25) is another word of this class " to be 
certified," "to be found corrects" 

If these " commercialisms " go for anything they may 
suggest to us, in our summary of the distinguishing marks 
of E, that he writes from some trading centre, possibly 
Alexandria^ " Alexandrian " he certainly is in style ; 
always tethered to some original ; precise, not to say 
stilted, in vocabulary, syntax, and ideas ; a conscious, 
not to say laboured writer, with none of the joyous 

^ Such commercial metaphors or douhle-ententes would appeal 
especially to the Greek mind. The Greeks were the Lombards of the 
Mediterranean in those days. 

2 In Evang. Petri §6 (Robinson and James) there is a curious use 
of the verb : evpedr} wpa eudrr}. " It was ascertained to be..." 

3 Egypt was avoided by St Paul, and Deissmann may be right in 
suggesting {S. Paul, Eng. Tr. p. 202) that it was considered to " belong 
to St Peter." 


rapidity of P (i. 5-7, i. 17, 18, ii. 12-14); making up 
for his literary defects by personal affection {ayaTrrjrol 
ayairrjTo^ iii. 14-17), by fervent zeal, and by deep 
reverence for the " Apostles of the Lord and Saviour " 
and their sayings^ Against E, P is almost reckless in 
vocabulary, syntax, and flow of ideas-: and is ready to go 
beyond the circle of Canonical writings, so that he may 
make a point. P is a writer of fine openings. XttovBtji/ 
Traaav 'Trapei<jev6<yKavTe<^, — Udcra TrpocpTjreia (^ from some 
"oracular" hexameter)..., ^EXeva-ovrat eV €<7')(^aTcov tmv 
i]fiepo)v (note iambic rhythm) ; and of conclusions, ei? ri^v 
alcovLOv ^aaikeiav rod Kvplov koI or. I. X. — avv avro) 
ovT€'s iv TO) dyi(p opet...^ — gu yap tc<; yrrrjTai, rovray 
BeSov\(oraL (possibly a " scazon " iambic recast) — ev 0I9 
hiKaioavvr] KaroiKel. 

E, for all his borrowed plumes, and his stricter 
adherence to convention, looks poor beside him, being 
unoriginal to banality. 

1 Mayor (footnote, Introd. p. xxvi) frankly owns to " the agreements, 
as well as disagreements (of 2 Peter) with the ordinary rules." This 
surely suggests two strata of language. 

■2 There can be nothing in the style of P to forbid authorship by the 
Apostle Peter. We simply do not know what sort of Greek St Peter 
might have written or did write. 1 Peter, if genuine, is of no help, 
as being " written up." How widely works so " written up " may differ 
from the same author's unaided efforts may be seen by the study of 
a book by M, Markino, A Japanese Artist in London, of which the 
style is unimpeachable, and of a later work of the same author, when 
he believed himself equal to the writing of English, of which the style 
is often highly solecistic. 

^ In passing it may be noted that this phrase does not necessarily 
imply late date. There were H-yia op-q everywhere — at Rome (Mons 
Sacer), in the Thracian Chersonnese {iepbv 'Opos), etc. It was natural 
to apply the title to the " Transfiguration mountain." 


VI. Citation Formulae in the Epistle. 

(i) yiyi'waKetv (elhevai) on. 

Even granting the main position taken in the preceding 
pages, as a result of analysis followed by verification from 
atmosphere and style, the question will be asked (and 
rightly). Why, if the Redactor was consciously incorporating 
fragments of an earlier author, was he not at pains to make 
this clear ? 

The reply is, that he was at such pains, both by his 
own statement in iii. 2 and by the use, before his two 
chief citations (the third and fourth ; the first and second 
follow immediately on one another), of a recognised citation 
formula, tovto irpdorov <yiyv(t)crKovT€<; ore 

It will have been noticed that in both the instances of 
this phrase (i. 20 and iii. 2) it is out of construction^ it is 
followed at once by a definite and direct pronouncement, 
it closes what has the appearance of a comment or 
"aside," and opens up something fresh 2. 

Dr Robinson (Ephesians, p. 222) has pointed out that 
in letters yivooo-Ketv ere diXo) prepares for a piece of news, 
and he quotes an instance where, as here, it is " curiously 
disconnected," ytvcoo-Keiv ae deXco, /jLtj /jbeXTjadrco croi irepX 
Twv aiTLKcov. He compares Phil. i. 12, Rom. i. 13, 1 Cor. 
xi. 3, Col. ii. 1, Heb. xiii. 23 for phrases of this type. 

^ In i. 20 it is possible, grammatically, to hark back to ToielTe. This 
however would logically be wrong, and editors by placing a colon at 
vf/.Qv have preferred to remove the logical rather than the grammatical 

2 For similar auacoluthon caused by dropping into citation compare 
1 Tim. iii. 16. 

R. 3 


N.T. instances of this and similar phrases are noted 
below, but the use is not confined to N.T. or late Greek. 
The phrase introduces a yvcofjLT] in Aesch. P.V. 104, 377, 
Soph. Ant 188, EL 989, Eur. Med. 560, Ct/cl. 420, Phoenix 
fr. ix. 8\ 

In the N.T. it introduces solemn and formal statements, 
often recognisable citations, see e.g. Rom. vi. 6 (the passage 
looks to be a crystallized bit of resurrection teaching) ; Gal. 
iii. 7, some pronouncement of our Lord's like those in 
Lc. xix. 9, John viii. 39 ; Eph. v. 5, possibly a reminiscence 
of some " saying of Jesus," occurring perhaps in its original 
form in 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10 (where ovic otSare on precedes), 
see also 1 Cor. xv. 50 and Gal. v. 21. 

2 Tim. iii. 1, apparently a reference to Mt. xxiv. 7, 21 
(itself a citation). See also 1 John ii. 18 and context. 

James i. 3, introducing a statement found in 1 Pet. i. 7. 
Cf. Rom. V. 4, where note elSore^; on. 

id. ii. 20 introduces a gnomic sentence. 

id. V. 20, a citation apparently made up from Prov. viii. 
12 and Ps. Ii. 15 (see Mayor, ad loc), cf. 1 Pet. iv. 8. Resch, 
supported by Didascalia ii. 3, refers the phrase aydTri] 
KaXvTTTet ttX. dfjiapnwv to Jesus. 

1 John ii. 3, 5, the presence of iv tovtw alters the 
expression, but in both cases there follow close parallels 
to sayings of Jesus. 

ib. 18 the author cites, in order to justify, his own words. 
See also id. iii. 19, 24 and iv. 3. 

In Lc. xii. 39 the phrase points to a truism " had the 
householder known..." 

^ oi)K dyvoelv 8ti, a natural variant, in Dem. Pro Phormione ^bl intro- 
duces a commercial maxim in hexameter rhythm Trtcms d^opjui} \ tQv 
iracruv iarl fxeyi<rT7}. 


In Mt. xxiv. 32, 33, it points to an obvious natural 

In Pseudo-Clement xvi. the phrase introduces a citation 
from Malachi, in v. apparently from 1 Peter. See also 
Polycarp, Phil. iv. 15. 

The parallel elhevau ori^ occurs (see above) ; 
Rom. V. 4, see James i. 2, 3, 1 Pet. i. 5, 7. 
ih. xi. 2 ...iv 'HXeta tl Xijet. 
Heb. xii. 17 (a well-known fact). 
1 John iii. 15 (perhaps based on Sermon on the 

ih. V. 15 seqq. (a series of four, of which two are 
parallel to ii. 29, where yL>yva>crK€Lv ore was 
Compare also Pseudo-Clement vii. (1 Tim. ii. 5), 
Polycarp, Phil. 15 (Lightfoot notes " Polycarp uses elhevai 
on as a formula of citation," and Chase also (D.B.) 
" P. quotes St Paul with elSore^ on, clearly marking it 
thereby as a quotation^"). 

We cannot therefore accuse our Redactor of any want 
of that sense of literary indebtedness which was not usually 
felt in his da}^ He goes out of his way to show that he is 
quoting ra irpoeiprnieva prj/xara'^. 

^ ovK ayvoetv otl, of which a classical instance is given above, seems 
to have a similar use in Rom. vi. 3, vii. 1, (a legal maxim), 1 Cor. x. 1. 

