PETER 697 fragments of it are collected by Grabe, Sjricil. , i. 74, and by Hilgen- feld, I.e., p. 71. (The work under the same title which was partly translated by Jacobus de Vitriaco in the 13th century, and of which some MSS. still remain, e.g., an Arabic translation in the Bodleian library JUSS. Arab. Christ., xlviii. is a much later composition. ) 7. Epistle of Peter to James. This is prefixed to the Clementine Homilies (ed. Lagarde, p. 1) ; according to Photius (Biblioth., cod. 42, 113) there was a similar letter, which is now lost, prefixed to the recognitions. Its character and literary value are the same as those of the Clementines in general. 8. The Teaching of Simon Cephas in Rome. This treatise exists in Syriac, and was first published and translated by Cureton, Ancient Xyriac Documents, 1864, p. 35 (since by B. P. Pratten, in the Ante- Nicene Library, vol. xx. ). (A. HA.) PETER, EPISTLKS OF. 1 Peter. The first of the two canonical epistles which bear the name of St Peter is addressed " to the elect who are sojourners of the disper sion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." Most commentators in both ancient and modern times (e.g., of the former, Athanasius, Jerome, Epiphanius ; of the latter, Lange, Weiss, and Beyschlag) have interpreted this phrase to refer primarily to Jewish Christians. But this interpretation creates a difficulty. The countries named were countries in which St Paul and his companions had been especially active, and in which they had formed many communities, chiefly from the Gentile population. If therefore " the sojourners of the dispersion " be understood to refer to Jews, it becomes necessary to suppose the existence side by side in the same countries of two sets of communities, Pauline and Petrine, and further to suppose either (with Weiss) that the latter were already in exist ence when Paul preached, or (with the majority of writers) that Peter followed Paul upon his own ground. Both these suppositions are improbable, and it is preferable to understand the phrase of the "children of God that are scattered abroad " whether Jews or Gentiles. That some of the latter were included in it seems clear from i. 21, ii. 10, which imply that before they were Christians they knew not God, and from iii. 6, which implies that their wives had only now become daughters of Abraham. The epistle was evidently written at a time when the Christians of Asia Minor were both calumniated (ii. 12, iii. 16, iv. 4, 14) and persecuted (i. 6, 7, iii. 14-17, iv. 12-19). It exhorts those to whom it was addressed not only to bear their trials patiently, and even to rejoice inasmuch as they were " partakers of the sufferings of Christ " (iv. 1 3), but also to give no occasion to the hostile world which surrounded them to reproach them as evil doers (ii. 12, 15, iv. 14, 15), and it specializes this ex hortation to well-doing by addressing separately servants (ii. 18-25), wives (iii. 1-6), and husbands (iii. 7). This fact that Christianity had come to be persecuted, and also the fact, which is manifested in its whole tone, that Christians were in danger of retrograding, show that the epistle cannot be placed in the earlier part of the apostolic age. The time of the Neronian persecution is the earliest that will satisfy the required conditions ; and some (e.f/., Schwegler, Baur, Hilgenfeld) have thought that even this is too early for those conditions, and that it must be referred to the time of Trajan. It may, however, be said in reference to this latter view that the words of Tacitus in regard to the Christians under Nero, if they be not merely a reflexion from his own time, exactly suit the circum stances to which this epistle refers; " quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat " (Ann., xv. 44). Like most documents of the apostolic age, it deals less with doctrine than with practice. But, though the doctrine is incidental, it is clear ; taken in connexion with the Petrine speeches in the Acts of the Apostles, with which it is on the whole in harmony, it probably gives a faithful transcript of the original apostolic teaching. The Messiah of whom the prophets had spoken had been revealed (i. 10-12); He had come to suffer(i. 11) for sins (ii. 24, iii. 18), and by His sufferings He had rescued the elect from their former evil life (i. 18-20) and brought them to God (iii. 18), and in