Encyclopaedia Biblica/Simon Peter (A:Palestinian Period)

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Encyclopaedia Biblica
Thomas Kelly Cheyne and John Sutherland Black
Simon Peter (A:Palestinian Period)
see Encyclopaedia Biblica for other articles, typographic issues, links to PDF copies, and public domain status

SIMON PETER[edit]

CONTENTS

  • NAME (1)
  • Bibliography
  • A. PALESTINIAN PERIOD (2-23)
  • B. LIFE OUTSIDE PALESTINE (24-48)

1. Name.[edit]

Simon, or Symeon (cyMeoiN ; so LXX for jil?DU ; see SIMEON, 8), was the original and proper name of the intimate disciple of Jesus who was destined to be for ever known throughout all Christendom by the surname of Peter.

(a) The name Simon is a classical one which occurs (for example) in Aristophanes, Lysias, and Demosthenes. Ever since the Jews began the practice of assuming Greek or Greek-sounding names, alongside of their proper Hebrew ones, to be employed in intercourse with the outside world (cp BARNABAS, 1, end, and NAMES, 86), Simon was regarded as an appropriate equivalent for Symeon, all the more because in the selection of such equivalents similarity of sound was considered an important element.

(b) The form Simon (S.ifi.tav [simoon]) is that almost invariably met with in the OT Apocrypha (3 Ezra [1 Esd.] 9:32, Ecclus. 50:1; also in 1, 2 and 4 Macc.). Only once is the well-known Maccabaean leader called S.vfi.eiav [symeoon] (1 Macc. 2:65); so too only once his great grandfather (2:1), and the son of the patriarch Jacob thrice (4 Macc. 2:19, Judith 6:15, 9:2). For the last-named Josephus invariably writes Symeon (or Semeon : Sv/if wi-, var. 2eM.eaji> [semeoon]), for all other persons he has Simon (Si /uan- [simoon]), except in two cases {Ant. 12:6:1, 265 for the ancestor of the Maccabees and in BJ 4:3:9, 159, where in each case 2u;u.eu>c [symeoon] is found). Soon after the apostolic age it even came about that the Greek form was taken to underlie the Hebrew and pD D was written instead of pyiT;? (cp NAMES, 86, end).

(c) In the NT Simon (2t ,ua>" [simoon]) is the current form. Symeon (2u/ue<->i [symeoon), in fact (if we leave out of account the patriarch, mentioned in Rev. 7:7, the ancestor of Jesus in Lk. 3:30, the acred prophet of Lk. 2:25, 2:34, and the prophet and teacher of Antioch in Syria who bore the surname of Niger, Acts 13:1) occurs but twice ; and in both instances - in 2 Pet. 1:1 as well as in Acts 15:14 - is used with the obvious intention of giving special solemnity to the designation of the apostle. In Acts 15 this is all the more unmistakable because Peter is the name used throughout the rest of the book, except in presence of Cornelius or in the mouth of his messengers, when the style always is 'Simon whose surname is Peter' (10:5, 10:18, 10:32, 11:15). it hardly needs to be said that we cannot assume the author of Acts to be here following a literally exact report ; we see rather how as a literary artist he is taking account of the situation he is describing. Similarly it is plainly with conscious intention that in the third Gospel he uses the name Simon (4:38, 5:3-10) down to the point at which in connection with the choice of the apostles (6:14) he mentions the giving of the name Peter. Only in 5:8 does he let fall the double designation 'Simon Peter' ; we may perhaps hazard the conjecture that the addition of 'Peter' is due merely to the carelessness of a copyist (it is wanting in D, in 2 MSS [13 and 69] of the Ferrar group and in the old Lat. codd. a, b, e). Throughout the whole of the rest of the gospel Simon recurs only in the mouth of Jesus (22:31) and of the disciples (24:34). In the only other passage where Jesus addresses the apostle (22:34) we find 'Peter' (Herpe [petre]). This, however, is probably introduced for the sake of the contrast ; Jesus in effect says that Peter will be so far from showing himself a rock that he will actually deny his master. In the two passages in Acts where Peter is addressed (10:13, 11:7 : in the vision at Joppa) we also find 'Peter' (IleVpt [petre]). It would be difficult to suggest any special reason for this here ; the author will simply be following his prevailing custom.

(d) In Mk. also we find the same principles operative in determining the employment of the name Simon. Down to the choice of the apostles (3:16) we invariably find 'Simon' (1:16, 1:29-30, 1:36), but after that only once, in the single instance in which the apostle is addressed by Jesus (14:37). Mt. departs from this only in so far as he adds the surname Peter to the name of Simon not only when he records the choosing of the apostles (10:2) but also at the point where he first has occasion to name its bearer at all (4:18), and thus as early as 8:14 he is able to use the simple designation 'Peter'. In the places where the apostle is addressed by Jesus Mt. also never uses 'Peter', but always 'Simon' (17:25), or with special solemnity, 'Simon son of Jonas' (16:17). 1

(e) Similarly, it is in accord with the solemnity of the moment at which Peter confesses Jesus as the Messiah that we find Mt. using here (15:16), though nowhere else, the combination Simon Peter. In Mk. it does not occur at all, in Lk. only in 5:8 (see above, c) , in 2 Pet. 1:1 it is found in B. the Ferrar MSS 13 and 69, and other cursives, but Symeon Peter (2v/ietoi/ rierpo? [symeoon petros) is certainly to be preferred, as the form Symeon is rare and thus cannot easily have been introduced into the text by copyist's error merely.

(f) On the other hand this combination 'Simon Peter', which as we have seen is so rare elsewhere, is the usual designation in the Fourth Gospel. 'Peter' alone is comparatively infrequent and occurs only where 'Simon Peter' has immediately preceded (1:44, 13:8, 13:37, 18:11, 18:i6-18, 18:26-27, 20:3-4, 21:7a, 21:17, 21:20-21), in other words only in order to avoid a quite excessive stiffness ; yet even in such cases there are several instances in which the more formal 'Simon Peter' immediately recurs (13:9, 20:6, 21:7b). Jn. agrees with Mt. in using 'Simon [son] of John' (1:42, 21:15-17) in the two instances where he represents the apostle as directly addressed by Jesus, with Mk. and Lk. in using 'Simon' without addition when the bearer of the name is first mentioned (1:41).

(g) The Aramaic name Kephil (XS | ; in AT only in pl. CTB3 LXX TTtrpai [petrai], Jer. 4:29, Job 30:6) is used only by Paul, who employs its Gracised form KT)f/>af [kephas] (EV Cephas). Or rather, outside of the Pauline writings it occurs but once ; namely in Jn. 1:42 where Jesus gives it as a surname to Simon, with the addition, however, 'which is by interpretation Peter'. Since the name Simon serves perfectly well as a Greek equivalent for Symeon we can all the more readily believe that Peter (and Cephas) was not a name assumed by the bearer himself, that it was bestowed upon him by Jesus. Moreover, Peter was not at all a current name at that time. In Josephus it occurs once (Ant. 18:6:3, 156) according to the testimony of the Epitome which in many instances has alone preserved the true text ; all the MSS, how ever, read Protus (Ilpwros [prootos]) which also was a proper name. According to Pape-Benseler {Worterb. d. griech. Eigennamen), apart from Christian circles Peter would seem to have been first brought into currency through Roman influence.

(h) From what has been said it will be evident that with NT writers the honorific name of the apostle was the only one in general currency, and that they used his proper name Simon (or Symeon) only when there were literary reasons for doing so. This holds good also for the author (not hitherto referred to) of 1 Pet. who calls himself (1:1) II expos [petros]. From the epistles of Paul we can gather that the Aramaic form of this honorific name was known even in Galatia (Gal. 1:18, 2:9, 2:11, 2:14) and in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, 9:5, 15:5). And in fact this is not to be accounted for by some such reason as a mere personal habit of Paul's to call him so ; rather must we infer from 1 Cor. 1:12 that Peter s own followers had brought his name in its Aramaic form to Corinth ; for we may be sure that Paul when he attributes the words 'I [am] of Cephas' to the Petrine party at Corinth is rendering their language with literal fidelity. Yet from Paul's twice saying 'Peter' (Gal. 2:7-8) we must not conclude that the verses in which the name occurs are from another hand ; for along with the Aramaic name we may be sure that the Galatians, precisely because it was an honorific name, not a proper name in the stricter sense of the word, would be apprised, whether by Paul or by some other, of its meaning also.

1 On the form of the name of Simon's father see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 1, middle.

Literature.[edit]

On the life of Peter generally see the Bible Dictionaries ; also Harnack in EB (9) and the literature relating to the life of Jesus and the apostolic age. Of Catholic accounts may be named (the very title is characteristic) that of Janvier, Histoire de St. Pierre, prince des apotres et premier pape (Tours, 1902).

Against the Roman sojourn of Peter : Baur, Tub, Ztschr. f. Theol., 1831 d, pp. 136-206, and Paulus, 1845, pp. 212-243 = (2) 1, 1866, pp. 243-272; Lipsius, Chronol. der rom. Bischofe, 1869, especially pp. 162-167, Quellen der rom. Petrussage, 1872, JPT, 1876, pp. 561-645, and Apokr. Ap. -Gesch. ii. 1,1887; Hausrath, NTlicke Zt.-gesch. 3, 1874, pp. 326-346 = (2) , 1877, pp. 131-153; Zeller, ZWT, 1876, pp. 31-56; Erbes, TU 19:1, Todestage d. Paulus u. Petrus, 1899, and Z.f. Kirchengesch. 22, 1901, pp. 1-47, 161-224; Soltau, Petrus in Rom, in 'Sammlung gemeinverstandl. wissensch. Vortrage' edd. Virchow and Holtzendorff, Hft. 349 = Neue Folge, Serie 15, 1900, pp. 469-509.

In support of the Roman sojourn of Peter see Hilgenfeld, ZWT, 1872, pp. 349-372; 1876, pp. 57-80; 1877, pp. 486-508; Joh. Delitzsch, St. A r. 1874, pp. 213-260; Schmid (Roman Cath.), Petrus in Rom, Lucerne, 1879; Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers \. (S. Clement of Rome), 2481-502 ( S. Peter in Rome ) and also 1 201-345 ( Early Roman Succession ); Harnack, ACL ii. ( = Chronol.) 1240-243, 703-710 et passim; Clemen, Preuss. Jahrbb. 106 (Oct.-Dec. 1901) 405-417; Kneller, Z. f. katliol. Theol. 1902, pp. 33-69, 225-246, and (against Erbes) 351-36: ; Carl Schmidt, Die alien Petnisakten, in t TU 24 ( = Neue Folge ix) i, 1003 (a work which did not appear until the present article was already in print). Cp also SIMON MAGUS, 15.

P. W. S.

SIMON PETER (A: PALESTINIAN PERIOD)[edit]

CONTENTS

  • I. IN PAUL AND ACTS.
    • Parallels (2-3).
    • In Acts alone (4).
  • II. IN SYNOPTISTS.
    • Synoptists as Sources (5).
    • Walking on water (6).
    • Other unhistorical narratives (7).
    • Transfiguration, Stater (8-9).
    • Other doubtful elements (10).
    • Minor notices with historical kernel (11).
    • Jairus' daughter (12).
    • Call, draught of fishes (13-14).
    • Denial, confession (15-16).
    • Designation as Satan (17).
  • III. IN FOURTH GOSPEL.
    • Less strongly divergent points (18)
    • Denial (19).
    • Call (20).
    • Foot washing (21).
    • Peter and beloved disciple (22).
  • Character of Peter (23).

I. ACCORDING TO PAUL AND ACTS.[edit]

2. Pauline notices.[edit]

It the question is asked whither we ought to turn for our most secure data for the life of Peter, the answer must be : neither to the Gospels nor to Acts where there is so much that is open to critical deduction, but to the epistles of Paul.

As to the genuineness of these see GALATIANS, 1-9; and on 1 Cor. 15:1-11, in particular, see RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 10-11. As regards Gal. 2:11-13 it may be added that Volter, although holding Galatians to be entirely spurious, sees in these three verses a real historical record which was known to the author of Acts and by him so made use of for 10:1-11:8 as to make it appear that not Paul, but precisely Peter, was the first to make a stand for table-fellowship between Jewish and Gentile Christians (Kompos. d. paulin. Hauptbriefe, 1890, pp. 149-154).

The following are the facts we learn from these epistles.

(a) Peter was the first to witness an appearance of the risen Jesus (1 Cor. 15:5). As to the fundamental importance of this event, see RESURRECTION, 37.

(b) Paul, three years after his conversion, found Peter in Jerusalem along with James the brother of Jesus in a prominent position (Gal. 1:18-19) ; fourteen years later he again found him along with James the brother of Jesus and John the son of Zebedee occupying the position of leaders of the church who had received from their supporters the honorific title of 'the pillars' (ol crrOXot [oi styloi]; Gal. 2:1-10 ; see COUNCIL, 6).

(c) On the occasion just mentioned, that of the council of Jerusalem, Peter with James and John was, at the outset, by no means on Paul's side, and in the course of the discussions which took place suffered him self to be brought to concede Paul's contention that heathen ought to be admitted to Christian privileges without circumcision, not on grounds of principle but only in view of the established fact of Paul's missionary success, a fact in which he was constrained to recognise the hand of God (Gal. 2:7-9 ; COUNCIL, 4, 8).

(d) The fellowship (KOIVUVICL [koinoonia]) with Paul and Barnabas which, along with James and John, he then ratified by joining hands (Gal. 2:9) was a restricted one. It was based upon the arrangement that the mission to the Gentiles should be undertaken by Paul and Barnabas whilst the original apostles restricted themselves to the Jewish field - a restriction which they took in a strictly ethnographical sense, their purpose being to proclaim the gospel thenceforward to circumcised persons only, not also to Gentiles living in the midst of a Jewish population, and thus to be in a position in which they could go on observing the law of Moses which forbade defilement by intercourse with the uncircumcised (COUNCIL, 9).

(e) Peter took up a somewhat less rigid attitude when after a certain interval he came to Antioch and partici pated in the common meals of the mixed community of Jewish and Gentile Christians there. All the more harmful was the effect when after the arrival of some followers (or, it may be, direct emissaries) of James he withdrew from this participation, and by his example, at least, if not by express utterances, led the other Jewish Christians, and even Barnabas, to take the same step (Gal. 2:11-21). The charge of hypocrisy which Paul brought against him on this account must in all probability be regarded as unjust and be modified to one of inconsistency. The freedom in relation to the Mosaic law which he asserted by his behaviour on his first coming to Antioch will have been the result merely of a genial temper called forth by the pleasant conditions of that particular community, not the result of any firmly established conviction. Peter was not so strictly legal as James, but essentially he was still unemancipated from the fetters of the law (see COUNCIL, 3).