2 6'rt alone introduces a citation, perhaps from some well-known 
manual, in Acts xiv. 22, where the sudden change of person is otherwise 
hard to account for. 

•^ As is well known, Beati qui ante nos nostra dixerunt was the 
motto of classical writers. The Attic orators (and not they only) joy- 
fully incorporate reasonably relevant passages of earlier speeches, without 



(ii) Blo. 

There is yet another possible evidence of citation. 
A study of Bio (occasionally Btoirep) in the N.T. will show 
its common presence in neighbourhood of citation. As a 
weak transitional particle, originally causal ("and so") it 
is natural enough in this use ; but it seems to have become, 
for that very reason, familiarised in contexts containing 

We may note among other instances Heb. iii. 10 (no 
causal connection in LXX), xi. 12, xii. 12, Eph. iv. 25 
(Zech. viii. 16), Ac. xx. 26 (cf. Ezek. xxxiii. 6), Rom. iv. 22 
Blo {koI) '^ iXo^yladrj avT(p €l<; BtKaioavvrju." 

1 Pet. i. 13 (Lk. xii. 35, cf. Polycarp, Phil, ii.) Bto 
*' ava^(oadfi€pot ra? 6crcf)va<; — " 

No doubt the full phrase is Bto Xeyei {<f>r](7ivy or an 
equivalent (so often in Philo; and see Ac. xiii. 35, Eph. iv. 
8, v. 14, Heb. x. 5, Mt. xxvii. 8, Lc. i. 35, and a curious 
confusion in Heb. iii. 7 Bto Ka6a)<i XeyeL...). A similar use 
may be seen in earlier Greek, e.g. Arist. Pol. ii. 2, 4 (1261 a) 
Btovep "to laov...(Ta)^€L rd^i 7r6\et<;," quoted from the 
Ethics', or i. 2, 2 (1252 a) Blo " BeairoTrj koX BovXo) tuvto 
avfj.<pepeL " which appears to be a slightly altered iambic 
line; i. 2, 8 (1252 b); i. 12, 3 (1259 b); i. 13, 11 (1260 a) 
(a quotation from the Ajax). 

In Heb. iii. 10 Blo appears to be used merely to pick 
up an already current citation. Such may be the use of 
Blo in our Epistle i. 12 Ato " fMeXXijaoy..." just as iii. 8 may 
be a similar reminder, ev Be rovro fxr] XavOavhrw vjjLd^.., 
6Ti...{see the text above, pp. 10, 13). 

1 Clem. Alex. Ecloga ex Scriptt. Proph. xii. did /cat Herpos iv ttj 
ATTOKaXi/'/^ei (pTjai'... 


(iii) avTo tovto. 

There remains for discussion yet one more phrase, 
which (if our analysis is correct) serves also as an intro- 
duction to a citation, i. 5 Kal avro tovto Se...^ usually 
taken as causal ; but it is not causal in Xen. Anab. i. 9, 
21 nor in Plato, Republic, 379 A, and probably not (in 
plural) in id. Protagoras, 310 E avTa TavTa Kal vvv r]K(o 
(" me voici "). The analogy of eKelvo (Lucian, Nigr. § 47, 
aX>C eKelvo, " but, a propos "), to ye, to fieTci tovto (Plato, 
Rep. 473 b), tovto /lev followed by tovto Se, or equivalent 
(Soph. Ajax 670, O.G. 440, Ant 61, 165, Phil. 1345) does 
not suggest a causal sense. Here the sense of reference is 
best..." through which we have received excellent eiray- 
yekfiaTa, that by these ye may become... and, on this very 
subject (possibly, as with hio, we may understand Xeyet ' he 
says'), ' Bringing in all zeal....' " 

(iv) eTrayyeX/iaTa. 

A last note upon evidence of conscious quotation must 
deal briefly with the word eTrayyeXfiaTa, usually rendered 
" promises," as in iii. 13 (P). It may, at the present stage, 
be a begging of the question to point out that elsewhere 
E uses P's words with different significations (pp. 18, 19 
above). But in any case it is strange to say " promises 
have been given (or ' he has given promises ') as gifts," 
for Scopeiadai is not StSovat ; it is donare, not dare ; 
BeBa)p7]/jLeva are tangible assets (see previous verse). More- 
over we have a strange anti-climax if we read " His Divine 

^ For Kal...d^ in neighbourhood of a citation see Macarius Magnes, 
Apocritica, iv. 7, p. 165 Kat eKelvo de avdis Xeyei {de is the copula, 
KOi intensifies; "and, what is more..,"). 



power has given us all we luant for life and holiness 
through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and 
virtue, by means of which He has given us the most 
.precious j9rom{se5..."; the i'lrajyeXfiara should balance 
and explain rd tt^o? fft)>/V as BeBcoprjrat balances SeBco- 
p7]ixev7]^. Further, there is an inversion of time : the 
" promises " came at the beginning, the " gifts " afterwards. 
With regard to the meaning of iirdyyeXfjua^, it is true 
that it may and does occasionally hark back to the sig- 
nification of the middle voice of its corresponding verb, 
" to promise "; but the active signification is " to announce, 
pronounce, command"; and the middle itself has the further 
meaning of "to profess," in which it is technically used of 
philosophical schools, along with its noun iTrdyyeX/jia 
{tovto eari ro eTrdyyeX/iia o eTrayyeWo/jLat, Plato, Prot. 
319 a). eTrdyyek^ia may, therefore, and often does mean 
" a pronouncement " or " a command," and its passage into 
the meaning " precept " is an easy one. The eirayyekp.aTa 
here are simpl}^ those " precepts " which, cast into a form 
suggesting a memoria technica-, immediately follow (5 6-7). 

1 The force of the -fxa termination itself is not here in question. 

2 Possibly from an early collection or Florilegium of moral precepts. 
On Early Christian Florilegia generally see Moffat, Introd. N.T. p. 258 ; 
Kendel Harris, £.r/)ost7or, vii. 1905, pp. 161-171. How far such Florilegia 
^f prophecies, precepts, Messianic texts, ready-to-hand arguments and 
proof, etc., whether Jewish or Christian in origin, underlie the N.T. 
books and Early Christian literature generally, it is hard to say. Moffat 
speaks of " their sequence of texts... (1 P. ii. 6-8), their special textual 

forms, their editorial comments " It is a fragment of such a catena 

(i. 5h a-Kovbrjv-y. 7 ayairriv) which is here postulated, with its comment 
duly following (vv, 8-11). If our general hypothesis is correct, we 

'are given to understand by the Editor, iii. 1, 2, that this passage, along 
"with the Narrative, Prophecy, and Apocalypse, is authoritative ; and 
he, at least, does not hesitate to attribute them to the Apostle Peter. 


First we get the " Ladder of Virtues," and then a note 
on their value : 

vv. 8 (affirmatively) : If you have them, you will not be 
unfruitful ; 9 (negatively) : If you have them not, you are 
blind; 10, 11 (affirmatively): If you carry them into 
practice, you will never stumble, and only by doing so can 
you enter the Kingdom of Christ^ 

The repeated ravra, with ovtux; of v. 11, certainly 
suggests reference to what has just preceded, by way of 

The passage vv. 5 b-11 may, in fact, well have been the 
opening passage of some collection, and "'EirayyeXfjLara" 
may well have been its title. 

In any case it is striking enough that the narrative, 
the Story of the Transfiguration, is here literally flanked 
by Moses and Elias, the (moral) Law, and the Prophets : 
the " Ladder of Virtues," and the " Prophetic Discourse." 

VII. Some Special Notes. 

(i) 'Ev/jL€Ci)V. 

The reading ^vfxecnv is the better attested. 

Names transliterated into another tongue might not 
always be suitable for use by reason of embarrassing 
meanings, ^vfieayv as it stands is well, but its corre- 
sponding viroKopLdixo^ (Theoj)hylact), ll^tficov, could not fail 

^ Nate also that we have a kind of Pilgrim's Progress sketched out : 
d7ro0ir/6/'Tes, (nrovddaare, ov ^r] TrTaiarjTe, e'laodos els rrji/ jSaaLXeiav. 

