short time would suffice for the springing up, or for the becoming formidable, of these deadly forms of error. As the Apostles were one by one removed by death, on the one hand their personal influence in checking evil tendencies was withdrawn, on the other that coming of Christ, of which they had once confidently spoken as to be in their own time, became in danger of being disbelieved. This would be a sufficient reason for the one supposed difficulty: and as regards the other, it is quite answer enough to say, that this second Epistle being written on a special occasion and for a special object, is, as we have seen, coherently and consistently devoted to that object, and does not, in its course, travel out of its way to speak of things with which the first Epistle was concerned. It is obvious that, supposing the two to have been written by the same person, he is not likely to have dwelt again in his second letter on things already brought forward in his first. 66 66 6. Besides, it has been not unjustly thought that we can discover traces in our Epistle of the same characteristics as those which marked the readers of the former one, or of others which would be probably subsequent to them. We have there the caution to take care that none of them suffer as an evil doer, a murderer," a thief," an evil doer," a busybody in other men's matters" (iv. 15); which seems to contain in it the seed of that further development of evil among Christians, which we find actual in this Epistle. Again the neglect of the caution there, "gird up the loins of your mind, being sober: hope fervently for the grace that is being brought unto you in the revelation of Jesus Christ" (i. 13), would lead exactly to the dissolute lives here described of those who had ceased to hope for his coming. There is close connexion between 1 Pet. ii. 16, as free, and not as using your liberty for a cloke of your maliciousness” and 2 Pet. ii. 19, "promising them liberty, while they themselves are the slaves of corruption :" between the cautions there given against pride (v. 5-7), and the "speaking great swelling words of vanity" of our ch. ii. 18. And the same analogies might be carried yet further, shewing that from the circumstances of the readers which respectively underlie the one and the other Epistle, this may well have been a sequel to, and consequent on, the former. SECTION III. ON THE RELATION BETWEEN THIS EPISTLE AND THAT OF JUDE. 1. It is well known that, besides various scattered resemblances, a long passage occurs, included in the limits Jude vv. 3-19, 2 Peter ii. 1—19, describing in both cases the heretical enemies of the Gospel, couched in terms so similar as to preclude all idea of entire independence. If considerations of human probability are here, as every where else, to be introduced into our estimate of the Sacred Writings, then either one saw and used the text of the other, or both drew from a common document, or a common source of oral apostolic teaching. 2. Setting aside the supposition of a common documentary source, as not answering to the curious phænomena of concurrence and divergence, no one can say that the latter alternative may not have been the case: that a portion of oral teaching spoken originally in the power of the Spirit, may not, in its reproduction, have become deflected as we here see. Were the case in strict analogy with that of the three Gospels, we should have no hesitation in adopting this hypothesis. But the cases are not similar. For we have first to add to the phænomena of this passage the remarkable coincidences elsewhere, where no such common portion of teaching could have been concerned: and then to observe, that the coincidences and divergences in the passage itself do not entirely bear out the hypothesis. There is an intent and consistent purpose plainly visible in them, which is altogether absent, unless the wildest fancies be allowed to come into play, from the common text of passages in the three Gospels. 3. We have then to fall back on the supposition, that one of the Sacred Writers saw and used the text of the other. And if this is to be so, there can be but little hesitation in answering the enquiry, on which side the preference lies as to priority and originality. The grounds of that answer have indeed been amplified and exaggerated, beyond what we can fairly concede: but still in the main they are irrefragable. We cannot see, with De Wette and others, that St. Peter is less fresh or individual in his expressions and turns of thought than St. Jude: but, conceding to both Writers originality and individuality of thought, it is then for us to ascertain by inspection, which text bears the air of being the free outflow of the first thought, which the working up of the other for a purpose slightly differing. 4. The portion of the common matter which will best serve us for this purpose is that in which the traditional and historical examples are adduced, 2 Pet. ii. 1-16; Jude 4-11. In this passage, the object of St. Jude is to set forth the "ungodly men who turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and deny the only Master, and our Lord Jesus Christ." The persons described by St. Peter are not the same, in however many common points the characters coincide. With him they are false teachers, answering to the "false prophets among the people" of old like the others, they are described as "denying the Master [that bought them]," with the words in brackets characteristically inserted. In Peter (ii. 1) we have merely a reminiscence of the first historical notice in Jude (ver. 5), consisting in his specifying the false teachers as answering to the false prophets among the people, as contrasted with the true ones of whom he has been speaking (i. 19-21). It was not to his purpose to mention the destruction of the unbelieving (Jude 5), and therefore he slightly passes this example with a mere allusion. I submit that this will not bear the converse hypothesis: that the weighty and pregnant sentence in St. Jude could not be the result of the passing hint among the people" of St. Peter, nor can that hint be accounted for except as a reminiscence of St. Jude. 5. Passing to the next example, that of the sinning angels, we find the same even more strikingly exemplified. St. Jude is writing of apostates, and sets forth their fate by that of the angels, "which kept not their proper dignity, but left their own habitation:" in allusion (see note there) to Gen. vi. 2, their going after strange flesh, a sin after the manner of which Sodom and Gomorrah also sinned in after time (Jude 6, note). This special notice, so apposite to St. Jude's subject, is contracted in St. Peter into the mere mention of " the angels which sinned." Here it is most natural to suppose, that the special notice preceded the general. 6. The next example in St. Peter is one exactly to the point for which he is adducing the whole series, viz., to shew God's power both to punish and to deliver, but, on one side at least, inapposite to St. Jude's purpose. It is found in St. Peter alone. But the reason why I adduce it here is, to remark, that, had St. Peter's been the original, St. Jude would have hardly failed to insert in his examples that portion of this one which so exactly tallied with his purpose, "He spared not the old world,... bringing in the flood on the world of the ungodly." 