! 
 
 Benjamin B. V.'arfield 
 
 Dr. Edwin A . Abbott 
 
 on the 
 
 Genuineness of 
 
 Second Peter 
 
 nua^'^rFor^- 
 
 ^c 
 
 % 
 
 BS2795 
 .4.W27 
 
 * 
 
 m^.^m 
 
 
 I 
 
 V 
 
i^ 
 
 sf r.. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^CT ;o 1S62 
 
 .4.U/Z7 
 
 •JI|D3 'U0()(30(S 
 
 Minuia ii-iii ■• 
 
DR. EDWIN A. ABBOTT 
 
 ON THE 
 
 HS OF Sli PEm, 
 
390 Dr. Edwin A. Ahhotf on the [April, 
 
 From the Sontheni Preshyternin Reviev, April, 1883. 
 
 DR. EDWIN A. ABBOTT 
 
 CmiMHSJ OF SECOlll PETEl 
 
 In the great revival of interest in all branches of Biblical 
 Criticism which is at present in progress, it cannot seem strange 
 that such a book as 2 Peter has received a great deal of attention. 
 The fact is, at all events, illustrated by the appearance from 
 English presses, during the course of the "publishers' year," ex- 
 tending from the autumn of 1881 to the autumn of 1882, of at 
 least four important {mter alia 7iiinora) discussions of the genu- 
 ineness of that Epistle. It may also be a significant mark of the 
 temper of the times that no two of these discussions reach the 
 same conclusion. Dr. Huther,' who examines the question with 
 the painstaking care that behoved a German scholar and a con- 
 tinuer of Meyer's Commentary, but who does not succeed in pre- 
 venting our missing the master's own hand, comes simply to a 
 
 1 Critical and Exegetical Handhook to the General Epistles of Peter 
 and Jnde. By Joh. Ed. Huther, Ph. D. .Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark. See 
 
 p. 2S4. 
 
1883,] Crenuinene^s of Second Peter. 891 
 
 verdict of non liquet. "If, then," he says, "the grounds for and 
 against the authenticity are thus evenly balanced, there is here 
 presented a problem which is not yet solved, and which perhaps 
 cannot be solved." Canon Farrar, after a discussion in which he 
 has, as is his wont, smelted rhetoric and argument into one glow- 
 ing mass, finally follows a hint of Jerome's,^ and asserts for the 
 Epistle a modified genuineness. He cannot find in it either 
 Peter's individual style or characteristic expressions ; he recog- 
 nises in it a diff"erent mode of workmanship from his. Yet it 
 seems to him "impossible to read it without recognising in it an 
 accent of inspiration, and without seeing a 'grace of superinten- 
 dence' at work in the decision by which it was finally allowed to 
 take its place among the canonical books." ^ He thinks "that 
 St. Peter may have lent his name and the weight of his authority 
 to thoughts expressed jn the language of another;" ^ "that we 
 have not here the words and style of the great Apostle, but that 
 he lent to this Epistle the sanction of his name and the assistance 
 of his advice." * Professor Lumby, after an examination of the 
 internal evidences for the Epistle which cannot be characterised 
 by any lower term than brilliant, concludes that it points clearly 
 to St. Peter as its author, and that "it bears its witness in itself." * 
 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott, who investigates the difficulties in the 
 way of assigning the Epistle to Peter, in a paper at once learned, 
 acute, and intensely interesting, which runs through three num- 
 bers of a critical journal, concludes that it cannot be by Peter, 
 is unworthy in style, barren in thought, a plagiarism from first 
 to last, and depends on writings which were not published until 
 a quarter of a century after Peter's death. ^ If the careful 
 
 ^Ep.ad. Hedib., 120, 11. 
 
 ^^^The Expositor,'''' Second Series, Vol. III., p. 423. 
 
 ^ ''■The Expositor;' etc., p. 409. 
 
 * The Early Days of Christianity. By F. W. Farrar, D. D., F. R. S., 
 etc. New York : E. P. Dutton & Co. Vol. I., p. 207. 
 
 * The Holy Bible, etc. Commentary and a Revision of the Translation. 
 By Bishops and other Clergy of the Anglican Church. Edited by F. C. 
 Cook, M. A., etc. Vol. IV., p. 234. 
 
 ® ''The Expositor;' as above, Vol. III., pp. 49-63, 139-153, and 204-219. 
 
392 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [Apkil, 
 
 Huther cannot reach any conclusion, and Drs. Farrar and Lumby 
 attain theirs only with difficulty, and express them with modest 
 over-hesitancy, Dr. Abbott at least feels no hesitancy and ex- 
 hibits no doubt. His decision and language alike are strong. If 
 we may venture to compare the discussion with another, to which 
 it has many points of likeness (although certainly not in its 
 issue) — that which has arisen over the genuineness of the Chron- 
 icle of Dino Campagni — we may say that Dr. Abbott uses the 
 method of Sheffer-Boichorst in the spirit of Fanfani. 
 
 It will go without saying that Dr. Abbott's argument is attrac- 
 tively and plausibly presented. It constitutes, indeed, the most 
 considerable arraignment of the Epistle that has been put forth 
 since the days of the giants of a half century ago. It is, more- 
 over, in its main points, quite fresh and new. It certainly de- 
 mands close attention, careful examination and sifting. And it 
 is to be sincerely hoped that it will not continue to be met only 
 by "a conspiracy of silence." Canon Farrar expressed this hope 
 so long ago as last June ; but, so far as we are aware, his own 
 brief criticism is as yet the only one that has seen the light. ^ 
 It is only thus because more experienced students have not seen 
 fit or found time and opportunity to publicly examine the new 
 questions raised, that Ave have felt driven to undertake the task. 
 Whatever may be the final result of discussion, it certainly can- 
 not but be a help towards a proper appreciation of the facts of 
 the case and the attainment of truth, for one and another to set 
 down frankly, in due honesty, the impression which Dr. Abbott's 
 arguments have made upon them. Such is our purpose in this 
 paper. 
 
 It would be both impossible in reasonable space and tedious to 
 the reader for us to attempt to detail all the processes of the in- 
 vestigations into which a study of Dr. Abbott's arguments necessa- 
 rily carries one. It is well to advertise beforehand, therefore, that 
 this paper does not profess to make these investigations, but only to 
 
 'Prof. Robert B. Druminond ['^ The Academy,'" for October 14, 1882), 
 in reviewinf;; Canon Farrar's work on The Early Days of Christianity, 
 seems to accept Dr. Abbott's "discovery" of dependence of 2 Peter on 
 Josepbus. This is, however, only a chance remark, not a criticism. 
 
1883.] Crenuineness of Second Peter. 393 
 
 present, as clearly as may be, support, and commend, the con- 
 clusions to which we have, after investigation, arrived. It would 
 be pure affectation to preserve the form of investigation merely 
 for effect ; and we cherish the hope that our cause will not be 
 prejudiced by the frank confession that we have not ventured to 
 write upon this subject until after we had reached our conclusions 
 upon it. We trust our study has been carried through with open 
 and tractable mind ; we confess that we write with a foregone 
 conclusion. The purpose of this paper becomes thus a defence of 
 the genuineness of 2 Peter against Dr. Abbott's strictures. 
 
 The same necessity for shunning inordinate length and tedious- 
 ness forbids us, again, to attempt to supply an answer to every 
 specification which Dr. Abbott has made in the course of his three 
 articles. Fortunately, however, a selection may be made among 
 them, without great prejudice to our cause. Only certain por- 
 tions of his argument are new, and we may fitly confine our- 
 fine ourselves to these new portions, especially as they happen to 
 be also both the most forcible in themselves and the most relied 
 upon by Dr. Abbott. The older arguments, although consum- 
 mately marshalled, are not essentially altered by his treatment of 
 them ; and we may content ourselves in dealing with them with 
 referring only to their character and indicating that they have 
 been ansAvered fully in advance. 
 
 DR. ABBOTT'S SCHEME OF ARGUMENT. 
 
 If, at the outset, we take a general glance over Dr. Abbott's 
 argument against the Epistle, as a whole, we will find that it may 
 be summed up under the following heads : 1. The external evi- 
 dence for the Epistle is altogether insufficient. 2. It is depen- 
 dent, in a literary way, on books which were published only after 
 Peter's death — such as the Epistle of Clement of Rome, and 
 notably the Antiquities of Josephus. 3. It not only borrows 
 from Acts, 1 Peter, and especially Jude, and that in such a way 
 as to exhibit its writer as a barren plagiarist, but, in borrowing, 
 bungles and blurs everything it touches. 4. Its style is wholly 
 unworthy of an Apostle — being, in fact, no style at all, but only 
 a barbarous medley of words, such as a vain, half-taught Hindoo 
 
394 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 puts together in trying to write "fine" English, 5. It cannot be 
 by the same writer who Avrote 1 Peter, as, indeed, this unworthy 
 style, which is not found in 1 Peter, sufficiently witnesses, and 
 as is further proved by other important differences between the 
 two Epistles, such as, for example, their divergent use of such 
 particles as express the manner of thought, their divergent degree 
 of dependence on the Old Testament, etc. 6. Other internal 
 evidences of the spuriousness of the Epistle, are not lacking ; 
 such as the statement in iii. 1, implying a very close connexion, 
 both in its readers and in time, with the first Epistle ; whereas, 
 the implication of the contents of the Epistles separate them 
 vastly — the use of the term "Holy Mount" — the authorisation of 
 the whole body of Paul's Epistles, etc. 
 
 The reader who is familiar with the literature of the subject, 
 will observe immediately that the new matter advanced by Dr. 
 Abbott falls under the second and fourth of these heads ; the 
 second is, indeed. Dr. Abbott's own discovery, while the fourth, 
 although old in essence, is treated in so fresh a way as to make 
 it practically new. The other heads of argument only state anew 
 old and well known objections, often urged and often rebutted, 
 and will not demand from us a renewed treatment. A word or 
 two only concerning them seems called for. Only one of them 
 is urged by Dr. Abbot with any fulness — the second paper of his 
 series being devoted to the discussion and illustration of the 
 "plagiarism" from Jude. The specialty of the treatment of the 
 subject lies, not in an assertion of a post-apostolic origin for 
 Jude, and consequently a fortiori for 2 Peter, nor in a conten- 
 tion that it is unworthy of an Apostle to borrow so freely from 
 another writer, but in an attempt to prove that the borrowing 
 has proceeded after a dull, unintelligent, distorting, ignoble man- 
 ner, such as is totally unworthy of any reputable writer. That 
 Dr. Abbott has made out the fact that 2 Peter does borrow from 
 Jude, we freely confess ; the fact itself is well-nigh patent, and 
 has been repeatedly much more fully and convincingly proved 
 than Dr. Abbott has proved it. But that it has been shown that 
 the borrowing has been done in a confused, distorted, or unintelli- 
 gent manner, we can think as little in his case as in the case of 
 
1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 395 
 
 his predecessors wlio have plied the same arguments, and have 
 been repeatedly satisfactorily replied to. ^ We are unable to dis- 
 cover that Dr. Abbott adduces anything new in this connexion, 
 or adds at all to the force of the old arguments ; we feel, there- 
 fore, perfectly safe in leaving his refutation to the by no means 
 worn out considerations which have refuted the same arguments 
 in the mouths of a DeWette and a Schwegler. ^ On the other inter- 
 nal arguments which he adduces against the Epistle, Dr. Abbott 
 only touches, as it were, by the way. They have been super- 
 abundantly answered in advance, and Dr. Lumby, for instance, 
 has opposed to them counter internal considerations,^ which hope- 
 lessly overshadow them. It would be almost an impertinence in 
 us to mar the strength of his admirable presentation of the sub- 
 ject, b}^ adding a single additional word to it here. 
 
 Dr. Abbott does not even state the external evidence, but con- 
 tents himself with a reference to the admissions of Drs. Lightfoot 
 and Westcott, and the broad assertion that no trace of the existence 
 of the letter can be found earlier than the late second century 
 (Clement of Alexandria). It would be uncalled for, therefore, to 
 turn aside from the discussion of the arguments which he does 
 develop in detail, to enter upon one to which he gives only this 
 one passing Avord more fully than merely to set opposite to his 
 assertion our counter assertion that Second Peter is quoted by 
 many writers before Clement of Alexandria,* and to call attention 
 to the fact that the "trace" of the Epistle found in Clement of 
 
 ^ What the opinion of the critics mentioned above is as to the question 
 of the manner of borrowini>;, may be gleaned from the followincr. Huther, 
 p. 279, says : "The firmness of 2 Peter's line of thouiTht does not in any 
 way suifer thereby." Cf. p. 256 : "In neither have we a slavish depen- 
 dence or a mere copy, but the correspondence is carried out with literary 
 freedom and license." Farrar, I., p. 196, seq. : "St. Peter deals with 
 his materials in a wise and independent manner." Prof. Lumby thinks 
 Jude was the borrower. 
 
 ^Compare, for instance, the treatment of the subject by Huther, 
 Bruckner, Weiss, Alford, and Frederic Gardiner. (Bibliotheca Sacra, 
 XI. p. 114.) 
 
 ^In the fourth volume of the Speaker's Commentary, as above. 
 
 * The proof of this may be read in the Southern Presbyterian Re- 
 view for January, 1882, pp. 48, seq. 
 VOL. XXXIV., NO. 2 — 11. 
 
396 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 Alexandria is of a kind, by itself, to prove much about the Epis- 
 tle — being nothing less than this: that Clement wrote a Com- 
 mentary on it as a part of a series of "concise explanations of all 
 the Canonical Scriptures."^ This certainly has more evidential 
 value than is brought out in the mere statement that the first trace 
 of the existence of the Epistle is found in Clement of Alexandria. 
 One other fact in Dr. Abbott's attitude towards the external evi- 
 dences needs notice. And this is of no less moment than this : 
 the admission that literary connexion has been made out between 
 Second Peter and Clement of Rome. The admission is made, 
 indeed, only to prepare the way for arguing that the borrowing 
 has been done by not from Second Peter. On this point, how- 
 ever, the mass of scholars may be expected to hold a different 
 opinion. Dr. Abbott pleads that Second Peter has an established 
 character as a borrower and hence probably did this borrowing; 
 and that if Second Peter borrowed from a work of Josephus' 
 published in A. D. 93, it is not likely that it was borrowed from 
 by Clement as early as 95. If, however, the evidence that 2 
 Peter was the borrower rests on the probability that it borrowed 
 from Josephus, it leans on a very broken reed, as we hope to show ; 
 and Dr. Abbott forgets that Clement is quite as confirmed a bor- 
 rower as 2 Peter. If the one uses Jude freely, the other uses 
 Hebrews quite as freely ; and doubtless if accurate scales were 
 used, as large a proportion of Clement's letter might be shown to 
 be borrowed as of 2 Peter. On the other hand, it seems to be 
 clear that if there does exist literary connexion between the two 
 documents, as we now think is morally certain, the dependence is 
 of Clement on Peter. The considerations which drive us to this 
 conclusion are the following: (1.) We have a series of writers 
 dependent on 2 Peter — Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Irenseus, 
 Theophilus, Melito, Hermas, Justin, Testt. xii. Patt., Barnabas, 
 Clement of Rome; and it is exceedingly difficult to insert 2 Peter 
 anywhere in that series and say it borrows from all on one side 
 of it and is borroAved from by all on the other. It most naturally 
 comes at the end of the series. The same consideration which 
 Dr. Abbott pleads as a reason why he should not place it between 
 Ud., p. 46. 
 
1883.] 
 
 Genuineness of Second Peter. 
 
 397 
 
 Josephus and Clement of Rome, we plead against placing it be- 
 tween Clement and Barnabas, or Barnabas and the Testt. xii. 
 Patt., and so on. (2.) The phenomena of the parallel passages 
 themselves do not seem to us, as they do to Dr. Abbott, absolutely- 
 neutral on this question. All the indications seem rather to point 
 to 2 Peter as the original source, as perhaps a study of them as 
 given in the note below' may convince the reader. (3.) Perhaps 
 
 * The parallel passacres are as follows: 
 (1.) Clement vii. 1. 2 Peter i. 12. 
 
 These things, dearly beloved, we Wherefore I shall be ready to put 
 write, not only as admonishing you. you in remembrance o/' these things. 
 hat ii\fO iis putting ourselves in re- iii. 1. This is now, beloved, the 
 memhrance. {v7ro/xi.;xvr/(rKecv as in 2 second epistle that I write unto you ; 
 P. i. 12.) and in both of them I stir up your 
 
 sincere minds by putting you in re- 
 membrance. 
 
 (2.) Clement vii. 5, 6. 
 
 Let us review all generations in 
 turn and learn how, from genera- 
 tion to generation, the Master hath 
 given a place for repentance unto 
 thein that desire to turn to him. 
 Noah heralded repentance and they 
 that obeyed were saved, xi. 1. For 
 his hospitality and godliness Lot was 
 saved from Sodom when all the 
 country round about was judged by 
 lire and brimstone; the Master hav- 
 ing thus foreshown that he forsaketh 
 not them which set their hope in 
 him, but appointeth unto punish- 
 ment and torment them that swerve 
 aside. 
 