■^ A seeming parallel in 1 Tim. iv. 11 IlapdyyeWe ravra Kal 5i5aaK€. 
ravra is apparently the contents of r. 10, a citation introduced by 
TTKxrbs 6 \6yos (cf. ib. i. 15). 


to suggest connection with aifxo^, an uncomplimentary 
term (Theocr. iii. 8), as l^rpd^ayv suggests arpa^o^, etc.^ 

St Paul evades the use of l^avXo^ when he begins his 
travels, as llfMcov, in narrative, is dropped after the 
Mission of the Twelve. Writing in Greek St Peter could 
use neT/oo9, as in 1 Pet. i. 1, the translation of K7](j)d^, 
itself apparently a twin form of Caiaphas^. 

Xv/jL€Q)i^ in its only other occurrence in N. T. (Ac. xv. 
14) is used of Peter in a formal pronouncement as it is in 
the present instance, according to our hypothesis. 

(ii) hov\o<^ Koi aTroaToXo^;. 

The words are coupled under a single Genitive. 

In Tit. i. they are opposed, S. Oeov air. 8e 'I. l^piarov. 
In Rom. i. 1 they ai^e apparently opposed. Jude and James 
have Sov\o<; only; and these instances suggest equally 
that 8ov\o(i is a title of humility. In the case of Jude 
and James, if they are the " Brethren of the Lord," the 
word may be a palinode in brief (John vii. 5). 

Where the word is used of someone else, it is 
apparently a title of honour (Col. iv. 12 "probably points 
to exceptional services in the cause of the Gospel on the 
part of Epaphras," Lightfoot ; see also Apoc. x. 7, xv. 3). 

Self-depreciation, even if only as a matter of courtesy, 
comes natural to the Oriental mind. It is difficult to feel 
that St Peter would have used Bov\o<; in what appears to 
be a honorific sense, of himself It is also difficult to 

^ Occasionally a honorific sense might result, as with Sargon 
("mighty") for Sharru-Ukin. 

Chignell {Outpost in Papua, p. 355) mentions the diflSculty of a 
Papuan desiring the name Arfur (Arthur), which means in the local 
dialect " a plague-sore, an embossed carbuncle." 

- Hort's note on 1 Peter i. 1. Compare also Bigg, ad loc. 


believe that anyone merely impersonating the Apostle 
would make such a mistake as to apply it to him. But it 
is easy to imagine that a writer collecting fragments 
which he considered Petrine, and prefixing a salutation, 
would go out of his way to speak both with solemnity 
CEvfjLecov) and with appreciation {Sov\o<i k. aTroaroXo^^^) of 
his master. 

(iii) TavTrjv hevrepav 67ri(Tro\r)v. 

It ma}^ seem that discussion of iii. 1 has been unduly 
postponed. The relation of the verse, and its context, to 
Jude is deferred. It must however be clear at once that 
the one description given of the two Epistles suits our 
present Epistle well, but does not suit " 1 Peter-." A 
writer impersonating the Apostle, and intending to refer 
to " 1 Peter," would certainly have made sure that his 
description tallied. 

It is moreover almost certain that an Apostle would 
not say " I remind you of the command of your apostles." 
It is almost equally certain that a writer impersonating 
St Peter would not have represented him as saying so. 

The words are apparently quite honest. We may 
suppose with Zahn and Spitta a lost letter, but there 
appears to be an easier way. 

First the words of the verse need inspection. 

ravrrjv Sevr. iir iv at?... is not, of course, "this 

second Epistle I write, in which... " but 

" This (letter) I am writing to you, as a second-^ letter, 
and in both letters, ' one ' and ' two,' I attempt to..." 

1 Syr''"'", perhaps misunderstanding bov\os, omits Koi dir6<xTo\os. 

- Harnack suggests that 1 Peter i. 1 f., v. 12 ff. are " editorial," and 
by the " author" of 2 Peter. But the inapplicability of the description 
of the Epistles to 1 Peter still remains. 

3 The meaning "secondary," not "second," is quite possible. "This 


iv ah, without antecedent, is obviously the relative 
connection, pure and simple. 

TavTr)u, by all laws, means " this now in hand." 

ypd^o), the present tense, has obviously its full present 
value. " I am now writing you this letter as No. 2 " "...I 
am notu stirring up. . . " 

Next we observe TJBrj. It calls attention, apparently to 
the numeral, as elsewhere. " I am writing what is now a 
second letter^" 

Next, we must note the position of the verse — nearly 
four-fifths of the way down the Epistle. Authors referring 
to their immediate context write ypd(f>co ; referring to 
what goes before, or the Epistle as a whole, they normally 
write erypayjra (1 Pet. v. 12, Gal. vi. 11, 1 John ii. 26, v. 13, 
contrast with ypd(j)€o as used elsewhere) ; the more so, of 
course, if referring to an earlier letter (2 Cor. ii. 3, 4). 

Is it not, in view of these considerations, at least 
reasonable to suppose that ravrrjv ^'jSr] Bevr. jp. tV. eV 
al?... merely notes that the writer is resuming his pen 
after an interval?- He has said all that the occasion 
seemed to warrant (according to the present hypothesis, 
he has quoted the Apostolic pTj/jLara which best suited his 
purpose) and has concluded with a formal and definite, if 

second letter" would be Tavrrjv Tr]v devr^pav eiria-ToXriu, or, better, rrji/ 
devrepai' eTr. Tavrrju.... 

^ 7]8t] almost suggests surprise : " I had only intended one." 
2 How, or why, one document in ancient times might become 
"tacked" on to another must often remain a mystery: e.g. the 
" Ephesian letter " at the end of "Eomans," the " Little Apocalypse " 
in St Mark, and the possibly earlier letters embedded in later ones in 
2 Cor. vi. 14-vii. 1 and x.-xiii. 10. The opening ravT-r^v ijd-n k.t.X. is no 
more abrupt than avrbs 5^ eyih IlaOXos or than liVpiaTrj/xL 5e vfxlv ^ol^tjv... 
As Harnack (on 1 Peter, Chronologie, p. 458 ff.) points out, salutations 


rather lame, conclusion ; some delay occurs ; the " former 
letter " is perhaps not yet despatched ; he takes up his 
pen again, and writes, quite naturally — 

" See ! I am writing you now a second letter. In it, 
as in the former, I am not original, but am quoting passages 
which I wish you to lay to heart." 

The apparent solecism of iv ah suggests that the two 
Epistles are really one. ravryv ypdcpco refer to what is 
now in hand. It is " second " in relation to what stands 
already written ^ 

(iv) 7] ivToXrj. 

What is the kvroXrj of verse 2 ? It is the " Lord's 
command through your Apostles" — a strange phrase in 
itself, r] ivToXrj may be collective ; but it is certainly 
capable of another explanation. 

The context gives us also " prophets." The only 
Apostle mentioned is St Paul ; but the Epistle is headed 
with the name of St Peter. This suggests, at the least, 
that " Your Apostles " are the Apostles Peter and Paul. 
Where do we find prophets, Peter, and Paul together 
in a single context elsewhere ? They are so found in 
Acts XV. 6 ff. 

Peter speaks, in words which cannot help reminding us 
of the present Epistle (verses 8 and 9, cf. 2 Pet. i. 1 

were easily removable, and as Deissmanu has pointed out — a fact 
sufficiently obvious — papyrus rolls were most liable to damage at the 
beginning and the end, 

1 The doxology of 2 Peter would come much more appropriately at 
the end of Chapter ii. Verse 17 refers clearly to the contents of that 
Chapter, not to those of Ch. iii. May it perhaps have been shifted to 
its present place after the addition of the devr^pa iina-ToX'q ? 


IcroTifiov Trianv, verse 10, cf. ii. 18 supra); James sums 
up, using the formal ^vfiecov (on which see above) ; 
Barnabas and Paul having presented a report, James at 
once quotes " the prophets " (Jer. xii. 15). 

And when the two delegates, Barnabas and Paul, are 
sent, there are joined to them Judas and Silas, of whom it 
is specially said that they also (cf Acts xiii. 1) are 

The particular command there issued was no doubt 
now out of date ; but in face of false teaching of a 
different kind the mind of our writer goes back to the 
first encroachment of false teachers {ifxiraiKTai, Acts xv. 
24) and to the particular command sent also to Churches 
composed of Jews and Gentiles (Mayor, Introd. p. cxxxvi) 
as the result of important declarations made by those whom 
the writer calls " your Apostles," namely Peter and Paul, 
and actually handed over by the latter of these (ii. 21) to 
the Churches in question. 

