06_Biblica_1_D_Callan_Layout 1 05/11/12 12:20 Pagina 436 436 TERRANCE CALLAN d) Prophecy and Scripture In 1,20 P72 speaks of profhtia kai grafh (prophecy and scrip- ture) rather than profhteia grafhj (prophecy of scripture) as in the probable original text. While the latter identifies prophecy as part of scripture, the former speaks of prophecy as something that exists along- side scripture. Perhaps 2 Peter in P72 envisions prophecy as a living in- stitution among Christians, somewhat as in the letters of Paul (see e.g., 1 Corinthians 14). Prophecy and scripture are alike in not being of one’s own explanation, but it is prophecy, not scripture, to which 2 Peter appeals here. The author may imply that early Christian prophets predict the second coming of Jesus and that this is a foundation for the validity of this expectation, which is more secure than the transfigura- tion mentioned in 1,16-18. In the likely original text of 2 Peter, in which prophecy is part of scripture, the argument in 2,4-10a can be under- stood as a specification of how the prophetic word in scripture predicts the second coming of Jesus. In P72 2,4-10a may be understood as a sep- arate, scriptural argument alongside the argument from prophecy. The prophets mentioned in 3,2 could be these early Christian prophets. e) Simplified Eschatology A final important aspect of 2 Peter in P72 is its simplification of the eschatology found in the likely original text of 2 Peter. In 3,8 P72 says that mia hmera para kw wj xilia eth wj hmera mia (one day with the Lord is like a thousand years like one day) rather than mia hmera para kuriw wj xilia eth kai xilia eth wj hmera mia (one day with the Lord is like a thousand years and a thousand years like one day) as in the probable original text 18. At this point the author 18 Codex Sinaiticus again says something very similar to P72 at this point, namely mia hmera para ku wj xilia eth wj hmera mia (one day from the Lord is like a thousand years like one day). This differs from P72 only in having the genitive rather than the dative case after para. This does not seem to be part of a general theme of Sinaiticus’ version of 2 Peter even to the lim- ited extent that it does in P72. Both P72 and Codex Sinaiticus’ versions might have arisen by parablepsis as the scribe’s eye jumped from the first xilia eth to the second. This, however, would only have been apparent to someone who compared either of them with a text that included the probable original version. The ordinary reader of either P72 or Codex Sinaiticus would presum- ably have understood its meaning as I explicate it here.