 (3.) Clement iv. 
 
 Wlierefore, let us be obedient un- 
 to his excellent and glorious will. . 
 . . Let us fix our eyes on them that 
 ministered perfectly unto his excel- 
 lent glory. Let us set before us 
 Enoch, etc. . . . Noah, being found 
 faithful.by his ministration preached 
 {kK/'/pv^ev) regeneration into the 
 world, and through him the Master 
 saved the living creatures that en- 
 tered into the ark, in concord. 
 
 2 Peter ii. 5-9. 
 
 For if God . . . spared not the 
 ancient world, but preserved Noah 
 with seven others, a herald of right- 
 eousness, when he bi-ought a flood 
 upon the world of the ungodly ; and 
 burning the cities of Sodom and Go- 
 morrah into ashes condemned them 
 with an overthrow, having made 
 them an example unto those that 
 should live ungodly ; and delivered 
 righteous Lot sore distressed by the 
 lascivious life of the wicked (for 
 that righteous man, dwelling among 
 them, in seeing and hearing, vexed 
 his righteous soul from day to day 
 with their lawless deeds) : the Lord 
 knoweth how to deliver *:he godly 
 out of temptation and to keep the 
 unrighteous under punishment unto 
 the day of judgment. 
 
 2 Peter i. 17. 
 
 For he received from God the 
 Father honor and glory when there 
 came such a voice to him from the 
 excellent glory, '"This is" etc., . . 
 and this voice we heard, etc. ii. 5, 6. 
 And spared not the ancient world, 
 but preserved Noah and seven oth- 
 ers, a preacher of righteousness, 
 when he brought a flood upon the 
 world of the ungodly. 
 
398 Br. Mwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 if it stood alone, the passage from Clement xxiii. 3, could not be 
 asserted to be a reminiscence of Jas. i. 8, {ef. v. 7) and 2 P. iii. 
 4, combined;^ but the fact that other sufficient proof of literary 
 connexion between Clement and 2 Peter exists, turns the scale in 
 this passage and determines that this is another item of it. If so, 
 then, not only is 2 Peter the older document, but also it was held 
 by Clement to be Scripture. We have purposely refrained from 
 adding as (4) that all the presumption for the genuiness of 2 
 
 (4.) Clement xxii. 2 Peter iii. 5-7. 
 
 Let our souls be bound to him For this they wilfully forcet 
 that is faithful k-ayyE/Jaig . . . h [speakinfj; of the surety of God's 
 /i6y(JTt/Q fieyaAuabvTj^ avTov avveoTTjaaTO eirayyeMa] that . . nvpavol f/aav eicrra- 
 ra JravTa Kal kv Xoytf) dvvarai avra Ka- A«< Kal yf/ . . avvearuaa, tu> tov Oeov . . oi 
 Taarpe-ipEt. ''e viw ovpavol kcu I'j yf/ runvro) Adyu re- 
 
 Or/aavpiaftevoi elal, nvpl T7jpnh/uEvni fic 
 
 y/ispav KpioEUQ. 
 
 (5.) Clement xxiii. 3. 2 Peter iii. 4. 
 
 Let this Scripture be far from us In the last days mockers shall 
 where it saith : "Wretched are the come . . sayin<j, "Where is the pro- 
 double-minded which doubt in their mise of his comincr, for, from the 
 soul and say, 'These thin<;;s we did day that the fathers fell asleep, all 
 hear in the days of our fathers also, thinf;;s continue as they were from 
 and behold we have trrown old, and the beginnini^ of the creation." 
 none of these things have befallen 
 us.' " 
 
 (6.) Clement xxxv. 5. 2 Peter ii. 2. 
 
 If we accomplish such things as And many shall follow their las- 
 beseem hisfaultless will, and follow civious doings ; by reason of whom 
 the way of truth, casting off from the way of the truth shall be evil 
 ourselves all unrighteousness and spoken of. 
 iniquity, etc., etc. 
 
 The first and sixth of these parallels hardly give indication of the 
 direction of the borrowing; the second, third, fourth, and fifth, however, 
 (independently of the statement of Clement, that he borrowed the fifth) 
 all severally give clear hints of the fact that the passage in Clement is 
 the borrower. Note, e. g., the compression in the fourth by Clement, 
 as he briefly takes from Peter's larger context the exact thought he 
 needed. The way in which the peculiar phrase, "excellent glory," is 
 introduced in the third, in each writer, is again decisive that Peter's is 
 the original. Tiie phenomena of the fifth are even stronger in the 
 same direction, etc. 
 
 ^Compare how Clement smelts together reminiscences of difi^erent 
 passages in chapter xiii. (Matt. v. 7 ; vi. 14 -, vii. 12 ; Luke vi. 38 ; vi. 37 ; 
 Matt. vii. 2), and from the Old Testament, ^assm. 
 
1883.] aenuiiieness of Second Peter, 399 
 
 Peter which arises from the varied proofs which combine to estab- 
 lish it^ is against the hypothesis that it has borrowed from Clement : 
 not because we do not regard this as a valid or convincing argu- 
 ment, but because Ave deem it unnecessary for the establishment 
 of our point and do not wish to be delayed to show .the strength of 
 the presumption. The result of an examination of the relation be- 
 tween 2 Peter and Clement therefore seems to be that to a moral 
 certainty Clement had and used 2 Peter and that probably as 
 Scripture. This one fact, taken alone, burdens any argument 
 which would go to prove a later date than say A. D. 75 for 2 
 Peter with an almost insuperable objection at the outset, and it is 
 under a realisation of this that we would wish the reader to pro- 
 ceed with us in our further discussion. We purpose to examine, 
 1. Dr. Abbott's arraignment of 2 Peter's style, and 2. The rela- 
 tion of 2 Peter to Josephus. 
 
 DR. Abbott's arraicxNment of 2 peter's style. 
 
 Dr. Abbott has a very low opinion of the style of 2 Peter. He 
 thinks it "throughout that of a copyist and 'fine writer,' ignorant 
 of ordinary Greek idiom, yet constantly striving after grandilo- 
 quent Greek, an affected and artificial style, wholly unlike that of 
 the First Epistle of St. Peter, a style so made up of shreds and 
 patches of other men's writings and so interpersed with obsolete, 
 sonorous, and meaningless words, that it really has no claim to be 
 called a style at all, and resembles nothing so much as the patch- 
 work English of a half-educated Hindoo aping the language of 
 Lord Macaulay and Dr. Johnson with an occasional flavor of 
 Shakespeare."^ He believes it possible "to show that there is 
 probably not one original thought and scarcely one natural ex- 
 pression in the whole of it."^ This would be enough to take 
 one's breath away, except that it admits of a very easy demonstra- 
 tion that the criticism itself is only a piece of "fine writing" and 
 cannot be by any possibility true. Common sense refuses to be 
 persuaded that native Greeks of culture and scholarship — acute 
 critics of language and style, great scholars and rhetoricians, pro- 
 
 ^ See Southern Presbyterian Review, January, 1882, p. 45, seq. 
 *P. 153. ^V. 150. 
 
400 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 lific writers — like Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil, 
 Athanasius, should have read this Epistle for ages, studied it, 
 criticised it, written commentaries on it, and honored it all this 
 time as divinely inspired without ever discovering that its style 
 was such as "would induce a Greek reader to form about it the 
 same judgment that we naturally form about the 'Native Esti- 
 mate' 'V in a Avord, that "there is no style, no naturalness" about 
 it, nothing but "a barbarous medley of words." ^ Calm judgment 
 again refuses to believe that scholars like Ewald, Brlickner, 
 Hofmann, Huther, Weiss, could be so wofully deceived as to ad- 
 mire a style which is "essentially ignoble" both in thought and 
 wording, which is characterised by "vulgar pomposity, verbose 
 pedantry, and barren plagiarism," and can be but the natural 
 expression of "a pedantical phrase-compiler who bungles and 
 blurs" everything h^ touches. Surely a sober reader is entitled 
 to brush away such a fanfaronade with a justly impatient gesture. 
 It will be of use to us, however, to observe the kind of specifi- 
 cation that is made to support this wholesale attack at once on the 
 style of 2 Peter, the discernment of the Greek fathers, and the 
 scholarship of the best modern masters of Hellenistic Greek, as 
 well as the manner of argumentation by which the style of 2 Peter 
 is made, an evidence of its spuriousness. Dr. Abbott recognises 
 the fact that neither apostolicity nor inspiration secures to a writer 
 Attic purity of Greek. "Let it be clearly understood," he says, ^ 
 "that we do not ground our objections to the genuineness of the 
 Epistle on its bad Greek." The argument bases itself on the con- 
 tention that the style is bad in such a way as to exhibit not sim- 
 ply ignorance of Greek, but certain bad mental and moral traits : 
 "barrenness," "inanity," "shallowness," "pedantry," "vanity," 
 "dulness," "vulgarity," "ignobility," and so on, through almost 
 "a glossary of the rarest words in the [English] language." It is 
 observable, therefore, that Dr. Abbott's argument is confessedly 
 not valid unless it be shown not merely that 2 Peter contains bad 
 Cfreek, rare, otherwise unknown, or even falsely framed or used 
 
 * A characteristic specimen of the "half-educated Hindoo English," 
 mentioned above. 
 
 2 P. 206. ' P. 214. 
 
1883,] G-enuineness of Second Peter. 401 
 
 words, rare, difficult, or even solecistic constructions; but nlso 
 that these words are so used as to exhibit an ignobility of mental 
 or moral constitution in the writer. Dr. Abbott must certaiidy 
 be held in his specifications to items supporting one or the other 
 of these two assertions: 1. That the style bears witness to a men- 
 tally or morally ignoble writer ; or 2. That it is ineradically and 
 inexplicably different from that of First Peter. 
 
 A careful reader will look in vain through Dr. Abbott's very 
 interesting pages for such items. His three main contentions are 
 that the Epistle is full of "barren plagiarisms," "artificial tautol- 
 ogy of fine words," and "vulgar pedantry," concerning which it 
 is immediately to be observed that the argument in each case lies 
 in the adjective, while the facts do not justify even the noun. It 
 is indeed true that 2 Peter has freely borrowed from Jude and 
 adopted phrases here and there from other writings ; but it is just 
 as certainly not true that the borrowing has been done in any 
 unworthy, ignoble, or barren manner, or can be justly described as 
 plagiarism. There certainly do occur repetitions of words and 
 phrases in the Epistle, and some unusual, not to say unique, words 
 may be turned up in it ; but this mere fact is certainly not un- 
 worthy or vulgar, nor are the circumstances of the various cases 
 such as will render them so. We have already said all that we 
 need say concerning the borrowing from Jude; it will be instruc- 
 tive to note here Dr. Abbott's way of dealing Avith the asserted 
 cases of "tautologies" and "solecisms" in order to obtain a correct 
 notion of the soundness and carefulness of his methods of work, 
 and to guard the reader against the fear that we are dealing as 
 unfairly with Dr. Abbott as he had dealt with 2 Peter. 
 
 By "tautology" Dr. Abbott does "not mean the mere repeti- 
 tion of the same word or phrase to express the same thing. Euclid 
 is not tautological." He means the barren repetition of "fine 
 ^rg^-ds" — due to "paucity of vocabulary" and the desire of an empty 
 writer to "make the most of the handsome phrases which he has 
 accumulated," whereby he is led, "having found a bright patch," 
 "to insert it twice or thrice before he can bring himself to let it go." 
 It is clear now, that the words adduced to prove such a tautology 
 must be poetical and striking; above all, they must not be such as 
 
402 Br, Edivin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 can be shown to have been in natural and familiar use in the 
 sense in which they occur in "the tautology." A very fiiir exam- 
 ple of tlie kind of tautology meant Dr. Abbott adduces from an 
 estimate of Lord Hobart's character which appeared shortly after 
 the death of that statesman, in the 3Iadras 3Iail. It will be suf- 
 ficient for our purposes to quote the first paragraphs of it : 
 
 "The not uncommon (a, 1) Aand o/ death has distilled from fel)rile 
 wings from amongst a debris of bereaved relatives, friends, and submis- 
 sive subjects into [b, 1) the interminable azure of the j)ast, an unexcep- 
 tionably finished politician and philanthropist of the highest specific 
 gravity, who, only a few days ago, represented our Most Gracious Ma- 
 jesty the Queen in this Presidency. 
 
 "The hand of {a, 2) destiny has willed that he should be carried into 
 the infinite (b, 2) aztwe of the past, when the (c, 1 ) incipient buds, 
 and [d, 1) symptoms of his fostered love and hope for the (e, 1) Oriental 
 element were observed to be gradually blos-^oming. The (e, 2) Oriental 
 mind was just in the (c, 2|) incipient stage of appreciating his noble men- 
 tal and moral qualities, and consequently can only confine itself to a 
 prediction of what his indefatigable zeal would have achieved for it, had 
 he remained within the category of 'the survival of the fittest." " 
 
 Dr. Abbott thinks that 2 Peter is the same kind of Greek as 
 this trash is English ! We are not concerned now, however, with 
 this already refuted and self-refuting charge, but only with the 
 tautologies. These are marked by italics and figures in the above 
 passage, and are all striking, either because they are figurative 
 expressions, or intensely poetical expressions, or are used in 
 strange senses. The only exception is, possibly, '"'•Oriental," and 
 that probably would not attract attention, or be noted as a tau- 
 tology of this class, except in association with the others. 
 
 Now, Dr. Abbott thinks that in respect to its tautologies, 2 
 Peter ii. 14-20, is parallel to this ; he admits, indeed, that the 
 words there "are capable of being rendered into very simple 
 English," but contends that "their use, and still more their repe- 
 tition in this Epistle, Avould induce a Greek reader to form about 
 it the same judgment that we naturally form about the 'Native 
 Estimate.'" We might ask. Even Avere this true, what of it ? 
 Would this prove ignobility of soul or ignorance of Greek ? Pov- 
 erty of Greek vocabulary might be proved ; a book -learned and 
 half-understood vocabulary might be proved. But Dr. Abbott's 
 
1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 403 
 
 brief requires him to prove mental or moral unworthiness. It 
 behoves us, rather, to ask, however, is it true ? We can deter- 
 mine how the style of this Epistle would affect a Greek reader of 
 say the last half of the first century A. D., only in two ways: 
 1, by observing how it actually affected the Greek readers who 
 read it nearest to that time ; and, 2, by noting whether the words 
 thus "tautologically" used are of the same class that occur in the 
 Madras Mail extract. Many Greek readers, sufficiently close to 
 Peter's day to stand as examples, used this Epistle ; some of them 
 did not fail to observe the difference between its style and that of 
 1 Peter — a far more hidden phenomenon than this to which Dr. 
 Abbott appeals. Yet none of them has seen this — which has 
 been reserved to him to discover some eighteen centuries after the 
 advent of the Epistle into an unbelieving and critical world. 
 Again, the words used are found on examination to bear abso- 
 lutely no real resemblance to those in the 3Iadras Mail quota- 
 tion ; but, on the contrary, are used by 2 Peter in senses justified 
 as simple and natural by either known usage or strong analogy. 
 Dr. Abbott's contention is that some of these words "are very 
 rare in Greek literature;" and others, "though good classical 
 Greek in themselves, are rare or non-existent in the Ncav Testa- 
 ment." Elsewhere we learn that he deems a word not found 
 elsewhere in the New Testament, or in the LXX., an uncommon 
 word to the circle of ideas of a writer like 2 Peter, even though 
 it be otherwise a common Greek word. But would the use of 
 such words repetitiously be enough to convict a passage of being 
 similar in style to the extract from the Madras Mail? Dr. 
 Abbott seems to forget for the moment the kind of Greek he is 
 dealing with, and the characteristics of the period to which it 
 belongs. Winer ^ gives us, as the chief lexical peculiarities of 
 Hellenistic Greek, as distinguished from classical, the mixture of 
 dialects ; great changes of sense in words ; the commingling of 
 poetical and other lofty words ; changes of form ; and an influx 
 of newly made words, or of words new to the literary language. 
 From these main characteristics of the kind of Greek occurring 
 
 ^ Winer's Grammar, etc., § 2 ; where a sufficient number of examples are 
 given. 
 