(v) o irpo^riTiKO'^ \6yo<i. 

i. 19 e^ofxev ^e^aiorepov rov 7rpo(f>7]TiK6p \6yov. 

The general meaning is " We have fuller confirmation 
of the Prophetic word," i.e. The vision just described 
^' permanently strengthens " (Mayor : the present tense is 
to be noticed) our faith in the " Prophetic Word." For 
€)(^. /3e/3. Mayor (after Field) quotes Isocr. ad Dem. 
p. 10 TTjv Trap' 6K6LVC0V evvoLav /Se^aiorepav e^^eti/, 
Chaeremon ap. Stob. Flo7\ 79, 31 jSe^aiorepav e%e rrjv 
(piXiav, and for e%« in this usage, 1 Pet. ii. 12 ttjv 
ava(TTpo(f>r}v e')(^ovTe<i Ka\r)v, cf. ib. iv. 8. 


We may fairly say that it is as if the author had 
written Kai ^e^alcoTai ))/jLiv 6 irp. X0709. 

In what way then is o irp. \6yo<i " more fully con- 
firmed by " what has immediately preceded ? ( Alford's 
suggestion that the comparison is between miracle and 
prophecy from their apologetic standpoint can hardly be 
sustained.) The reply is, that irapovaia, a " presence " in 
some sense of God with man, is the main subject of 
prophecy, and that actual first-hand proof of such irapovaia 
is a very high confirmation of prophecy in general. Such 
a first-hand proof the writer has just given, attested by 
the citation of the words actually spoken by the Heavenly 
Voice. The Transfiguration, viewed as a irapovaia, is a 
remarkable confirmation of " the Prophetic Word." The 
two, taken together, supply all the data of faith (Clem. 
Alex. p. 778 ireirlaTevKev Sod re rrjf; irpocf)r]reLa<; Sid re 
T^9 irapovaias:). 

But what then is meant by o irp. Xoyo^; ? It is usually 
taken to mean the whole body of Messianic prophecy. It 
may be questioned whether in this case it would not have 
been necessary to write al irpo^TjTiKal ypa(j)aL (see Rom. 
xvi. 26 Std re ypacpoju irpocjirjTiKODv). In the first place 
the collective use of X070?, properly used of a single 
literary unit, whether speech, or dialogue, or historical 
essay, is strange and unnecessary, and in the second the 
article (in the use of which, as Mayor has pointed out, 
2 P. is more classical than most of the books of the 
N. T.) seems to point to a definite X0709, a definite 
literary unit, which the writer had in view. We find 
6 IT p. X0709 in the following passages (from Mayor) Philo, 
de Plantat. M. i. p. 347 ; Leg. All. M. i. p. 95 6 irp. X0709 
(j)r]aLv (obviously = " the prophetic book"); Justin, Apol. i. 


56 (p. 276) Seov avrov ovra o irp. \6'yo<=; arjfiaivec, 77 
(p. 302) 6 TTp. X0709 ecfyr] ; and elsewhere in this sense in 
the singular ; while it is used in the plural (ol it p. Xoyoi) 
when it is intended to be used more generally, as is 
usually postulated for the present instance. 

But the critical case of o irp. Xoyo^; for our immediate 
purpose is that in " 2 Clement " xi. Xeyet yap koI 6 nrp, 
\6yo<;. Here there can be no doubt whatever that (as in 
Philo and Justin) 6 tt/o. X0709 refers to a definite prophetic 
work which Lightfoot conjectures to have been "Eldad 
and Modad." The quotation which follows here is 
also given in 1 Clement, where instead of 7rp. X0709 is 
given 97 ypa(j)r] avTrj — a very clear proof that a single 
wa'iting is intended. These two passages will best be 
considered in parallel columns, but we shall add at the 
same time the similar passage from our own Epistle. 

Clem. Eom. 
(1 Clement.) 

iroppcj yevecrdoi} dcp' ij/xQv 
1] -Ypa(f>i] avTT], oTTOv 

TaXaLTTwpoi elaiv 
OL di'ij/vxoL, oi 
dicrrd^ovTes ttjv 
"ipvxw^ ot \eyovTes' 
ravra i^Kodaaixev 
Kai iirl tCov irarepoiv 
TjfiQp, Kal 
ido6, yeyrjpaKaiiiev 
Kui ovdev tj/juv 

TOVTWV <TVV[3e^r]K€V. 

u. dt/orjTOi, 
<rvfJi^a\€T€ eairroi/s 
^v\ip- Xd^ere 
afxireXov • 

2 Clement. 

...[raXaiTTCjpoL iaojueda.] 
Xiyn "Ydp 6 Trpo<})T]TiK6s 
X670S • 

TaXaiTTcopoi elaiv 
oi di\pvxot oi 
diaTd^'ouTes rrj 
Kapdiq., oi Xeyopres' 
Tavra iravra r^Kovaafxev 
Kai ewi tCiv Trarepoop 
i]fMQu [r^/ueis 56 rj/j.epav i^ 
7}[jiipas irpoadexofJ-evoi ovdev 
To^iTcov eupaKa/mev.] 


(rvfi^dXere iavTovs 
^uXu) ' Xa/Sere 

2 Peteb. 

iii. 3. . . .\_iXevaovTai eir 
eax^-Tiop TiJov rjiuepuiv 

Xiyovres' irov iffriv 
7} iwayyeXia ttjs irap- 
ovaias avrov ; d0' ijs 
ydp oi Trarepes iKoi/u,-/]- 
6r}<xap, irdvTa oOtu) 
diafji€P€i. drr dpxv^ 
KTiVe ws... 

[freely adapted, and 
exaggerated, to 
suit the spirit of 
the ifMira^KTaL.] 



Clem. Kom. 

2 Clement. 

(1 Clement.) 

irpCoTov jxev 

irpCoTov fx€u 



(tra /SXacrros 

elra (SXaarbs 

yiyi^erai, elra (pvWov, 


elra dvdos, Kal fxera 


Tavra 6fj.(pa^, elra 

ravra ofxcpa^, elra 

aTa<pv\i] ■n-apeaTTjKvta. 

aracpvXr] 7rape<XTr]Kv2a' 

(end of citation 

(end of citation from the 

from the ypacprj) 

irp. \6yos) 


Kal 6 Xaos fiov aKaTacrra- 

<rias Kai dXixJ/eLi ^(tx^i', eirei- 

ra cLTToXrixpeTaL to. dyaOd. 

. . .aw€Tn/ji.apTvpova7]s 

Kttl TT]S 7pa<|)TJS OTL 

" rax^ 17s ft '^c-'- o^'' 

Xpoviei Kal e^alcpvT}^ 


2 Peter. 

[? cf. Jude 12 dep- 

5pa (p9iPoiro:pLvd. 
Jude's dTTodiopl^ovrei 
(19) may be an at- 
tempt to paraphrase 
5L(TTd^oPT€s above,] 

iii. 10 T/^ei de r; rjjxepa 
Kvpiov ws KXeTTT-qs... 
(adapted to Mt. xxiv. 
43 (Lc. xii. 39)) 

The comparison of these passages seems to show 
(1) that Clement, " 2 Clement," and 2 Peter, quote from 
the same "Prophetic Discourse," whether independently 
or not ; (2) that o irp. \6yo<; in " 2 Clement " (rj 'ypac^rj in 
Clement) refers to a discourse (Lightfoot suggests, with 
Holtzmann, " Eldad and Modad ") ; (3) that o irp. \6yo<=; in 
2 Peter i. 19 probably similarly refers to a definite 
" Prophetic Discourse," recognised as such, in the course of 
which this very " Eldad and Modad," the irp. X070? of 
2 Clement, is laid under contribution ; (4) that " Jude " is 
apparently influenced, mediately or immediately, by the 
simile of the Vine in the " Discourse " of " 2 Clement," 
and possibly by the word SiaTa^ovrei: in the opening 
verse of the citation from the " Discourse." " Jude " and 
2 Peter, therefore, have gone to the same quarry. 



