The aspects under which the gospel is repre sented in this second epistle differ from those in the first. The writer lays stress on 4ntyvcoots, or yin:inns (i. 2, 3, 5, 8 ; ii. 20, I I ; iii. I8). In this epistle the gospel is generally Xptcrrot7 Kai rapoinrla (i. 16), abs ri3s SucatocrOpns (ii. 21), ityla ivro)o), etc. ; whereas the first epistle throws into prominence Avis, awry*, artcaros I. X., tctpts (i. to) ciXr)Ofta (i. 22), X6-yor 8), iricrrw, etc.
The answer may be ventured that the persons ad dressed in the second epistle were in danger of being tempted into error ; and that a definite and pro gressive knowledge of Christianity was the safeguard against those loose speculations which were floating around them, On this account, too, we have ad monition suggested and pointed by their perilous circumstances—to make their calling and election sure' (i. to ; iii. 14) ; nay the purpose of the epistle seems to be given in iii. 17—' Ye therefore, beloved, knowing beforehand, take heed lest being led away with the error of the lawless, ye fall away from your own steadfastness, but grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' The ew-l-yvwcrts is the grand theme of counsel and the real prophylactic presented, for it embodies itself in that Sucannrovn on the possession of which so much depends, as is seen in the allu sions to Noah and Lot, and to the want of which are traced in contrast the judgment of the flood and the fate of Sodom, the selfish character of Balaam, and the dark and deceitful ways and works of the false teachers.
There is also a characteristic difference in the mode of quotation from the 0. T. Quotations are abundant in the first epistle, either formally intro duced by Stort ylwarrai (i. 16), or by 646ri reptixec by rft pap (ii. 6), or are woven into the dis course without any prefatory statement, as if writer and readers were equally familiar with them (i. 24; ii. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, to, 22, 24, 25 ; iii. 9, to, 11 15). But in the second epistle quotations are un frequent, though we have Ps. xc. 4 in iii. 8, and Is. lxv. 17 in iii. 13. Of a different kind are the allusions to Noah and the flood, to Lot and Sodom, and to Balaam. But we may still reply that the modes of handling and applying the 0. T. may differ according to the purpose which any writer has in view. In a longer and fuller epistle there may be quotations at length, but in a shorter only apposite allusions to facts and incidents. The ob jection would have been stronger if in an epistle ascribing itself to Peter there had been no use made of the 0. T. at all ; but a third of this epistle consists of references to the 0. T. or to warnings drawn from it.
The peculiar similarity of a large portion of this epistle to that of Jude has been often commented on. The second chapter and portion of the third are so like Jude that the resemblance cannot be accidental, for it is found in words as well as thoughts. It has been conjectured by some that both borrowed from a common source. Bishop Sherlock supposed that this source was some ancient Hebrew author who had portrayed the false teachers, Jude having used the epistle of Peter as well as this old authority (Use and Intent 0.> Dissert. i. p. 200, Lond. 1725). Herder and Hasse holding this theory conjecture the docu ment common to both writers to be the Zend avesta. This opinion has no foundation, and relieves us of no difficulty. Others imagine that Jude followed Peter, and several reasons have been in favour of this opinion by Mill, Michaelis, Storr, Dahl, Wordsworth, Thiersch, Heydenreich, Hengstenberg, and Gaussen. Their general argu
ment is that Peter predicts what Jude describes as actually existing ( Jude 18), and that Jude refers to prophecies which are found only in Peter. But it is really doubtful if both epistles refer to the same class of errorists. Those described by Peter are rather speculatists, though their immoral practices are also noted, while those branded by Jude are specially marked as libertines and sensualists, whose life has perverted and undermined their creed. Others again hold that Peter took from Jude ; such is the view of Hug, Eichhorn,Credner, Nean der, Mayerhoff, De \Vette, Guericke, and Bleek. One argument of no small force is that the style of Jude is the simpler and briefer, and Peter's the more ornate and amplified ; that Jude's is more pointed and Peter's more indefinite ; and that some allusions in Peter are so vague that they can be understood only by a comparison with Jude (comp. 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; Jude 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 11 ; Jude 9). Thus Peter says, generally, `angels bring not railing ac cusations ;' Jude gives the special instance, Michael and Satan. Peter speaks of the 'angels that sinned ;' Jude more precisely, they `kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation.' Olshausen and Augusti in part think that the similarity may be accounted for by a previous correspondence between the writers ; that Jude may have described to Peter the character and practices of the false teachers, and that Peter, relying on the truthfulness of the state ment, made his own use of it without hesitation when he bad occasion to refer to the same or a similar class of pernicious subverters of truth and purity. This hypothesis is scarcely probable, and it is more likely that Peter had read the epistle of Jude, and repro duced in his own epistle and in his own way its distinctive clauses, which must have deeply im pressed him, but with such differences at the same time as show that he was no mere copyist. Is it unworthy of an apostle to use another writing divinely authorised, and can Peter's appropriation of so much of Jude's language he stigmatized, as by Reuss, as affenbares plagiat ? Thus Jude uses the phrase ' clouds without water,' but- Peter ' wells without water,' this figure being more suited to his immediate purpose. The ca-tXc/Ses of Jude 12 was from reminiscence of sound before Peter's mind, but it is changed of purpose into a7racu; and Jude's phrase EY rais erydraa iiucZP becomes in the same connection in Peter rair circirats airrci3v. 2 Pet. ii. 17 shows a like similarity and difference com pared with Jude 13. The claim of originality thus lies on the side of Jude, while original thinking characterises Peter's use of Jude's terser and niinuter diction. There is no ground for Bertholdt's sug gestion to reject the second chapter as spurious ; or for Ullmann's, to refer both second and third chapters to a post-apostolic period ; or for Lange to brand as spurious the whole of the second chap ter with the last two verses of the first chapter, and the first ten verses of the third—that is, from the first TOCTO rpvi-rov 71PCOWOYTES to the other ; or for Bunsen to receive only the first twelve verses and the concluding doxology (Bertholdt, in N. T., vol. vi. ; Ullmann, der =elle Brief Petri ; Lange, elpastat. Zeitalter, i, 152, and in Herzog's sub voce ; Bunsen, Ignatius van Antioch/en, p. 175).