(f) That Peter suffered himself to be convinced by Paul's argumentation (Gal. 2:14-21) must not be supposed ; for the incident in Antioch was followed by the systematic invasion of the Pauline communities by Jewish emissaries, with which we are made acquainted in Galatians and Corinthians. Had Peter recognised that Paul had right on his side he needed only to assert his authority and to call to mind the arrangement indicated in Gal. 2:9 and all attempts to undermine the influence of Paul in the communities he had founded and to win them back to Judaism would have ceased. The leaders of the primitive church, and among these Peter so long as he was in Palestine, must be held responsible for a share in this action against Paul by the withholding of their veto at least, if not even by overt action - such as, for example, perhaps the issue of recommendatory letters (2 Cor. 3:1). See COUNCIL, 3.

(g) It will be convenient to take up at this point also the last notices of Peter that are found in Paul, even though these should possibly lie outside the period of Peter's activity in Palestine. In Corinth there was, according to 1 Cor. 1:12, 3:22, a Cephas-party. That Peter himself was ever in Corinth is utterly improbable.

No one earlier than Dionysius of Corinth (about 170 A.D. ; ap. Eus. HE 2:25:8 ; see below, 25a) knows anything of Peter's ever having been at Corinth. Cp, as against this assumption, only such a passage as 1 Cor. 4:15. But, further, if Peter had followed Paul in Corinth, Paul who names him with respect in 1 Cor. 9:5, 15:5, and in 3:4-5 refrains from naming him also out of respect ('when one saith, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not men?') would not have expressed himself so sharply as he does in 3:10-15 with regard to all those who had come after him there.

Nevertheless the rise of a Cephas-party in Corinth is readily explicable. Real disciples of Peter came to Corinth and the followers whom they gained in the community there took up from them their watchword : 'I am of Cephas'. Now, there was also at Corinth, as we know, besides this party the Christ-party which was strictly Judaistic (see CORINTHIANS, 16). Inasmuch as the Cephas-party remained apart from it, we see here also another evidence that within Jewish Christendom Peter represented the milder school. In 2 Cor. it is only of the Christ-party that we continue to hear (10:7), no longer of that of Cephas.

(h) Finally, we learn incidentally that in his missionary journeys, which in accordance with Gal. 2:9 we are to think of as being made in regions having a Jewish population, Peter was accompanied by his wife, and for her as well as for himself asked and received sustenance from the communities in which he laboured ( 1 Cor. 9:4-5).

3. Parallels in Acts.[edit]

In the accounts in Acts relating to these same events there is practically no agreement with what we learn from Paul except on the quite general statement that Peter at the time of the council held along with James a prominent position in the church at Jerusalem. All else is absent, or otherwise reported.

(a) As regards the silence of Acts, no one svill find it surprising that no express mention is made of the out standing importance of Peter at Paul s first visit to Jerusalem ; the thing is presupposed (but cp c). It is all the more remarkable, however, that the book has not a word to say about the dispute of the two apostles at Antioch, about the Cephas-party in Corinth, or about the Judaistic invasion of the Pauline communities and the part taken by the original apostles in this ; and that in fact it substitutes for the first-mentioned dispute another which arose between Paul and one of those engaged in the conflict, only in this case not Peter but Barnabas, and on a question which, dogmatically considered, was wholly indifferent - viz., as to whether John Mark should or should not be taken as a companion on the second missionary journey (Acts 15:36-40). Such a notice is very well adapted, it is obvious, to counteract any representation of the real state of the case that might have been derived from (let us say) the Epistle to the Galatians or from ora! tradition, by its substitution of another which deprives the affair of any considerable importance. Furthermore, of any missionary journey of Peter one learns nothing more than the little that is said in Acts 9:32, 9:43; for, in spite of 8:25b ('they . . . preached the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans'), 8:14-25 is to be taken less as a missionary journey than as a tour of inspection (see below, 4b). In 12:17 we are told merely that after his deliverance from prison Peter went from Jerusalem to another place. Whither he went or what he did there we are not informed. In 15:7 we find him again in Jerusalem as if this were a matter of course. The author of the book has not deemed it necessary in speaking of a person of Peters importance to give any connected account of his activity.

(b) The account of the council in Jerusalem in Acts is in glaring contradiction with what we read in Paul.

In place of the arrangement with Peter, James, and John for a division of the missionary field we have a decree of the primitive Church which is directly excluded by Gal. 2:6 as well as by 1 Cor. 8, 10:14-ll:1 (7:12-14) and finds its only historical foundation in a custom of the second century, not at all of the first (see COUNCIL, 10-11). In particular, Peter comes forward at the very beginning of the discussions with a discourse the dogmatic portion of which (15:9b-11) would be appropriate only in the mouth of Paul ; had Peter actually spoken it he would have deserved in the fullest degree the reproach of hypocrisy for his reversion to the Mosaic law at Antioch. The event, however, on which Peter relies in the narrative part of his discourse (15:7-9a), had it been really historical, would have made the council an impossibility from the first ; for if a Gentile in the full sense of the word, as Cornelius is represented to have been in 10:28, 11:3, had been received by Peler into the Christian community, and if the primitive church, by reason of the divine command followed by Peter in doing so, had given its approval (11:5-18), the question would already have been settled and could not again be raised, or if it had been raised must have been answered by a simple reference to this fact without recourse being needed to any council (see CORNELIUS, 2-3, 5).

(c) Finally, even what has been spoken of under (a) as not open to antecedent objection - the absence of mention of Peter on the occasion of the first visit to Jerusalem - rests upon false information; for in Acts 9:26-30 Paul is represented not, as in Gal. 1:18-19, 1:22, as having visited Peter and James only, but as having conversed in full publicity with the entire Christian community of Jerusalem.

Thus, in so far as we are able to control Acts by the Epistles of Paul, Acts is seen to have little claim to our confidence in anything it has to say about Peter. We can hardly expect to be able to repose more confidence in it in those portions where it is our sole informant.

4. Other data in Acts.[edit]

The opinion is widely held that the trustworthiness of Acts as regards Peter has been strengthened when it has been pointed out that the first half of Acts has an older source behind it. That we have to reckon with one or more sources becomes particularly plain in the discourses of Peter (see ACTS, 14), in the pentecost narrative (SPIRITUAL GIFTS, 10), and in that relating to primitive communism (COMMUNITY OF GOODS, 1-4). It can only be regarded, however, as indicative of the extreme recklessness with which many theologians deal with such questions if we find them taking for granted that, once the existence of a source has been made out, the trustworthiness of its contents has also been forthwith established. If Acts was composed about 100-130 A. D. its sources may easily have been late enough to be legendary in character, and even should many parts - the discourses, let us say - be found worthy of credence, this would not necessarily by any means apply, there fore, to all the other contents as well. The temptation to idealise the primitive Church was only too easy, and, moreover the general drift or tendency of the final composer has also to be taken into account as a very important factor (see ACTS, 3-6).

(a) As for the conversion of Cornelius, it is only necessary to recall what has been said already (above, 3b) that, regarded as a Gentile conversion, it is an impossibility unless we are to take it as having happened at a date subsequent to the Council of Jerusalem - a supposition, however, which is also impossible (see CORNELIUS, 2).

The only possible way of saving some historical kernel for the story would be by regarding Cornelius as a Jewish proselyte who had already been circumcised. No such thing, however, is anywhere said in Acts (not even in 10:2, 10:22, 10:25) and the idea is diametrically opposed to the representation as a whole (see CORNELIUS, 3). The narrative is a conspicuous illustration of the extent to which the author could be led away from historical truth by his tendency or rooted inclination to regard Peter, not Paul, as the originator of every progressive movement in Christianity, and particularly of the mission to the Gentiles. Thus it is not at all necessary for us to dwell upon the special difficulties that attach to the closely corresponding visions of Cornelius and Peter (9:3-16) as integral parts of the far-reaching parallelism between Peter and Paul which is to be observed in Acts (see ACTS, 4, end).

(b) That Peter and John should have visited Samaria after Philip s missionary labours there (8:14-25) is very conceivable. The main thing reported in this connection, however - namely, that it was by means of the laying-on of hands of the two original apostles that the Samaritans who had already been baptised received the Holy Ghost, cannot be regarded as historical (ACTS, 10, end ; MINISTRY, 34c). The statement rests upon a strongly hierarchical idea which, moreover, in virtue of the parallelism just alluded to, is extended to Paul also (19:6), and marks out this journey of Peter and John as one of episcopal inspection. On the unhistorical character of 8:18-24 see SIMON MAGUS, 1, 13-14.

(c) The miracles of Peter - the healing of the man lame from his birth (3:1-11), of Aeneas in Lydda who had been lame for eight years (9:32-35), the raising of Tabitha at Joppa (9:36-42), and the many works of healing performed by the apostles which led to the belief that they could be effected even by Peter's shadow (5:12, 5:15-16) - are all primarily to be viewed in the light of the parallelism with Paul. Since the author of Acts had at his command a larger supply of materials relating to Paul than of materials relating to Peter, with the result that he left out much in order to avoid making Paul appear greater than Peter (see ACTS, 4, end), it is natural to conjecture that he would be eager to lay hold of any item regarding Peter which came to his hand without subjecting it to any too severe a scrutiny.

The case of Aeneas moreover plainly shows how little the author of Acts felt it necessary to form to himself any concrete image of what he was relating. The course of events cannot in reality be conceived as occurring in the manner described : Peter came, looked upon the sick man, and without further preliminary said, 'Jesus Christ heals thee ; arise' and so forth. In this form, devoid of any indication of a previous conversation with the sufferer or any enquiry as to his spiritual condition, the story cannot possibly have come from the mouth of an eye-witness ; it comes to us in the form of the most meagre extract, where the interest is merely in the bare fact of the miracle without any regard to attendant circumstances or to any psychological features. If, however, the story as we now have it does not come from an eye-witness its historicity also becomes question able even if it be difficult to suppose that the name Aeneas is wholly imaginary. The healing of the lame man in the temple is accomplished with almost equal abruptness. In the case of the raising of Tabitha it is worth observing how widely it differs from its counterpart, the raising of Eutychus (20:7-12). Eutychus comes to life again not long after his accident and Paul expressly says: 'his life is in him'. But here Peter must first be summoned from Lydda to Joppa. As regards the wholesale miracles of healing in 5:12, 5:15-16, finally, apart from their astonishing range it has to be observed that the text in this place is wholly devoid of connection (see ACTS, 11). Cp further, f, below.

(d) The sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11) comes under a different category in so far as it is capable of being explained, if one so choose, without postulating any miracle. The naturalistic explanation, however, will make it all the more probable that in the course of transmission or at the time when it was fixed in writing the occurrence acquired a more dramatic character than originally and actually it possessed. It can hardly be doubted that the composer of Acts regards it as a miracle ; but the credibility of his narrative is just at this point rendered questionable by the circumstance that within the compass of a few verses he sets forth two wholly irreconcilable views on the subject c,f community of goods in the primitive church (see COMMUNITY OF GOODS, 3-4).

(e) With respect to the three imprisonments of Peter (in 4:3, 5:18 along with the other apostles, in 12:3-5 with out them) and his two miraculous deliverances (5:19, 12:6-17), the conjecture has long been current that all the accounts relate to but one occurrence which gradually came to be told in different ways.

By separation of sources also it has in some quarters been deemed possible to show that in the source of chaps. 4 and 5 there was no word of an imprisonment of the apostles (so, for example, Bern. Weiss). In 4:9-10 the lame man who has been healed stands by the side of the apostles before the synedriurn. This is conceivable only if he had been cited as a witness before that court or had been arrested along with the apostles. Neither of these things however is said ; in fact, both are excluded, for in v. 14 the members of the court take knowledge of his presence as something new. What is apparently suggested is much rather that the members of the court, immediately after the healing had been wrought, betook themselves to the apostles in the temple and that their dealings with them took place here. To escape this Spitta finds himself compelled to regard the mention of the man who has been healed, in 4:10 (end) and in 4:14, as an addition to his source made by the composer himself - certainly not an easy assumption. In 5:28 we should surely have expected to read that the high priest had taken the accused to account not only for their preaching of Jesus but also for their escape from prison, if the source from which 5:28 is taken had also contained 5:18-19.

In chap. 12 on the other hand the picture is very vivid and it would be difficult to believe that, for example, the name Rhoda is a mere invention. In this case in point of fact there is no need to deny the imprisonment and the liberation, or even that the liberation appeared very wonderful alike to Peter and to all the other persons mentioned ; and yet it admits of a very intelligible explanation if with Hausrath we suppose that the angel who brought Peter forth from the prison will have been the death-angel of Herod Agrippa (NTliche Zeitgesch. (2), 2:351-352) with tlle death of a ruler the prison doors often opened for those whom he perchance had locked up more out of caprice than in any supposed interests of justice.

(f) There is yet another consideration which tells against the historicity of the two imprisonments of the apostles and the miracles wrought by them in Jerusalem. If they had come forward at so early a date into publicity so marked as to call for the intervention of the synedrium, that body would hardly have rested satisfied with merely enjoining them not to preach Christ (4:18, 4:21) or with scourging them (5:40).

The danger which Jesus by his recent ministry had brought upon the ancestral religion was still fresh in men s memories. On the re-emergence of the same danger the synedrium would assuredly have interposed with the utmost vigour and the persecution of the Christians first mentioned in Acts as occurring after the death of Stephen (8:1, 8:3) would certainly have broken out much sooner and threatened the well-being and even the existence of the church just in proportion to its immaturity and want of consolidation. In all probability the Christians found themselves constrained to remain entirely in concealment for a considerable time. That the original apostles whose homes were in Galilee should have removed to Jerusalem at so early a date as is represented in Acts is, moreover, quite unlikely (see MINISTRY, 21d). It was only what was quite natural if the spontaneous impulse to present the primitive church in the most favourable light led to the view that the original apostles, and above all Peter, had faced the civil power undismayed and plainly declared that they were determined to disregard the prohibition to preach Jesus, and that they must obey God rather than man (4:19-20, 5:29). It was forgotten that such conduct would certainly have led to their destruction. As to the untrustworthiness of 5:36-37. see, further, THEUDAS, 1-3.