The Vine The Trees 

(In "Clement") (In ''Jude") 

shows signs of death show signs of death in autumn 

revives do not revive 

bears fruit do not bear fruit (aKapira) 

There is the " Nature death " of autumn. That both 
vine and trees share. But the trees die both with this 
mimic death and with actual death. They are then, as 
cumberers of the gi'ound, rooted up\ 
To return now to our Epistle. 

" We have, thanks to the Hapovaia of the Trans- 
figuration'^, fuller confirmation of the Prophetic Dis- 
course." Of what " Discourse " ? Of that, we repl}\ 
which extends from ii. 20, opening appropriately with the 
w^ords Ilao-a 7rpocf>7]TeLa...(£ind ultimately merging into 
Apocalypse), in which use is made of another " Prophetic 
Discourse," known also as such to other writers. 

1 Jude here as elsewhere (see R. A. Falconer in Expositor, vi. series vi.)^ 
using either 2 Peter or that which underlies 2 Peter, "verifies his 
references" and adds from the context of the original. Neither he 
nor the author of 2 Peter ii. 20 seqq. can be accused of " Apocryphen- 

2 Chase's analysis, " What is more abiding than a fleeting voice we 
possess in the prophetic word," is surely wrong. The One Voice direct 
from heaven is of more value than utterances given TroXvfjLepws through 


(vi) The Voice. 

i. 17. The Wapovaia of che Transfiguration' is con- 
firmation of the Prophetic Discourse of which, in general, 
Trapovaia is a subject. 

But there is more. The writer has heard Heavenly 
Words. Other Apostolic qualifications (Acts iv. 41) 
might be shared with others ; to have heard these words 
on the Holy Mount was a qualification shared by three 
only, of whom one at least ^ met an early death. 

St Paul quotes also ipsissima ver-ba (Acts xxii. 7-9), 
not heard by others ; and also claims (2 Cor. xii. 4) to 
have heard cipprjra prjfjbara, words which no man might 

The Transfiguration Narrative, therefore, so far from 
being out of place, is of the highest importance as the 
sign manual of one who knows. Prophecy and Apocalyptic 
need credentials ; the Prophets and Apocalyptists of the 
Old Testament, and the Apocalyptist of the New, 
relate their visions and their commissions. Apocalyptic, 
especially, seems even to demand some excuse or apology 
(cf. Mc. xiii. 4). What can the i/jLTralKrat answer to 
credentials such as these ? 

1 Chase is troubled by the mention of the Transfiguration, while other 
events of our Lord's life, e.g. the Resurrection, are omitted. If the 
" fragments" are Petrine (see below, pp. 64, 65, notes) we have a reason 
why that which had been already enshrined in the earliest gospel, at 
St Peter's prompting, was not here repeated, except what is directly to the 
purpose. — All such arguments against Petrine authorship tell also against 
authorship by any sort of " forger." 

2 Our present point is strengthened if we accept with Bousset and 
others the early death of John also. 



(vii) The reference to the Pauline letters. 

In the mouth of an Editor, writing in the second 
century, the reference to the Pauline letters is natural 
enough. It is noteworthy that 2 Peter, as a whole, shows 
a remarkable absence of traces of Pauline thought. If 
the writer of iii. 15 were the writer of 2 Peter as a whole, 
would not such an admirer of the Pauline letters have 
tinged his whole " Epistle " with Pauline reminiscences ? 
As it is, the cleavage is clearly marked : here, and in other 
"editorial "sections^ we have open admiration, or the flattery 
of imitation ; elsewhere almost complete detachment. 

(viii) The Personal Pronouns. 

The salutation gives both first and second personal 
pronouns. The pronoun of the first person does not 
then (as so often with a modern preacher) include the 
audience or recipients. On the contrary the run of 
thought is " lue'^ possess certain gifts which you may 
possess, and by which you, too, may become partakers of 
the Divine Nature." 

" We " is not necessarily the Apostles or even the 
first generation of Christians (" 2 Clement " 9, l^piaTo<^. . . 
iyivero (Top^ koi ovtw<^ 7]/Jia<i eKoXeaev). It seems to be 
used generally of a body of Christians of whom the 
writer is one, either Jewish or at least in possession of 
special privileges not yet extended to the recipients of 
the "letter." 

In i. 12-18, we find first person plural and first person 
singular alternating. Here the speaker and those classed 
with him have already made known " the power and 

^ In the preface especially, as we have seen. 
2 The evidence is for rjfuv in i. 4, 


presence" of him whom they call " Oui^ Lord." In verse 
18 the first person plural is obviously used by, or pretends 
to be used by, Apostles only. 

It is difficult therefore to reconcile the " We " of i. 
l-5a with the "We" of i. 12-18. 

As to the second persons, in i. l-5a " you " denotes 
those who are to look forwcwd to iTrlyi^cocrcf; and Koivwvia 
Selaii (f)va€a)^ ; in i. 12-18 "you" denotes those who are 
so far " instructed and confirmed in the truth " by the 
facts already " made known " that the writer must 
positively apologise for "reminding" them. 

It is difficult therefore to reconcile the " You " of 
i. l-5a with the "You" of i. 12-18. 

In i. 19 the first person is used, as in i. 18, but it is 
not emphatic, and, once more, those who are addressed 
are looking forward to illumination ; in the same 
stage, that is, as the " You " of i. l-5a, and not as the 
"You" of i. 12-18. 

In iii. 1-2 the speaker in the singular directly dis- 
sociates himself from the Apostles, whom he calls " your 
Apostles." His purpose is similar to that of i. 12-13, 
but the "I" of i. 12-13 merges into the "We," used 
obviously of Apostles, in i. 18. The " I " of iii. 1 is 
therefore incompatible with the " I " of i. 1 2. 

In iii. 14-18 " We " occurs thrice in general reference 
(" our brother Paul " does not suggest necessarily that the 
writer or speaker is an Apostle). 



VIII. "Jude" and 2 Peter. 

Hitherto we have been largely in the region of 
mere conjecture, even if it is borne out by indications 
of style and language. We now come to a question of 
bare fact. 

It is no part of the present essay to collect once more 
arguments for and against the priority of Jude. The 
very fact that arguments either way appear to their 
maintainers to be of equal cogency seems to show that 
on traditional lines we shall never reach a conclusion. It 
will have appeared all along that, supposing " 2 Peter " to 
be a frame-work supporting and uniting certain documents, 
these documents may have been accessible without the 
frame-work ; and that both Jude and 2 Peter (as we now 
know it) may have made use of the common document or 
documents. The " document-theory " has by most modern 
editors been rudely cast aside ; but they have, without it, 
led us to no sort of finality. 

The crucial question is, does " Jude " quote what we 
have designated as E ? Or does he quote P (our " docu- 
ments ") only ? Of course he might possess our present 
Epistle, and, recognising the frame-work as such, cast it 
aside as useless for reproduction. The probability how- 
ever is that if he knew E he would quote E also. 

"Jude," in the first place, professes no originality. 
He writes in haste, in an emergency, and seizes what 
comes to hand. This material is that which we possess 
in the present Epistle : and Jude follows carefully its 
present order. 


The salutation will be discussed presently, as also the 
parallels Jude 17, || 2 Peter iii. 1 ; Jude 24, || 2 Peter 
iii. 17. 

The mass of the parallel verses occur Jude 4-16, 
2 Peter ii. 1-18. We must be cautious of making too 
much of individual words. A few observations follow on 
such parallels as appear to need special note. 

Jude 6, 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude 7, id. ii. 6. 

The saving of Lot does not suit Jude's sterner 

Jude 9, 2 Pet. ii. 11. 

Jude particularises. Apparently tV^ut suggests to 
him apx-ayyeXo^. Jude apparently notes the reference 
to Enoch, and while not using this particular instance, 
recurs to the book later on\ 

Jude 11, 2 Pet. ii. 15. 

Jude is fond of sets of three (vv. 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 20) 
and adds two further examples to that of Balaam. He 
Hanks Balaam (covetousness) with Cain (blasphemy, not 
murder : Cain was the early type of a materialist) ^ and 
Korah (gainsaying of authority). All three meet a 
disastrous end. 