404 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott 07i the [April, 
 
 in 2 Peter, it is already apparent that Dr. Abbott has engaged 
 in a rather difficult task, when he wishes to prove that its author 
 has used his words in as ridiculous a way as the writer in the 
 Madras Mail. That a word is a curious dialectic form, does not 
 prove it was not in the commonest currency in Peter's day ; that 
 it occurs in the classics only in the loftiest of poetic speech, does 
 not prove it was not the flattest prose in Peter's day ; that old 
 acquaintances are used in the most unheard of senses, or reappear 
 in entirely strange dresses, or give way to utter strangers, obtained 
 no one knows whence — all this would not only be no proof of 
 ignorance of Greek in the author of a writing of this date, but 
 is just what we are to look for and expect in him. It is just what 
 we do find in all the writers of the time. Every one of the New 
 Testament writers has his own dwa^ leySfieva, absolute, or in the 
 New Testament. Queer phenomena are continually cropping 
 out. The same word, for instance, appears in only two places 
 in all Greek literature ; in both cases independently, and in both 
 it is used with the utmost familiarity ; or a word can be found 
 only in a single passage in the totality of Greek writing, until it 
 suddenly turns up in an inscription ; or a familiar word is used 
 by two widely separated authors, and by them only, in a new 
 and strange sense. The period in which 2 Peter was composed, 
 was, in a word, linguistically speaking, an unsettled age, and an 
 age of transition. Language, as a literary vehicle, was in a fer- 
 ment ; the old vocabulary was no longer clung to jealously ; popu- 
 lar phrases and forms of speech were clamoring for recognition, and 
 each man did, in the way of choosing a vocabulary, pretty nearly 
 what was right in his own eyes. 
 
 Nor is it possible to speak of the LXX. as almost the only 
 mine from which the Avriters of the New Testament drew their 
 vocabulary ; their great mine was doubtless the popular usage of 
 current speech, as distinguished from any written sources. Pro- 
 fessor Potwin, in his very interesting papers on the New Testa- 
 ment vocabulary,^ gives us a summary view of the matter, which 
 may help us here. He estimates that the New Testament con- 
 tains eight hundred and eighty-two (882) native Greek words 
 ^Bibliotheca Sacra, Oct., 1880, pp. 653, seq. 
 
1883.] G-enuineness of Second Peter. 405 
 
 not found anywhere until after Aristotle, or an average of about 
 two to a page; and yet he has not counted merely dialectic 
 forms, or slight changes of declension or pronunciation, or even 
 the widest changes of meaning, so long as the form was pre- 
 served. Of these eight hundred and eighty-two words not found 
 at all in the classical age, only some three hundred and sixty- 
 three in all, or a little over two-Jifths, are found in the LXX. 
 
 Only one conclusion can be drawn from such facts as these. 
 It will require much more than the adduction of repetitions of 
 words that are rare in the New Testament, or rare in the New 
 Testament and LXX., or rare in Greek literature, to fasten 
 such ''tautologies" as occur in the Madras 3Iail extract on 
 2 Peter. The author of that Epistle ought to be given the 
 benefit of the doubt that would necessarily arise in each case 
 as to whether this or that word, known to us only as a rarely 
 occurring word in Greek literature, or perhaps only as an 
 intensely poetical one of the classical period, was not plain and 
 familiar prose in his circle of acquaintances. It is another ques- 
 tion whether he needs to ask for the benefit of this doubt. 
 And we hasten to add that an examination of Dr. Abbott's 
 chosen examples from 2 Peter will convince the sober reader that 
 he does not. The 'i^arren tautology of five words" is discovered 
 to exist, not at all in 2 Peter's Greek, but only in Dr. Abbott's 
 English representation of it. It is only by such a forced trans- 
 lation — proceeding by the resurrection of the etymological senses 
 of derivatives and compounds, and the literal senses of figurative 
 words which had acquired well-settled and simple derivative mean- 
 ings — as would make any author ridiculous, that the "tautolo- 
 gies" can be found in 2 Peter at all. This may perhaps be made 
 plain to the 'reader by placing Dr. Abbott's forced translation of 
 the first of the two passages he adduces, side by side with an- 
 other, not at all smooth, but which takes the words in justifiable 
 senses, as the added notes will show. We trust the reader will 
 carefully observe the effect. Any one who thought it worth his 
 while, could readily make Dr. Abbott's own thoroughly clear 
 English style muddy, by treating it as he has treated 2 Peter's. 
 It is to be observed that the passage begins in the middle of 
 , a sentence : 
 
40G 
 
 Dr. Udwin A. Abbott 
 
 the 
 
 [April, 
 
 Dr. Abbott's. 
 (a, 1) Setting baits to catch souls 
 (//, 1 ) unconfirmed, havinji a heart 
 practised of^ jfreediness, and child- 
 ren of curse, havinfi left the straiirht 
 way, they went astray hairing fol- 
 lowed after'' the way of Balaam the 
 son of Bosor, who loved the wages of 
 iniquiti/,^ but had the refutation* of 
 his own* law-breaking ;^ a dumb 
 beast of burden with the voice of 
 a man (c, 1) v.ttering a sound,'' h'n- 
 dered the maddishness^ of the pro- 
 phet. . . For (f, 2) uttering sounds 
 of swelling thinsrs" of vanity, in the 
 lusts of the flesh by wanton acts 
 they (of, 2) set baits to catch those who 
 are in the least ^'^ {d, 1) fleeing away 
 from those who are spendino; their 
 life in error; promising them free- 
 dom, bcino; themselves slaves of cor- 
 ruption — for one is enslaved by that 
 by which one is (e, 1) defeated. For 
 if {d, 2) having fted away from the 
 pollutions of the world by the recog- 
 nition^^ of our Lord and Saviour 
 J^sus Christ, but afterwards havinff 
 been entangled in these things they 
 are (g, 2) defeated, their last state is 
 worse than the first. 
 
 2 Peter. 
 
 . . . enticing unstable souls; hav- 
 ing hearts practised in covetous- 
 ness ; children of cursing. They 
 have left the straight way and are 
 gone astray, following after the way 
 of Balaam the son of Bosor who 
 loved the wages of unriirhteousness, 
 but received a rebuke of his own 
 transgression. The dumb beast of 
 burden, speaking with the voice of 
 a man, hindered the prophet's mad- 
 ness. 
 
 For, speaking great swelling 
 things of vanity, they entice, in the 
 lusts of the flesh, by wanton acts, 
 those who are just escaping from 
 them that pass their lives in error, 
 promising them freedom, while they 
 themselves are slaves of corruption ; 
 for one is enslaved by that by which 
 he is overcome. For, if having es- 
 caped the pollutions of the world 
 through the knowledge of our Lord 
 and Saviour Jesus Christ, but hav- 
 ing become again entangled in them, 
 they are overcome, their last state 
 is become worse than their first. 
 
 ^ "A rare and pedantic use of the genitive" (Dr. A.). It will be 
 enough in reply to refer to. Winer, §30-4. 
 
 2 See 2^05^. 3 Ditto. * Cf Job xxi. 4; xxiii. 2 (LXX.). 
 
 *"The word Uioq, private, ought not to be used where there is no anti- 
 thesis between what is one's own and another's ; but the author is . . . 
 fond of the abuse of this word" (Dr. A.). Perhaps, however, Uioq\s not 
 80 unessential here as Dr. Abbott seems to think ; there is a contrast be- 
 tween the "sin" of Balaam and of his ass. Balaam, supposing his ass to 
 be stubborn and vicious, was punishing her for it, when the dumb beast 
 spake and gave him a rebuke for his own sin. Neither is Idiog in ii. 22 
 unessential, as the careful reader will readily see. 
 
 * Cf Prov. v. 22; Ps. xxxvi. 7 ; common in classics (e. g., Polyb., Di- 
 on. Hal.). Hence, only rare in the New Testament. 
 
 ' See post. * Ditto. 
 
 ^ "The use of v-nrepoyKa, without the article, yet followed by a genitive, 
 is bad Greek" (Dr. A.). Why? Cf Winer (Moulton's Ed.), p. 23.5. 
 
 •""The word oMyug is rare, and most used in the phrase ova oAiyug, in 
 no slight degree, like our 'not in the least.' It probably means here: 'to 
 some small extent.' " True enough ; valeat tanttim. 
 
 *'See ]70st. 
 
1883.] G-enuineness of Second Peter. 407 
 
 Relegating to the foot notes all notice of words and phrases 
 which have been forced from their obvious senses, in order to give 
 the passage as a whole the appearance of the Madras Mail ex- 
 tract, we confine ourselves here to the cases of "tautology." Five 
 of these are adduced, to which three more, marked as repeated 
 elsewhere than in this passage, are to be added (marked 2, 3, and 
 11 above), amounting to eight in all. It is observed Avith refer- 
 ence to them that while in the left hand column they bear a 
 strange appearance, as they stand in the right hand column they 
 appear natural enough, and their repetition ceases to strike upon 
 the ear unpleasantly or even markedly. Their "tautological" char- 
 acter (in Dr, Abbott's sense), then, depends on the necessity of 
 looking at them from the standpoint of the left hand column, and 
 the real question before us is : Are they fitly represented by the 
 translation given in the right hand column ? If no violence has 
 been done to them in this translation, then violence has been done 
 to 2 Peter by Dr. Abbott. Let us take a brief view of the usage 
 of the words involved. 
 
 1. (a) Setting baits to catch. This is the translation which Dr. Abbott 
 offers of the word Selmletv, which he further informs us is used only once 
 elsewhere in the New Testament. But 'n it justifiable to din; up the lit- 
 eral sense of the word here? or has its metaphorical sense a recoitnised 
 simple and no longer fiijjurative meaning? The primitive 6k7.eap {cf. 
 667ioq), meaning "a bait," has itself a settled metaphorical sense, as in 
 Plutarch, De Ser. Num. Vinci., to ylvnv ttjq knLdvfiiaq ojairep SelEcip 'h^eIkeiv 
 [avdpuwovg] : and Plato, Tim., Ixix. 6: "Pleasure, the <»;reatest incitement 
 of evil" (.Jowett). The derivative verb ihledi^ELv means, in accordance 
 with its form, 1, literally, to bait, i. e.. either to put on the hook as bait 
 or to entice or catch by bait ; and 2, metaph., to bait — to entice. In 
 this, its metaphorical sense, it obtained o;reat currency, always in sensu 
 main; and, as it became common, lost its fii<;urative implication. The 
 literal sense is already out of sight in such passages as Demosthenes, 
 pp. 241-2: paaTuvT) Kal axo'A.y ^eAeai^ofievov (by all means compare the con- 
 text), and Philo. q. omn. lib. prub. §22 (cited by Grimm), ivpoQ t-iOv/ulag 
 kXaijvETat Tj i/ip' rjdovrjq delsalETai. In the only one other New Testament 
 passage in which the word occurs, the resurrection of the literal sense 
 would even introduce confusion : James i. 14, "But each is tempted by 
 being drawn out and having baits set by his own lust." The order of 
 the words here, E^sTiKd/iEvog first, and dE^EalojiEvoQ second, demonstrates 
 that the latter is used in total neglect of its literal sense, and therefore 
 
408 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 in no sense figuratively, but only as a current expression for "enticing." 
 To insist on translatinp; the word in 2 Peter, "settin<>; baits to catch," is 
 the same as to insist on ffivinj: dilapidate its original sense of scattering 
 stones in such a passajie as this. "The patrimony of the bishopric of 
 Oxon was much dilapidated" (Wood).^ 2 Peter simply uses a common 
 Greek word, not unknown in the New Testament in its most natural, 
 common, and obvious sense ; his repeated use of it in the course of four 
 verses is neither strange nor significant when once we recognise the 
 commonness of the word and the naturalness of the sense. 
 
 2. [b.) iincoiijinned. The word here is (ktttiihktoi, which occurs in 2 
 Peter alone in the New Testament. It is rare also in the classics, rf. 
 Longin. de Subl., 2. 2., and Musaeus, 295 ("the unstable deeps and wa- 
 tery bottoms of the sea"). It may or may not have been a somewhat 
 rare word in St. Peter's day. Certainly its use at 2 Peter ii. 14, iii. 16, 
 cannot be called "tautological," and can occasion no surprise. It is at 
 worst a vivid mode of speech. And it is worthy of note that words cog- 
 nate with cTTipii^u (Luke xxii. 32) are favorites with Peter and seem to 
 have had peculiar significance to him: cf. 1 Peter v. 10; 2 Peter i. 12; 
 iii. 17. and Southern' Presbyterian Review, 1882, p. 69. note 1. 
 
 3. (2) hacing folloioed after. The word here is e^nKo'Aovdelv, concern- 
 ing which Dr. Abbott remarks truly enough that it is used here, i. 16 and 
 ii. 2, only, in the New Testament. This fact has, however, abso- 
 lutely no significance, unless the word itself is either rare or peculiar 
 in some way. It is, on the contrary, however, an exceedingly common 
 word, whether in the LXX. {e.g., Isa. Ivi. 11 ; Sir. v. 2; Amos ii. 4 ; Job 
 xxxi, 9. etc.), or the writers of the kocv^ {e.g., Josephus, Polybius, Plu- 
 tarch), or of the early Church {e.g., Testt. xii. Patt., p. 644). It is used 
 by 2 Peter in three separate (though only slightly divergent) senses, all 
 of which are justified as natural and current by other writers. (Cf. 
 Grimm's analysis of the word.) 
 
 4. {'■]) the tcages of iniqnitji, fiiaffov aSiKiac, "repeated," says Dr. Ab- 
 bott, "from ii. 13," and but once used elsewhere in the New Testament, 
 "namely, in the Acts (i. IS) in a speech of St. Peter, whence it has been 
 probably borrowed by our author." We are at somewhat of a loss to un- 
 derstand what is thought to be proved by this. If there is anything 
 curious or "fine-wordy" or pedantic about this phrase, then how account 
 for its use by the genuine Peter (Acts i. 18, for we understand Dr. Ab- 
 bott to accept that as "a speech of St. Peter'")? at the least, then, this 
 use, pedantic or not, is common to Peter and 2 Peter, and is a mark of 
 the Petrine origin of this Epistle just in proportion as it is strange and 
 unusual. On the other hand, if this phrase is not strange in Acts, why 
 is it strange here? We have no wish to haggle over the point whether 
 2 Peter actually borrows the phrase from Acts, and the less so as it 
 
 'Or, "Christ took our physically dilapidated nature" [IlodgeJ. 
 
1883.] G-enuineness of Second Peter. 409 
 
 seems certain that Acts was published some five or six years earlier than 
 2 Peter, and vei'ses 18 and 19 of Acts i. do not appear to us part of 
 Peter's speech. This much, however, is clear : in Luke's words we have 
 an example of the same phrase that is here held to be "fine-wordy" and 
 pedantic. Essentially the same phrase occurs also in 2 Mace. viii. 33; 
 while fiiaddg in a bad sense is common in Greek literature [cf. e. g,, Cal- 
 lim. Hi/mn. in Dlan., 203, "For neither did Atreides boast in a small 
 uiadCj-^^ Eur. Hipp., 1050, the ficaBoQ due to an impious man, etc.). 
 
 5. (c) uttering a sound, (bdEjyo/xat. Dr. Abbott falls into a sliffht er- 
 ror in saying \p. 206) that this word does not occur elsewhere in the 
 New Testament; it occurs in a precisely similar sense in Acts iv. 18: 
 "charcred them not at all to 'utter a sound' or teach in the name of Jesus." 
 This fact is fatal to the adduction of the word here as pedantic or strauije 
 in the simple sense of "speak." Add that it is common in this same 
 sense in the LXX. ; cf. .Job xiii. 7, evavn 6e ahrov ^dkyyeade 661ov ("utter 
 a sound" of guile?) ; Wisdom i. 8 : "no one 'uttering a sound' of wicked 
 things." Sir. xiii. 22. Cf. Hdian, iv. 6, 12; Xen. Com., ii. 7; Mem., 
 iv. 2, 6. Certainly, as we go on, we become more and more amazed at 
 the items which must be adduced to prove pedantic tautology — if it be 
 proved at all. 
 
 6. (d) fleeing away from, aTro<pei'-yFiv, used in New Testament in 2 Peter 
 i. 4; ii. 18, 20, only. For the construction with the genitive (as in 2 
 Peter i. 4) cf. EKipeii-yetv in Xen. An. 1, 3, 2, and the simple verb in 
 Philoct., 1034. For the construction with the accusative as in our present 
 passage, cf. Batr., 42, 47; Theogn., 1159; Hdt., i. 1; Plato Apol., 39 
 A.; Dem., 840, 8; Plato Tim.. 44, c. ; Xen. Mem., 3, 11, 8. The sense 
 in which 2 Peter uses the word is sufficiently illustrated by Plato Apol., 
 39 A : "For neither in war nor yet at law ought any man to use every 
 way of escaping death" (JowettJ ; Plato Tim., 44 c. : "And escapes the 
 worst disease of all" (.Jowett). As a pedant and fine writer 2 Peter's 
 author can certainly be content to stand alongside of Plato. 
 
 7. (e) defeated, rjTTaaOat ; not found elsewhere in New Testament, [cf. 
 2 Cor. xii. 13), but not, therefore, necessarily rare, pedantic, or ignoble. 
 Cf. Isaiah liv. 17: "And every voice that shall rise up against thee 
 unto judgment,— them all r/TT^aeig-'^ Josephus Ant., I. 19, 4, spun ryg 
 TratSog TjTTr/Oeig. The word is common in the profane Greek, and 2 Peter's 
 use of it is in no sense strange or unwonted. 
 