(g) The portion of Acts relating to Peter which seems to possess the largest claim to be regarded as trustworthy is that which records his speeches (with exception of 15:7-11, on which see above, 3b). It must not, however, for a moment be imagined that they are verbally or even throughout in substance accurate. What we read in 1:16-22, and the coincidences of the other addresses of Peter with those of Paul, show in the clearest possible way that they all are compositions of the author of Acts (see ACTS, 14). Observe, moreover, that a main point in their contents, the proof of the resurrection of Jesus drawn from Ps. 16:10 (Acts 2:27), is possible only when LXX (not MT) is followed, and would thus have been impossible in the mouth of Peter (see RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 36c). If these discourses assigned to Peter agree, in their Christology especially, with what seems to us to be in harmony with the oldest pre-Pauline view, this does not admit of explanation as due simply to the employment of a source of this character. The most important factor is rather that the author of Acts must himself personally have been attached to such a view. As he puts it into the mouth of Paul also, it becomes possible indeed, but by no means provable, that he drew it from an old and trustworthy source when he was making the speeches of Peter.

(h) Thus it appears that on the whole Acts adds extraordinarily little of a trustworthy character to what we already know about Peter from the Pauline Epistles. Relatively speaking the most assured of its additions would seem to be the fact of his imprisonment and liberation about the time of the death of Herod Agrippa (44 A. D.), but without the supernatural features in the narrative. The other remaining facts which are not open to question, as for example his stay for a time at Joppa in the house of Simon the tanner (9:43, 10:6), are of but trifling importance. As regards Ananias and Sapphira, Aeneas, Tabitha, Cornelius, it may perhaps be safe to suppose that Peter had relations with these persons of such sort as supplied some basis for what we read about them in Acts ; but what these relations precisely were remains obscure. Nor are we any better off when we are told that he often came forward as speaker for all the original apostles, for we cannot regard as trustworthy records the reports of the speeches attributed to him in Acts.

II. ACCORDING TO THE SYNOFTISTS.[edit]

5. Synoptists as sources for life.[edit]

Turning now to the earlier period of the life of Peter there arises

(a) First, the question of the credibility of what we read in the synoptists in regard to this. That the books were not written without definite tendencies may be taken as proved (see GOSPELS, 108-114). Moreover, such tendencies could come into play with peculiar readiness where the judgment as to Peter was involved. To a Jewish Christian he must have seemed the leading figure of all Christendom, whereas to a Paulinist he must just as inevitably have seemed the opponent of the true apostle, an unreasonable obstructionist, a narrow-minded resister of the real will of God which required the mission to the Gentiles. Now where tendencies inlluence the production of gospels their natural effect is that judgments which the author per sonally holds about a given person or thing arc put into the mouth of Jesus himself in the naive persuasion that he could not have held any other view than that which the writer held to be true at the time of writing. If the student is unwilling to go so far as to suppose that whole narratives have been freely invented with no other basis than a desire to exalt or to depreciate Peter, it still remains easy to believe that an author whose disposition towards Peter was friendly would be ready to omit or tone down incidents which told against that apostle, whilst another whose inclination was less favourable would suppress or weaken things which told the other way.

(b) In its search for such tendencies, however, criticism has often gone very far astray. To begin with, because the representatives of tendency-criticism have for the most part entirely dispensed with any inquiry as to sources of the synoptics, or any attempt to distinguish earlier from later portions in them. From the standpoint of pure tendency -criticism it is very tempting to suppose that the most honorific passage in Mt. about Peter (16:17-19) was omitted by Lk. and Mk. because they both were - Mk. in a less degree than Lk., it is true - Paulinists. In reality, however, such a supposition must be rejected - not only for Mk. inasmuch as Mk. was not acquainted with the gospel of Mt., but also for Lk. inasmuch as the section in Mt. is exceedingly probably a quite late interpolation (see GOSPELS, 136, 151 ; MINISTRY, 4-5).

(c) Nor is this all ; the gospels frequently present us with the opposite of what we should have expected from the point of view of the tendency-critics.

It is tempting to suppose that it was out of reverence for Peter that Mt. (17:4-5) suppressed what Mk. (9:5) and Lk. (9;33) report, that Peter at the transfiguration knew not (Mk.) what to say or (Lk.) what he was saying ; but where the same touch recurs in Mk. (14:40) we find that it is suppressed not only by Mt. but also by Lk.

Tempting, again, is it to suppose that it is a result of tendency that Lk. (8:51-53) says, not of the multitude in the house of Jairus, as Mk. (5:38-40) and Mt. (9:23-24) do, but of Peter with James and John and the damsel's parents that they laughed Jesus to scorn when he said the damsel was not dead but sleeping (cp below, 12a). Yet where, according to Mk. (8:33) and Mt. (16:23), Jesus calls Peter Satan it is Lk. (9:22) who omits the whole passage.

Once more, it is tempting to suppose that a leading place among the disciples is being given to Peter when according to Mt. 17:24 the collectors of the temple tax approach him with their enquiry why his master does not pay it, or when according to Mt. (18:21) he addresses a question to Jesus whilst according to Lk. (17:4) - the incident does not appear at all in Mk. - Jesus gives the answer unasked. But, on the other side, we find Lk. (12:41) assigning to Peter an interpolated question which is wholly wanting in Mt. (24:44-25); a saying which Mk. (5:31) assigns to the disciples in general - the passage does not occur at all in Mt. - is by Lk. (8:45) assigned to Peter alone ('Master, the multitudes press thee and crush thee'); and where Mt. (15:15) does the same, attributing to Peter and not, as Mk. (7:17), to the disciples the request for an explanation of a parable - Lk. omits the incident - the answer is recorded in terms not highly complimentary to the speaker : 'Are ye also even yet without understanding?'

What, in fine, are we to say to such facts as these - that only Lk. (22:31-32) has the saying, the latter half of which is exhibited along with Mt. 16:18-19 in letters of gold in the basilica of St. Peter in Rome, and that it is only Mt. (14:28-31) who reports Peters little faith when he endeavoured to walk on the water? Baur's only resource here (Krit. Untersuch. uber die kanon. Evangg., 1847, p. 471) was to regard the event as involving a great personal distinction conferred upon Peter by Jesus, for which reason it was omitted by Lk. As against this we have only to call to mind how high is the position accorded to Peter by the last-named writer in Acts (see ACTS, 4).

(d) From what has been said it will be seen that it will not be safe to look for tendency in any remaining differences that may be detected in the accounts of Peter given by the synoptists.

In Mt. (l0:2) Peter is designated in the list of the names of the twelve as 'first' (Trpan-os [prootos]), in Mk. (3:16) and in Lk. (6:14) this numeration is absent. In the story of the transfiguration it is only Lk. (9:32) who records that Peter and John and James were heavy with sleep. According to Mt. 26:17-18 Jesus sends forward 'the disciples' to make the passover preparations ; in Mk. (14:13) he sends two only, in Lk. (22:8) these are said to have been Peter and John. In Gethsemane according to Mk. 14:33 and Mt. 26:37 Jesus takes Peter, James, and John to keep watch along with him, in Lk. (22:40) this feature is absent. The question as to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem is in Mk. (133) attributed to Peter, James, John, and Andrew, in Mt. (24:3) to the disciples generally, in Lk. (21:5-7) to 'some' (rive s [tines]). Cp, further, 7c.

(e) The trustworthiness of every statement in the synoptists about Peter, even when not open to any special objection, by no means necessarily follows. Whether, for example, it was Peter or another who propounded the question recorded in Mt. 18:21 or gave the answer now to be read in Lk. 8:45 is for the writers of the gospel narrative a matter of so little importance that variations of statement could very easily arise out of mere inattention. Before coming to a judgment, therefore, regarding the share of Peter in any given occurrence, it will be necessary previously to scrutinise the credibility of the occurrence itself, and over and above this to remember that even when this has been satisfactorily established, Peter s share in it does not at once follow, unless, indeed, his part in it be the very essence of the occurrence. In particular, we must be specially on our guard against the view - widely spread though it be - that the second gospel presents in written form oral communications received by the evangelist from Peter (on this hypothesis see GOSPELS, 148).

6. Walking on the water.[edit]

We begin with those accounts in the synoptists which may at the outset be set aside as unhistorical.

(a) With regard to the story, found only in Mt. (14:28-31), that Peter went to meet Jesus on the Sea of Galilee, but through failure of faith began to sink and had be rescued by Jesus, we find even so conservative a writer as Bern. Weiss (Leben Jesu (2), 2:209) declaring that critical investigation imperatively demands that it be given up as a statement of prosaic matter of fact, whilst Beyschlag (Leben Jesu, 1:306) expresses the opinion that the desire of Peter that Jesus should bid him come to him on the water is, literally taken, simply childish, and that the miraculous power of Jesus was not bestowed upon him in order that he might be able to respond to every childish caprice. Both theologians are at one with the entire critical school in regarding the narrative as having originally been an allegorical-poetical setting forth of an idea, and that it came to be regarded as literal fact only by a misunderstanding on the part of the evangelist or of the writer whom he followed.

At the same time, it is by no means certain that it was Peter s denial of his master that was originally intended to be figured in the story. In that denial it was not his faith but his fidelity that failed the apostle. Had it been his faith, the underlying presupposition of the story would be that if only Peter had ankly confessed himself the disciple of Jesus he would have come off wholly unharmed. As matters actually stood, however, the worst consequences were really to be apprehended as results of such a confession, though nevertheless it was his duty to make it.

(b) We may be sure that the story of Jesus walking upon the water was originally a parable intended to exhibit in a graphic way the thought that if his disciples have faith they will be able to walk with safety on the troubled sea (of life) (see GOSPELS, 142a). The addition relative to Peter then brings in an illustration based on the opposite thesis ; he who has no faith necessarily goes down unless he calls upon the Lord and receives help from him. This view itself, however, in which Jesus appears as the Lord of succour, shows by its very nature that it cannot have come from Jesus himself. He would not have designated himself, but, as in his genuine parables, a person by whom God is meant, as Him from whom help comes. Thus the later origin of the narrative, already rendered probable by its absence from Mk. , is confirmed from another point of view. If this be so, we may perhaps go on to suppose that the reason why Peter came to be selected as hero of the story was because he was regarded as head of the church, and what is related of him was in tended to be taken as applying to the entire church (so Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, 517, (2) 1582).

7. Other unhistorical narratives.[edit]

There are other narratives also which require no detailed proof of their unhistorical character.

(a) The statement in Lk. 24:12 that Peter visited the sepulchre of Jesus and found it empty is doubtful even text-critically, and when its substance is considered cannot be accepted (see RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 2c and 21; GOSPELS, 138e).

(b) Along with the historicity of the statements as to the women at the empty sepulchre must also be given up the historical character of the notice, found only in Mk. (167), that they received from the angel the in junction to tell the disciples and Peter that they should see the risen Jesus in Galilee. See GOSPELS, 138 a, e, f, RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 21, and, as regards an allusion in Mk. 16:7 to a fact indirectly referred to in this, ib. 9b.

(c) As the withering of the fig-tree cannot be regarded as historical (see GOSPELS, 137bB, 141, 142a), the statement in Mk. (11:21) that Peter called attention to the fact on the following day also disappears. In Mt. 21:20 all the disciples together are already aware of it, for the tree at the word of Jesus withers away immediately ; the incident is not found at all in Lk.

8. Transfiguration.[edit]

It is difficult to form a definite judgment as to the story of the transfiguration of Jesus in Mk. 9:2-10= Mt 17:1-9 = Lk. 9:28-36.

(a) The form in which Jesus is here seen is, on the one hand, that of Moses when he came down from the mountain of the law, according to Ex. 34:29-35, on the other hand, that in which the exalted Christ was conceived of, according to 2 Cor. 3:7-46, where Paul cites precisely the passage just mentioned regarding Moses, and that of the angel at the empty tomb, according to Mt. 28:3 (cp Lk. 24:4, Mk. 16:5). Looked at on this side, the scene is accordingly designed to represent by anticipation the coming heavenly glory of Jesus, and at the same time, by the presence of Moses and Elijah, to exhibit it as a fulfilment of the OT. Viewed in this aspect, it can make no claim to historicity.

This would be difficult even were one inclined to concede that the 'metamorphosis' of Jesus did not happen as a physical reality but was seen only by the three disciples in a vision ; difficult still even were there a disposition to reduce the number to one, say Peter, on the assumption that James and John were named in error partly because in other places also they are mentioned along with Peter on special occasions as being the disciples who were on terms of special intimacy with the master (see below, 11c, 12), partly because, according to Ex. 24:9, three intimate associates, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu (along with seventy of the elders of Israel) are also represented as having gone up with Moses to the mountain of the law. Even so, the question would still remain as to how it was that in the midst of the earthly life of Jesus Peter was visited by the thought which at once assumed for him the form of a vision. (On the psychological antecedents of a vision cp RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, a.)

(b) The transfiguration scene, however, has yet another main purpose. It contains the divine declaration that Jesus is the Messiah, in the words 'This is my beloved son'. This voice coincides almost exactly with that heard- at the baptism of Jesus (Mk. 1:11 = Mt. 3:17 = Lk. 3:22). If, however, Jesus had already, even at that early date, been divinely pro claimed to be the Messiah, this second fact would necessarily rob the other of its value.

To avoid this the following supposition has been made : just as the divine voice at the baptism, according to the most modest, and therefore most trustworthy of the accounts (that of Mk.), was heard only by Jesus, the whole occurrence admitting of being resolved into an inner revelation communicated to him without external physical accompaniments, so also in the vision in which Jesus was transfigured only Peter (or Peter along with James and John) heard that heavenly voice. So, for example, Reville (Jesus tie Nazareth, 2:204-206 [1897]), who therefore inclines to place the occurrence at a date shortly before the confession of the Messiahship of Jesus (Mk. 8:27-29 and || 6). Bacon (Amer. Journ. of Theol., 1902, pp. 236-265) goes a step further. He also supposes that it is a vision of Peter that is described, not, however, a vision which he had actually had, but one which is attributed to him through a transformation of the account relating to his. confession that Jesus was the Messiah (Mk. 8:27-31). The transfiguration scene breaks the connection between Mk. 9:1 and 9:11, and comes from a source in which were contained this and other modifications of gospel narratives that were taken by the evangelist to be accounts of new facts.

(c} At the same time, there is no indication in the text that the divine voice was directed to Peter alone (or Peter and James and John) ; it is indicated with at least equal clearness that it is heard by Jesus. If, then, we have reason for believing that in the first period of his public life Jesus did not yet account himself to be the Messiah, but only a prophet and a reformer, this will incline us to recognise in the divine voice at the Transfiguration a reminiscence of the fact that he only received his divine authorisation to come forward as the Messiah at a particular point in the course of his ministry. The similar saying at his baptism will rest in that case upon an anticipation on the part of the narrators, to whom it was inconceivable that the designation by God of Jesus as the Messiah should have been postponed to any later date. On this assumption also, it becomes reasonable to assign the incident that lies at the basis of the transfiguration-story to a time shortly anterior to the confession of Peter ; for so long as Jesus was not himself certain by divine revelation of the fact of his Messiahship he could not accept the proclamation of it by Peter.