It can hardly be a chance that jjiicrdov d8LKLa<i occurs 
twice in a few verses in 2 Peter ^ and there may be a 
special reason for the recurrence. Verse 12 r^er^evvrifxeva 

1 Of " 2 Peter's" construction here it is almost impossible to make 
anything (see Spitta's efforts). A remedy of despair is to suppose a verb 
omitted before (pepovaiv (e.g. dvnXeyovffiv), and (pipovcnv to be dative 
plural..." do not gainsay those who are the bearers of an adverse verdict 
from (or, in the presence of) the Lord against them." See Jude 11 
dvTLko'^ia, which a lost dvTiXeyovcnv may have suggested. 

- Targum Hierosol. ad Gen. iv. 7. 

3 Also (in St Peter's solemn speech) in Acts i. 18. 


et9 (f)6opdv suggests, at least, Mt. xxvi, 24, of Judas. 
dBiKovfievot fxiaOov dBcKla's, difficult though it appears, 
now receives its full meaning " wronged in respect of pay 
for wrong-doing." Judas found his " payment " a loathing 
to him. It drove him to a kind of repentance, but it also 
drove him to a terrible death. The coveted silver turned 
on him, like a traitorous accomplice. He was " wronged 
in respect of wrong's reward." 

Other possible references to Judas are Kardpat; reKva 
in 2 Peter, and possibly (Jude again seizing and elaborating 
a suggestion) i^e^vOv^^^^ ^i^d ovat (only used in the 
Gospels by Christ Himself) of Jude 11. 

Jude 12, 2 Peter ii. 13. 

In 2 Peter dydiraLt; (if original) meant " lusts " (see 
dyairdv in verse 15), an abstract plural like daeXyeiai, 
evae^eiaL But Jude apparently understands it in the 
technical sense of "feasts," helped by the context 
{ivTpv(f>a)VT€(i, avvevcoxov/Jievoi). This suggests that Jude 
and his original belong to different strata of language. 

"Rock," in the name K7j(j)d^ or HeV/jo?, had an honour- 
able sound. It would be strange for anyone in the Apostolic 
circle to use it in a derogatory sense. Unless a suggestion 
already made, that the variant o-TrtXaSe? )( o-ttlXol arises in 
some way from incorrect transcription of tachygraph, has 
any value, we can only suppose that Jude again touches up 
his original and coins cr7ri\d<; from o-ttZXc?, believing it in 

1 In N.T. €KX€€iv (-xi'^ei") is literal, or in a derived sense easily under- 
stood, except here. In the LXX. it is used of water " spilt " Ps. xxii. 15, 
a natural image of utter annihilation (cf. Lam. ii. 19 ; Job xxx. 16, 
X, 10 ; Is. liii. 12 ; Zeph. i. 17). In the case of Judas the verb could 
be used whether literally or metaphorically, both of body or soul 
(Acts i. 18). 


this shape (compare ^uya?, Spo/jLd<i, c^otra?, etc.) to have a 
more contemptuous ring. 

Jude 12, 13, 2 Peter ii. 17. 

The rainless cloud, the waterless oasis, the mists, the 
angry waves (the sea being a strange element to the Jew) 
^re natural symbols for emptiness and violence. 2 Peter 
in heXed^ovaiv (18) seems to suggest mirage also, and in 

rov^ oXt^o)? K.T.X a hairbreadth escape from wandering 


If we are at all correct in the belief that the frag- 
ments we designate as P formed part of some popular, 
perhaps official, Florilegium, it is clear that the arrange- 
ment of the moral Fragment (the " ladder of virtues ")^ 
the repetitions contained in the comments thereon 
(i. 8-11), the imagery of these comments (w/capTrou?, 
TV(j>Xo<; /jLV(07rd^a)v, ov /nr) TrraicrrjTe, — the Pilgiim's 
Progress through the Twilight, — eirtxoprjr^rjOrjaeTai ry 
etaoSoi; — the Triumphal Entry into the Light) — the 
personal note of the Narrative, with its appeal to the 
Heavenly Voice — the vigour of the " Prophetic Dis- 
course," its appeals to history — Noah, Lot, Balaam — its 
Palestinian tropes — the oasis waterless, the mists swept 
into the darkness ; the Apocalypse with its elemental 
contrasts, water and fire, and the vigorous " hell-fire " 
appeal at the close ; these are, at all events, admirably 
suited for their special purpose, whatever else we may 
think of them. 

We return now to three instances where it may appear 
that Jude cites not these original fragments but the 
redactor or editor himself 

Jude 3, 2 Peter ii. 21. 

This verse of Jude probably has reference to 2 Peter i. 


12 (P), and its supposed reference to ii. 21 is based on a 
single word TrapaSoOeiay (-779). irapdhoai^ is a Pauline word 
(I Cor. xi. 2, 2 Thess. ii. 15, iii. 6), and there is no reason 
why the verb should have been borrowed here. What is 
important is that Jude completely ignores the context, 
verses 20-22 ; we cannot lay stress on fxcaafxara (Jude 8 
fjLLalvovaiv) and crwrripo's. 

Next the salutations. 

Salutations follow regular lines, and coincidence is 
easier to prove than connection. The coincidence here 
lies in 'It/ctoO XpicrTou Bov\o<;, roL<^, ^6ov(-o)), 'I. 'Ktw(-ov), 
vfjblv elprjvri irXr^OvvOeiri, all words of a type met elsewhere- 

There is a distinct difference of feeling or "atmo- 
sphere" between the salutations. 8ovXo<; in J is apparently 
a title of humility, in 2 Pet. it suggests a title of 
honour. The description of the recipients is quite 
different, as also the greeting (J eXeo? k. elprjvr] k. dyaTrr], 
2 Peter ^a/jt? k. elprjvrjY. We cannot here prove 

The conclusions also differ. 

Jude's irpoaBexofJ^evoL (21) belongs rather, if at all, to 
the TTpoaBoKav of 2 Peter iii. 12, 13, than to that of v. 14. 
The only real parallel is dainXoL (2 Peter) ia-TrCkcofxevoi 
(J); but see 2 Peter iii. 13 (P) where the context much 
more closely suggests that of Jude. 

J's doxology reflects none of the striking peculiarities 
of that of 2 Peter. dirTai(JTov<i (J) harks back to 2 Peter i. 
10 (P) which J seems to have studied, but has not 

^ It may be that E who uses dyarrjTol so readily in addressing his 
readers would feel that to wish them " abundance of dydxTj " might be 
superfluous. While dyair-qToi suggests personal affection, we may here 
note a suspicion that in its use E " doth protest too much." 


incorporated, rffiepav al(ovo<; of 2 Peter has no echo 
in J. 

While therefore we can prove consecutive use of the 
" 7rpo(f>7)TLK6^ A-0709 " by Jude, we can find nothing to 
prove connection in salutation or conclusion. 

There remain Jude 17 and 2 Peter iii. 2. 

Here a connection of some kind appears obvious. 

Not, however, that it is necessary. Jude has told us 
that while intending to write an explicit letter on " the 
common salvation" circumstances drove him to ^^Tite 
instead, and at once (contrast the tenses), a brief exhor- 
tation to fight for the faith. Now in verse 17 he tells 
us further that such a letter is not original. It is a 
reminder of Apostolic utterances. He then quotes one 
such utterance (v. 18). 

The writer in our present Epistle is also confessedly 
unoriginal. He too recalls both "prophetic" and Apo- 
stolic utterances. That he who so leans upon the words 
of others cannot himself be the Leader of the Apostles, 
seems obvious. He also quotes {<yiv(t)(TKovT€<; otl) the 
same utterance. 

The purpose being the same and the citation the same, 
there is small marvel that the introductory sentences 
should be similar. On the face of it, however, a real 
connection appears likely. 

Hitherto Jude has been the particulariser of the 
general statements of 2 Peter (see Jude 9, 11). 

Now it is 2 Peter who is particular, and that in two 
Avays : first he speaks, correctly, of " prophets," and 
secondly, at the risk of an awkward quadruple genitive, 
he speaks not of " Apostles " merely, but of " your 
Apostles," apparently Peter and Paul. 



It is E therefore who, when incorporatmg a presumably 
apostolic passage, of which Jude has previously made 
use, looks up Jude's introductory or editorial remarks, 
and makes them precise and definite in place of vague 
and general. 

