PETER THE APOSTLE.

I. Life.
   Name and Early Career (§ 1).
   Position among the Apostles II. (§ 2).
   Character and Temperament (§ 3).
   Activity and Position in Palestine (§ 4).
   His Teachings as Recorded in Acts (§ 5).
   Attitude toward Gentile Christians (§ 6).
   The Closing Years (§ 7).
   Confused and False Traditions Concerning Peter (§ 8).
II. Writings.
   Occasion and Circumstances of I Peter (§ 1).
   Relation to Other N. T. Writing (§ 2).
   Its Theology (§ 3).
   Place and Date of Composition; Authenticity (§ 4).
   II Peter (§ 5).
III. Apocryphal Petrine Literature.
   1. The Gospel.
Early Mention (§ 1).
      Rediscovery (§ 2).
      Contents (§ 3).
      Date, Sources, Character (§ 4).
   2. The Apocalypse.
      Early Mention (§ 1).
      Contents (§ 2).
      Literary Influence; Date (§ 3).
   3. The Preaching.
   4. The Acts.

I. Life:
1. Name and Early Career.
The sole source for the biography of the Apostle Peter during the earthly ministry of Christ is the canonical Gospels. He originally bore the very common Jewish name of Shimeon, Simeon, or Simon (cf. Acts xv. 14; TT Pet. i. 1), the first of these forms being the earliest, and the last the latest. He likewise had the Aramaic honorary surname of Kepha (Gk. Kephas), or "Rock," which was translated into its Greek equivalent Petros, "Peter." Christ himself, however, termed his apostle Peter only thrice (John i. 42; Matt. xvi. 18; Luke xxii. 34), elsewhere using either the name Simon (Matt. xvii. 25; Mark xiv. 37; Luke xxii. 31) or, in more solemn moments, Simon son of John (Matt. xvi. 17; John i. 42, xxi. 15-17). The phraseology of the Evangelists varies. Mark terms the apostle Simon until he receives the sur name of Peter (Mark iii. 16), after which he is called Peter; and a similar, though less consistent, course is followed by the other two synoptists (cf. Matt. iv. 18, viii. 14, xvi. 16; Luke v. 8). In Acts he is invariably called Peter, even when addressed (Acts x. 13, xi. 7). In the Fourth Gospel he is called Simon only when first mentioned, elsewhere being usually termed Simon Peter, Peter alone being used only when the double name either precedes or follows. Paul almost invariably terms him Cephas (I Cor, i. 12, iii. 22, ix. 5, xv. 5; Gal. i. 18, ii. 9, 11, 14), the use of Peter here being extremely rare (Gal. ii. 7-8). The father of the Apostle Peter was named John (John i. 42, xxi. 15 eqq.) or, in abbreviated form, Jona (Matt. xvi. 17). He was probably from Bethsaida (John i. 44), although Mark i. 21, 29 makes him a resident of Capernaum, the apparent contradiction being explicable by the fact that at marriage (cf. T Cor. ix. 5) he had removed to the latter town, making his living by fishing, together with his younger brother Andrew, in the Sea of Galilee (Matt. iv. 18; Mark i. 16; Luke v. 3). Andrew had early become one of the disciples of John the Baptist (John i. 40), and it was this younger brother who brought Peter into contact with Jesus (John i. 42). There is, however, no reason to suppose that he then became a member of the Messiah's circle, or that he was present among the disciples at Cana (John ii. 2), at Jerusalem (ii. 17), in Judea (iv. 2), and in Samaria (iv. 8). It would rather seem that, after returning with Jesus to Galilee, Peter there resumed his trade, so that there is no real discrepancy between the account in the Gospel of John and the synoptic records of the calling of Peter (John ii. 41 sqq.; Matt. iv. 18 aqq.; Mark i. 16 sqq.), but, on the contrary, the synoptic account presupposes the Johannine, which alone renders it intelligible as the documents now read. With the second calling, however, Peter seems to have become the constant follower of Jesus throughout all his wanderings, so that his incorporation among the twelve apostles (Matt. x. 1 sqq.; Mark iii. 13 sqq.) evidently makes little real change in his relation to Christ.

2. Position amoung the Apostles.
While Matthew and Luke ascribe a slightly more marked preeminence to Peter among the apostles than does Mark, which is based largely on Petrine sources, there is no real the discrepancy between them. Matthew and Luke have included certain passages, omitted by Mark, which emphasize the leadership of Peter (Matt. xiv. 28-31, xvi. 17-19, xvii. 24-27, xviii. 21; Luke v. 3, xii. 41, xxii. 32, xxiv. 12, 34); words ascribed by Mark to the apostles in general are attributed by Matthew and Luke to Peter (cf. Matt. xv. 15 and Luke viii. 45 with Mark vii. 17, v. 31); Peter is expressly mentioned where Mark gives no name (cf. Luke xxii. 8 with Mark xiv. 13); Matthew explicitly stresses the priority of Peter among the apostles (cf. Matt. x. 2 with Mark iii. 16 aqq.; Luke vi. 14 sqq.; Acts i. 13 sqq.); and the position which be held according to Mark (v. 37, xiii. 3, xiv. 33) was little less than that ascribed to him in Matthew and Luke. Nor is this position altered by the relation of Peter to John in the Fourth Gospel. Here John has a certain preeminence because of his greater sympathy with the mind of Jesus, whereas Peter owed his position to his quick decision and action, a position which the Fourth Gospel not only does not minimize, but, on the contrary, brings into full prominence.