(d) The occurrence itself admits very easily of being regarded as having taken place in the inner conscious ness of Jesus. The participation of Peter, James, and John becomes in that case much less active. That they were present need not be denied ; but their activity would then be limited to this ­- that, after awaking from sleep perhaps, they received a powerful impression of the wondrous majesty with which Jesus came to meet them after he had heard the heavenly voice. The terms in which this had been expressed the} would not in that case hear directly for themselves, but would afterwards learn from the mouth of Jesus. The assertion in 2 Pet. 1:16-18 that Peter himself heard the voice upon the holy mountain does not fall to be taken account of in the present connection, in view of the pseudonymous character of this epistle (see PETER, EPISTLES OF, 9-12).

9. Stater in fish's mouth.[edit]

In the story of the stater in the fish's mouth (only Mt. 17:24-27), it has above all to be observed that the miracle is only announced, not described as having happened. All the safer, therefore, is the supposition that here we are in presence of a symbolical saying of Jesus. The section contains two separate thoughts, of which the one would be quite sufficient without the other,

  • () Properly speaking, Jesus and his disciples do not require to pay the tax, but in order to avoid offence they do so. The incident contains the presupposition that Jesus is the Messiah alike whether the words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him, or whether they are erroneously put into his mouth ; along with this it contains
  • (2) also the exhortation to submit to existing institutions, and thus applies equally well alike to the temple tax which was exacted in the time of Jesus, and to the Roman state tax which from 70 A.D. onwards was substituted for the temple tax in the case of Jews (Jos. BJ 7:6:6, 213) and, particularly under Domitian, was rigorously exacted from Christians also (see CHRISTIAN, 6, vii., end).

It is in connection with the second of these main ideas that Peter comes more directly into the story ; he is to fish for the means of paying the tax. As he is a fisherman by occupation, the meaning of this symbolical saying at once suggests itself; by the exercise of his craft he will easily be able to earn enough to meet this call upon him. This feature in the story may point to the authenticity of the saying as attributed to Jesus ; but it may also quite well have been invented, as every one in later times knew that Peter had been a fisherman. After the death of Jesus it would have been less easy to have invented that other feature - that the produce of Peter's industry was to serve to pay the tax both for himself and for Jesus ; for it is not easy to make out any allegorical application to later conditions of this earning of a double tax. Still, it must be admitted that this pericope is one of the most obscure in the whole gospel history.

10. Other doubtful elements.[edit]

Passing from these unquestionably unhistorical elements, we come next to a series of others which cannot be rejected at once, but, at the same time, can just as little be regarded as certainly authentic. To this category belong :

(a) all those cases in which Peter is represented as having said something which in some other gospel is attributed to the disciples at large (Mt. 15:15 Lk. 8:45, Mk. 13:3; see above, 5c, 5d) or is omitted altogether although the narrative to which it belongs is retained in that gospel (Mt. 18:21 as against Lk. 17:4, and Lk. 12:41 as against Mt. 24:44-45; see 5c).

(b) To this class falls to be added one instance of a subordinate action (the preparation for the passover) which only Lk. (22:8) assigns to Peter (and John) ; see 5d ; and also -

(c) The word which according to all three evangelists (Mk. 10:28, Mt. 19:27, Lk. 18:28) Peter is reported to have uttered: 'we have left all and followed thee'. If the evangelists are in other places so little at one as to the authorship of a given saying, agreement in this particular instance cannot here be taken as proving the accuracy of the report, for their agreement comes only from mutual borrowing. In any case, whether the word in question was spoken by Peter or by another the circumstance is too unimportant to allow us precisely here to place unqualified confidence in the eldest of the three who is followed by the other two. If Jesus blamed a questioner this very fact still added to the importance of the latter (cp below, 17) ; but such is not the case here. Moreover, the question must not be treated apart from the answer of Jesus ('shall receive a hundredfold', etc. ). If Jesus ever gave any such promise to his disciples, we may be certain at least that it was not in connection with a question so self-seeking as this. If, however, the narrative is open to suspicion on this most important point, it is impossible to feel confidence on such a relatively subordinate matter as the person of the questioner.

11. Minor notices with historical kernel.[edit]

Other notices there are to which a historical kernel, or even complete historicity cannot be denied ; on the one hand they were important enough to impress themselves on human memories, and on the other hand they were not so important as to tempt to a departure from historical accuracy (cp the principle laid down in GOSPELS, 131, begin.),

(a) Thus there is no difficulty in believing that Jesus on a Sabbath day healed Peter s mother-in-law and other sick persons, but on the following day withdrew himself into solitude and was sought out by Peter and his comrades with the view of bringing him back (Mk. 1:29-38 = Lk. 4:38-43 ; Mt. 8:14-17 has the healings only).

(b) That the name Cephas (Peter) was bestowed upon Simon by Jesus may in view of what has been said in ig be regarded as wholly credible even if the date at which it was bestowed remains uncertain. According to Mk. (3:16) it was at the time when the apostles were first chosen. A more appropriate occasion but not on that account historically established would be that of the confession at Cassarea Philippi with which Mt. (16:18) connects it (see MINISTRY, 4, end). If Mt. already when Peter's call is recorded (4:18) and again at the choosing of the apostles (10:2) says: 'Simon, who is called Peter', he is, of course, not to be taken as intending to indicate the time at which the name was given, but simply as wishing to apprise his readers that this Simon was the man whom they already knew as Peter. Lk. (614) likewise has on the occasion of the choosing of the apostles the words Simon, whom he also named Peter. By this, however, he perhaps does not mean to convey that the name was bestowed by Jesus then, but only that it had been bestowed by him at one time or another.

(c} Equally natural is it to recognise faithful reminiscence in the statement that in Gethsemane Jesus took Peter, James, and John to watch with him, and that nevertheless they fell asleep (Mk. 14:32-42, Mt. 26:36-46), even although we cannot be certain that this last happened three several times. This last doubt, how ever, is no reason for giving the preference to Lk. (22:40-46) who mentions the incident as having occurred but once, and that in the case of all the disciples, for as he unquestionably was acquainted with Mk. the simplification here must be explained as due merely to absence of interest in the details of the story.

12. Jairus' daughter.[edit]

In the case of the raising of Jairus' daughter also -

(a) No difficulty will be felt in recognising true reminiscence in the statement that Jesus suffered no one but Peter, James, and John to go with him to the house (besides the parents of the girl) to enter the room where she lay (Mk. 5:37-40).

If Mt. (9:23-25) has nothing about this, his silence is to be connected with the fact that here in other particulars also he is notably much briefer than either Mk. or Lk., just as he is in three other miracle narratives : that of the Gadarene and the herd of swine which immediately precedes (Mk. 5:1-20= Mt. 8:28-34 = Lk. 8:26-39), tnat of the healing of the man sick of the palsy (Mk. 2:1-12 = Mt. 9:1-8 = Lk. 5:17-26), and that of the lunatic boy (Mk. 9:14-29 = Mt. 17:14-20), where Lk. also (9:37-43) is so short ; there is also the story of the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist (Mk. 6:17-29 = Mt. 14:3-12) which Lk. has not at all. Lk.'s divergence (8:51-53) is presumably not so seriously intended as it has been represented above (c) in verbal strictness to be - namely, that it was the parents and the three disciples who laughed Jesus to scorn. Perhaps when he wrote the words (v. 52), 'and all were weeping and bewailing her', Lk. was thinking not of the live persons named immediately before, but, like Mk., of the multitude assembled within the house, and has only failed to bring this to clear expression. In any case he has retained the separation of the three disciples from the rest.

(b) As the occurrence is the only accredited one in the Gospel history which must have presented itself to those who witnessed it as a case of raising of the dead it is very conceivable that the presence of only three disciples should have impressed itself upon the memory. Whilst the raising of the widow's son at Nain (Lk. 7:11-17) and of Lazarus (Jn. 11:1-44; cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 20a, 35b, 37a) cannot be regarded as historical, no more exception need be taken to the raising of the daughter of Jairus than to the resuscitation of Eutychus (Acts 20:7-12), if only one take as literally the words of Jesus, 'the child is not dead but sleepeth', as one does those of Paul, 'his life is in him'.

According to Mk. Jesus spoke these words before he had seen the girl, and it is very easily conceivable that information received from the father may have enabled him to form this judgment ; but it is also possible that this element in the story arises from unconscious modification of the real fact and that it is Lk. who is in the right here when he represents Jesus as uttering the words in presence of the girl, even if this representation does not rest upon the direct testimony of an eye-witness but upon alteration of the text of Mk.

13. Call.[edit]

The account of Peter's call in Mk. 1:16-20 = Mt. 4:18-22 is an excellent example of shortening and condensation of a fuller narrative by tradition. It is unthinkable that in this scene no words but these of Jesus should have been spoken : 'Come ye after me and I will make you to become fishers of men'. Peter and his comrades Andrew, James, and John must assuredly have had previous opportunity of making the acquaintance of Jesus and must on their side have had some conversation with him. No eye-witness could possibly give so colourless an account as that in Mk. and Mt. The later narrators, however, had no longer any interest in dramatic details or in the psychological processes which resulted in the decision of the four fishermen. The central action, the call given by Jesus, alone engaged their attention, and for the purpose of edification which they had in view when they circulated it, and as an example for the converts whom they wished to incite by it, the narrative may have seemed beautiful and precious just in proportion to the suddenness with which the call of Jesus came to Peter and his comrades, and the absolute promptitude of their obedience. Apart from this, however, Mk. and Mt. unquestionably present the most trustworthy account of the undoubtedly historical call of Peter.

14. Draught of fishes.[edit]

The story of Peter's draught (Lk. 5:1-11) falls to be adduced here as a parallel although in so far as we are advancing from the less credible to the more credible order of narratives its proper place in the discussion would have been much earlier. It constitutes one of the few examples we have in the Synoptists of a consciously-framed allegory being put forward in the form of a seemingly historical narrative in order to set forth a particular idea ; this idea is in point of fact quite clear.

(a) First of all it is certain that the scene is intended as a substitute for what we read in Mk. and Mt. about the call of Peter and his comrades ; for Lk. nowhere narrates this last, and on the other hand introduces its main point at the end of the passage before us (v. 10) : 'from henceforth thou shalt catch men'.

(b) At its beginning Lk. places the scene in which Jesus teaches the multitude standing on the shore from a boat (5:3). Now, in Mk. (4:1-2) and Mt. (13:1-3) this is the scene in which certain parables are delivered ; but Lk. avoids giving it in the parallel passage dealing with these parables (8:4). Thus we have in Lk. 5 an artificial composition from various elements and it becomes necessary to inquire into its purpose.

(c) Now the function of a fisher of men is exercised by means of teaching ; if then we find Jesus engaged in teaching at the beginning of our pericope this indicates to us how the draught of fishes that immediately follows ought to be taken ; namely, not as relating to takes of literal fish but in the deeper sense as relating to the capture of human souls. Thus the idea is precisely the same as that in the parable of the net in Mt. 13:47, only without its reference to the subsequent separation of the good fish from the bad.

(d) The narrative before us, however, admits of still more definite interpretation in detail. Simon with his comrades has toiled in vain the whole night through ; now, on receiving a special command from Jesus, he makes an unexpected haul. This has already been rightly interpreted by the Tubingen school as referring to the difference between the practically fruitless mission to the Jews and the highly successful mission to the Gentiles. In the latter, Peter received a special Divine command and this was necessary in order to overcome his original aversion to such an undertaking (Acts 10:9-22).

(e) The launching forth into the deep also will admit of being interpreted as referring to missions to heathen lands as compared with the less venturesome putting out a little from the shore, although it is not said that the fruitlessness of the night's toil is caused by the proximity to the shore.

(f) The sin of which Peter becomes suddenly conscious (v. 8) is thus by no means sinfulness in general - reference to this were but little called for by the circumstances but definitely the sin of failure hitherto to recognise and practice the duty of evangelising the Gentiles as befitting and in accordance with the will of God.

(g) We are now able to perceive the significance also of the place where Lk. has brought in the calling of Peter.

He introduces it at a later point than Mk. and Mt. In particular it is preceded in Lk. by the rejection of Jesus at Nazareth (4:16-30), which on a small scale foreshadows the rejection of Jesus by the entire Jewish people (see GOSPELS, 109b). It is appropriate that it should be followed by the command of Jesus enjoining the mission to the Gentiles, and is in harmony with the principle carried through by the same author in Acts (see ACTS, 4, middle), according to which Paul preaches the gospel to the Gentiles in each city only after it has been rejected by the Jews. In the gospel, by placing the calling of Peter at a somewhat later period, the author has brought about the awkwardness that Peter has to be brought into close relations with Jesus even before his call, at the healing of his mother-in-law (4:38-39) - even although his name is suppressed in 4:42, the parallel to Mk. 1:36 - whilst the occasion of the draught of fishes, in itself considered, appears to be the first meeting of Peter with Jesus.

In this we may perhaps find a hint that Lk. saw the significance of this pericope as referring to the mission to the Gentiles (or perhaps even invented it ? see below, * ) and in accordance with this gave it the place it now occupies.

(h) The naming of James and John as those who, according to v. 10-11 , follow Jesus along with Peter is still more noteworthy. Why is it that precisely Andrew, the brother of Peter, is absent - Andrew whom nevertheless Mk. (1:16) and Mt. (4:18) mention in immediate juxtaposition with him ? It can hardly be by accident merely that by this omission the names left are the names of the three who according to Gal. 2:9 were the 'pillars' of the primitive church and who at the Council of Jerusalem, though at first averse, in the end gave their sanction to the mission to the Gentiles ; it can hardly be mere accident, even although there the James intended is no longer the son of Zebedee but James the brother of Jesus.

(i) Further, be it noticed at how late a point they are introduced.

The narrative so runs that almost down to its close Peter alone figures in it along with Jesus. Helpers such as are necessary where many nets are in use he certainly has, according to v. 4-6 and v. 9 (on v. 7 see below, k) ; but it is not thought worth while to give their names, and they must therefore be regarded as subordinate persons like the hired servants in Mk. 1:20. After all have been grouped together in v. 9 by the phrase 'all who were with him' (vraiTas TOUS aiiv auraJ [pantas tous syn autoo]) the addition 'as also James and John' (6|uouos 6 <cai idic<aftov KO.L Iiodynji ) comes in strangely ; but moreover, after they have been named, Jesus goes on to address the words 'fear not, for henceforth thou shall catch men', to Peter alone, whilst yet according to v. 11 James and John appropriate it also.