 8. (11) recognition, ETriyvoxric ; "repeated above, I. 2, 3, 8, but the word 
 is common in St. Paul's Epistles," and, we may add, in exactly the same 
 sense that it occurs in here: cf Rom. i. 28; Eph. iv. 13 ; Col. i. 10, etc. 
 And thus just as Ave reach the climax of our wonder at what Dr. Abbott 
 is able to adduce as tautologies like those of the Madras Mail extract, we 
 reach the end of his enumeration. 
 
 The candid reader who has taken the trouble to read through 
 
410 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 what we have thus thrown into small print, can certainly be 
 trusted to bring in the verdict of "not guilty" to the charge of 
 "tautology" as urged by Dr. Abbott. We must remember, how- 
 ever, that our author does not stop at the charge of "tautology;" 
 that charge is, indeed, in reality only subsidiary to the farther 
 one, that the author of the Epistle is full of the "vulgar pedant- 
 ry" of forcing in the "fine words" of his vocabulary everywhere, 
 without really understanding their meaning, and even of coining 
 other "fine words" from the base metal of his own vain and pom- 
 pous ignorance. We have seen already a sample of what he 
 means by this in the passage we have quoted above from his trans- 
 lations of 2 Peter. That was not, however, quite a full sample ; 
 let us look further. 
 
 Dr. Abbott declares that the use of such words as Trapa^/jov/a 
 
 (ii. 16), mvaor/ieva (iii. 10), KhXio/ia (ii. 22), k^eoafia (ii. '2;l),TapTapuaaQ (\\. 4), 
 
 are ^'exactly parallel" to "gairish," "cognoscence," "sickishness," 
 in such Indian English as: "He had one and uniform way of 
 speaking. He made no gairish of words;" "bolstering up the 
 decision of the Lower Court with his sapience and legal acumen 
 and cognoscence;" "on multitudinous^ occasions, when the hope 
 and affiance of the clients of Justice Mookerjee toto coelo suspend- 
 ed on his pleading, and he was absent from court on account of 
 some sickishness, he even on such a day came and pleaded their 
 causes, when they importuned him to do so." He even thinks 
 that "such idiomatic blunders" as "inducing [the Court] to his 
 favor," and "their hope suspended toto coelo on his pleading" may 
 be fairly matched by the corresponding blunders, fivij^n-^ noieiaOai 
 
 (i. 1')). (TTovSt/v naaav ■Kapeiaex'u.yKavTeq (i. 5)^ the Omission of the article 
 
 (ii. 8, iii. 10, 12), and the use of bydoo^ (ii. 5). "As for the mis- 
 use of fiT^e/ifia (ii. 8), it can be matched with nothing so justly as 
 the passage of the Bengalee writer in which he describes Mr. Jus- 
 tice Mookerjee as 'remaining sotto voce till half-past four in the 
 evening.' " This arraignment is certainly thorough-going, and, 
 if in accordance with facts, opens up a new and hitherto unsus- 
 pected characteristic of 2 Peter ; not, certainly, inconsistent with 
 its inspiration and authority, but, at all events, startling to one 
 iC/. Macbeth II., ii., 62. ' 
 
1883.] Grenuineness of /Second Peter. 411 
 
 who has been accustomed to read it reverently. It behoves us to 
 test the charge somewhat in detail. 
 
 Let us begin with the word Trapacppovia as one already in a sense 
 before us.^ Dr. Abbott tells us that the word^^of which Wahl 
 produces no other instance in Greek literature" — "is probably 
 bad Greek for ■rvapa(j)j}oavvri, as bad as the Indian-English 'sickish- 
 ness' for 'sickness.' " The facts in this account are, that no in- 
 stance of the use of this word seems as yet to have turned up in 
 profane Greek or elsewhere in sacred Greek, and that napacppoavvrf 
 is used by classical writers to express the notion plainly intended 
 here. Its analogy with "sickishness" seems to be confined to 
 this — that both words are formed on a correct analogy, cf. "fool- 
 ishness" (1 Cor. i. 18) and ehSaLfiuvla. The word "sickishness" 
 does exist in English, but in a diiferent sense from that in which 
 the Hindoo used it, having acquired its meaning from "sickish" 
 in the sense of "nauseating" [cf. "the sickishness of the taste"); 
 the badness of the Indian-English consists, therefore, in the use 
 of a Avord in a sense possible derivatively, but utterly incongru- 
 ous with its known usage. We are struck with the incongruity 
 at once in reading the passage, and pronounce it bad English. 
 On what ground, on the other hand, we can pronounce Tvapacppovia 
 bad Greek, is not apparent. It is regularly formed; its sense is 
 consonant with both its root-meaning and form ; it suggests no 
 incongruous action. The mere fact that it is not known to occur 
 elsewhere in Greek literature could only prove it to be rare (lit- 
 erary) Greek, certainly not bad Greek. Are we to stamp every 
 a-aa^ Aeyoftevov as bad Greek ? It is far from an impossible suppo- 
 sition that the word was in exceedingly common use in popular 
 speech, and only crops up here in literature. On the other hand, 
 we see no reason why Peter should not have coined it; it is good 
 metal. Nor is it hard to see why he should have adopted here 
 even a rare word instead of a more common one fitted equally to 
 his sense, or even coined a new one for his purpose. He wished 
 a word assonant with irapavo/zla : "but obtained a rebuke for his 
 own nnpavofiia; the dumb ass, speaking in man's voice, hindered 
 the prophet's napa^poviay If Dr. Abbott thinks it unworthy of 
 
 ^See above, p. 406. 
 VOL. XXXIV., NO. 2 12. 
 
412 Br. Edwin A. Abbott 07i the [April, 
 
 an 
 
 apostle or sensible man to choose a little-used or coin a new 
 word for such a purpose, he will be obliged to sit aloft on some 
 misty height in literary loneliness. Few writers, whether in the 
 New Testament or out of it, scorn such "pedantry." Is Dr. Ab- 
 bott prepared, for instance, to condemn Paul's KaraKpifin . . (hKalufia 
 (Rom. V. 16, cf. also verse 18) ? or Mr. J. A. Symonds' "Anti- 
 christ . . . Antiphysis?"* If 2 Peter falls on account of this 
 word, he falls in a great company. 
 
 The word Kavaovfieva occurs in 2 Peter iii. 10, 12, only in the 
 N. T. ; it does not occur in the LXX. ; and seems to be found in 
 the classics only late, and in the sense of "to be feverish," "to be 
 in a state of fever" (Dioscorides and Galen). Hence Dr. Abbott 
 translates here "elements in fever heat shall be dissolved," 
 "elements in fever heat are to be melted." Is this foir ? 
 Note: 1. The sense of "to be feverish" is late; it seems not 
 to occur earlier than Dioscorides (c. 100 A. D.). 2. That sense 
 is undoubtedly a derivative sense, the natural sense of the word, 
 and therefore its primitive sense, being "to burn intensely." 
 3. All its cognates have this primitive sense, although several of 
 
 them, such as /caiyia, KcivnaTilu, Kavfiarudr/g, Kavaoq (primitive o^ Kavaon^iai)^ 
 
 acquired a secondary derivative sense as applied to fevers. How Dr. 
 Abbott can think he is dealing scientifically with a word which oc- 
 curs four times, in two pairs, separated by both a century of time 
 and the technicalities of the subjects treated, when he tries to 
 force the derivative sense used technically by physicians of 100 
 A. D. -[-, on the term so used a century and a half earlier as to 
 demand the primitive sense of the same word, passes our compre- 
 hension. He would be scarcely passing beyond this were he to 
 attempt to translate its cognates in Rev. xvi. 8, 9, thus: "And 
 the fourth poured out his bowl upon the sun ; and it was given 
 unto it to put men in a fever heat with fire. And men Avere put 
 in fever heat with great fever heat." How would it do to say 
 
 ^Age of the Despots, p. 412: "And now in the pontificate of Alexan- 
 der, that memorable scene presented to the nations of the modern world 
 a pageant of Antichrist and Antiphysis — the ne^ration of the gospel and of 
 nature." Antiphysis appears to be a coinafje of Mr. Symonds; althouc;h 
 the adjectives antiphysic and antipfiysical (Ogilvie) seem to be in use, 
 medical and otherwise. The Greeks used ■KapacjivciQ {cf. Ro. i. 26). 
 
1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 413 
 
 "parched corn" really meant "fever-heated corn," on the strength 
 of the common phrases "parched lips," "parched brow"? Would 
 it not be as fair to translate Dioscorides and Galen by 2 Peter's 
 usage as vice versa ? 
 
 The words nvlLCfiov and e^epafia, (ii. 22) naturally go together. 
 Dr. Abbott's criticism is as follows: " For the word 'vomit' [in 
 Proverbs xxvi. 11 ; 2 Peter] substitutes the word liipafia ('hardly 
 to be found elsewhere,' Alford, but found by Wahl in Dioscorid., 
 vi. 19), a technical term of medicine derived from e^epdu 'to evacu- 
 ate by purge or vomit,' so that the passage may be rendered, 
 'The dog having returned to his own evacuation !' Further, [2 
 Peter] supplements this quotation by a reference to a sow return- 
 ing to its wallowing; and here he introduces a word [kv^ic/hov) not 
 recognised by Liddell and Scott. ... It may be rendered 'wal- 
 lowance.' [2 Peter] also uses about the sow a word generally 
 restricted to human beings, 'having washed herself or bathed.' 
 The whole passage will then run thus: 'The dog having turned 
 to his own evacuation, and the sow, having bathed, to her wallow- 
 ance.' " A precious piece of criticism ! Let us suppose "evacu- 
 ation" fitly represents k^tpana, does ignobility of heart or mind 
 result in the writer ? Suppose he has adapted to a more common 
 use a technical medical term, has he done more than Mr. William 
 Wallace in the following sentence in description of the historian 
 Alison {The Academy for Dec. 23, 1882): "Called to the Scottish 
 Bar, he made fair way both in law and literature, being indus- 
 trious, eupeptic,"^ accomplished, and self-confident." If, then, the 
 argument is a case of non sequitur, even if the facts are true, 
 what becomes of it when the facts asserted are themselves brushed 
 away ? Yet, in the interests of truth and fairness, we must ruth- 
 lessly brush away the "facts." We have here, indeed, a parallel 
 case to Kavanv/zeva, with the difference that the matter is even 
 plainer. The verb e^epdu is defined as "to evacuate by purge or 
 vomit," and certainly was used technically as a medical term. 
 But it certainly was not a purely technical term (was Dr. Abbott 
 misled by the technical phraseology of the Lexicon's definition ?) ; 
 that it was a common popular word is proved by the fact that it 
 
 ^Used also by Carlyle and a few others in an untechnical way. 
 
414 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on tlie [April, 
 
 even passed into a popular metapliorical sense — "to empty" 
 (e. g., the ballot urn of its contents [Arrian], the lungs of air, a 
 vessel of water, etc.). This groAvth in popular usage necessarily 
 presupposes a common use of the word in its primitive sense; to 
 translate it by the English word "evacuate," thus, gives a false 
 impression save in this particular; "evacuate," like i^Epdu, leaves 
 the question of manner open. The noun k^epafin seems to be 
 known in the classics only in Dioscorides vi. 19, and Eust. Opusc, 
 248, 91. The cognates i^epaag and k^epaaT^g, both in the sense of 
 vomiting (as distinguished from imrging) also occur in Eust. The 
 word was thus one of a class used to denote vomiting. What 
 proof is there that it was a technical word? Just this: out of 
 three times in which the word occurs, it is used twice by physi- 
 cians ! Is that a broad enough base for an induction ? Another 
 fact is now to be notedp in Levit. xviii. 28, where the LXX. 
 reads npoanxdl(jy (= "abhor," losing the figure), Aquila translates 
 the Hebrew word i;5ip by e^epau; now in Prov. xxvi. 11, the words 
 are ii5>»-b5'' which 2 Peter takes the liberty of translating by 
 iirl TO L(^iov e^epa/Lia. Certainly, if Aquila can be allowed without 
 horrible charges to translate the Hebrew verb "to vomit" by the 
 verb, 2 Peter may be allowed to translate the noun "vomit" by 
 the corresponding noun. Dr. Abbott seems to be indeed in this 
 dilemma: either 2 Peter is translating Proverbs xxvi. 11 him- 
 self, or repeating it in its popularly current form. If the former, 
 then Aquila justifies him in the word he uses as the Greek equi- 
 valent of ii^p If the latter, then the people are responsible for 
 e^epafia, and it is proved to be used in a current common sense. 
 At all events and in any case, it is somewhat high-handed to take 
 a word used three times — all in the sense of vomit — twice by 
 physicians and once by the populace or a popular writer, and on 
 the strength of these facts declare it to be a purely technical med- 
 ical word. ^ 
 
 ^No doubt it will seem natural to the reader to suppose that Dr. Ab- 
 bott's method of proving words to be technical medical words is unex- 
 ampled among students of Greek. As a matter of fact, however, it is 
 not quite so. By the same process by which he makes Kavaoofiai and 
 k^ipa/xa appear to be technical medical terms, the Rev. Wm. Kirk Ho- 
 
1883.] G-enuineness of Seco7id Peter. 415 
 
 With reference to Kvhanor, which is used here only in the 
 N. T. {cf. KvA'mv, in Mark ix. 20), but occurs in Hippiatr. 204. 
 4, and in Theodotion, in Prov. ii. 18 (which brings it into the 
 circle of 2 Peter's author's training), it is doubtless sufficient to 
 observe (1) that the author of 2 Peter did not invent it ; (2) it 
 may have been a popular word, cropping up here in a popular 
 proverb, and, indeed, this is by all odds the most likely supposi- 
 tion ; and (3) there is no particular reason for preferring "wal- 
 lowance" to "wallowing," as its translation. The careful Grimm 
 feels no hesitation in translating it "fo/?t^a^iio;" and although ver- 
 bals in — iiog regularly express "an abstract notion of energy em- 
 bodying the intransitive notion of the verb" (Jelf., § 332, B., p. 
 334, Vol. I.), yet that rule neither decides for — ance instead of 
 — ing,in the ihtransitive verb "to wallow," nor is it of uniform ap- 
 plication in actual usage. On the whole phrase, cf. Epictetus' 
 phrase, iv ^op^opu KvTileadac, as quoted by Grimm under Bopfiopog. The 
 verb Aoyw (which occurs six times in the N. T.) is, indeed, nearly 
 always used of persons, but not invariably ; so that the usage in 
 this passage, while not the most usual, is a perfectly natural one. 
 Accordingly, the verse is found to be such as would strike a Greek 
 ear about as the following strikes an English ear : "The true 
 proverb : the dog turning to its own vomit again, and the sow 
 that had washed, to wallowing in the mire." What concerns 
 further Dr. Abbott's notion, that the fact that the three words, 
 Kavaoi'^eva, e^epa/^a, and Kv'/.iafidv, do not Seem to occur after 2 Peter 
 in Greek literature until about A. D. 60, has any tendency to 
 prove a late date for 2 Peter, proceeds on his forgetfulness of the 
 chief characteristic of the age in a lexical point of view, and 
 needs no remark here. 
 
 Little need be said with regard to Taprapuaaq (2 Peter ii. 4). It 
 is easy to confess that it is not found in the N. T. elsewhere, nor 
 
 b'.irt, LL. D. {The Medical Language of St. Luke, etc., Dublin,) makes 
 ol £ni67/j2ovvTEg 'Pujuaioi of Acts ii. 10, and ave?J/(l)0?i of Acts i. 2, med- 
 ical terms — the former on the strength of the use of the verb tiridr/f^eu 
 (to be ETridrjiiog) of epidemic diseases (e. g., Hipp. Progn., 46), and the 
 latter on the strength of the medical use of the verb avalanfidvu as equi- 
 valent to "to restore to health and strength," etc. Dr. Hobart, indeed, 
 presents quite a number of instances quite as bad as Dr. Abbott's. 
 
