07.04 - A NOTE TO THE LITERARY HISTORY OF SECOND PETER.

4. A NOTE TO THE LITERARY HISTORY OF SECOND PETER.

Graven upon the stones of a locality where we should not expect it, we find a piece of evidence which, in any treatment of the Second Epistle of Peter, deserves the highest consideration. The beginning of this early Christian booklet has many points in common with a decree of the inhabitants of Stratonicea in Caria in honour of Zeus Panhemerios and of Hekate, which, dating from the early imperial period, has been preserved in an Inscription. This Inscription has already, in our investigation of the word ἀρετή, been laid under contribution,¹²³² and it will once again engage our attention.¹²³³ We begin here by giving the two texts in parallel columns, duly marking the cognate elements in each; be it observed that it is not only the unquestion-able similarities in expression and meaning which are thus emphasised, but also certain—for the present let us call them mechnanical—assonances between the two texts, the calling of attention to which will be justified as we proceed. in order to understand the Inscription, which, omitting the introductory formula, we give in the original orthography, let it be borne in mind that the infinitive σεσῶσθαι depends upon an antecedent εἰπόντος.

Let us allow these parallels to speak for themselves, wholly ignoring the feelings of unpleasantness or, it may be, of wonder which they may wake in the breasts of some. The most important feature is manifestly this: that both texts contain the expression ἡθείαδύναμις,¹²³⁴ and in the same case to boot. Now this is no trite expression; its occurrence in the Inscription could not be ignored, even if there were no further point of similarity with the Epistle. But the fact that this solemn periphrasis of the term God is in both passages connected with the word ἀρετή, and further, that it occurs in an altogether peculiar and unfamiliar sense, lends a peculiar intrinsic importance to the external similarity. Suppose for a moment that the τῆςθείαςδυνάμεωςἀρετάς of the decree occurred somewhere in the LXX; there would not, in that case, be the shadow of a doubt that the Epistle had quoted it—dismembered, it might be—or at all events had alluded to it. Nor can this analogy be set aside by the objection that the use, by the author of the Epistle, of an out-of-the-way Inscription, in a manner corresponding to that of biblical quotation, is inconceivable—for we have as yet said nothing as to our idea of the relation between the two texts; the objection, in any case, would be a pure petitio prineipii But further: it is an especially significant, though apparently trivial, circumstance, that in both texts a relative sentence beginning with διά, follows the ἀρετάς (or ἀρετῇ); if on other grounds it seems probable that the Inscription and the Epistle are so related that either presupposes a knowledge of the other, then we should have here the recurrence of a phenomenon often observed in parallel or internally-dependent texts, viz., that consciously or unconsciously the dependent text has been so framed, by means of a slight alteration,¹²³⁵ as to obliterate the traces of its origin. We are of opinion that the parallels already indicated are sufficiently evident. Should further instances be made out, these will naturally gain a much stronger evidential value from their connection with what has been already pointed out. There is nothing remarkable in the mere fact that the Inscription contains this or that word which occurs in the Epistle. But what is significant, is that the same definite number of what are, in part, very characteristic expressions, is found in each of the two texts; and it is this which renders improbable the hypothesis of mere accident. Little value as we would place upon individual cases of similarity, yet in their totality these strike us as very forcible. Hence the connection also brings out the full importance of the parallels ἡαἰώνιοςβασιλείατοῦκυρίου and ἡτῶνκυρίων αἰώνιοςἀρχή, an importance which appears still more decided, when we compare these parallels with, e.g., those (by no means so striking) given by H. von Soden¹²³⁶ in connection with the Epistle ad loc., viz., Hebrews 12:28βασιλείαἀσάλευτος, and 2 Timothy 4:18βασιλείαἐπουράνιος. In both of these passages the only real parallel is the word βασιλεία; but it was surely unnecessary to seek references for that.¹²³⁷ The outstanding feature of the phrase in the Epistle is the term αἰώνιος, applied to kingdom;¹²³⁸ hence, even if the Inscription joins this term with what is only a synonym of βασιλεία, the force of our parallel is in no way lessened. Observe, moreover, κυρίων || κυρίου. Then, again, the likeness of πᾶσανσπουδὴν εἰσφέρεσθαι in the Inscription to σπουδὴνπᾶσανπαρεισενέγκαντες in the Epistle, cannot fail to strike the eye. Even at some risk of repetition, we cannot help remarking that this expression would not of itself prove anything, for it is common in later Greek. It is only by a false method of procedure that M. Krenkel¹²³⁹ reckons it among the assonances which are thought to prove an alleged indebtedness to Josephus on the part of the author of the Second Epistle of Peter. But in the present case the phrase, connected as it is with the other parallels, has a force at least equivalent to that ascribed to the shorter σπουδὴνπᾶσαν¹²⁴⁰ in connection with our Epistle’s numerous unquestionable plagiarisms from the Epistle of Jude.¹²⁴¹ The same will hold good, with more or less force, of the εὐσέβεια. The statistics of the word in the biblical writings—if we may, for once, isolate the concept “biblical Greek”—are very remarkable. Relatively seldom,¹²⁴² on the whole, as it occurs there, it is yet quite frequently found in the Pastoral Epistles and the Second Epistle of Peter; while the Acts of the Apostles also uses εὐσέβεια, εὐσεβεῖν, and εὐσεβής.¹²⁴³ Now these words occur frequently in the Inscriptions of Asia Minor: they appear to have been familiar terms in the religious language of the imperial period. The more external resemblances between the two texts have also been indicated; for, if the hypothesis of relationship be valid, they cannot but prove to be of interest. In connection with this very Epistle of Peter it has been demonstrated that the writer of it not seldom depends upon his assiduously-used model, the Epistle of Jude, in quite an external way. “Some peculiar expression, the purpose of which is made plain only by the context in Jude, is retained, or an expression is fabricated from reminiscences of the purely local connection in that book. In 2 Peter 2:13, theleading word συνευωχούμενοι is taken from Jude 1:12, and yet its concrete relationship to the love-feasts has been allowed to fall out, so that it is only the sound of the words which influences the choice of the essentially different expressions (ἀπάταις¹²⁴⁴ instead of ἀγάπαις, σπίλοι instead of σπιλάδες).”¹²⁴⁵ Now, precisely as in regard to the formal assonances in the very instructive example just given, viz.: —