All this would seem to indicate that the narrative originally named Peter alone, and that the reference to James and John was only introduced into it afterwards. The object of its introduction in that case would have been to restore agreement with Mk. and Mt. by the naming of several apostles who had been simultaneously called and yet at the same time to restrict their number to that of the three 'pillars'. It will hardly, however, be safe to attribute any such intention to an interpolator ; rather must it be put to the account of the redactor who had the plan of the whole book in his mind. If this be so, we shall have to suppose that Lk. did not himself invent the story of Peter's draught of fishes, but that he had met with it in writing or in oral tradition and that its meaning as denoting that the mission to the Gentiles was the institution of Jesus himself was fully manifest to him.

(k) Now at last we are in a position to form a judgment regarding the second boat mentioned in v. 7 and its occupants.

As they are spoken of as 'fellows' (jueVo^oi [metochoi]) of Peter and his subordinates it might appear at first sight as if they ought to be identified with James and John who are called 'partners' (Kou ioi o [koinoonoi]) of Simon in v. 10. The inappropriateness, however, which has already been pointed out in the naming of James and John in v. 10 as additions to the 'all' (n-di Ta? [pantas]) of v. 9 would by no means be got over by this identification ; for the 'fellows' (ju.eVo\oi [metochoi]) also of v, 7 are included in the 'all' of v. 9. But as the 'fellows' (^ceVoxot [metochoi]) of v. 7 exercise an independent activity and have a boat of their own, their names, had they really been James and John, would certainly have been mentioned already in v. 7 and not held over till v. 10 where no independent activity is attributed to them.

Thus we must seek to ascertain their names from their work. They are called in to help because Peter and his comrades - in whose number James and John are thus included - are unequal to their task unaided. This applies to no one but to Paul and those with him. In actuality lie was the originator of the mission to the Gentiles, and not one who had merely been called in to assist ; but we must reflect that here the dominating presupposition is that it was by the original apostles that this mission was begun, at the direct command of Jesus, or of God. So Acts 10:9-22, 15:7, so Lk. 24:47, so Mt. 28:19; so, still, Justin (Apol. 1:39:3, 1:45:5, 1:50:12, Dial. 42, begin.). On such a view of the matter, Paul and his comrades can only figure as helpers subsequently called in. The two boats by which the fish that had been caught were brought to land thus signify, not the mission to Jews and to Gentiles respectively, but the mission of the original apostles and that of Paul. That of the former was to the Jews at first but afterwards was extended to the Gentiles also, that of Paul was to the Gentiles only. Jesus from the beginning makes use of Simon s boat ; but this eventually proves insufficient.

(l) Whether the touch in v. 6 that the nets threatened to break be simply a graphic decoration of the situation, or whether it too have an allegorical meaning - namely, that through the mission to the Gentiles the unity of the church both before and at the Council of Jerusalem, and in the dispute between Paul and Peter at Antioch (Gal. 2:11-21) was threatened with disruption, as, for example, is suggested by Carpenter (The First Three Gospels (2), 1890, 6:5:1, pp. 206-208) must remain undecided, as no such mean ing is unmistakably suggested by the words. So much as this, however, is rightly emphasised by Carpenter - that the author of Jn. 21 found this reference in our passage ; for his remark in v. 11 that for all the multitude of fishes the net remained nevertheless unbroken is clearly intended to be set against that of Lk. , and indicates that the unity of the church had not come to harm. Already in Mt. 134:7 we find the net employed as a figure for the kingdom of heaven.

15. Denial of Jesus.[edit]

Peter's denial of Jesus is a fact as certain as his call. Even a thorough-going Paulinist would not have invented it against him quite apart from the question whether in the absence of any tradition he would have found any credence had he done so.

(a) On the other hand, it is possible to question whether it happened exactly thrice, or whether the number three belongs to a later development. That the scene gained in dramatic character as it was handed on by one narrator to another is shown by Lk. 22:60, according to which the eye of Jesus fell on Peter after the third denial - a circumstance of which Mk. and Mt. know nothing (as to the cause which rendered this change possible see below, 19c). Doubtless, merely in order to be able to explain how the whole night was passed, the interval between the second denial and the third is given in Lk. (22:59) not as 'a little while' (so Mk. 14:70 and Mt. 26:73), but as 'about one hour'.

(b) Still more insistent is the question as to whether, and if so in what form, Jesus foretold the denial of Peter. From the outset we must regard as later additions the words of Jesus, found only in Lk. (22:31-32), which foretell not only the temptation that is about to come upon Peter, but also the ultimate stability of his faith, with the added exhortation : 'Do thou, when once thou hast turned again, stablish thy brethren'.

Their principal theme already is that Peter is to be the first to believe in the resurrection of Jesus (see RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 37), and in presence of such a prediction relating to a more distant future the passing denial of Peter seems like an insignificant intermezzo. It is difficult to regard as probable such gentleness of judgment on the part of Jesus in this so grave a moment, even should one have no difficulty in attributing to him such a foreknowledge of the future as is presupposed by Lk. Besides, in Lk. the prophecy of the denial is placed in the supper chamber, not as in Mk. and Mt. on the way to Gethsemane.

(c) On the other hand, it is by no means improbable that, on the last evening of his life, in conversing about what lay before him, Jesus should have expressed a doubt as to the constancy of his disciples, that Peter should have declared his own with emphasis, and that the doubt should thereupon have been expressed anew and perhaps in very drastic form. If Jesus actually on this occasion uttered the prediction that Peter would in an exceedingly short time deny him, we still are not compelled to suppose that the prediction was meant otherwise than conditionally, to some such effect as the following : 'should it so happen that thou fall into grievous temptation to deny me thou wilt not have constancy enough to resist it'. As for the threefold repetition there is much reason to apprehend that the prediction of Jesus as to this was afterwards made much more explicit than it had been, in view of what was known or believed to have actually happened.

(d) The same holds good of the specification of time : before the cock crows (Mt. 26:34 = Lk. 22:34); and in an intensified degree of that given in Mk. (14:30): before the cock crows twice. Indeed, the additional statement - found only in Mk. (14:68, 14:72) - of the fact that the cock actually was heard to crow twice, is a clear sign of the secondary character of our canonical Mk. as compared with Mt. and Lk. (see GOSPELS, 1, 19c).

Even the textual criticism of the passage seems to show that this datum is one which crept only gradually into the text of Mk. In v. 68 the addition ai oAeVrujp 4>wn)crei&gt [kai alektoor ephoonesen]; is so weakly attested that it is omitted by WH and does not appear even on the margin ; still, there is certainly a hiatus if in v. 72 we read 'and straightway the second time the cock crew' without any previous mention made of the first time.

(e) Lastly, the fact of the cock s having crowed at all has been sometimes called in question by reason of the fact that, according to the Mishna (Baba Kamma 7:7), it was forbidden to keep fowls in Jerusalem.

It was expressly permitted, however, we read, to purchase them to be killed, or to receive them as presents for the same purpose (ib. 10:9), and it is testified that on one occasion a cock was stoned in Jerusalem because it had killed a human being (a child) ('Eduyyoth, 6:1 ; see all the passages given in Brandt, Evang. Gesch., 1893, 32-33). Thus, the fact of the cock crowing cannot be shown to be unhistorical ; yet neither can it be shown with certainty to be historical. Cockcrowing (dAe<cTopo$o [alektorophoonia]) is, according to Mk. 13:35, the third of the four night-watches into which the night was divided by the Romans (see DAY, 4). This division into four is current in the NT (Mk. 6:48 = Mt. 14:25, Acts 12:4), although the Israelites originally divided the night into only three watches (Judg. 7:19, cp Lam. 2:19, Ex. 14:24, 1 S. 11:11, and, in all probability, also Lk. 12:38). As the second Roman night-watch which ended at midnight is called 'midnight' (fxeuofVKTioi [mesonyktion]), we must suppose that the cockcrowing from which the third took its name originally denoted the time at which it came to an end, that is, about 3 A.M. The saying of Jesus could thus very easily have run in this form: 'before cockcrowing [i.e., before three o'clock to-morrow morning] thou shall have denied me', without any intention to predict that directly after the denial a cock should literally crow ; and with equal ease might the view have arisen through a misunderstand ing, that Jesus had actually foretold this detail, and that the prediction had been fulfilled.

16. Confession at Caesarea Philippi.[edit]

Amongst the most certainly assured facts of the life of Peter must be ranked that of the confession he made at Caesarea Philippi (Mk. 8:27-30 = Mt. 16:13-20 = Lk 9:18-21

(a} Even Wrede (Das Messiasgeheimniss in den Evangelien, 1901, pp. 115-124, 237-239) does not venture positively to pronounce it unhistorical although he also says that one need not shrink from such a view if it seem to be required.

According to Wrede, Mk. believed that Jesus had kept his Messiahship a secret from the people throughout the whole of his life, but had communicated it to his disciples, though without producing understanding on their part. Not till after the resurrection of Jesus, according to Mk., did any real recognition of what Jesus was begin. Wrede believes that this view of Mk. is historically false, but nevertheless considers that it dominates the whole of his gospel, and further, that Mk. is not conscious of the frequency with which it is traversed by his repeated statements, according to which the Messiahship of Jesus all the same did not remain a secret. It must be urged, however, that the confession of Peter is little in harmony with either the secrecy observed about the Messiahship of Jesus or the failure of the disciples to understand it.

(3) Wrede endeavours, therefore, at least to lessen the importance of the confession as much as possible in Mk.'s connection, pointing out that it is only in Mt. , which was written later than Mk. , that Jesus put a high value upon the confession. It is the fact that in Mt. 16:18-19 only the designation of Peter as a rock can be regarded as historical, and this, too, without our being able to be certain that it was given to him just then (see 11b; MINISTRY, 4, 5a, 5b). It has further to be observed that by the form in which the question of Jesus is put in Mt. the scene is made unintelligible.

Whilst, according to Mk. (and Lk.), Jesus asks 'Who do the people say that I (/. [me]) am?' he is represented in Mt. as having asked 'Who do the people say that the son of man is?' Mt. himself allows us to see that this is not the right form ; for in the form of the second question of Jesus he coincides with Mk. and Lk. : 'but ye, who do ye say that I (/u.e [me]) am?' In so far as 'son of man' is a designation of the Messiah, according to the form of the first question in Mt., the answer - viz., 'Thou art the Christ', would already have been given by Jesus in the question.

Yet this form of the question presumably is due not to unhistoricity on Mt.'s part, but to intention. Already in Mt. 10:23, 12:40, 13:41, and especially in 14:33 ('of a truth thou art the Son of God'), all which passages are wanting in Mk. and Lk. , the Messiahship of Jesus has been proclaimed. At this stage, therefore, the appropriate question in 16:13 is no longer, 'Whom do the people say that I am?' but only, 'Whom, more exactly, do the people say that he who is already known as the Son of Man is?' Accordingly, in Mt. , the answer of Peter does not run simply as in Mk. ( 'Thou art the Christ', <n> el 6 Xpiffros [ou ei o christos]; similarly in Lk. 'the Christ of God', rbv Xpicrroi rov GeoO [ton christon tou theou), but there is added, as the most important of all, the addition : 'the son of the living God' (6 vibs rov Qeov rov fuWos [o uios tou theou tou zoontos]). This last title plainly must be regarded as expressing more than 'the Christ' (6 XpwrTos [o christos]) or than 'Son of Man', and therefore denotes Jesus not as, let us say, in an ethical sense a Son of God after the manner of the OT, that is, as one who subordinates his will to the will of God as a son does in presence of his father, but in a metaphysical sense as a being proceeding in a supernatural way from God, a meaning which is not necessarily connected with either 'Messiah' or 'Son of Man'. Thus we have here a dogmatic development.

(c) Granted, however, that Mt. in the points just mentioned goes beyond the original record, it does not necessarily follow that he has also altered the situation in an unhistorical sense by the words assigned to Jesus in 16:17 which are not met with in Mk. or Lk. : 'flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee but my Father', etc.

Even should Wrede be correct in saying that Mk. attaches to the confession of Peter just as little importance as to the words of the demoniacs who, on his representation, more than once (1:24, 5:7) applied to Jesus the same predicate as Peter applies here, and that on this account Jesus does not praise Peter, but, just as in the case of the demoniacs, merely bids him be silent, this way of looking at the matter would simply be in each instance only a consequence of the view attributed by Wrede to Mk. that the Messiahship of Jesus had to be kept secret.

As a historical fact, however, apart from the representation of Mk. , the occurrence could in no case have elicited such a judgment on the part of Jesus. For even in the representation of Mk. Jesus assuredly does not act upon the plan of concealing his Messiahship ; he studiously seeks to elicit an expression of it from the disciples. It is presupposed in this that they have not as yet recognised him as Messiah. It is thus a moment of the greatest possible importance when the words 'Thou art the Messiah' are for the first time spoken by them.

(d) The injunction to tell no man is also, even without the theory of Mk. spoken of above, very readily intelligible in the mouth of the historical Jesus, inasmuch as he cannot have been without apprehensions lest the people should misunderstand his Mcssiahship, and perhaps set their hopes on him as one who was to free them from the yoke of Rome. Nevertheless, the scene retains its importance as marking a turning-point in the consciousness of the disciples, and can therefore quite appropriately be spoken of as a divine revelation accorded to Peter. In view of the importance it thus possessed, it is also easy to believe that it should have engraved itself upon the memory of the disciples and taken a secure place in tradition - unless one were to regard it as pure fiction. Against this, however, as Wrede also has perceived, there are various considerations, amongst them this, that it is assigned to a definite locality in the journey to Caesarea Philippi, which seems to point to definite recollection. On the point that Mt. 11:27 gives no ground for doubting the actuality of Peter's confession, see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 25 .

17. Designation as Satan.[edit]

Immediately on Peter s confession follows in all the synoptists the first prediction by Jesus of his passion, death, and resurrection (Mk. 8:31-32 = Mt. 16:21 = Lk. 9:22); and in Mk. (8:32-33) and Mt. (16:22-23) it is added that Peter had reproved his master, but was in turn rebuked and addressed as Satan. Here it must be again remarked that not only the predictions of Jesus regarding his resurrection, but also the detailed predictions of his passion and death are open to grave doubt, and least probable of all is it that precisely at the moment when Peter had uttered his confession for the first time - a moment which must have been one of the most joyful in all his life - Jesus should have expressed himself as he did (see GOSPELS, 145e, 145f). This is not equivalent to saying that Jesus on no occasion in the later period of his public life ever had or expressed the thought that suffering and death might be in store for him. On some such occasion may very well have happened the scene between Peter and his master which now stands immediately after the great confession. The expression 'Satan' by its very strength is its own guarantee that none of the later narrators could have invented it ; in fact, the entire scene is wanting in the evangelist to whom tendency-criticism would have found least difficulty in assigning it (see above, 5b, 5c).