416 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 anywhere in classical Greek ; and as easy to admit that even its 
 primitive rdprapoc is never found in the N. T. or the LXX., and 
 may therefore be, in somewhat strong language, said to be "alien 
 to both." That it was capable of being used by Jewish lips is, 
 however, plain from, say, Josephus c. Apion ii. 33 ; although it 
 is probably true that the N. T. avoids the use of the Avord "Tar- 
 tarus," in order to avoid suggesting heathen associations. The 
 verb is, however, a different matter. And although it is not 
 found elsewhere in this short form, it is certainly impossible to 
 say, in the face of the common KaTaraprnpSu, that it is "uncouth ;" 
 "almost as uncouth as it would be in English to speak of 'hell- 
 ing' some one, instead of 'sending him to hell.' " That this is 
 the very opposite of the fact, the current Greek expression 
 "down-helling" some one is a standing and convincing Avitness. 
 We have before us, indeed), only one of the well known, though 
 somewhat rare, cases (like dea-pileiv for ekB., or deiyfj-arii^siv for 
 irapaSsiy.), in which the later Greek [i. e., probably the popular 
 Greek) preferred, contrary to its usual custom, the uncompounded 
 to the compounded form. See Moulton's Winer, p. 25, note 4. 
 In connexion with TaprapSu, however. Dr. Abbott makes much of 
 another "curious" word, cetpoiq, Avhich he thinks, "to a well- 
 educated Greek," Avould convey the meaning of "store-pit," and 
 on the strength of which he proposes the following translation of 
 ii. 4 : "If God spared not angels Avhen they sinned, but having 
 helled them, delivered them to store-pits of darkness." What can 
 be gained by such a mysterious appeal to the "well-educated 
 Greek," in the face of Hesychius' recognition of the sense of 
 "prison" for the word, it is difficult to divine. The Avord, used 
 here only in the Ncav Testament, and not at all in the LXX., is 
 tolerably common in the classics in the spellings aeipdg (Pollux, 
 Plut., Varro, Demosthenes [v. 5] ), aipp6(:, and more properly aLpor, ; 
 and its standing sense seems to be Pit. This seems clearly its 
 primitive sense. It has three secondary meanings : (1) a pit for 
 keeping corn, and hence a magazine or store-pit. So Eur., 
 Anaxim., Demosth. (2) A pit for catching wild animals, and 
 hence a pit-fall. So Longus. (3) A pit for keeping prisoners. 
 So Hesychius tells us, giving "prison" as one of its meanings, and 
 
1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 417 
 
 informing us that the Laconians used a word, aipia, for "safe-keep- 
 ing." While it is to be freely admitted, therefore, that the word 
 was most correctly used in literature in that one of its secondary 
 senses which expressed "store-pit," it is certainly not clear that 
 Ave must translate "store-pit" in 2 Peter any more than in Lon- 
 gus ; or that its context would not determine the sense naturally 
 and simply to "an educated Greek," provided he was educated 
 enough. To an "uneducated" Greek, on the other hand, who 
 might well know more of "pits" of the (2) and (3) kinds than of 
 the (1), the suggestion might be more natural of a pit-fall or 
 prison-house than of a store-room or magazine. 
 
 Turning from single words to phrases, we somewhat wonder 
 that fivijfiriv TToieiadai is singled out for the first strictures on 2 
 Peter's idiom ; nor is it very consonant to speak in one place 
 strongly : this phrase is a blunder, corresponding to "inducing 
 [the Court] to his favor" (p. 210), and in another mildly : "it is 
 not known to be used in the author's sense (Thuc. II. 54, is am- 
 biguous)." Thucid. II. 54 ought to be much more than ambigu- 
 ous in order to justify the statement. To us, the probability is, 
 that Thuc. uses the phrase in just 2 Peter's sense ; though, per- 
 haps, we can never be certain about it. At all events, does any- 
 body suppose that if we should blot out 2 Peter i. 15, and then 
 prove that Thuc. ii. 54 took the phrase as 2 Peter does here. Dr. 
 Abbott would push the charge against him which he here raises 
 against 2 Peter ? If not, why not ? It is not, however, so very 
 unexampled that a phrase commonly used in the sense of "make 
 mention," should sometimes be used in that of "entertain recol- 
 lection." We need only recall the kindred phrase, fivrjuriv exeiv, 
 which occurs in both senses. Of. Hdt., i. 14 ; Soph. Elect., 346 ; 
 Plato Phaed., 251. D. 
 
 "Still more objectionable," we are told (and if objectionable at 
 all, we do not wonder at the "still more"), "is (i 5) aTrovdf/v 
 
 Tvaaav TzapeiaevtyKavTeq:'' JoSCphuS and Diod. Sic. both USC the 
 
 phrase with the uncorapounded verb, and rightly enough. "But 
 the sonorous extra syllable added by our author makes nonsense 
 of the phrase, by converting it into 'contribute all zeal in an in- 
 direct manner' ; or 'as a secondary or subsequent consideration.' " 
 
418 Br. Edtvin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 And then the conjecture is hazarded, that what led "our author" 
 "so superfluously astray," was the grandiose sound of the word 
 and the reminiscence of liapein-khaav in the parallel passage in 
 Jude. Let us, however, remember the full pail and dead fish, 
 and be sure of our facts before we explain them. Is the author 
 so clearly astray ? The reader who will read Huther or Alford 
 m loc, may be in a fair condition for deciding. He who will 
 study the word criticised will be in better condition. Why are 
 we told that either the idea of indirectness or subordination is 
 expressed by the nnpal Subsequence may be implied, but Avhat is 
 expressed is simply addition, alo7ig-sided-ness. Compare the use 
 of Trapeia^Wev in Rom. V. 20, when the sense is not "came in be- 
 tween" or "subordinately," but simply "beside," "along with." 
 When sin entered, then law had also entered ; they came side by 
 side. This thought, whi(ih is the natural thought of our phrase, 
 too, is very consonant with its context ; and the only one who is 
 astray is the expositor. 
 
 The omission of the article before the word f5//<a<of, in ii. 8, and 
 before ovpuvoi and a-oixeia, in iii. 10, 12, seems to Dr. Abbott very 
 blameworthy indeed. In the first case, it is very doubtful Avhether 
 the article is rightly omitted, seeing that it is contained in all 
 MSS. except B. But letting that pass, its omission can cause no 
 surprise and produce no difiiculty ; we would simply read, instead 
 of, "for that righteous man dwelling among them by sight and 
 hearing, vexed his righteous soul day by day," rather, "for dwell- 
 ing as a righteous man among them, he by sight and hearing 
 vexed his righteous soul day by day," wherein the diKmoc is taken 
 as predicate, instead of subject, perhaps with an adverbial effect, 
 as Dr. Abbott suggests ; but perhaps, however, not. We do not 
 assert that this is the way it ought to be taken ; we merely assert 
 that it is a way that it might be regularly taken, which is enough 
 to void Dr. Abbott's objection of all force. If any one cares to 
 know, however, how we understand the passage, we have no ob- 
 jection to telling him. We think the article is probably to be 
 omitted ; and then the passage reads as follows : "/or dwelling 
 among them to both sight and hearing^ a righteous man, he day 
 ^Literally, "in appearance and report." 
 
1883.] G-eniiineness of Second Peter. 419 
 
 hy day vexed his righteous soul with their Imvless deeds." Many 
 advantages flow from such an understanding of the passage : 
 from an involved it becomes a simple passage ; and to pass over 
 the rest and come to one related to our present subject, it takes 
 p.e/ifia in its most natural sense, and hence forever destroys one 
 of Dr. Abbott's chief charges against the purity of Peter's style. 
 We do not assert or allow that l3Aififj.a cannot be used for the 
 "sense of sight ;" nor do we admit that on any other understand- 
 ing of the passage, 2 Peter lies open to such charges as Dr. 
 Abbott brings against it. The Greek writers do, however, use 
 the word rather in the sense of "appearance," "expression," than 
 in that of "sight," "seeing;" i. e., rather of the objective than 
 the subjective "look" of a person (in the plural the word means 
 the "eye" itself) ; and, although the transition from the objec- 
 tive to the subjective is very easy, and its meaning would argue 
 no unworthiness, ignorance, or pedantry in the author, yet it is 
 perhaps better to take his words in their more obvious and 
 natural sense, and understand him to say that Lot gave every 
 proof to his neighbors — both to their eyes and ears — of his right- 
 eous character. 
 
 The absence of the article before aToi^da, needs no remark, as 
 it seems paralleled by Wisdom vii. 17 : "He gave me to know 
 
 aijaramv Koafiov kuI kvEpyeiav aroixeiuv. The article's Omission before 
 
 ovpnvoi, is in general quite regular (Moulton's Winer, p. 150) and 
 is only peculiar here because it does not elsewhere occur before 
 the nominative case. This cannot argue, in a case like the pres- 
 ent, any ignorance or pedantry or barrenness, however , but is 
 only to be noted (as Winer does) as one fact of language. This 
 class of words, like ?/?lio^, -y^, ovpavoi, etc., quasi-proper names, are, 
 indeed, in a transitional and unsettled state in N. T. Greek, and 
 may and do take or omit the article according to the individual's 
 fancy or training or mode of looking upon the object. Thus, 
 this very word ovpav6g is treated differently by the various N. T. 
 writers : the Apocalypse stands at one extreme, 2 Peter at the 
 other. In the Apocalypse it always takes the article, in the 
 Synoptists it is prevailingly omitted in certain phrases, in Paul 
 regularly in those phrases, in 2 Peter it is omitted in new cases. 
 
420 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 There is no more reason to object to or feel surprise over one 
 writer's mode of viewing the matter than another's. 
 
 We do not feel drawn to join earnest issue, finally, with Dr. 
 Abbott concerning the use of ^'■eigldh" before instead of after its 
 noun in ii. 5. Greek order was more flexible than he seems to 
 imagine ; and we may content ourself with simply referring to 
 the commentators on the passage, and to Winer (Moulton's Ed.), 
 p. 312, where everything unusual or strange in the phrase is dis- 
 cussed and illustrated. A reference to Alford's note on i. 9, is 
 sufficient to set aside the strictures offered on fivundleiv (see also 
 Lumby) ; and we can well content ourselves with declaring at 
 this point that the difficulty found with the use of iieUfjau (i. 12) 
 is wliolly imaginary. 
 
 And so it appears that these frightful ghosts of "barren pe- 
 dantry" are like other ghosts — they need but calm looking at to 
 disappear. The negative character of an examination such as 
 we are carrying on, is apt to leave a false impression on some 
 minds, and to weaken their confidence in an Epistle about whose 
 good character there must be so much discussion. Caesar's wife 
 ought to be above all attack and defence. Ought not, however, 
 such a discussion as the foregoing to have rather an opposite effect ? 
 Without mercy, ruthlessly, and even cruelly, 2 Peter has been 
 plunged into the caustic acid of Dr. Abbott's sharp criticism, and 
 as it lies in the seething fluid, we are boldly told that we need 
 not even look for it : it is dissolved and has passed away. But 
 we look, see, reach down, and draw it out ; and lo ! the pure gold 
 has not so much as felt the biting touch of its bath. Out of the 
 fiery furnace it comes without even the smell of smoke upon it. 
 The result is negative. We have only shown that these objec- 
 tions are not fatal to the book ; but there is a positiveness about 
 it, after all. The argument based on an ignobility in the style of 
 2 Peter, framed with learning and pleaded with skill, as it has 
 been, certainly entirely fails ; and its failure means simply the 
 failure of all arguments against the Epistle's genuineness, drawn 
 from the phenomena of its style. 
 
 There is, indeed, one refuge left. Though it is not ignoble, 
 it may at least be hopelessly diverse from that of 1 Peter. Dr. 
 
1883.] Gfenuineness of Second Peter. 421 
 
 Abbott is too good a general not to supplement his chief argu- 
 ment with such a contention (pp. 215, seq.). We have already 
 seen how he frames this contention.^ But its great support falls 
 with the falling of the charge of ignobility ; for Dr. Abbott's first 
 point, here too, is that 2 Peter cannot be by the author of 1 Peter, 
 because the latter Epistle has no trace in its style of the plagiar- 
 ism, tautology, and pedantry that abound in the former. Beyond 
 this he urges nothing which is new or which has not already been 
 repeatedly fully answered. We do not permit ourselves to be 
 drawn into this old discussion, but are content here with quoting 
 the true words of so liberal a critic as Reuss : "On the theological 
 and linguistic differences between the two Epistles, we lay no 
 stress ; the two Epistles are too short, have to do with wholly dif- 
 ferent circumstances, and especially present no direct contradic- 
 tions ; only if the Epistle is on other grounds proved to be un- 
 genuine, can this also be brought into account ;" ^ and with 
 referring the reader especially to the most convincing discussion 
 of the relation between the style of the two Epistles given by 
 Prof. Lumby in the introduction to his Commentary.-^ 
 
 RELATION OF SECOND PETER TO JOSEPHUS. 
 
 The way is thus cleared for us to devote the remainder of our 
 space to a discussion of, by all odds, the newest, most important, 
 and most earnestly urged part of Dr. Abbott's argument — that 
 which is founded on the relation between 2 Peter and the An- 
 tiquities of Josephus. Dr. Abbott is the inventor of this argu- 
 ment, and therefore may be, perhaps, credited with a certain 
 measure of pardonable pride in his contemplation of it. Cer- 
 tainly he has made it a very striking argument, and certainly he 
 expresses great confidence in it. He conceives that he has de- 
 monstrated that the author of the Epistle had read Josephus.* 
 Since the Antiquities of Josephus, from which the borrowing is 
 made, were published in A. D. 93, it follows, in that case, with 
 inevitable certainty, that 2 Peter could not have been written 
 
 ^See above, pages 393, seq. 
 
 ■^ Geschichte, u. s. w., Neue Test., § 270-2. 
 
 ^ Speaker's Commentary, Vol. IV., pp. 228, seq. 
 
 ^Expositor (1882), Vol. 3, p. 61. 
 
422 Br. Ediviji A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 until after A. D. 93, and therefore cannot be by the Apostle 
 Peter, and must needs be a forgery. Certainly, the evidence by 
 which the dependence of 2 Peter on Josephus is thus "demon- 
 strated," demands, therefore, our most earnest scrutiny. We ask 
 the reader to follow us as we very baldly state the evidence as 
 adduced by its discoverer, and then attempt to test its relevancy 
 and validity. 
 
 I. Dr. Abbott's statement of the evidence. As a matter of 
 course, the only evidence available is internal to the two writings 
 compared ; and it is just as much a matter of course that it con- 
 sists not of direct quotations of Josephus by 2 Peter, but of more 
 hidden and subtle marks of literary dependence. As a matter 
 of fact, the whole stress of the argument is laid upon one kind 
 of evidence, namely, that which ai-ises from the common posses- 
 sion by the two writers of a peculiar vocabulary, distributed in 
 such a way in their writings as to suggest to the mind that 2 
 Peter, in penning his Epistle, must have had in his mind a very 
 vivid reminiscence of certain assignable passages in Josephus. This 
 main and central argument is, indeed, bolstered by two further 
 considerations : the occurrence in the two writings of a couple of 
 similar sentences which may be deemed parallels, and of a couple 
 of common Haggadoth. But Dr. Abbott clearly assigns small 
 value to either of these facts, and apparently would hardly con- 
 sider them worth adducing in the absence of the more important 
 marks of literary connexion. And this rightly enough ; for 
 nothing can be clearer than that neither of them possesses the 
 slightest force as evidence of literary connexion between the two 
 writings. The Haggadoth, the common knowledge of which by 
 Josephus and 2 Peter is supposed to point to borrowing of the 
 latter from the former, concern the statements that Noah was a 
 "herald of righteousness" (2 Peter ii. 5), and that Balaam's ass 
 rebuked him (2 Peter ii. 16). What 2 Peter says may be read 
 in the English version. Josephus' words are: Noah "being ill- 
 pleased at their deeds, and pained at their counsels, tried to per- 
 suade them to amend their lives and actions" (Antiq. I., 3. 1), 
 and "the ass, having received a human voice, blamed Balaam as 
 unjust, having no cause to find fault Avith it for its previous 
 
1883.] G-enuinenes8 of Second Peter. 423 
 
 services, yet now he inflicts blows on it, not understanding tliat 
 now, in accordance with the purpose of God, he was being hin- 
 dered," etc. (Antiq., IV., 6. 3). It is extremely doubtful whether 
 any Haggadah needs to be assumed at the basis of the latter 
 statement at all ; it is very difficult to see wherein 2 Peter ii. 16 
 goes beyond the warrant of the account in Numbers xxi., and not 
 easy to see that anything beyond it need be assumed beneath the 
 account in Josephus. The Haggadah with reference to Noah, on 
 the other hand, occurs in the Mishnah, in a form much closer to 
 2 Peter than Josephus' account is: "There rose up a herald for 
 God in the days of the deluge; that was Noah" (Bereshith Rabba 
 XXX. 6) ; and, indeed, also, in Clement of Rome (ix. 3). In both 
 cases, thus, common sources of information underlay both 2 Peter 
 and Josephus, covering the whole case ; and, in general, any 
 number of Haggadoth might be common to the two writings, 
 without in the slightest degree suggesting dependence of one on 
 the other, provided they were not the invention of one of them. 
 By as much as it would be probable that they were current le- 
 gends of the time, by so much could they fail to suggest direct 
 literary connexion. 
 