His conduct under suffering left an example for them to follow (ii. 21-23). Belief in God who raised Him from the dead on the one hand is a purification of the soul and an obedience to the truth, and on the other it results in love of the brethren (i. 22) ; it constitutes a bond of brotherhood, like that which had existed between the children of Abraham, and made the elect, what the Jews had failed to be, " a royal priesthood, a holy nation " (ii. 9, from Exod. xix. 6). But the fulfilment of the promise is not for this world; Christians are "strangers and tra vellers" (ii. 11) ; the end of all things is at hand (iv. 7), and that is the revelation of the glory of the Messiah in which those who believe in Him will be partakers (iv. 13, v. 1). The picture of the Christian communities which the epistle presents is of the simplest, and is in entire harmony with the general facts of the apostolic and sub-apostolic age. The organization was that of the Jewish synedria ; the " elders " were as shepherds of the flock, exercising over the younger members the control of a simple discipline. The ministering to the wants of those who needed help was the common and personal duty of all who had where with to minister (iv. 10), and a special class of officers for the purpose was not yet needed. It is evident that " liberty of prophesying " prevailed ; the only injunction on the point is, "if any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God" (iv. 11). The coincidences of thought and expression between some pass ages of this epistle and some passages in the epistle of James and in both the disputed and undisputed epistles of St Paul have given rise to much discussion. The chief coincidences are the fol lowing: (1) between 1 Peter and James, i. 6, 7, and i. 2, 3, i. 12 and i. 25, i. 22 and iv. 8, ii. 1 and i. 21, iv. 8 and v. 20, v. 5, 9, and iv. 6, 7, v. 6 and iv. 10 ; (2) between 1 Peter and Romans, i. 14 and xii. 2, ii. 5 andxii. 1, ii. 6-10 and ix. 32, ii. 13 and xiii. 1, iii. 9 and xii. 17, iii. 22 and viii. 34, iv. 3, 7, and xiii. 11, 12, iv. 9 and xiii. 13, iv. 10 and xii. 6 ; (3) between 1 Peter and Ephe- sians, i. 1 sq. and i. 3 sq. , i. 14 and ii. 3, ii. 18 and vi. 5, iii. 1 and v. 22, iii. 22 and i. 20, v. 5 and v. 21. Of these coincidences several explanations have been given. Weiss (Die jidrinischc Lehrbcgriffe, 1855, and Biblical Theology of the New Testament, E. T., vol. i. p. 167) holds that this epistle preceded the other epistles and gave rise to the expressions which they contain. The Tiibingen school hold that the contrary is the case, and that it represents either a late and weakened form of Paulinism (Baur, Zeller, Pfleiderer), or an attempt to mediate between the Paulim; and Petrine parties by clothing the doctrines of the latter in the phraseology of the former (Schwegler). Others (notably Mayerhoff, Einleitung indie petr. Schriftcn, 1835) consider that there is no copy ing on either the one side or the other, but that all the coincidences of expression come from a common stock of apostolic teaching. The epistle was used by Papias and is possibly referred to by Polycarp, and it is expressly quoted by Irenaeus and Tertullian ; it is not mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment, but it is trans lated in the Peshito version, and is included by Eusebius among the admitted books (homologoumena). Its genuineness was generally admitted until the present century ; and some of its peculiarities have been accounted for by the hypothesis of its having been originally written in Aramaic, and translated, or possibly amplified, by Mark or Silvanus. On the other hand there are some who hold that the attacks upon it by Schwegler, Baur, Pfleiderer, Holtz- mann, and others have been stronger than the defence of it. 2 Peter. The second epistle is addressed to a wider circle than the first, i.e., to Christians in general. Its aim is mainly polemical ; it is directed partly against a tendency towards libertinism, which was growing up and which took for one of its supports the Pauline doctrine of Christian freedom (ii. 1, iii. 16), and partly against the reaction which had set in against the earlier eschatology (iii. 3, 4). It protests in powerful language against the separation of Christianity from holy living, maintaining that Christ ianity without holy living is worse than no Christianity at XVIII. 88