Our reconstruction of the relation of Jude and 
2 Peter is as follows : 

Certain detached passages, Fliegende Blatter^, called 
into existence by special circumstances, of apostolic date, 
and (probably) origin, were at some early time collected 
together, perhaps under the title iTrayyeX/jLara, perhaps 
pyj/juara. These passages, reminiscent of actual teaching, 
were specially adapted for use by early Christian 
teachers, and were thrown into convenient form either for 
memory, or to impress and arrest an audience. They 
were of various kinds — exhortation {Kripvjfxa), narrative 
{evayyekiov), prophecy (irpocfirjTeia), apocalyptic (aTTo- 
/cd\v'\lrL<;), and had come to be associated with the Apostle 
Peter, whose imprimatur would be necessary, even if 
they were not actually his work. 

After the first outburst of oral teaching, and as the 
need for a formal literature arose, these selections would 
be less in request, though we cannot say how far such 
handbooks of selections have not contributed to our 
present Ncav Testament literature. They would also be 
laid under contribution for later apocryphal works, which 
indeed they may actually have suggested. 

Four of these passages, of a striking kind, and 
traditionally (perhaps accurately) ascribed to the Apostle 
Peter, existing perhaps as a separate brochure, have 

^ The " little Apocalypse" of Mc. xiii. is often, and no doubt rightly, 
described as a " fly-sheet" of this kind. 


certainly survived (five, if the "Little Apocalypse" be 
one ; more, perhaps, are embedded in the Pastorals). 

Jiide (whoever he was) having need to write a hasty 
Epistle of exhortation, finds nothing more ready to hand 
than one of these passages (the irpocprjreLa or irpocfujrLKOf; 
\6yo<;, itself containing an apocryphal citation). At 
what time he writes, we cannot say : probably at the end 
of the first century ^ He does not quote the ipsissima 
verba of his document, but paraphrases, alters, adds. 

A good deal later there arise similar circumstances 
elsewhere. A devout and conscientious worker, with 
Jude's letter probably at hand, writes a similar, but 
longer letter (or letters), in and by which he preserves not 
only one but four of the documents bearing the name of 
Peter. He consults "Jude's" editing. Soon the original 
documents, existing perhaps in rare copies, are lost, while 
their titles remain; and works are written up to these 
titles by later controversialists. 

The question of date of this final composition now 
engages us. 

^ The suggestions made above, for convenience of discussion, are 
repeated more fully in the summary on pp. 63 ff. 


IX. Sub- Apostolic References to 2 Peter; 
Probable Date and Origin. 

" Phrases quoted from the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic 
Fathers as indicating an acquaintance with 2 Peter are 
wholly inconclusive " (M. R. James). 

Such phrases are collected by Mayor, Spitta, Bigg, and 
others ^ Of these a few only require special mention here. 
(1) Clement of Rome xxiii. 2 (the relation of the 
7rpoif)7]TtK6^ Xoyof; of Clement and of " 2 Clement " to 
that of 2 Peter has been discussed), eVt ral^ virep- 
^aWovaac^ Koi ivBo^OL^ Scopeal^; avrov, lb- 35 tcov 
iTrrjyyeX/jievayv Bcopecbv have been referred to 2 Peter i. 4 
(E) : a very doubtful reference, possibly an adaptation of 
2 Cor. iii. 10. Nor can anything be made of dKo\ovdr]a(ofi6i/ 
rrj 6Bq) t^9 aKr)Oeia<i in the same passage, even though 
d/jLco/LKp precedes. 

Nor can anything safely be predicted of id. ix. 2 
'X€tTovpy7]<Tavra<; rfj jxeyaXoTrpeTTel Bo^y avrov, cf. 2 Peter i. 
17 rrj<; pieyakoTr pe7rov<s S6^r)<;^. 

From "2 Clement" Spitta quotes explicit x^eferences. 
That the homily reflects the general spirit of " 2 Peter " 
seems more sure than the correspondence of individual 
phrases. No reference to any passage which we have 
regarded as " editorial " can be proved : e.g. elXiKpivrj^ in 

^ They are made a good deal too much of by Grosch {op. cit.), whose 
general arguments, however, for the " genuineness " of 2 Peter can (with 
those of others) be whole-heartedly accepted so far as affects P. 

2 Expressions like these, references to gifts, and honorific titles like 
6(ia dvva/jiis, with similar phrases, seem to belong to the language of 
imperial adulation or bureaucracy (see the Carian inscription referred 
to by Deissmann and any of the official papyri ; e.g. Pap. Tebt. 33, line 6, 
fKyaXoirpeireaTepov iydex&V'^i^, " let him be received with a certain amount 
of splendour "). 


2 Clement ix. 8 is used apparently in a different sense 
from that of 2 Peter (etXt/cptz/r/? Sidvoca, " Pure Reason "), 
namely in the sense in which the adjective once, and the 
noun thrice, occurs in Pauline writings. 

Possible references to non-" editorial " passages are : 
2 Clement vii. 1=2 Peter ii. 15 
2 Clement xvi. 3 = 2 Peter iii. 10 and possibly 
2 Clement viii. 4=2 Peter ii. 4, 9 and 
2 Clement xiii. 3 = 2 Peter ii. 10. 

Passages from Irenaeus, Melito, Justin Martyr, 
Aristides (Bigg remarks on Aristides, Apol. xvi.,=2 Peter i. 
11, ii. 2 "this seems a clear case"), Tatian (0?*. ad 
•Graecos, xv.) are all from the non-" editorial " passages, the 
■documents, that is, which we believe to have been extant 
in some collection before being utilised either by " Jude " 
•or by the redactor of our present Epistle. 

The first reference — to which any weight can be 
attached — to any " editorial " section occurs in Theophilus 
of Antioch (d. 183-5), ad Autol. ii. c. 13, r) Stdra^c^ ovv 
Tov ^eov TOVTO eariv, o Aojo^^ avrov (patvajv (oairep \v^vo<^ 
'iv 0LK7]fjLaTL avve^oixivw icfxoTiaev ttjv vit ovpavov : 
compare 2 Peter i. 19. 

But we are probably justified in seeing direct 
reference to " editorial " as well as other passages in the 
*•' Apocalypse of Peter," which may probably be dated 
between 120 and 140, inclining to the latter date. It 
cannot be at all certain that the " Apocalypse of Peter " 
mentioned in the Muratorian Canon is this Apocryphal 
Apocalypse ^ It may reasonably be held that the Mura- 
torian um refers to the Apocalypse which now forms part 

of 2 Peter, and which existed at Rome perhaps in some 
1 See Zahu's arguments in N.T. Kanon, ii. pp. 105 ff. 


mysterious conjunction with the " Little Apocalypse '' 
of the Marcan Gospel, and similar documents. 

The references fi'om the "Apocalypse of Peter" are 
nearly all to chapter ii. of 2 Peter, with apparently a 
clear reference to i. 19 (E)\ What is of first importance 
to our present contention is the abruptness of the 
" Apocalypse " itself We cannot say how much of the 
opening portion is lost, but as the main subject of the 
book — the Apocalyptic Vision — is opened in section 2, it 
seems certain that the discourse of which section 1 is a 
fragment cannot have been very long, as it would other- 
wise have delayed seriously the opening of the central 
thought of the book. There is no actual evidence that 
the fragments given by Macarius Magnes really preceded 
section 2. 

The author of the " Apocalypse " appears, therefore,, 
to make use of the Evangelistic Fragment, the Prophetical 
Fragment, and the Apocalyptic Fragment of our present 
Epistle, but not in the order in which they there occur. 
He begins at once with the " irpo^r^TiKo^ X6yo<;," harks 
back to the Narrative ^ (| 2 to 6po<i), apparently refers^ 
by a mere phrase {totto^ av^f^VP^^) ^^ ^^ " editorial '^ 
comment, and then enters upon his main subject of 
Apocal}^se^, in which also occur at least two references to 
" editorial " sections of 2 Peter. 

^ A. E. Simms in Expositor, Series v. Vol. viii. minimises these 
parallels, pointing out that the atmosphere, spiritual and verbal, is 
different. To the Transfiguration narrative he sees direct reference ; 
and concludes that the author of the Apocalypse seeks to suggest Petrine 
authority by a parade of coincidences with 2 Peter. 