 The pair of parallel sentences that are adduced are equally in- 
 valid for the purpose for which they are put forward, as will be- 
 come plain on one moment's consideration. They are as follows: 
 
 2 Peter ii. 10, Kvpioryrog KaTa(ppovnvv-ac. ro/Air/rai k.t. /., Compared Avitll 
 Jos. B. J. iii. 9, 3, ro2/Li7/Tal Kal Oavamv na-adpovonvTEg- and 2 Peter 
 
 i. 19, 6j /caAwf Trnieire Trpoai'xovTEg, compared with Josephus, Ant. xi. 
 6, 12, olf KR/wf Ttoujaere jirj TTpockxovTtq. At first sight there is un- 
 doubtedly a certain strikingness in the close verbal resemblance 
 of the passages. But a glance at the contexts is enough to dispel 
 at once the delusion. Josephus' "Now these Jews, although they 
 are exceedingly daring and despisers of death, are yet both unor- 
 ganised and unskilled in wars, etc.," has little in common with 2 
 Peter's "The Lord knoweth how to . . . reserve the unrighteous 
 under punishment to the day of judgment; and especially those 
 going after the flesh in the lust of pollution and despising lordship. 
 Daring, self-willed, they tremble not when blaspheming glories, 
 etc." Clearly, the hypothesis of a quotation here on one side or 
 
424 Br. Edivin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 the other is out of the question ; the collocation of the two very 
 common words, daring and despising, is indeed striking, but 
 not in such a. way as to present more than a strongly marked 
 illustrative passage. As a matter of fact, it has been quoted by 
 all recent commentators as an illustrative passage, and has never 
 suggested literary dependence to one of them. The same is even 
 more clearly the case with the other parallel quoted. The phrase 
 Ka/i6Jf TToiEiv is a very common set form of speech, and is usually con- 
 strued with participles [cf. e.g., Acts x. 33; Phil. iv. 14; 3 John 
 6) ; and Trpoaixeiv is common in the sense in which it here occurs (of. 
 e. g., Heb. ii. 1). Absolutely, the only thing, then, common es- 
 pecially to Josephus and 2 Peter is that they each happen to need, 
 in utterly different connexions, to construe the common phrase 
 KaAuc T^oie'iv with this particular common participle. It is not such 
 parallels as these which Can be appealed to, to prove literary con- 
 nexion. Two other phrases common to Josephus and 2 Peter might 
 have been with equal propriety, but are not, introduced in this con- 
 nexion; one (which has been mentioned above') is "bringing in 
 [besides] all diligence" which is found also, however, in Diodorus 
 and elsewhere, and thus is shown to be a current phrase, and the 
 other is "following in the track of myths" in which we do find a 
 rare contribution of perfectly common words. All four are simple 
 but close illustrative parallels which cannot suggest literary con- 
 nexion, but only community in the same current forms of speech ; 
 they have consequently all four been the common property of 
 commentators for years, and have been uniformly used as illus- 
 trative and only as illustrative passages.^ We must, therefore, 
 refuse to allow any, even corroborative, weight to either of Dr. 
 Abbott's supporting considerations, and insist on viewing and 
 estimating the central tower of his argument in its own separate 
 strength. If its masonry is not solid enough to enable it to stand 
 without such props as these, it is right that it should fall. 
 
 ip. 417. 
 
 ^Suoh closely illustrative but by no means connected passatres are 
 continually turninji; up, and many of them are much closer than these ; 
 cf. e. g., with Rom. vii. 15, such a passage as this, from Epict. Euclein. 
 ii. 26, 4 : o fiev deAei ov izoleI, koL b fif/ di'Aei ■koieI. 
 
1883.] Grenuineness of Second Peter. 425 
 
 The axioms on which the argument is built are as follows : 
 The common possession of the same vocabulary by two Avriters 
 is evidence of literary connexion between them. " Obviously, 
 uncommon words are far more weighty than common" ones as 
 evidence (p. 53). A word not found in the LXX. or elsewhere 
 in the N. T. is uncommon to the circle of ideas of a waiter like 
 2 Peter, even though it be otherwise a common Greek word (p. 
 54).' " The evidence of a gi'oup of words is far stronger than 
 that of a multitude of single words, to show that one author has 
 read another" (p. 52). If, then, we can find a common peculiar 
 vocabulary in 2 Peter and Josephus, and especially if we find 
 that these peculiar words occur in groups of narrow compass, we 
 have very strong evidence of literary dependence of one on the 
 other. 
 
 Dr. Abbott thinks we can find this very thing, and presents 
 us with two instances of it. We transcribe and condense a state- 
 ment of the case from his pages (pp. 56, seq.) : 
 
 1. "Assuming that the author of the Epistle had read parts of 
 Josephus, ... he had probably read the short Introduction 
 which describes the motives and objects of the work. . . . Now, 
 the Introduction (Par. 3) declares (a) that the moral derived from 
 the Jewish records is, that those who follow God's will find suc- 
 cess and happiness, whereas those who disobey find everything 
 against them, and are involved in irremediable calamities (a 
 thought repeated also in Par. 4); (b) Moses considered that the 
 basis of all law Avas (Par. 4) insight into the nature of God 
 [Bsov (pvoLv) ; {c) he exhibited (Par. 4) God in the possession of his 
 virtue {apt-iiv), undefiled by degrading anthropomorphism; [d) he 
 considered (Par. 4) that it was the duty of man to partake in this 
 divine virtue; (e) the laws of Moses (Par. 4) contain nothing out 
 of harmony with the greatness {/uEyalei6r7jTog) of God ; (/) he kept 
 from all unseemly myths and legends, though he might have easi- 
 ly cheated man (Par. 3) Avith feigned stories {Tr/.aafidTuv) ; (g) he 
 always assigned fitting actions to God's power (Par. 3) ; (A) nor did 
 he do as other lawgivers (Par. 4) who have followed after fables 
 {/ivOoic HaK-o'^'OvdnaavTE^). The Epistle declares [a] that the moral of 
 the stories of the fallen angels, of Noah, and of Lot, is (ii. 9), that the 
 Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to 
 
 ^Cf. p. 62, where a word rare or non-existent in N. T. and LXX. is 
 said to be completely out of the author's natural sphere. 
 
426 Br. Edtvin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 keep the unrighteous unto punishment unto the day of judgment; 
 (g) his dlv'me power (i. 3) hath granted us all things that pertain 
 unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called 
 us (f?) by his own glory and virtue (i. 3) ; that we may become {d) 
 sharers in (6) the divine nature ; false teachers shall arise to make 
 merchandise (ii. 3) of men, with {f) feigned words [ir'Aac-oiQ Idyoto) 
 but we (e) were eye-witnesses (i. 16) o^ the greatness {/ueycUFcoTT/To^) 
 of Christ; and (A) in declaring it we did (i. 16) not follow after 
 cunningly devised fables {/ivdoir i^aKoAovOr/aavTec).'' The two most 
 important points here are those marked (A) and [b). In the 
 former, note: ''E^aKoT^ovOi/cravTei though found in the LXX. is not 
 found in the N. T. except here; /uvdoig occurs four times in the 
 Pastoral Epistles and nowhere else in the N. T., and not at all 
 in the LXX. (except Sir. xx. 19, in the sense of "^aZe"); while 
 neither LXX. nor N. T. contain the combination. Even the 
 word added by 2 Peter {aeaofiafitvoig) occurs but once in N. T. (2 
 Tim. iii. 15) and there in an opposite meaning, whereas it is found 
 at least twice in Josephui^i in 2 Peter's sense (B. J. iii. 7, 20 ; iv. 
 2, 3). With reference to {b) note: to apply ^iV^c to God is not 
 only a usage not found in the N. T. or LXX., but a thougJit 
 alien to the Bible. The Greeks and Romans so spoke, but no sin- 
 gle N. T. writer. The exact phrase is, however, found in Jose- 
 phus' Oont. Ap. The other phrases in the passage are also note- 
 worthy : 'nlacToq is found here only in the N. T. and LXX. ; 
 aperi] (singular) is applied to God only once in LXX. (Hab. iii. 
 2, where it means "glory"); fieyaMLorrj^ is found only twice each 
 in N. T. and LXX., and only once in application to a divine 
 person (Luke ix. 43). Now combine all these, and note the 
 slighter points also, and note the cumulative character of the 
 argument.^ 
 
 2. " If the author was attracted by this comparison between 
 Moses, the truthful lawgiver of the Jews, and the truthful teach- 
 ers of the Christians, it is natural that in writing the last utter- 
 ances of St. Peter, he should turn his attention to the last utter- 
 ances of Moses (Antiq. iv. 8. 2). Thoa-e, Moses is said to have 
 spoken (a) as follows [Toiade): 'Fellow soldiers and [b) sharers of 
 our long hardship (paKpaq Koivuvni TalacTrupiaq,) (where note the trans- 
 position), since I {c) am not destined [oh /ieXau) to be your helper 
 on earth, {d) I thought it right [dhiaiov riy7]adfi7]v) still to regard 
 happiness for you and {e) memory {/iv>//j.nv) for myself. Do not 
 set anything above (/) your prese7it customs {vo/ii/im' tuv Tvapovruv), 
 (g) despising {KaTa(ppovr/(javTEg) the (h) reverence (ei'o-e/it/af) which ye 
 now feel for God; (i) thus will ye be never able to be take7i 
 
 ^Expositor, as above, pp. 56-59. 
 
1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 427 
 
 {ehali^Toi) by your enemies. God will be with you (,/) as long as 
 [E(f baov) you will have him for your leader. Lisfen, then, to your 
 leaders, [k) knoiving that {^■iyvunKav-E<; bn) men learn to command 
 by obeying. These things I say {1} at my departure from life 
 (f-' E^66<f> Tov i^riv)^ (in) not recalling them (eJf avdiivvaiv <pepuv) by way of 
 reproach, but for your good, that ye may not {n) through folly 
 degenerate.' With these compare: (a) TOLaade (i. 17 here alone 
 in N. T. and LXX.); {h) Oeiag koivuvoI (phaeug (i. 4, where note the 
 transposition similar to fianpagKoivuvolTalamufjiag above); [c) nElli/au 
 i. 12 (v. r.,owva//eA^ffw(?) ov fieXlrjau^ reading and meaning doubtful, 
 valeat tantum) ; (d) I think it right {6iKaiov T/yov/nai) i. 18 (here 
 only in N. T. and LXX.) ; (e) /ivf/uvv, i. 15 (sense different from 
 that of Josephus, but here only in N. T.); (/) Karacppovni, tec (ii. 
 10, in different context) ; {h) Ebaipeia (four times in this Epistle, 
 eight times in the Pastoral Epistles, only once in the rest of the 
 N. T.); (i) made for taking, ii. 12 (Eig dluatv, in different context, 
 but the word is only here used in N. T. and twice in LXX.); (/) 
 as long as, i. 13 (if' baov) is only here used in N. T. and LXX. 
 in this sense (in the only other passage in which it occurs, Rom. 
 xi. 13, it has a different sense); {k) knoiving that {yijv^anovTEg bn) 
 is twice used in this Epistle (i. 20, iii. 3) to introduce a new 
 clause, and only twice elsewhere in the N. T. ; (Z) mg departure 
 e^oihc (i. 15) only once used elsewhere in LXX. and N. T. (viz., 
 Luke ix. 31) in this sense; note also in Josephus the juxtaposi- 
 tion of i'fo(^of and avdfivrjaiv, and in 2 Peter ffoJoc and viro/iivr/aEi ; (ni) 
 the word afiadla, folly, inability to learn, is not in the N. T. or 
 LXX., but the kindred adjective foolish {dfiati//g), though not in 
 this context, is found in this Epistle (iii. 16) and nowhere else in 
 the N, T. or LXX." "Here the evidence rests on similarity of 
 words rather than thought; yet even in thought there is consid- 
 erable similarity." To find words like /uvr/fiT/v, E(p' bSov, AiKmov /'/yor^uai, 
 which are never used in the N. T., and ifotSor only once, all in two 
 or three verses, describing the last words of St. Peter, and in a 
 page of Josephus describing the last words of Moses, is strikino-. 
 Add the other expressions and the cumulative character of the 
 evidence comes out strongly.^ 
 
 It appears to be admitted that these are the only passa<Tes 
 which "show such striking groups of similarities;"^ but it is men- 
 tioned that some thirteen or fourteen remarkable words or phrases 
 might be pointed out as common to 2 Peter and Josephus and yet 
 not found elsewhere in the N. T. or LXX. The argument, then, 
 
 ^''Exjyositor' as ahove, pp. 59-61. ^Do., p. 61. 
 
 VOL. XXXIV., NO. 2 — 13. 
 
428 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 beyond doubt depends on tbe common possession by 2 Peter and 
 Josephus of a small peculiar vocabulary (13 or 14 words), which 
 in two instances tends to arrange itself in groups in Josephus and 
 to a smaller extent in 2 Peter. This, we understand, to be Dr. 
 Abbott's view of the basis of his argument. 
 
 II. Examination of Br. Abbott's Statement of the Evidence. 
 
 Any extended meditation on the subject will force upon the 
 mind a strong conviction that the method of investigating and 
 determining the relations existing between two writers which Dr. 
 Abbott has adopted, is an exceedingly unsafe one. We are sorry 
 to bring ourselves, by this statement, under the disapproval of 
 both Dr. Abbott and Canon Farrar. The latter^ "can only 
 suppose that the scholar who" makes this statement is "in reality 
 unable or unwilling to give his full attention to the inquiry." It 
 is, nevertheless, our strong conviction that this method is an emi- 
 nently unsafe one. We do not, of course, mean to assert by 
 this either that the method is illegitimate or that no secure 
 results can ever be obtained by it. Conceivably, a very strong 
 presumption, passing into moral certainty, might be obtained 
 by it alone, that one writer had borrowed from another. But 
 we are free to confess that we think the instances in which 
 this can be done are very rare, and those in which it has been 
 done are rarer still. When two writers can be shown to possess 
 the same general vocabulary, there is a reason for that fact, and 
 this reason is a legitimate object of search ; when two writers 
 can be shown to use in common a very peculiar vocabulary, the 
 cause of this too is a legitimate object of inquiry, and may be 
 demonstrably discoverable ; and if this peculiar vocabulary occurs 
 in the two authors grouped in narrow contexts, this also must 
 have a cause, which should- be sought, and may be found, and 
 may prove to be direct literary dependence of one on the other. 
 The unsafety of the method does not lie, then, in sniy neces- 
 sary unsoundness attaching to it, or any necessary inapplica- 
 bility of it, but rather in the extreme difficulty of so applying 
 it as to reach secure results. He who launches himself on this 
 method, begins a journey on a very treacherous sea. He who 
 ^ Expositor, etc., as above, p. 404. 
 
1883.] Genuineness of Second Peter. 429 
 
 attempts to tread this path to truth, starts, indeed, in a road 
 that does lead to the goal, and which may, indeed, be safely 
 trodden, bat which can be trodden safely only at the cost of tire- 
 less and sleepless watchfulness, in a shifting, moveable road, not 
 like the broad beaten way that invites the even careless step, but 
 rather like a lane of the sea, which a skilful navigator alone can 
 keep. There are so many ways in which two writers may obtain 
 a similar vocabulary, even if a peculiar vocabulary — like train- 
 ing, like associations, like reading, like sources of linguistic 
 knowledge, how many causes may have conspired to the result ! — 
 that the case must certainly be an exceptional one which will 
 justify us in saying dogmatically that the real cause of the com- 
 munity is direct literary connexion. And there are so many 
 causes, often subtle in the extreme, and hidden from the coarser 
 sight of man, which may have worked together in crystallising 
 groups of the uncommon words common to two writers around 
 certain centres in their writings, that it is very unsafe to assume 
 that a direct literary connexion can alone be the true account of 
 such phenomena when observed and shown to really exist. And 
 if all this be true in general, how specially true is it of the 
 Greek writers of the time of 2 Peter and Josephus, when the 
 language of literature was in a remarkably unsettled and trans- 
 itional state ; when words and expressions hitherto provincial 
 or popular were suddenly appearing quite independently on the 
 pages of the most widely-separated writers ; and when one hardly 
 knows what to assign to the new language common to all, what 
 to the immense mass of underlying popular speech of which we 
 know so little, but of which they knew so much, and which was 
 now striving everywhere to make entrance for itself into literary 
 recognition, what to personal idiosyncrasy or special training or 
 literary borrowing. Our profound ignorance of the spoken Greek 
 of the time — our almost complete unacquaintance with the col- 
 loquial vocabulary and usage — alone would bid us beware of too 
 lightly explaining even striking resemblances of vocabulary in 
 two writers by the hypothesis of immediate literary connexion. 
 Nor do there lack special reasons why we should be even pecu- 
 liarly chary of finding literary connexion at the bottom of resem- 
 
430 Br. Udwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 blances existing between 2 Peter and Josephus among the writers 
 of even that transitional age. In any event, the author of the 
 Epistle and Josephus had much in common which bound them 
 closer to one another than either was bound to his age in general, 
 and which might bring to them a common, even peculiar, vocabu- 
 lary. They were both Jews ; both learned Greek doubtlessly 
 in the first instance orally and in a popular form ; both learned 
 a peculiar type of Greek current in the same rather peculiar re- 
 gion ; both were bred in the same land and under similar teach- 
 ings and influences; both were accustomed to hear the same 
 speech about them from the same kind of lips ; both, so far as 
 they read at all, were readers of largely the same literature. A 
 similarity of vocabulary which might be startling if found in two 
 entirely unconnected writers, might be a mere matter of course 
 between 2 Peter and Josjcphus. And groups of similar words 
 must be very striking, indeed, as groups, to force the conclusion 
 that there has been immediate literary connexion between those 
 two writers. We do not mean to assert that even in such a case a 
 comparison of the vocabularies of two writers cannot be made 
 profitably, or that evidence could not conceivably be obtained 
 from it which would lead us to suspect that one of them had 
 borrowed from tlie other. But Ave do mean to point out that 
 this method of investigating the relations existing between 
 authors, beset with difficulties everywhere, is most peculiarly 
 liable in such a case to be misapplied. We do mean to point out 
 that on launching ourselves upon it, we need a most untiringly 
 careful navigator to our steersman ; else, at the end of a voyage, 
 we may fancy ourselves in a port which Ave are as far as possible 
 aAvay from. 
 