III. ACCORDING TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL.[edit]

18. Less strongly divergent points.[edit]

If we turn now to the utterances of the Fourth Gospel regarding Peter, we shall find that some of them rest upon those of the synoptists and have merely recieved a Johannine colouring; but that others, where they contain new matter, cannot lay claim to historicity.

(a) The nearest approach to the synoptic account (Mk. 14:26-31 and ||) is made by the Johannine in describing the prediction of Peter's denial (Jn. 13:33-38) ; yet even here we already see clearly the Johannine colouring.

It is not as in Mk. and Mt. the adjoining reference to the dreaded scattering of the disciples that gives Peter the occasion for making his promise never to leave Jesus; it is a specifically Johannine thought which in a quite similar manner has already been brought forward in 7:33-34, 8:21, and which, moreover, as we so often find in the Fourth Gospel, lends itself to misunderstanding as possessing at once an obvious external meaning and a hidden spiritual sense: 'Whither I go, ye cannot come'. Peter, like all the interlocutors of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel, takes it in the surface-meaning: 'Lord, whither goest thou? . . . Lord, why cannot I follow thee even now?' As regards the time at which this was said, Jn. agrees with Lk. against Mk. and Mt. (see above, 15b).

(b) In the account of the arrest of Jesus a legendary development is apparent in the Fourth Gospel in so far as here (18:10) the name of Malchus the servant of the high priest is given ; it is not mentioned in the synoptists. Equally legendary perhaps, but perhaps also deliberately followed, is the other development according to which Peter is named in the Fourth Gospel as the follower who wielded the sword whilst the synoptists merely say : 'A certain one of them that stood by' (Mk. 14:47), or words to the same effect.

To this, moreover, it has to be added that it is only in the synoptists that any motive can be found for the stroke ; it is at the moment when Jesus is being seized (so Mk. and Mt.) or about to be seized (so Lk.) in consequence of the treachery of Judas. In Jn., on the other hand, the entire cohort of 500 (or 1000) men has fallen to the ground ; Jesus voluntarily surrenders himself and all that he asks of his captors is that his disciples may be allowed to escape unharmed (18:4-9). Lastly, the word with which Jesus rebukes the sword-stroke receives a Johannine form. In Mk. it is not reported at all; Lk. (22:51) has it quite briefly : 'Suffer ye thus far'. Thus what lies at the basis of Jn. is Mt. 26:52-54 ; but in Jn. 18:11 this is compressed into the question : 'The cup which the Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?' By this question is set aside from the outset by the Johannine Christ a thought which the Jesus of the synoptists earnestly cherishes for a time - that involved in the prayer that 'this cup might pass from him' - exactly as in 12:27, where the words are to be taken as a question: 'What shall I say? (Shall I say:) Father save me from this hour?' (cp JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEK, 26a).

Jn. has left on one side the statement of Lk. (22:51) that Jesus healed the ear of the servant of the high priest. Perhaps the miracle seemed to him purposeless in such a situation, or hardly worthy of the dignity of the Logos.

(c) That the parallel to the confession of Peter (Mk. 8:27-30 and ||s) is to be found in Jn. 6:66-71 is almost universally conceded. It is indeed the only scene in which, as in the synoptists, in answer to a question expressly addressed to all the twelve disciples, Peter as their spokesman makes a confession to Jesus ; moreover, it follows soon after the miracle of the feeding of the multitude (in Mk. and Mt. after the second miracle). This makes the variations all the more remarkable.

The place is not in the neighbourhood of Caesarea Philippi but (according to 6:59) at Capernaum. Peter does not designate Jesus as the Messiah, nor can he ; for this has already been done by Andrew (1:41), and indeed still higher predicates have been already employed by the Baptist (15:29-34), by Nathanael (1:49), and by Jesus himself (3:13, 3:16, 4:26, etc.). The contents of Peter's confession have thus lost, still more completely than in Mt. (see 16b), that character of novelty which gives it its his torical importance. The expression 'the holy one of God' (o oiyios rov <e>eov [o hagios tou theou]) also, employed by Peter, is new only in the Fourth Gospel, but carries neither in the literal meaning of the wotds nor by virtue of the application made of it in Mk. 1:24 = Lk. 4:34, by the demoniac in the synagogue of Capernaum (cp 'the holy one', o oiyios [o hagios], Rev. 3:7, 1 Jn. 2:20 ; 'Aaron, the holy one of the Lord', \apuiv rov aytov Kvptov [aaroon ton hagion kyrion], Ps. 106:16 ; 'the holy and just', 6 oiyios <tac cU catos [o hagios kai dikaios], Acts 3:14), a predicate transcending those previously made use of in the Fourth Gospel. Furthermore, the words of Peter are entirely in the Johannine didactic style: 'words of eternal life' (cp 3:34-36, 6:63, 12:49-50) ; 'we have believed and know' (cp 11:27, 17:3, 1 Jn. 4:16). Finally, we note the absence of any word of recognition on the part of Jesus such as we find in at least Mt. 16:17.

(d) According to Jn. 1:44, Bethsaida is the city of Peter (and Andrew) ; according to Mk. 1:21, 1:29 = Lk. 4:31, 4:38, as also according to Mt. 8:5, 3:14, it is Capernaum.

In explanation of the discrepancy it is suggested that Peter (and Andrew) originally belonged to Bethsaida ; or recourse is even had to the wholly inadmissible exegesis that according to the change of prepositions in Jn. 1:44 Philip was in virtue of his then domicile 'of' Bethsaida (an-b BijttcratSa [apo bethsaida]) but by birth he was 'out of' Capernaum the city of Andrew and Peter (e <c ni)s n-oAewj A.v&p<sov ai IleVpou [ek tes poleoos andreon kai petron]). In reality it is even uncertain whether the naming of Bethsaida has claim or only makes claim to historical accuracy. Cp PHILIP.

19. Denial.[edit]

In the account of the denial of Peter (Jn. 18:15-27)-

(a) The most important differences as compared with the synoptists ( Mk. 14:54, 14:66-72 and ||s) are that Peter gains access to the palace of the high priest through the intervention of an 'other disciple', and that his repentance is not recorded. Upon both these points see 22, begin. Legendary development is seen in the touch that he who gives occasion for Peter's third denial is said to have been one of the servants of the high priest, being a kinsman of him whose ear Peter cut off. Furthermore, the series of the three denials of Peter is broken, not, however, as in Lk. (22:59) between the second and the third, and not by the simple statement that an interval of about an hour had elapsed, but between the first and the second, and this by the account of the whole proceedings in the palace of Annas and of Jesus's being led away to the palace of Caiaphas.

(b) Spitta (Zur Gesch. u. Lit. d. Urchristenthums, 1:158-168, 1893) conjectures the original order of the verses to have been : 12-13, 19-24, 14-18, 25b-27.

That is to say : Jesus was brought from Gethsemane to the palace of Annas ; here Caiaphas (not Annas) investigated the case, then Annas sent him to Caiaphas ; thereupon arrived first the 'other disciple' and thereafter Peter in the courtyard of Caiaphas (not Annas) and Peter denied his master three times in unbroken succession. When, shortly after the publication of the work of Spitta, the Syr. sin. became known, it was found that in the main it followed the same order, viz. vv. 12-13, 24, 14-15, 19-23, 16-18, 25b-27. Thus here also the case is heard before Caiaphas, but in his own palace, not in that of Annas ; here also Peter comes into the court of Caiaphas not of Annas ; here also there is a threefold denial without intervening incident and v. 25 ('now Simon Peter was standing and warming himself') which coincides with the close of v. 18 falls away, but the entrance of the other disciple into the court of Caiaphas does not immediately precede, but happens some considerable time before.

(c) Notwithstanding this very large measure of agreement neither of these two rearrangements of the verses can be regarded as the original. If it was, as Spitta thinks, Caiaphas who dealt with the case of Jesus in the house of Annas, the expression in v. 24 that it was Annas who sent Jesus to Caiaphas is as awkward as it could possibly be. Syr. sin. has in point of fact avoided this awkwardness by reporting no hearing at the house of Annas at all. In this way, however, the addition in Syr. sin. of 'the chief priest' (rbv apxifpfa [ton archieria]) to Caiaphas ( Kaia0ac [kaiaphan]) in v. 24 becomes all the more impossible if this verse follows immediately upon v. 13 in which Caiaphas is named as high priest of that year. Before all others, however, this question will obtrude itself: In what way, if it be not the original, could the present order of the verses have arisen ?

Spitta's answer is that the copyist's eye wandered from v. 13 to v. 24 and wrote therefore its continuation (the present vv. 14-18) by mistake immediately after v. 13. When he had reached v. 18, that is to say the middle of Peter's threefold denial, he became aware that he had passed over the entire hearing of Jesus, along with his removal to the palace of Caiaphas (19-24), and forthwith introduced these verses into his text immediately after v. 18. Only after he had done this did he proceed to finish the account of Peter's denial (25b-27); but with a view to this, in order to resume the thread that had been dropped, he had first, in the exercise of his own discretion, to repeat the close of v. 18, and that in the somewhat modified form which we now have in 25a. It is indeed hard to say in what possible sense we can call a man who goes to work thus a copyist. As if we did not know from a hundred examples how it was that copyists proceeded when they happened to have omitted anything : they placed it on the margin and inserted merely a caret in the text. The same observation holds good, of course, if it was the order of Syr. sin. and not that of Spitta which the 'copyist' altered into that which we now have. All the more does it require to be borne in mind that often the case is plainly the other way ; the author of Syr. sin. has allowed himself the most arbitrary changes of the text. {1}

I has to be added, however, that in his case it is possible to perceive a reason for the changes found in his text; he wished to make Peter's denial a unity and to get rid of the repetition which he deemed irksome of v. 18 and in v. 25b. For the converse procedure, on the other hand, the production of our present text out of that of Syr. sin. or that conjectured by Spitta, no reason can be imagined ; and thus Spitta had no choice but to have recourse to his untenable hypothesis of a copyist who yet was no copyist nor yet a redactor either.

(d) Although Syr. sin. and Spitta have thought the present order of the text capable of improvement it nevertheless remains intelligible enough even without transposition. The new element in Jn. which neither Syr. sin. nor Spitta could or would remove is the fact that Jesus before being delivered over to Pilate was taken to two separate places, to the house of Annas and to that of Caiaphas.

According to Mk. and Mt. he is brought only to the high priest (Mk. 14:53; Mt. 26:57 adds the name of Caiaphas) and from there taken to Pilate (Mk. 15:1 = Mt. 27:1-2). Mk. and Mt., however, record two sittings of the synedrium on the case ; the first during the night, the second in the morning. Lk. knows only the second of these (22:66-23:1); in his narrative it is not till morning that the synedrium meets ; in the night Jesus looks upon Peter after his third denial and thus he is still in the court yard, not in the court-room, and in accordance with this repre sentation is in the course of the night only mocked and buffeted (Lk. 22:61-65), which likewise is to be pictured as taking place in the courtyard. On this view it remains a possibility that Lk., like Mk. and Mt., thinks of the morning meeting of the synedrium as being held in the same high-priestly palace into which Jesus was brought from the first. The words (Lk. 22:66), 'they led him away into their council' (aTufiyayov aiiTov els TO o-vveSpiov aiirlav), in that case mean only that they led him away (out of the courtyard) into the chamber of the same palace in which the synedrium meanwhile had assembled. This interpretation is favoured by 'their' (aiiriav [autoon]). Yet it is also possible that Lk. thinks of the synedrium as assembling in another house most easily in the place of their solemn meetings. The 'led away' (a-nriyayov [apegagon]) in 22:66 will then mean that they led Jesus into another house ; and the word actually is so used in Mt. 27:2, and still earlier in 26:57 = Mk. 14:53, as also are 'led' (riyayov [eganon]) in Lk. 23:1 and 'led away' (d-nriveyKav) Mk. 15:1.

(e) In any case Jn. was fully entitled so to understand it and accordingly to take from Lk. the transference of Jesus from one house to another.

Only what he thinks of as being the second house to which Jesus was brought is not the meeting-place of the synedrium ; and on his premises he is right ; for at the time when, according to Lk. (if this be his meaning), the place was being used, viz. in the morning, it was accessible, but it was not accessible in the night time, when, according to Jn. Jesus was being transferred (before cockcrowing ; see Jn. 18:24, 18:27), as it was situated on the temple hill (Schurer, GJW 2:162-164 ; ET 2:1:190-195) the gates of which were shut at night. Thus there remains for Jn., as the second house to which Jesus could appropriately be brought, only the palace of the high priest. The house, however, to which Jesus is in the first instance brought is also called (Mk. 14:53 and ||s) that of the high priest. At this point, therefore, came to the assistance of Jn. the statement in Lk. 3:2, Acts 4:6, according to which Annas also was high priest ; and that the evangelist was following this is apparent (although he nowhere designates Annas as high priest) in the fact that he calls Caiaphas 'high priest of that year' (11:49, 11:51, 18:13). In fact it has even been held that Lk. regards Annas, whom, alike in 3:2 and in Acts 4:6, he places before Caiaphas, as the real high priest in Jesus time, and thus that he thinks with Jn., that Jesus was brought from Gethsemane direct to the house of Annas.

Be this as it may, in any case Jn. seeks to remove the discrepancies of the synoptists. He follows Lk. , as he understands him, in so far as he represents Jesus as having been brought from one house to another ; but Mk. and Mt. in so far as he represents some hearing of the case to have taken place during the night, only without the nocturnal meeting of the synedrium affirmed in Mk. 14:53 = Mt. 26:57, and then before the high priest alone by whom Jn. understands Annas. In all probability therefore Jn. thinks of the meeting of the synedrium as having been in the house of Caiaphas, but without describing it.