7. The next example, that of Sodom and Gomorrah, is found in St. Jude in strict connexion and analogy with that which has immediately preceded it, viz. that of the angels. This connexion is broken. in St. Peter, no such particular as that on which it depends being found in his mention of the angels' sin. These cities are adduced only as an example to those who intended to be ungodly, and, which is again noteworthy, the mention of the rescue of Lot is appended, conformably with that which we remarked in the preceding paragraph. 8. It is further to be noticed with respect to this same example, that St. Jude describes the cities as "for an example, suffering the just punishment by eternal fire," whereas St. Peter has resolved this, which might seem to imply the eternity of the fire which consumed those cities, into a fuller and historical account, retaining the feature of their being a warning to the impious: "burning them to ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, laying down an example of those that should in after time live ungodly." Here again I submit that the converse hypothesis is inconceivable. 9. Again, in the description which follows in St. Peter (ver. 9), we have a characteristic continuation of his main subject, the rescue of the righteous united with the punishment of the wicked, and then, with "but chiefly," he returns to the particular characters here under description, and takes up the two traits which form the main subject in St. Jude, ver. 8; so that we have the original "In like manner nevertheless these dreamers also defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities," represented by "but chiefly them that go after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous, selfwilled, they are not afraid to rail at dignities:" where again I submit that none can doubt for a moment which sacred Writer preceded the other. 10. The next example even more strikingly shews the same. St. Jude cites at length from some apocryphal book, probably that called the taking up or ascension of Moses, an instance of the different conduct of mighty angels in contending with God's adversaries. St. Peter (ver. 11) merely asserts generally that such is the conduct of mighty angels, but gives no hint of an allusion to the fact on which the general assertion is based; nor does the great Adversary appear in his sentence, but in his stead are substituted these heretics themselves; "whereas angels, though they be greater in strength and might, bring not railing judgment against them." This, standing as it does thus by itself, would constitute, were it not for the original in St. Jude being extant, the most enigmatical sentence in the New Testament. 11. I shall not treat at length every separate verse, but shall only remark, that as we pass on through 2 Pet. ii. 12 ff., while this view of the priority of St. Jude is at every step confirmed, we derive some interesting notices of the way in which the passage in our Epistle has been composed: viz. by the Apostle having in his thoughts the passage in St. Jude, and adapting such portions of it as the Spirit guided him to see fit, taking sometimes the mere sound of St. Jude's words to express a different thought, sometimes, as we saw above, contracting and omitting, sometimes expanding and inserting, as suited his purpose. Thus while in St. Jude we have the comparison "as the irrational animals” simply introduced with reference to certain things which the persons, under description know naturally and use corruptly, in St. Peter it is the heretics themselves who are " as irrational animals," the additional point of comparison is introduced, that they are born naturally for capture and destruction, and the are corrupted of St. Jude is made to serve a very different purpose,-" shall even perish in their corruption." So in 2 Pet. ii. 13, in the reminiscence of the passage, rocks (spilades) of Jude 12 becomes spots (spiloi) and blemishes,-" in your love-feasts" (agapais) of St. Jude becomes "in their deceits" (apatais). So in 2 Pet. ii. 17, we have somewhat similar figures to those in Jude 13, but whereas originally it was waves of the sea foaming out their own shame," and "wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness is reserved for ever," in the latter text it becomes, more suitably to St. Peter's purpose of depictingVOL. II. PART II.-263 false teachers, "wells without water," and "mists driven by a whirlwind ;” for whom "the blackness of darkness is reserved." 12. In ver. 11, St. Jude, fervidly borne along in his impassioned invective, collects together three instances of Old Test. transgressors, to all of whom he compares those whom he is stigmatizing. They were murderers like Cain, covetous like Balaam, rebellious like Korah. But out of these St. Peter, dealing with false teachers, whom he is comparing with the false prophets of old, selects Balaam only, and goes at length (vv. 15, 16) into his sin and his rebuke. Can any one persuade us that in the impetuous whirlwind of St. Jude's invective he adopted and abridged the example furnished by St. Peter, prefixing and adding those of Cain and Korah ? SECTION IV. AUTHENTICITY. 1. As regards the external grounds for or against the authenticity of this Epistle, we have very various opinions. Dietlein finds traces of its use in the earliest apostolic Fathers; in Polycarp, in Ignatius, in the Epistle of Barnabas, in Clement of Rome. Most of these however are very shadowy and fanciful: some of them even absurd. The explanation of the coincidence in these cases is generally to be sought in the fact that these writers had the same sources to draw from, in the main, as the Apostle, viz. Old Test. prophecy, and the common-places of Christian teaching: and this being so, it would be strange indeed if we did not find such coincidence in insulated words and occasional phrases. 2. A few however of the instances adduced from the Apostolic Fathers are worth notice: not as by any means proving the use by them of this Epistle, but as remarkable in connexion with the question before us. Such are 1) Hermas, in the work called "The Shepherd:" "Listen to the weight of both, delicate living and torment. Of delicate living and of self-deception the time is one hour: but of torment the hours each have the force of thirty days. If then a man live delicately, and deceive himself one day, and be tormented one day, &c.," as compared with "counting as pleasure that delicate living which is but for a day," 2 Pet. ii. 13, where see note: 2) Clement of Rome: "Noah preached repentance;" and again, "Noah, being found faithful, preached, by his ministration, regeneration to the world:" and again, in speaking of Lot's deliverance out of Sodom, "The Master made it evident, that He does not desert those who hope in Him, but appoints the 5 In his work on the 2nd Epistle of Peter, Berlin, 1851, with which I have been much disappointed, in point both of scholarship and logic. |