 It is worth our notice, next, therefore, that Dr. Abbott does 
 not approve himself to our judgment as an eminently safe sailor 
 on these unsafe waters. On a careful examination of the argu- 
 ment which he has presented, we observe several things wliich 
 shake our confidence in him as a pilot. Let us enumerate some 
 of them. 
 
 1. We observe, then, that Dr. Abbott fails to distinguish sharp- 
 ly, in presenting his argument, betAveen different kinds of evi- 
 
1883.] G-enuineness of Second Peter. 431 
 
 dence. In investigating the relations of two Avritings to one an- 
 other, it is conceivable that we might find several kinds of facts, as 
 for example, (1), general resemblance of vocabulary ; (2), com- 
 mon possession of a peculiar vocabulary; (3), a number of rare 
 words grouped together in a brief context in one, found also in 
 the other, either (a) scattered through the writing, or (b) similar- 
 ly grouped; and (4), clauses or sentences occurring in bothj either 
 verbatim or nearly so, or with strongly-marked similarities. Now 
 the probative force of these several classes of facts is not the 
 same, but increases as Ave pass down the list, cceteris paribus. 
 It is, therefore, essential, in careful investigation, to keep them 
 apart and estimate the bearing of each class separately. This, 
 although he recognises these distinctions theoretically. Dr. Ab- 
 bott does not succeed in practically doing. For example, if the 
 reader will take his Josephus and mark the words wdiich Dr. Ab- 
 bott adduces in his groups above, he will not be slow in observ- 
 ing that some items w^hich can justly be classed only under (2) 
 above are included by Dr. Abbott under (3), with the practical 
 effect of unduly raising their probative force as looking towards 
 literary connexion between the two writings.^ 
 
 2. We observe, next, that Dr. Abbott does not carefully elimi- 
 nate iri-elevant items from his lists. Lists of expressions meant 
 to prove literary dependence of one writer on another, ought to 
 contain nothing which does not suggest borrowing, and ought, 
 certainly, to contain nothing whose presence in the borrowing 
 writing can be better accounted for by assigning a different origin 
 to it. Dr. Abbott's lists contain words which, whether 2 Peter 
 borrows from Josephus or not, w^ere certainly not taken from Jo- 
 sephus by 2 Peter ; and others w hich are of such character as 
 cannot suggest any closer connexion than that both writings are 
 Greek. Let us instance a few examples. To adduce 2 Peter's 
 mention of the divine power {Svvdfiig) as granting unto us all things 
 that pertain to life and godliness, and Josephus' statement that 
 
 ^In the first of Dr. A})bott's examples, only [h, a,] h, c, d, e, and in 
 the second only a, b, c, d, e, have any claim to be grouped in Josephus ; 
 while in 2 Peter in the first case only g, c. d, h, stand closely grouped, 
 while in the second only /, d, j, I, e, stand tolerably grouped. 
 
432 Br. Edivin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 Moses had always assigned fitting deeds to God's power, and not 
 attributed to him the indecencies which heathen fables ascribed 
 to the heathen gods, — as an item suggesting literary connexion 
 between the two is but one step removed from the adduction of 
 their common use of the verb eIvm. The same may be said of the 
 pleading of the common use by the two writers of such words as 
 KaTa(ppov?/aavTeg, evcefisia, yiyvcjiTKovTec uti, and the more SO, as none of 
 them occur in any well-marked group of common words. Once 
 more, it hardly admits of question but that e^odoc in 2 Peter i. 15, 
 is a reminiscence of our Saviour's words recorded in Luke ix. 31, 
 or a quotation from that passage. The context of 2 Peter leaves 
 no doubt on that point ; it occurs just before the Transfiguration 
 is mentioned, and in a context which contains other reminiscences 
 of that scene, and consequently proves thab his mind was, at the 
 moment of writing the woird e^oSoq, dwelling on the details of that 
 scene. It is no less than certain, therefore, that e^oSog was sug- 
 gested here by a reminiscence of Christ's words, and consequently 
 that it was not taken from Josephus. Its presence in Dr. Abbot's 
 list, then, is certainly misleading, and, so far, vitiates the argu- 
 ment he has framed. With it, the attempt to find a parallelism 
 between Josephus' avaiivnaiv and 2 Peter's vTvofivr/aei falls also into 
 hopeless irrelevancy. And, indeed, also the parallel found be- 
 tween 2 Peter's and Josephus' use of neya^iEiornroQ, which is found 
 in the same context with e^odoc in Luke (ix. 43), and was perhaps 
 derived from that passage by 2 Peter, but just because found 
 just where it is in Luke and in this special context in 2 
 Peter, is not and cannot be derived from Josephus. To parallel 
 
 dtMQ KoiVGivol (pvatug and rf/c; fxaKpdr aoivuvol TalaLirupia^, On the Strength of 
 
 the arrangement of the words, is, again, simply misleading in 
 such an argument, since the arrangement of the words is deter- 
 mined in each case and explicable in each from the purpose of 
 the writer and needs of the emphasis ; the careful exegete will in 
 neither case look beyond the context for the complete account of 
 the matter. To point to the common word fisl'/M in Josephus, 
 again, as the literary parent of the jiellfjcu of 2 Peter, is in like 
 manner entirely without significance ; and almost as strong lan- 
 guage is applicable to the adduction of their common use of 
 
1883.] G-enuineness of Second Peter. 433 
 
 SUaiov yyovfiai, as an item showing literary connexion between 
 them. Both writers must have been thoroughly familiar with 
 the phrase, independently of each other ; and if the exact phrase 
 does not elsewhere occur in LXX. or N. T., this is due to mere 
 accident, as any one may satisfy himself who will compare Acts 
 xxvi. 2 ; 2 Cor. ix. 5; Phil. ii. 3, 6, 25 ; iii. 7, 8 ; 1 Tim. i. 12 ; 
 Heb. X. 29 ; xi. 26 ; 2 Peter ii. 13, etc. It is far from certain, 
 once more — it is not even probable — that 2 Peter i. 3 has any- 
 thing in common Avith Josephus' statement that Moses proved 
 that God had his virtue unmixed. The parallelising of aperv and 
 66Sn, in 2 Peter, seems to prove that the writer meant the former 
 word in the sense which it bears in Hab. iii. 3, and therefore in 
 a totally different sense from what Josephus meant. So long as 
 Hab. iii. 3 stands in the Bible, so long is all the probability that 
 the usage represented there, and not the passage in Josephus, is 
 the literary parent of 2 Peter's use of the word. 
 
 Now all of these items are out of place in Dr. Abbott's argu- 
 ment. And it is remarkable what a different aspect it presents 
 when purged thus of some of its irrelevancies. The complicated 
 second group is reduced to simply the common use by 2 Peter 
 and Josephus of a half dozen words {roLaadE [toMe], fivrifiJiv, irapo'vai] 
 
 [^-apuvTuvl, aAuaiv [EvdAuTai], if' o<hv, a^undrjg [a/xadiav] ), among which 
 
 there are only two (a/.uaiv and a/iaOr^c) whose exceeding common- 
 ness in all Greek literature does not throw grave doubt on their 
 relevancy ; and neither of these really occurs in both writers. 
 All semblance of grouping is gone. The first group suffers nearly 
 as severely, but retains as yet the appearance of a group. 
 
 3. We observe, next, that Dr. Abbott, in presenting his argu- 
 ment, does not carefully distinguish between what is sound and 
 what is merely plausible. The mixture of different kinds of evi- 
 dence and the failure to sift out irrelevant items are themselves 
 examples of this, as both increase the appearance but not the 
 reality of strength in the argument. The same vice runs, however, 
 through the Avhole treatment of the evidence, and it may be, per- 
 haps, not without its value to illustrate this fact with reference 
 specially to the strongest portion of the pleading. After having 
 stated the parallelisms of the first of his groups, Dr. Abbott re- 
 
434 Br. Edtvin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 marks, as we have seen, that the two most important items in it 
 are those marked h and b, and then proceeds to develop the first 
 of these as follows : 
 
 "As to the first, it must be borne in mind that the vfordfoUotv 
 after, though found in the LXX., does not occur in the N. T. ; 
 and the word fable, though found four times in the Pastoral 
 Epistles, does not occur elsewhere in the N. T. nor (except in the 
 sense of tale, Sirach xx. 19) in the whole of the LXX. The 
 probability, therefore, that the author borrowed from Josephus 
 this pi'otest that the Christians, as well as the Jews, did not fol- 
 low after fables, is increased by the fact that neither the LXX. 
 nor the N. T. contains both of the words which are here com- 
 bined in the same order by the author of the Epistle and Josephus. 
 It may be suggested that the resemblance is less striking because 
 the author adds the words, 'cunningly devised' (aeaoijxa/uvoi^). 
 But it is the manner of borrowers to add something of their own, 
 and it is a confirmation of )the borrowing hypothesis tbat this added 
 word is used but once in the N. T. (2 Tim. iii. 15, '■make thee irise 
 unto salvation'), and there in a sense opposite to the meaning 
 here; whereas, in the sense of 'cunningly devise,' it is found at 
 least thrice in Josephus (B. J. iii. 7, 20, and iv. 2, 3)." 
 
 We presume that it will not be denied that this is the most 
 striking piece of evidence that Dr. Abbott has adduced. But 
 how much of it is plausible rather than sound ! 1 Corinthians 
 is one of the generally acknowledged Epistles of Paul ; we 
 imagine that Dr. Abbott feels no doubt of its genuineness. 
 We open it at random and light upon 1 Cor. ix. 13, and ask, Is 
 there evidence of the dependence of this, too, on Josephus ? Let the 
 reader compare the argument Avhich might be framed in support 
 of that proposition with Dr. Abbott's pleading, as given above : 
 
 "We note that Josephus, in a striking passage (B. J. v. 13, 6) 
 represents the zealots as saying : (hi . . . rovg tC vaC) arpaTEvofievovg 'hk 
 Tov vaov TptipEoOaL. Now, the parallelism of thought between this 
 and 1 Cor. ix. 13, as well as the similarity of wording, is very 
 marked. It becomes immediately evident that the author of 
 1 Cor. betrays his consciousness of being a borrower here by in- 
 troducing his statement by the words 'know ye not' — a mode of 
 expression which not only implies that he is appealing to a well- 
 known phrase not his own, but which is found in Josephus, and 
 so suggests his manner. It is further worthy of remark, that 
 the word cTpaTEverai makes its appearance in this context (verse 7) 
 
1883.] Genuineness of Second Feter. 435 
 
 in a rather peculiar manner. And to make the case still more 
 secure, we read in this same verse (13) the very rare word 
 7rapt(Vj£iw7£f, which occurs here only in the N. T., and only once 
 in all the LXX., and which yet is found in a cognate form in an- 
 other book of Josephus [Contra Apion, I. 7) in a like context: 
 TTj OepaTrda tov Qeov Tzpaae6pevovTE^. Now, it is the manner of borrow- 
 ers thus to combine passages ; and this gathering together of 
 phrases from different portions of a writer's works, and combining 
 them into one context, only proves to us the more clearly that we 
 have discovered tlie original source of the composite passage." 
 
 Now, how does the one argument differ from the other ? Cer- 
 tainly not in kind. And yet the latter confessedly proves nothing. 
 There may be, and there is, a kernel of evidential fact beneath 
 Dr. Abbott's argument, but its outward form is — plausible 
 pleading. Let us observe, now, (1) that Josephus' context and 
 mode of introducing the phrase is totally diff"erent from those of 
 2 Peter. Just compare, "for other law-givers [than Moses], in- 
 deed, following after the fables {toIq /i. i^.], transferred in their 
 discourse the shame of human sins to the gods, and gave much 
 pretext to the wicked," with 2 Peter i. 16. (2) That all the 
 words employed are common words, and are used in current 
 senses ; the later Greek, such as that of Polybius, is full of 
 e^aKo/.ovco, aoipi^u, and /ivOog, in just these scnses. And (3) that no 
 one of the words is absent from the narrow literature which alone 
 Dr Abbott is inclined to allow to be familiar to the writer of the 
 Epistle (viz., N. T. and LXX). (4) Actually, therefore, the one 
 only point of resemblance between 2 Peter and Josephus is the 
 very natural collocation in two absolutely diff"erent contexts of 
 tivo very coinmon words. Valeat tantuni. 
 
 The second of Dr. Abbott's "important" items is also more 
 plausibly than soundly put. It is true that 2 Peter's statement 
 with reference to our becoming "partakers of the divine nature," 
 is very striking, and in phraseology unparalleled in the N. T. 
 It is, however, often paralleled there in thought. But neither 
 in thought nor phraseology is it paralleled in Josephus. He 
 speaks nowhere of men partaking of the divine nature, but only 
 of their obtaining a share of God's virtue, and that in the use of 
 phraseology about as unlike 2 Peter's as it could be. He does 
 
436 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 speak also of the "nature of God" and of the "divine nature," 
 but so do nearly all writers of Greek. Peter would in any case 
 be very familiar with the phrase ; and the thing needing explana- 
 tion is not where he could have gotten it, but how he came to'use 
 it. To point to its presence in Josephus, no more explains this, 
 nor as much, as to point to its presence as a current phrase in the 
 common Greek of the age. 
 
 4. We observe, once more, that Dr. Abbott does not inquire 
 with sufficient anxiety after the exact account which the resem- 
 blances between the two writings, when once drawn out and 
 clearly exhibited, demand for themselves. He seems, indeed, 
 scarcely to recognise this duty, and declines almost contemptu- 
 ously to investigate the subject.^ The critical weapon he is wield- 
 ing, however, is one exceedingly difficult to handle, and almost 
 always cuts both ways, ^fl'he only possibly sound method of pro- 
 cedure in such cases is clearly some such as the following : (1) The 
 careful collection and classification of the points of resemblance 
 between the two writings ; (2) the most anxious investigation of 
 what accounts could be given of them ; and (3) the most thorough- 
 going investigation as to Avhich one of these accounts ought to be 
 given. There is no trace in Dr. Abbott's papers that he has 
 proceeded after such a fashion ; to all appearance, he has assumed 
 from the outset that, if resemblances exist, they must be explained 
 by the assumption that 2 Peter borrowed from Josephus. On 
 the contrary, however, it is obvious that we have in this case 
 many ways of accounting for phenomena of resemblance. 
 
 (1) There is the common inheritance by the two writers of a 
 peculiar form of Greek belonging to a peculiar province. We 
 must sharply investigate how much this will account for. 
 
 (2) Reared thus in the same age, in the same land, under largely 
 the same influences, there is probability of the common knowl- 
 edge by the two writers of the same or a similar literature. We 
 must determine very closely how much resemblance this will ac- 
 count for. (3) It is only after these methods of accounting for 
 the phenomena have been exhausted, that we are justified in sus- 
 pecting real literary dependence of one on the other, and not till 
 
 ip, 51. ~ 
 
1883.] G-enuineness of Second Peter. 437 
 
 that is rendered probable, that we can begin inquiry as to who 
 is the borrower. This last question, again, is not to be settled 
 by either assumption or guessing. Many items combine to its 
 determination, and each must be investigated. We must ask : 
 (a) Which writing, on other evidence, seems to be the older ? No 
 force of internal evidence can make us believe that Shakespeare 
 quotes Tennyson, (b) Which writer, on a ^j»/7'o/7' grounds, is more 
 likely to have known the other ? (c) Are there any otlier phe- 
 nomena of the two writings, besides their resemblances, which may 
 help us to a decision ? And (d) what solution of the question do 
 the special phenomena of resemblance themselves suggest ? It 
 needs to be kept in mind, moreover, that a borrowing which may 
 seem a i^^iori impossible, if conceived of as having taken place 
 directly, may yet be a priori quite likely, if conceived of as hav- 
 ing taken place through an intermediate link. 
 