(f) These points once cleared up, we are in a position to understand the story of Peter's denial in Jn. In making the denial begin directly after Jesus has been brought in after his arrest, Jn. is simply following Lk. , who in fact knows of no hearing of the case at all by night ; in representing the denial as having been interrupted he also is following Lk. in so far as in this gospel (Lk. 22:59) the series of the denials is broken by an interval of something like an hour ; in Jn. , however, the interruption is caused by the account of the first hearing which Jn. , departing from Lk. , takes from Mk. and Mt. Thus it becomes perfectly intelligible, and not to be regarded as a copyist s error, that the statement about Peter s standing at the fire and warming himself is repeated from 18:18 in 18:25a when the story of the denial is resumed. In precisely the same way Mk. 14:67 repeats from v. 54 that Peter was warming himself, and Mt. 26:69 from v. 58 that he was sitting in the courtyard. That Peter s arrival in the courtyard and his denial should at all costs be narrated without interruption cannot in reason be demanded ; it is not so related even in Mk. and Mt. , and if Jn. allows the interruption to come in at a later point than they do, this is mainly due, as has been shown, to the fact that he is here at first following Lk.


1 Even in the pericope before us, for example, an instance occurs in vv. 16-17. The portress is here called first 'the portress' (i, ffvptapos [e thyrooros]) simply, then afterwards 'the maid, the portress' (n iraiSi o-KT) r; dvptapos [e paidiske e thyrooros]). This is a noticeable circumstance and finds its explanation only in this, that when she is mentioned for the second time, it is said that she charged Peter with being one of the followers of Jesus. According to the synoptists this was done by a maid (nai&ia-Ki [paidiske]), Mk. 14:66 and ||s), and in reminiscence of this Jn. subsequently added this expression to his 'portress' (^ Ovptapos [thyrooros]). Syr. sin., however, has 'porter' for 'portress' in v. 16 and makes 'the maid, the portress' (17 ircuSiVioj T) dvpiapos) in v. 17 into the porter's maid. As other examples of arbitrary alterations which (unless where otherwise stated) are quite peculiar to Syr. sin. we may mention : (Mt. 16:13) 'What do men say concerning me ? who then is this son of man ?' (on this, cp above 16); or (Lk. 16:66), 'and he [i.e., the steward] sat down quickly and wrote them fifty' and (16:76), 'he sat down immediately [and] wrote them fourscore' ; or (Jn. 8:57 - with N[aleph] *sah), 'thou art not fifty years old and hath Abraham seen thee?' or Lk. 2:4, where as in D the last clause, 'because he was of the house and family of David', is introduced after v. 5, and, moreover, altered into 'because they were both of the house of David'. Syr. sin. also knows how to make important changes in the text by simple addition. Examples are : Jn. 6:63 (it is the spirit that quickeneth the body : but ye say the body profiteth nothing), or 12:3 (now Mary took an alabaster box of a pound of ointment of pure good spikenard, of great price, and poured it on the head of Jesus while he sat at meat, and she anointed his feet), or Lk. 23:37 (addition : and they placed also on his head a crown of thorns). Of additions arbitrarily made for decoration or smoothing we may give such instances as (Lk. 11:29), 'no sign from heaven shall be given unto them', or (Jn. 3:6, at close), 'because God is a living spirit' [Tert. and codd. of Itala, etc., have simply: quia deus spiritus est] or (11:39), 'Martha said unto him, Lord, why are they lifting away the stone? Behold, he stinketh' ; or (11:41), 'then those men who were standing, came near and raised', or (20:16), 'and she understood him and answered saying unto him : Rabbuli. And she ran towards him that she might touch him' [last clause also in x[aleph]^.a, the Ferrar codd. 13, 346, 543, 826, 828, syr. pal. syr. bkl. Vg. MSS mm, gat, armach, Cyril.

20. Call.[edit]

The call of Peter is described in the Fourth Gospel (13:5-42) in a manner entirely different from that which we find in the synoptists (see above, 13).

(a) It occurs, not by the lake of Galilee, but in the neighbourhood of the Baptist, who has not yet been cast into prison (as he has in Mk. 1:14, Mt. 4:12, Lk. 3:19-20), but himself points his disciples to Jesus ; those whom Jesus wins to his side do not appear as fishermen, but - at least the first two (1:35-40) and probably Peter also - as disciples of the Baptist. Peter is not called first, but only after his brother Andrew and an unnamed person by whom is almost universally understood the beloved disciple ; of those who are represented in the synoptists as then having been called, John (even if it be he that is intended by the companion of Andrew) remains unnamed, and his brother James is left entirely unnoticed.

(b) It would be perfectly useless to try to identify the two accounts. Harmonistic efforts confine themselves to the assertion that Jn. is describing an earlier occurrence than that recorded in the synoptists. That in Jn. is spoken of as the 'call to friendship', that in the synoptists as the 'call to discipleship'. Any such distinction, however, is quite arbitrary. The 'follow me' (d.Ko\ov6ei /JLOI [akolouthei roi]) which Jesus addresses in Jn. 1:43 to Philip, holds good substantially, it does not need to be said, also for those called before Philip, for it is hard to see why we are to regard them as entering into less intimate relations with Jesus than he. The same verb, however (a.KO\ovOeii> [akoluthein]), stands in Mk. 1:18, Mt. 4:20, 4:22, Lk. 5:11, where it is the 'call to discipleship' that is described. And even apart from this it would be quite contrary to history that Jn. should allow it to appear as if those disciples who had been called only to friendship remained henceforward con tinually in the company of Jesus (as in point of fact he does in 2:2, 2:12, 2:17, 2:22, 3:22, 4:2, 4:8, 4:27, 4:31-38, etc.), if the actual truth had been that they had again parted from Jesus and thereafter received from him the new call of which the synoptists speak. Similarly it would be quite contrary to history on the part of the synoptists to represent the calling of the four disciples as made at first sight without previous acquaintance on their part with the master, if the truth really were that three of them had already been called to friendship by Jesus.

This unhistorical distinction between the 'call to friendship' and the 'call to discipleship' is carried to the farthest extreme when the 'call to apostleship' is added as a third stage which is seen for the first time in Mk. 3:14-19 and ||s in the chousing of the twelve. If we find Jesus already saying to Peter and Andrew in Mk. 1:18 'I will make you to become fishers of men' (similarly Mt. 4:19, Lk. 5:10), how are we to describe this if not as a call to apostleship ? The choosing of the twelve is not to be understood as if the four disciples who had already been chosen were now chosen a second time, and that to a higher dignity, but only in the sense that the other eight were newly chosen, the four who had been chosen already being now enumerated along with the otners merely in order to make up a complete list of twelve.

(c) If then the accounts of Jn. on the one hand and the synoptists on the other are mutually exclusive, it is necessary to make our choice between them. The precise specification of clay and hour in Jn. (1:29, 1:33, 1:39, 1:43, 2:1) might seem here to be conclusive evidence that the Johannine account proceeds from an eyewitness ; but this becomes plainly impossible when it is considered how here the Baptist and the first disciples are represented as possessing a knowledge regarding the Messiahship, and indeed also regarding what goes far beyond this, the divine nature of Jesus, such as in actual fact they cannot have possessed at least at so early a period, unless indeed we are prepared to reject as completely unhistorical the whole picture of the synoptists and especially the novelty of Peter s confession at Caesarea Philippi. The supernatural knowledge also regarding Peter and Nathanael (Jn. 1:42, 1:47-48) which is attributed to Jesus is quite inconsistent with the synoptic representation.

(d) The unhistorical character of the Johannine account has therefore to be conceded even although we find ourselves unable to explain in detail in every case how it was that Jn. came to his far-reaching divergences from the synoptists. So much is clear - that he takes no trouble whatever to bring himself into line with them, but seeks to give a representation that is based purely on ideal considerations. Just as Jesus is already in the prologue introduced as the Logos of God, and just as the Baptist straightway proclaims his Godhead, so also must the disciples be brought to him from the beginning through their recognition of this truth, and arrive at this recognition through the agency of the Baptist, whereby the latter brings to its most effective fulfilment his function as forerunner of Jesus. 'He must increase, but I must decrease' (3:30); this is the motto of the whole history of the call ; in this also lies the reason why the first disciples of Jesus must previously have been disciples of John.

(e) A further object Jn. has in view is the relegation of Peter to a subordinate place. Elsewhere (see section 22) this happens only so far as the beloved disciple is con cerned ; but here we see it also in operation with reference to Andrew who elsewhere comes forward but little in the Fourth Gospel.

The cause of this feature lies perhaps in sympathy with the story of the walk to Emmaus, with regard to which story Thoma (Genesis d. Joh.-Evang., 406-408 [1882]) supposes that it served Jn. as model. Two disciples come to know Jesus as Messiah ; the one is afterwards mentioned by name, the other not ; on their return to Jerusalem it is found that Jesus has appeared also to Peter. Thus the last-named takts the third place.

(f) The tenth hour also (Jn. 1:39) Thoma thinks to be derived from Lk. (24:29) ; 'it is towards evening'.

Such combinations, however, are from the nature of the case uncertain. What is certain is that Jn. reckons the hours of the day in Jewish fashion (19:14) and thus means here 4 P..M. Others consider, in view of 1 Jn. 2:18 ('it is the last hour'), that the author intends to divide the whole development of the world into twelve periods, which he allegorically calls hours, and that what he means to say is that the entire development was already Hearing its end when Jesus appeared, whence the pressing necessity for accepting Christianity. Or it is pointed out that according to Philo (1:347, 1:532-536, 2:183-185, ed. Mangey) ten is the number of perfection, with which accordingly Christianity as the age of perfection begins.

Such a way of interpreting the 'hour', however, does not harmonise very well with the specification of individual days in 1:29, 1:35, 1:43, 2:1. In this specification one may have much greater confidence in discerning the pro gress of the narrative from one step in the revelation of Jesus to another. In any case neither it nor the speci fication of the tenth hour, even if no quite satisfactory explanation of the latter has yet been found, can be urged as evidence that the author was an eyewitness of what he describes.

21. Footwashing.[edit]

As with the call of the disciples, so also in the case of the footwashing, the Fourth Evangelist has not supplemented a synoptic narrative but has supplanted it.

(a) Jn.'s silence as to the institution of the sacrament of the supper would otherwise be inexplicable. Equally inexplicable, however, would be the silence of the synoptists about the rbotwashing had this event actually happened. Even Lk. , to whom appeal is made, in 22:24-27 records only the thought which under lies the footwashing, not the fact. One may as well deny the historicity of the synoptists altogether if one is determined to maintain that they had heard nothing of so important an action of Jesus which must have im pressed itself so indelibly upon the recollection of those who witnessed it. On the other hand the rise of the narrative of the footwashing out of the passage just cited from Lk. (22:24-27) is very readily intelligible, and that too even without our supposing any deliberate fiction on the part of the evangelist (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 35 [-36]). The transaction taken as a whole is the highest activity of ministering love (13:1, 13:15, 13:34-35); in so far as it occurs at a meal, it stands on a level with a love-feast (dydirrj [agape] : Jude 12) and thus is a substitute for the sacramental supper which Jn. , by reason of the data on which he was working, could not report as having been held on the last evening of the lifetime of Jesus (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 23).

(b) The person of Peter comes into consideration in connection with a subordinate point only. He hesitates, out of reverence, about suffering his feet to be washed by Jesus, but is met with the answer : 'if I wash thee not thou hast no part with me' (13:8). Whereupon Peter would have hands and head washed also, but is told : 'he that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet but is clean every whit; and ye are clean', etc. (13:10). From v. 8 it follows that the footwashing is intended to be not a manifestation of love merely, but also at the same time in some sort a means of grace ; from v. 10 it follows that this means of grace has been preceded by another of a completer character - by which, especially in view of the expression 'he that is bathed' (6 XeXof/o& os [o leloumenos]), one can only understand baptism. The meaning would then be : He that is baptised needs only a partial renewal of the effect of baptism.

If the effect of baptism is held to be the forgiveness of sins, the footwashing would represent a means of grace which likewise brings a forgiveness though not so comprehensive as that of baptism but only of particular sins committed after baptism. It is quite impossible that by this means of grace should be meant the sacrificial blood of Jesus. For neither does its action set in only after baptism nor does it admit of being conceived of as partial only ; and moreover, in the circle of ideas of the Fourth Gospel it plays no further part (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 62-63, begin.). But also the thought of a second repentance following upon that sealed in baptism, as suggested in Hernias (Vis, 2:2:4, Mand. 4:3), is quite remote. The forgiveness of sins that constantly needs renewal after baptism is better seen in the sacrament of the supper, in accordance with Mt. 26:28: 'unto remission of sins'. With this it agrees that the eucharist is repeated, baptism not, and that the footwashing as representing the agape is intended to be a substitute for the eucharist.

(c) There is nevertheless the objection that forgiveness of sins does not figure in the Johannine conception of the eucharist (6:26-63) and just as little in the expressinterpretation of the footwashing, which according to 13:8 is regarded rather as a means of communion with Jesus. This is the effect of the eucharist in like manner according to Jn. , and thus we are led by this considera tion also to the conclusion that by the footwashing the eucharist is intended. It cannot be denied, however, that here the figure of cleansing which is involved in the idea of washing has disappeared, and the picture thus loses its vividness.

(d) It becomes all the more necessary therefore to note that in Jn. 15:3 we have in all probability an authentic interpretation of the footwashing. As in 13:10 so also here we read: 'ye are clean, only not by baptism, or by the supper, but, because of the word which I have spoken unto you'.

This declaration is very like that made in 6:63. After very great weight has been laid in (1:53-58 upon physical participation in the sacramental meal, we find it nevertheless soon depreciated again in favour of a purely spiritual view which thinks of fellowship with Christ as realised solely by means of his word : 'the flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit and are life'. Just so in 15:3 also the mere reception of the words of Jesus is given as the means of purification in place of any sacramental act whatsoever. And this reception of the word, according to the connection of Jn. 13, consists specially in fulfilment of the command of love. On this view, 13:10 would mean: he who has been baptised is in need of no further sacramental acts; all that is needed is that he should follow the commandment of love. At the same time this does not perfectly suit either the words or the thought. If it is to fit the words these ought to run somewhat thus: he that is bathed needed not save to wash the feet of others; and as for the thought that which depreciates the value of sacramental acts one misses the extension of it which one would expect to baptism also.

(e) The view indicated by 15:3 is thus better suited by the reading of N[aleph] c, several Vg. MSS Orig. and Tert. according to which except 'the feet' (fl /ctrj TOVS TroSas [ei me tous podas]) is wanting. In this case 'he that is bathed' (6 \f\ovfdvos [o leloumenos]) will no longer refer to baptism but to footwashing; he who has received the footwashing, that is to say who has taken to himself the command of love, needs no sacramental act or any other external institution but is quite clean.