so might we perhaps judge of the instance ἀγάλματα ἐπαγγέλματα in the Decree and the Epistle respectively—although the author would advance the point with all due reserve. Shall we count it more probable that the επιθυμια of the one text has exercised an outward influence on the syntactically and lexically different επιθυμια of the other? Once more, the use of the superlative μέγιστος in both passages cannot be ignored,—though, at first sight, such a statement may seem strange; but its cogency will be more readily perceived when it is remembered that the superlative of μέγας occurs nowhere else in “the” New Testament.¹²⁴⁷ Is it possible to hold that the similarities in the two texts are merely accidental? We have again and again pondered this question, but have always come to the conclusion that it must be answered in the negative. Doubtless, the deciding of such questions always implies a certain inner susceptibility, and is thus subjective. But here, as we judge, there are objective grounds to proceed upon. We would endeavour, therefore, to define more precisely the very general impression made by the two texts, by saying that they must be inter-related in some way. Now the Decree of Stratonicea is undoubtedly older than the Second Epistle of Peter. From its contents, we might infer its date to be previous to 22 A.D.; from its form, somewhat later. But even if the Inscription were of later date than the Epistle, it would be an improbable hypothesis that the former was in its contents dependent upon the latter. The dependence must rather be, if the relationship is granted, on the side of the Epistle. Hence the general statement made above may be specialised thus far: the beginning of the Second Epistle of Peter must be in some way dependent upon forms of expression occurring in the Decree of Stratonicea. We speak of the forms of expression of the Decree. For it is not urgently necessary to assert a dependence upon the Decree itself. Of course, it is certainly possible that the writer of the Epistle may have read the Inscription. Assuredly Paul is not the only Christian of the century of the New Testament who read “heathen” inscriptions, and reflected thereon. The inscriptions, official and private, found in the streets and market-places, in temples and upon tombs, would be the only reading of the great majority of people who could read. Of what we call classical literature, the greater number would hardly ever read anything at all. The heads of the Christian brotherhoods who were versed in literature were influenced, in respect of their range both of words and thoughts, by their sacred books, but manifestly also by the forms of expression common in their locality. The present writer would count the expressions before us, found in the Inscription of Stratonicea, as belonging to the solemn forms of the official liturgical language of Asia Minor. From the nature of the case it seems certain that they were not used for the first time in this Decree in honour of Zeus Panhemerios and Hekate. Conceivable though it be that the author of the Second Epistle of Peter had adopted them directly from the Carian Inscription,¹²⁴⁸ yet we would confine ourselves to the more cautious conjecture that the author of the Epistle, like the author of the Decree before him, simply availed himself of the familiar forms and formulm of religious emotion.¹²⁴⁹ The mosaic-like character of the writer’s work, specially evident in his relation to the Epistle of Jude, is illustrated once more by the facts just adduced. Should our conjecture hold good—particularly, of course, if a direct dependence upon the Decree of Stratonicea could be made probable—we should have a new factor for the solution of the problem as to the origin of the Epistle. Certainly the hypothesis of an Egyptian origin, which has gained great favour in recent years, is not confirmed by the local colouring, which belongs to Asia Minor; we would, however, refrain meanwhile from categorically asserting that it originated in Asia Minor,¹²⁵⁰ as we have not yet mastered the lexical relations of the Epistle. It would at least be necessary to inquire how far its peculiar vocabulary has points of contact with that of literary sources (of the imperial period) from Egypt,¹²⁵¹ or Asia Minor,¹²⁵² including those of the Papyri and the Inscriptions.