 The need of such a detailed and careful study of the meaning 
 of phenomena of resemblance, in a case like the present, may be 
 illustrated from the undoubted resemblances existing between 
 Seneca and the Sermon on the Mount, or Paul's speech at Athens, 
 or the Epistle to the Romans. It cannot be pretended that the 
 items of resemblance between 2 Peter and Josephus are anything 
 like so striking as those in any one of these cases. But who will 
 believe that either Paul or Christ borrowed from Seneca, or Sen- 
 eca directly from them ? The more carefully the phenomena are 
 investigated, the more clearly the true solution emerges. Is it 
 impossible that an explanation found adequate to explain those 
 closer resemblances should be inadequate to explain these? Mean- 
 while, when our author acts as if it were impossible, it is plain 
 that under his leading we are in the hands of an unsafe guide. 
 
 III. Sifting of the Evidence. But if we cannot yield ourselves 
 to Dr. Abbott's leading, nothing is left us but to seek to work 
 our own way through the problem. And in order to this we must 
 first of all attempt to classify strictly the actual phenomena of 
 resemblance between 2 Peter and Josephus. We do not pretend 
 to have made an independent thorough-going examination of the 
 two authors with a view to discover their relation to one another. 
 But we have carefully examined every statement of Dr. Abbott's 
 
438 Br. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 with the original texts before us, and gone over the whole ground 
 independently in a cursory way. The result of our examination 
 is as follows : 
 
 1. The general vocabularies of the two writings are in some 
 degree alike. 
 
 2. The two writers have in common possession a number of 
 words which are rare in the Biblical books. Dr. Abbott speaks 
 of thirteen or fourteen of these (p. 61) ; we have counted some 
 seventeen. At least fourteen of these are, however, too common 
 in profane Greek to serve as marks of connexion between any two 
 Greek writers. There remain the collocation /uvdoi^ e^aKo^ovOr/cravTeg, 
 the phrase ef bSnv perhaps, and the phrase Karaarpocpy KarsKpivsv, 
 which, if it needed accounting for, would be sufficiently account- 
 ed for by Gen. xix. 29, but which is probably not genuine in 2 
 Peter {KaTaa-po(j>i) being onptted in B. C.^ Copt.). 
 
 3. Of these words rare in Biblical Greek, -Klaaiia, deov ^vaiq, /ivdoic 
 £^aKoAov0?/aovTEg, occur in §§ 3 and 4 of the Preface to the Antiqui- 
 ties I and TOidSe, /iv7/fiT^v, irapdvTuv, evaXurai, e^' b6ov, afiadiav, in Ant. iv. 
 
 8, 1 and 2 — in both cases in connexion with other phrases bearing 
 some resemblance to phrases in 2 Peter, which were either cer- 
 tainly or probably obtained elsewhere. Here is an appearance 
 of grouping. 
 
 4. No silent quotation of clauses or collocations of words seems 
 capable of being adduced. 
 
 5. There are of course no direct citations, and no such commu- 
 nity in matter as to suggest connexion. 
 
 This sifted statement of the evidence will hardly need further 
 justification than has been incidentally furnished in the preceding 
 pages. On an examination of its contents it will be seen that 
 what we have to account for is the common possession by the two 
 writers of a number of words rare in Biblical Greek — but not 
 peculiar out of it — some of which have a mild tendency to group 
 themselves in the Preface §§ 3-4 and iv. 8, 1 and 2 of the Antiqui- 
 ties of Josephus. The real question before us in testing Dr. Ab- 
 bott's conclusion is consequently something like this: Does this 
 tendency to grouping, such as it is, raise a stronger presumption 
 that 2 Peter knew Josephus, than all the evidence for the canon- 
 
1883.] Gfemdnencss of Second Peter. 439 
 
 icity, genuineness, and early date of that letter raises for an earlier 
 date for it than A. D. 90? 
 
 IV. What Account slioidd he Rendered of the flatter ? It will 
 be the part of wisdom, however, to proceed by slower and surer 
 steps to our goal. We note then, on a close vieAv of the items of 
 resemblance, that there are a variety of suppositions which, being 
 assumed, would render an adequate account of them. Some of 
 these are excluded, however, by evidence at once so patent and 
 cogent that we need not occupy our narrow space in stating it. 
 Such are, for example, that 2 Peter was originally written in 
 Aramaic and that the resemblances to Josephus were introduced 
 by a later translator, or that the Epistle, although originally Pe- 
 ter's, was subsequently reworked by a hand that knew Josephus, 
 or that the resemblances are due to pure interpolations of the 
 original letter of 2 Peter's. There are, however, at least four hy- 
 potheses which have nothing extravagant about them, and which 
 will therefore require less summary treatment at our hands. We 
 might account for the resemblances by assuming either, (1) that 
 2 Peter borrowed from Josephus, or (2) that Josephus borrowed 
 directly or indirectly from 2 Peter, or (3) that they are due to 
 the influence of a writing known to and affecting the language of 
 both, or (4) that they are due to the common circumstances, sur- 
 roundings, training, and inheritances of the writers. Our real 
 task is to determine which one of these is the true account of the 
 matter. In order to this we need to observe that: 
 
 1. Any one of them, if assumed, will account for the facts of 
 resemblance. This is immediately apparent of the first three, but 
 can be made apparent of the fourth also. Canon Farrar, indeed, 
 cannot "feel respect for the judgment of any critic who asserted 
 that the resemblances were purely fortuitous;" we do not desire 
 to fail of his respect, and perhaps "purely fortuitous" is too strong 
 a phrase. But if we have proceeded at all soundly in sifting the 
 evidence and its significant elements are all contained in our re- 
 statement of it, it can hardly be denied that it may be accounted 
 for apart from literary as distinguished from what may be called 
 educational connexion. On any careful consideration of the 
 naturally mediated connexion between the two writers (as distin- 
 
440 Dr. Ed'win A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 guished from the writings), it will be impossible to deny that very 
 close resemblances in style, phraseology, manner, and wording, 
 may be fully accounted for by it. When we remember that both 
 writers belong to the same age and so might be expected to in- 
 dependently fall upon the words and phrases current in the Greek 
 of the time, that both were Jews and wrote the same Hebraisti- 
 cally tinged Grgek (though tinged in different degrees), that both 
 were familiar with the LXX., and perhaps Philo and other Jewish- 
 Greek literature, that both were brought up under the same social 
 fabric, in the same narrow land, under the same manner of train- 
 ing, and were necessarily familiar with the same modes of speech 
 and style of language, we cannot feel that it is mere prejudice 
 which makes us doubt whether any further facts than these are 
 needed to account for the resemblances noted. The semblance of 
 grouping which remains after sifting the evidence is certainly not 
 such a,s' mat/ not be accounted for in so closely related writers, as 
 a mere "fortuitous" collocation of words common to both. 
 
 2. Each of these methods of accounting for the resemblances 
 has it own advantages. The first has the great advantage of abso- 
 lute simplicity; the second of combining with almost equal simpli- 
 city, freedom from the historical and chronological difficulties 
 which lie against the first ; the third of escaping the difficulties lying 
 against both the first and second while supplying an exact account 
 of all the facts, such as the curious coexistence of remarkable di- 
 vergencies in sense and even phraseology, with close resemblance 
 in the very same phrases, the appearance of grouping while yet 
 the words grouped are excessively common, etc; and the fourth of 
 making no assumptions and proceeding only on solid and Avell 
 grounded fact. 
 
 3. Each of the methods is beset with its own difficulties. In 
 the way of assuming that 2 Peter quotes Josephus there stands 
 the immense presumption arising from the focussing of many 
 separate lines of investigation, that the Epistle comes from a time 
 earlier than A. D. 90. The mere fact that the Epistle was a part 
 of the Church Canon of the time of Origen raises a presumption 
 in this direction; the fiict that it is quoted as an authoritative 
 book by Justin Martyr increases it; the fact that it was used by 
 
1883.] Gremdneness of Second Peter. 441 
 
 a scries of earlier writers, including even Barnabas and Clement 
 of Rome, clinches it. Its internal phenomena raise a presumption 
 in the same direction : its undisproved assertion that it is by Peter ; 
 its phenomena of apostolical reminiscence ; its resemblance in 
 thought and wording to what we have elsewhere of Peter's ; its 
 fitness in manner and style to what we know of the character of 
 the Peter of the Gospels; and perhaps more cogent than any of 
 these, its total silence in the midst of an elaborate and plainly 
 an interested polemic against the heresies that are opposed by it 
 as well as by Jude and the Pastoral Epistles, of any hint of the 
 forms of error prevalent according not only to John but also to 
 Irenaeus towards the close of the century ; its total lack of any 
 trace of the state of mind that we know was induced among Chris- 
 tians of Jewish birth by the destruction of Jerusalem ; its absolute 
 unlikeness to any of the known literature of the Second Century ; 
 its immeasureable superiority in thought, style, and phraseology 
 to any Christian writing of that period, and its likeness, on the 
 other hand, to the writings of the apostolical age.^ 
 
 The assumption that Josephus has copied 2 Peter has to labor 
 under the difficulty of supposing that such a man as Josephus 
 had met with and read so unimportant a Christian Scripture as 
 2 Peter, and had been so sharply affected by its language as to 
 unconsciously repeat it. We say "unconsciously" advisedly, for 
 Josephus certainly introduces the common phrases most naturally 
 and seemingly unconsciously. We are unable to find, indeed, 
 that they are any less naturally and unconsciously used by 2 
 Peter, and especially dissent from Canon Farrar's making a 
 a stumbling-block of its use of apsr?/, wholly, as it seems to us, 
 from fliiling to take it in the sense which the author of the Epistle 
 defines for us by parallelising it with 66§a. But, then, after all, 
 would it be so very strange for Josephus to have known 2 Peter ? 
 He knew of Christianity ; he could not have avoided knowing of 
 It, and has betrayed knowledge of it. He studiously makes little 
 of It and avoids telling us how much he knew, but he knew some- 
 thing of it. Not hing^prevented^his having met with the Chris- 
 
 ^K^ompare C^«^nlWai^^^^ti^oi~i;,It not too strong remarks on this 
 point: "Earli/ Days of Christianity,'' Vol. i., p. 206. 
 
442 Dr. Edtoin A. Abbott on tJie [April, 
 
 tian Scriptures. Jews of his age, we know from chance hints in 
 the Talmud and elsewhere, found no difficulty in becoming ac- 
 quainted with their contents, found difficulty, perchance, at times 
 in not becoming acquainted with them. And if he knew any of 
 the Christian writings, would he not be most likely to know those 
 current in such names as Peters and James' ? If, further, we 
 conceive of his acquaintance with 2 Peter as not immediate, but 
 through a mediating oral or written source, all difficulty seems to 
 be on the verge of removing itself 
 
 The third hypothesis, assuming a common literary source for 
 the phraseology of the two writings, rests under the difficulty 
 which always attaches to the assumption of an hypothetical book 
 or literature, of which we know nothing historically, an assumption 
 which is always dangerous and generally indefensible. We must 
 not minimise this difficulty, but it is somewhat lessened by the 
 facts: (1.) That both Joiephus and 2 Peter are confirmed borrow- 
 ers ; (2.) That a large part of the sources of Josephus are known 
 to be lost; and (3.) That a large and much-read popular Jewish 
 literature certainly existed in this age, of Avhich we have but few 
 traces now left. 
 
 The chief difficulties lying in the way of accounting for the re- 
 semblances apart from all literary ccmnexion, in accordance with 
 the fourth hypothesis, arise from the semblance of grouping of the 
 common words, and such collocations of a couple of words as 
 "daring and despisers," "to do well to take heed," "following 
 after myths," "bringing in all diligence." If the discussion of 
 these collocations above be deemed sound, they will not stand 
 much in the way of this explanation, and if the groups be no 
 more strongly marked than appears from our restatement of the 
 evidence, they cannot raise a presumption of more than slight 
 force against it. 
 
 4. Tbe phenomena of the resemblances themselves do not 
 suo-o-est with any strength of presumption any one of these expla- 
 nations as distinguished from the others. They do suggest with 
 some force some connexion between the two writings ; and a calm 
 and unbiassed consideration of them leads to the recognition of a 
 them of some form, but not of what form of 
 
1883.] Cfenuineness of Second Peter. 443 
 
 literary connexion. The strength of this presumption depends, 
 of course, on the difficulty of explaining the phenomena in any 
 other way. It amounts to only an original suspicion tending 
 towards a probability, which may be readily overturned by the 
 exhibition of any considerable difficulty in assuming literary con- 
 nexion. The real problem before us, then, is : Is it more difficult 
 to explain the semblance of grouping without literary connexion 
 between the Avritings, or to assume literary connexion ? 
 
 V. The Conclusion. The state of the case is simply this. The 
 resemblances between the tw^o writings are capable of being ac- 
 counted for in at least four ways. There is an a priori probability 
 in favor of each of the four in the reverse order of their statement 
 above. ^ The resemblances themselves suggest that the account 
 rendered should turn a literary connexion in some form, but do 
 not distinguish between the forms. We must conclude : 
 
 1. That the assumption that 2 Peter borrowed from Josephus 
 is out of the question. Nothing in the phenomena suggests this 
 rather than at least two other accounts of the matter, and there 
 is no reason for assuming it rather than the other accounts. On 
 the other hand, it is burdened down with literary and historical 
 difficulties quite peculiar to itself and such as Avould forbid its as- 
 sumption unless the resemblances between the writings were cer- 
 tainly and utterly inexplicable in any other way. 
 
 2. Whether we assume one of the other forms of literary con- 
 nexion or not, depends on our judgment as to the relative strength 
 of the two presumptions ; that raised for literary connexion by 
 the phenomena of grouping, on the one hand, and that raised 
 against it by the difficulties in the way of assuming it, on the other. 
 
 3. Perhaps the true explanation is to be found in a combina- 
 tion of two of the methods of explanation given above, namely in 
 the natural connexion existing between the two authors combined 
 with an indirect knowledge of 2 Peter by Josephus, derived 
 through acquaintance with Jewish-Christian leaders. 
 
 4. While the present writer inclines to this explanation, in his 
 judgment the evidence before us is not decisive between the last 
 three of the explanations discussed above, and the true critical atti- 
 
 ^ See above, page 436. 
 VOL. XXXIV., NO. 2—13. 
 
444 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the [April, 
 
 tude is to esteem the question to this extent unsettled. Any one 
 of the three, separate or -in combination with the others, will ex- 
 plain the facts, and no one of them is burdened with overmaster- 
 ing difficulties. However trying it may be to find it so, it is true 
 that history does not preserve to us, nor chance hide in the records 
 themselves, the decisive considerations which will solve for us 
 every problem of ancient literatures. It is enough to be able to 
 point out, in a case like the present, somewhat narrow lines within 
 which the explanation must be finally found ; and enough for the 
 defence of the genuineness of 2 Peter to be able to show that the 
 assumption that it borrowed from Josephus does not lie within 
 these lines. It is, of course, easy to say that that explanation has 
 been excluded only on considerations which are '■'rein apologet- 
 isclu' To all whose devotion is given to simple truth, however, 
 apart from either apologetic or destructive bias, we can confidently 
 look for a hearty recognition of the fact that it has been excluded 
 (and must therefore be kept excluded) not on grounds of dogmatic 
 or apologetical prejudice, but on purely historical and literary 
 grounds, such as not only can be pleaded as raising a strong valid 
 historical presumption for the early date of 2 Peter, but also apart 
 from noting and yielding to which no valid historical results as 
 to the date or literary relations of 2 Peter can be obtained at all. 
 This is, in fact, one of the not rare cases in which Truth herself 
 is an "Apologist." 
 
 And now, that our task is accomplished, we must take summary 
 leave of our subject. Another attempt to find evidence of the 
 spuriousness of 2 Peter has failed, and it begins to look as if that 
 Epistle has too good a claim to a position in the Canon to be 
 ousted by any legal process — as if violence alone could hope to 
 tear it from its place. Certainly if the sharp attack that Dr. Ab- 
 bott has led and so ably generalled has failed, we may expect 
 others to fail. We confess to a high admiration for the acumen 
 and force of his argumentation ; the lever he uses to pry 2 Peter 
 out of its firm bedding in the solid rock of God's word is certainly 
 a most uncommonly admirable instrument. All that is lacking 
 is a firm and solid fulcrum of facts which can stand the pressure 
 
1883.] G-enumeness of Second Peter. 445 
 
 of the immense heaving. Dr. Abbott has brought forward one 
 with a strong external appearance of solidity. But with the very 
 beginning of the prying, it too, like all its predecessors, crumbles 
 into dust, or ever the Epistle moves a jot from its bed. The 
 moral is that 2 Peter must be most stedfastly fixed on its base — 
 perhaps is an undivided portion of the bed-rock itself So we 
 believe it to be ; and certainly, thus far, all the appearances are 
 in that direction. 
 
 Benj. B. Warfield. 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 .I1I1\I1 R- 
 
 jaaa 
 
 
 
 
 .. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CAVLORO 
 
 
 
 P«INT«OIMU • A 
 

 BS2795.4 .W27 
 
 Dr. Edwin A. Abbott on the genuineness 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 00067 0515 
 
 m 
 
 K 
 
 i 
 
 m^m