2 The Ethiopic version contains an appearance of Moses and Elias, 
and the utterance of a Voice. 

3 The same version gives a description of the final conflagration. 


The fact that the beginning of the " Apocalypse " 
coincides with the beginning of the iTpo^r}TLKo<; Xoyo^; 
of 2 Peter is important. The impression we receive from 
a study of the parallels between the two documents is 
that (i) the author of the " Apocalypse " recognises the 
documents which underlie the present Epistle as separate 
documents. The first he ignores as not germane to his 
purpose ; but he opens with the opening of the second, 
(ii) He does not feel tied to the order in which he finds 
them. It is more convenient to him to wedge in the 
Narrative, as giving weight to the Prophecy, between 
the opening Avords, taken from the Prophecy, and the 
Apocalyptic passage which is the main portion of his work. 
Thus he uses the Narrative as " additional confirmation " 
(2 Pet. i. 19) not so much for Prophecy as for Apocalypse, 
(iii) He knows, but makes only passing reference to — as 
if they were of little account — the " editorial " bridges 
between the different fragments \ He condescends to 
borrow from them a word or two (au)(/jLi]p6^ — possibh^ in 
a different sense — /36p/3opo(;, eKvXiovro). 

The " Apocalypse " cannot accurately be dated^ ; but as 
it may precede the Muratorian Fragment {circa 170-200) 
and probably must precede the Viennese letter (c. 177), 
we cannot Avell date it later than circa 150. 

Our present Epistle then, as we now know it, was put 
together before that date ; and, as the history of the Canon 
suggests, it may have been so put together in Egypt. 

^ The same statement applies to the conjectural portions of the 
Apocalypse as pieced together from the " Testament " and the " Apocalypse 
of Paul," both being based on " The Apocalypse of Peter." 

2 For strong reasons supporting the view given above, that the 
Apocalypse is later than 2 Peter in its present form, see Bigg, Int. 
Crit. Commentary, pp. 207. 


The history may perhaps be finally reconstructed thus. 

There were certain documents of a fragmentary nature, 
fly-sheets \ either written, or at least collected, for the use 
of Christian instructors. If not of Apostolic origin, they 
had at least some Apostolic impr^imatur. They were 
KTrayyeXfiara, Ylpoetpyfjueva prj/jLara, Ylpo(f)r]TLKol Xoyoc, 
perhaps 'TTrofMvnaec^ or 'TTrofjuvr/fiara (the word is used 
by Appian and by Thucydides (iv. 126) in the sense 
of " Reminders " ; its use of the " Memoranda " of 
philosophers and others is well known). They could 
either actually be traced to, or came to be attributed to, 
certain Apostles, and the fragments which form our 
present Epistle were attributed to Peter-. Apparently 
the fourth fragment, the Apocalyptic passage, was not 
circulated with, or bound up with, the others. 

Such documents, circulated probably privately, could 
not fail to be of value when attacks on the Mth began. 
The author of " Jude " is the first to use them. He was 
purposing a general Epistle, when the discovery of false 
teachers on the spot (TrapeicreBvTjaav yap TL,ve<^ avOpwrroi) 
caused him to write a brief Epistle of exhortation based 
from beginning to end upon a " prophetic document " 

^ The use of this term in reference to the " Little Apocalypse " of the 
Marcan Gospel has already been noted. It also was esoteric ; and if it 
existed as a separate document was at first intended only for private 
circulation. See Streeter in Oxford Studies. 

- Full weight must be given to the arguments of R. A. Falconer, 
Zahn, Spitta, Groscb, and others, which go to prove that 2 Peter may 
well be genuine work of tbe Apostle, rough hewn, so far as style 
goes, in contrast to 1 Peter, which, if genuine, has had the benefit of 
scholarly rewriting by some friend of the Apostle. Of tliose marks of the 
Epistle which go to prove late date, all are in " editorial " sections, with 
the exception of the reference to "the fathers" iii. 3, and this, being 
expressly a citation, cannot be pressed as a proof of date. 


which accurately described the very type of deceiver 
which he had to fear. So striking an instance of " the 
cap fitting" could not be ignored. He utilises freely, 
without actually quoting, this prophetic document, the 
appropriateness of which perhaps justifies his hasty 
publication. He " verifies his references " as he goes 
along and adds striking instances so suggested \ He 
quotes indirectl}^ as does his original directly, a passage 
from " Eldad and Modad," and acts upon suggestions 
given by this citation. In his haste he seems to mis- 
understand his original (see note on dydiraif; above). 
But he produces a vigorous brochure, and sets a precedent 
which is followed about 130 A.D. by a writer in Alexandria'^, 
who, scared at the appearance of a different form of false 
beliefs, not yet dangerous, but certain to become so, follows 
the example of " Jude," and publishes what had been 
intended for private circulation. Our new editor publishes 
all that he finds: not only the "Prophetic Discourse" 
utilised by " Jude " but also a moral fragment (apparently 
intended for committal to memory) and a Narrative* 

1 In two instances it is rather difficult to explain his additions. 
V. 15 afxapTixjXol dcre/3ers, v. 18 rQu aae^eiwv — neither of which is required 
in their respective sentences— almost suggest indignant exclamations on 
the author's part. With the latter, if so, compare Eur. Bacchae, 263. 

2 For the probability of Alexandrian origin of 2 Peter see Chase D.B. 
III. pp. 816 If. The history of the Canon tends the same way. 

3 Perhaps the Carpocratian heresy (? circa 125-130) in its early days. 
The future tenses of 2 Peter ii. show that the original document was also 
written at the beginning of a heretical movement (on which see Falconer, 
Expositor, VI. vi., who considers that there is evidence of early date in the 
absence of a developed theosophical system, of Chiliasm, and of a marked 
ecclesiastical organisation). 

* The present writer confesses to the belief, based on internal grounds, 
that this fragment at least is genuinely Petrine. Dr Chase's arguments 
e silentio against Petrine authorship cannot be held cogent. 


specially adapted as an introduction to Prophecy. Having 
welded these together he closes his Epistle ; but further 
search or enquiry reveals an Apocalyptic document also, 
and this he hastens to incorporate in a "second letter," 
the first having been alread}^ sealed, though not sent. In 
yjSi) the Editor expresses his delight at the timely appear- 
ance of his fourth document. He is entirely honest in 
his disclaimer of all originality. He uses recognised 
formulae of citation. He is on friendly or affectionate 
terms with the mixed Jew and Gentile community to 
which he writes ; or at least he desires to appear to be on 
such terms. The Apostle Paul has written a letter to the 
same address^ ; of him and of his writings he speaks in 
terms of reverence. 

In his salutation and doxology he is not ashamed to 
make use of those of Jude, his predecessor in the 
" editing " of one of these very documents. 

Publication suggests publication. The words of the 
second Fragment (i. 15) now for the first time made 
common property, actually seemed to invite a series of 
Pseudo-Petrine literature 2. The first writer to take the 
"irresistible hint" is the author of the "Apocalypse," 
who makes free but discriminating use of his materials as 
he finds them in our present 2 Peter. The writers of the 
"Preaching," the "Gospel," and the "Acts" follow suit— the 
two latter not in any way quoting or copying 2 Peter, and 
arising perhaps not in Egypt but in Asia Minor. 

Theophilus of Antioch is apparently the first to cite 
2 Peter in its present form after the author of the 
" Apocalypse " : from then onwards our Ep^'stle finds 

1 Rome, possibly ; but we can never know. 
" So Bigg {op. ciL), p. 215. 


echoes, especially in the Alexandrian Clement. It is 
received as Canonical first in Egypt. Elsewhere it is 
looked upon with some suspicion. It is deliberately 
rejected by the Churches of Syria, possibly as being, in 
their opinion, a pirated work. It wins its way in the 
West apparently under the aegis of the " Apocalypse," 
and is at length grudgingly admitted to have " been 
proved useful to many." Eusebius perhaps came nearer 
the mark than he was aware. It was just this element 
of utility which caused the Fliegende Blatter to be 
preserved, adapted, and at length published. It was 
in hopes of their " proving useful " that they were 
originally written ; perhaps actually by the Apostle whose 
name they bear, who " taught as the needs dictated " and 
left his leaflets to light, like gossamer filaments, where 
they would. 

Cantbriljge : 


THIS BOOK IS DUE~^ j_ ^ ^ 





REG D L.^ 

MAYS I960 


YB 27962 


7? 6