Yet this view of the passage also is not wholly just to the tenor of the words. For this one would expect some such text as 'he whose feet are washed needs not to wash hands or head'. And further, even if one finds it possible to understand how the longer reading could have arisen out of the shorter as soon as 'he that is bathed' (6 AeAovne i/os [o leloumenos]) had come to be taken as referring to baptism and the footwashing to the supper, at the same time the converse also is conceivable - that on account of the words '(he) is clean every whit' it seemed inappropriate that the washing of the feet should still be required, and it was thought necessary to restore the meaning that washing of a wholly clean person is no longer at all needful, by deletion of the words 'except the feet' (et fir) TOUS TrdSas [e me tous podas]).

At all events, whatever may be the proper interpretation of the footwashing, it is plain that in it Peter plays no better part than other persons in the Fourth Gospel, as for example Thomas (14:5), or Philip (14:8), or Judas the Cananaean (14:22), or Nicodemus (3:4), into whose mouth an unintelligent saying is put which is afterwards set right by Jesus (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 25c).

22. Peter and the beloved disciple.[edit]

The same thing has already been remarked in connection with the prediction of Peter's denial (13:36-38), where Peter is corrected for a misunderstanding by Jesus ; we have found him also shown in an unfavourable light in so far as the sword-stroke is attributed to him (18:10), and neither his repentance after his denial, nor any acknowledgement of Jesus after his confession, is recorded (18:27, 6:70).

(a) It is to the beloved disciple, however, in particular, that Peter is subordinated ; to him he owes his introduction into the high priest's palace (18:16), and only after him (and Andrew) does he receive his call to the discipleship (1:41-42), and, further, Peter must avail himself of his aid (13:24) in order to learn who the betrayer is. If, following the figure of speech which we see in Rev. 12:1-6, 12:13-17, it is the Christian church that is to be understood by the mother of Jesus as she stands at the foot of the cross (Jn. 19:25) - a view which is rendered more difficult, it is true, than it would otherwise be by the presence of other women at the crucifixion - we should here find evidence of a very great depreciation of Peter, in the fact that she is committed to the charge, not of Peter, but of the beloved disciple. So also the conferring upon all the apostles of the power to remit sins or to retain them (20:23), if we are to suppose it to have been already known to the Fourth Evangelist that this power according to Mt. 16:19 had been conferred upon Peter alone (on the age of this passage see GOSPELS, 136, 151).

(b} It is to the account of their visit to the sepulchre, however (20:2-10), that we must specially turn, for elucidation of the mutual relations of Peter and the beloved disciple. On the unhistorical character of this incident see GOSPELS, 138a, 138e, 138f. Being, as it is, unhistorical, we may all the more safely assume that here it is intended to give expression to an idea. This idea would be perfectly transparent if the precedence of the one apostle over the other had been recognised without qualification. In point of fact a certain measure of precedence is assigned to each in turn. Or rather to Peter in one respect, namely that he is the first to enter the sepulchre, but to the beloved disciple in the twofold respect that he is the first to arrive at the sepulchre, and the first to believe in the resurrection.

Let us begin with what is clearest. When it is said of the beloved disciple that he believed in the resurrection of Jesus (20:8), it is included in this that Peter has not as yet come to do so. Now, in view of 1 Cor. 15:5 (and Lk. 24:34) it is quite impossible to assert that any one arrived earlier than Peter at the con viction that Jesus was arisen - unless it had been at the empty sepulchre ; but the account of this is, as has been shown, unhistorical. If, nevertheless, a deeper truth is to be sought in it, the solution must be found in the conception of faith. Not in the holding the resurrection of Jesus to be a fact, but only in a right apprehension of the nature of the resurrection and of the risen one, can any one have taken precedence of Peter, a precedence represented as a precedence in time, because the truth has been clothed in the form of a narrative of a visit to the grave.

And if it is to the beloved disciple - that is to say, the ostensible author or guarantor of the Fourth Gospel (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 41d) - that this precedence is assigned, we also know wherein it consists ; namely, in the spiritual view of the resurrection, according to which the risen one is identical with the holy spirit (see RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 16c, 29b). Oniy by way of antithesis to this is it possible to gain a good sense for the statement that Peter was the first to enter the grave, and the first to observe all the clothes and their orderly arrangement. In other words, it is not to be denied to him (see 1 Cor. 15:5, Lk. 24:34) that he was the first to ascertain the outward tokens of the resurrection ; herein he takes a relative precedence.

What has just been said still leaves unexplained the statement that the beloved disciple was the first to reach the sepulchre. And it would be difficult to say what precedence over Peter is intended to be expressed by this ; for when it is stated that he was the first who in the deeper sense 'believed', all ha; been said which could secure him a precedence over Peter in the matter itself. It appears, therefore, that in the question as to who arrived first at the sepulchre, it is only a precedence in point of time that is thought of - not, however, as if the beloved disciple actually had taken precedence of Peter in any matter of importance, but only in so far as he was at first held in higher estimation in the church than Peter. The most significant thing in the narrative is certainly this, that the beloved disciple in the beginning has precedence over Peter, but that afterwards Peter takes this pracedence from him, and only in the end does the beloved disciple receive a higher valuation.

Now, it assuredly was not throughout the whole church that Peter in the first period was held in less esteem than the beloved disciple, that is to say, than the John of Asia Minor. We must reflect, however, that in the Fourth Gospel it is not the entire church, hut only the following of the John of Asia Minor that is speaking. For the latter it really is true that the beloved disciple was looked on as the first witness of Christ, the risen one ; but if it is added that Peter took his precedence from him, this can only mean that the estimate, according to which Peter was held to be the most eminent of all the apostles, had gradually found acceptance even in those circles which in the first period had given the first place to John. The purpose of the passage before us, then, is to restrict this high estimate of Peter, and to restore to John the place of preeminence.

(c) The last mention in the series of passages which seek to settle the relation between Peter and the beloved disciple, is found in chap. 21. Here, however, the tendency is in the other direction.

Along with other circumstances this also supplies a. reason why we should attribute this chapter to a different authorship from that of Jn. 1-20 (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 40; RESURECTION-NARRATIVES, 5d, 9c, 29c). The history of the external evidence shows that for several decades after its appearance the Fourth Gospel found no recognition (JOHN, 42-49). In chap. 21, vv. 24-25 clearly reveal the purpose to remove the mistrust with which it was regarded. This being so, the remainder of the chapter deserves to be scrutinised, with the view of finding whether it also subserves the same tendency. In point of fact this is actually seen to be the case, as soon as we suppose its depreciation of Peter to have been one of the causes that militated against the general recognition of the Gospel.

Therefore we find Peter now rehabilitated to a considerable extent. It is still the beloved disciple, it is true, who first recognises the risen one in the figure standing in the morning on the shore (21:7); but once he has learned who it is, Peter is the first to hasten towards him. Further, it is Peter who first goes a-fishing and who draws the net with its great take unbroken to the shore (21:3, 21:11). Since this net signifies missions in general, and particularly the mission to the Gentiles, and its remaining unbroken symbolises the continued unity of the church (see above, 14c-e, 14l), it is hereby recognised that Peter was the originator and the most important actor in the missionary activity of the church, including the mission to the Gentiles, and the guardian of the unity of the church. The leading position in the church is still more clearly assigned to him in the words 'feed my lambs . . . tend my sheep' (21:15-17), which are a further development of Lk. 22:32, 'stablish thy brethren'. Finally, martyrdom is predicted for him, and this as an honour (21:18-19). For the beloved disciple there is left a much more modest part than he has in chaps. 1-20 ; he too, not only Peter, may follow Jesus, if in another manner than by death ; a longer life is allotted to him than to Peter, and he has the advantage of bearing written testimony to the life of Jesus (21:20-24).

23. Character of Peter.[edit]

Let us now seek to gather together the results of the foregoing discussions of details, and attempt to form some estimate of the character of Peter.

(a) It is evident in the first place, that we must refuse to avail ourselves of very much of the material that is usually employed for this purpose.

What value are we to attach to such inferences as that which deduces from his proposal at the transfiguration to build tabernacles for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah, or from the precipitancy with which in Jn. 21:7 he throws himself into the water the 'impulsiveness' of Peter ; or from his noticing the withering of the fig tree (Mk. 11:21) his powers of observation ; or I rum his confession in Lk. 5:8, 'I am a sinful man' his humility ; or from his hesitation about eating unclean animals (Acts 10:14) his little preparedness to follow a divine leading ; or from his action connected with the draught of fishes in Lk. 5:5 the opposite ; or from his sinking in the attempt to walk on the water his little faith ; or from the opposite wishes he expressed at the footwashing (Jn. 13:5-9) his rapid changes of mood ; or from his conduct at the sepulchre his 'practical and impetuous' character, or more particularly from his being second in the race, yet first to enter the sepulchre, his greater age as compared with the beloved disciple, and his greater boldness - if the incidents never really happened ? What validity is there in the inference of the liveliness of his interest from the frequency of his questions, of his self-seeking nature from his question as to the future reward for having followed Jesus, of his recklessness from his use of the sword in Gethsemene, if there can be no certainty whether it was Peter at all who said or did the things in question? Or what ground is there for discerning the rapidity of his decisions and the sanguineness of his temperament from his following Jesus without previous acquaintance, if this inference rests not upon actual fact, but merely upon the excessively abbreviated manner in which the matter has been handed down to us? It is not at all impossible that many of these characteristics really did belong to Peter ; but it is not permissible to deduce them from the NT data just referred to.

(b) Even when we restrict ourselves to those accounts which may with confidence be accepted, caution is still necessary lest we should take more out of them than we are entitled to do.

The emphatic remonstrance made by Peter against the idea of Jesus passion is simply an evidence of a praiseworthy love and solicitude, such as assuredly every devoted disciple has in his heart; the reproachful 'Satan, thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men' (Mk. 8:33) is spoken from quite another point of view, to appreciation of which Peter could not be expected to have at that time attained. As regards the contrast between his promise not to be offended by what was to befall Jesus and his denial so soon afterwards, it will be best for us to say, Let him who is confident that in a like position he would show himself stronger than Peter cast the first stone. Let us refrain, too, from drawing any inference as to character from his sleep in Gethsemane. Nor can we venture to deduce from his confession at Caesarea Philippi an inclination to sudden inspirations, rapid apprehension, and bold expression of new thoughts ; for we do not know how far the confession was prepared for by previous hints of Jesus (see JOHN, SON OF ZEBEDEE, 25b). or whether it could not have been uttered by the other disciples also.

(c) We can best arrive at the kernel of Peter's personality by contemplating the greatest fact of his whole life, - his faith in Jesus which, in the extra ordinary circumstances in-which he found himself, led by psychological laws to his vision of the risen Jesus. As to this see, more especially, RESURRECTION-NARRATIVES, 37. In this one fact is concentrated the whole result of his conviction of the imperishable value of that which Jesus had been to him, of the gratitude and reverence which he owed him, and of the un conditional trust which he had learned to repose in him and in his heavenly father. It is true that the triumphant struggle of his faith against the over powering impression left by the death of Jesus was helped by something that cannot be reckoned to the character of Peter - by the vision he had, by his illusion ; and his denial had a share in the production of this vision. The value of his faith, however, is not lessened by this ; for had it not possessed this supereminent strength, the vision could not by the laws of psychology have arisen.

(d) The stage preliminary to Peter's resurrection-faith was the confession at Caesarea Philippi. If his obedience to Jesus call at first bears witness merely to the depth of the impression which the words and person of Jesus had made upon him, and thus shows his soul to have had the religious hunger and the religious receptivity which found their satisfaction in Jesus, the confession carries us still further. It shows that under the influence of Jesus Peter was capable of purifying, elevating, and spiritualising those national and political ideas which as a Jew he, as matter of course, had entertained regarding the Messiah, to such an extent that he was able to discern in Jesus the true Messiah. That he also, in other ways, showed himself steadfast and trustworthy, is shown by the surname Cephas which Jesus gave him ; and the leading place among the apostles which he received even during the lifetime of Jesus, and maintained in a still greater degree after his death, is evidence enough that in more than one direction he must have been a very remarkable personality. This does not preclude us from observing that his pre-eminence was also associated with much weakness. It is, nevertheless, certain that he did and suffered far more than we now know.

(e) Both sides, the favourable and the unfavourable, are seen also in his relation to Paul and the mission to the Gentiles. His original line of conduct during his visit to Antioch proves that he was no such bigoted upholder of the Mosaic law as were James the brother of Jesus and the Judaists who made their way into the churches founded by Paul in Galatia (see GALATIANS, 13). It must therefore be noted to his credit that he had grasped the true inwardness of the religion of Jesus better than they.

Even if, as regards outward conduct, Jesus must, generally speaking and apart from questions of Pharisaic strictness, be regarded as an observer of the law of the fathers - for otherwise the Judaising zealots for the law could not have claimed to be called his disciples at all - in his fundamental principles he was far beyond the position which would have made salvation in any way dependent on conformity with that law. The poverty of spirit, the purity of heart, the love to God and one s neighbour which he required are all of them things for which no observance of any particular precepts is necessary, and moreover he asserted with an emphasis that increased the non-obligatory character of many ceremonial commands (see GOSPELS, I45"). When accordingly Paul preached the admission of Gentiles within the pale of Christianity and the ending of the Mosaic law, he showed a better understanding of the inner meaning of Jesus than the apostles who actually ate and drank with him.

(f) In some measure this understanding had reached Peter also. But, unfortunately, not in sufficient measure. Thus it came to pass that he was outstripped by Paul, and the later development of the church depended only upon Paul not upon Peter. Indeed, instead of following Paul, if perhaps with slower steps, on the new path of freedom from the law, Peter allowed himself to be held back by the power of ancient custom of which James was the embodiment, and to be forced into the ranks of those who were opposed to Paul. In this connection are seen the most serious limitations of his spiritual activities, the absence of consistency in dealing with the new situation, and want of energy in opening up the new path. If it had depended on Peter, he would have preserved Christianity as a Jewish sect and condemned it to a maimed life. The elasticity of soul which was required for drawing and pursuing the consequences resulting from the entrance of Christianity into the Gentile world was certainly not easy of attainment to one in Peter's situation ; but for a true leader it was nevertheless indispensable.

The conflict with Paul into which Peter was brought by his con servative attitude also unfortunately brought with it the result that, quite apart from the judgment we are called upon to pronounce as to his intellectual endowments, a deep shadow falls upon the character of Peter - deeper than upon that of Paul. Of Paul we know only that in his manner of expressing himself as against his Judaistic opponents he exercised little restraint upon himself (2 Cor. 11:13-15, Gal. 5:12, etc); Peter, on the other hand, can hardly be cleared of the charge of - even by actions, or at the very least by failures to act - having worked against the activity of Paul (see above, 2 [-3]).

P. W. S.