3. Character and Temperament.
Generally speaking, the character of Peter is described with essential harmony in all the Gospels. He appears as an admirable type of the Galilean, well-meaning, confiding, freedom-loving, and courageous, yet changeable, capricious, and eager for novelty (Josephus, War, III., iii. 2; Life, 16-17; Matt. xi. 7 sqq., 16 sqq.). At first blush it seems strange that Jesus should have given the epithet of "Rock" to one of such character, yet he saw far beneath the surface and grasped the inherent strength and stability that underlay the changing and inconstant exterior. Nor did Peter prove unworthy of this confidence;

480

his trust became ardent devotion; and his quick resolution was strengthened and steadied. Yet in the account of his walking on the water (Matt. xiv. 28-31) his natural instability of character, even after being long under the influence of Jesus, comes clearly to the fore; while his denial of Christ still more strongly marks his wavering and his weakness. Nevertheless, he had already shown himself worthy of his title, as when at Caesarea Philippi he boldly declared Jesus to be the Christ, not a mere precursor of the Messiah (Matt. xvi. 13 sqq.; Mark viii. 27 sqq.; Luke ix. 18 sqq.; John vi. 66 sqq.), especially as this was the very time when many, disappointed in Jesus, were abandoning him. Yet even the faith of Peter was not uncommingled with hopes of the earthly power and glory of Christ, and from the first foreshadowing of the sufferings of Christ, made at Csesarea Philippi, until their close the alternate strength and weakness of Peter appear in ever-increasing clearness. He incurred the severe rebuke of his master by deprecating the necessity of such sufferings (Matt. xvi. 23-24; Mark viii. 33), yet on the mount of transfiguration he again wished to make permanent the glory there apocalyptically revealed (Matt. xvii. 3; Mark ix. 5; Luke ix. 33). Equally typical was his desire to extend forgiveness as far as possible, though he still fell far short of the Christian ideal (Matt. xviii. 21-22); and the same statement holds true of the words in which he reminds Christ how both he and the other disciples had left all to follow him (Matt. xix. 27; Mark x. 28; Luke xviii. 28). As the time of the passion approached, the moral perils of Peter thickened. In the scene recorded in John xiii. 6 aqq. his impetuosity is revealed, as well as a certain lack of understanding of the love of Jesus which was to reach its culmination in the passion. Immediately afterward he vowed, despite the prophecy of the denial, to remain faithful to Jesus even unto death (Matt. xxvi. 33 aqq.; Mark xiv. 29 sqq.; Luke xxii. 33-34; John xiii. 37-38). But he had overestimated his strength, nor could he even keep awake for his master's sake in Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 40; Luke xxii. 45). It is true that he drew his sword when Jesus was seized (Matt. xxvi. 51; Mark xiv. 47; Luke xxii. 50; John xviii. 10-11), but when he saw that this was useless, he fled with the other disciples (Matt. xxvi. 56 and parallels). Nevertheless, he made his way into the palace of the high priest, where he was put to the real test, only to deny Jesus with the utmost vehemence (Matt. xxvi. 69 sqq.; Mark xiv. 66 sqq.; Luke Vii. 56 sqq.; John xviii. 15 sqq.). This last fall receives only a partial explanation from the vacillating character of Peter; the real reason seems to lie in the fact that inaction undermined his resolution, which activity would have kept consistent. Yet in all this he never really lost faith in Christ for an instant, and when he became aware of what he bad almost unconsciously done, his remorse and shame, while finally purifying his character, kept him away from Christ until after the resurrection. Then, however, his old energy reappeared, and though at the tomb he was outstripped in running by the younger disciple John, he was still the first to find that the grave was empty (John xx. 3 aqq.), and in the account of the appearance of the risen Christ at the Sea of Tiberias, the old character of Peter once more becomes manifest (John xxi. 7 sqq.). The temperament of Peter, as here outlined, was inseparably connected with his position of preeminence among the apostles. Not only was he closely associated with the two sons of Zebedee, James and John, and once with his own brother, Andrew, as one of the favorite and most trusted disciples of Jesus (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiii. 3 sqq., xiv. 33 aqq.; Luke viii. 51, ix. 28), and not only were he and John commissioned to make preparations for the Last Supper (Luke xxii. 8 sqq.), but the entire content of the Gospels mark him as preeminent over the other disciples. This position seems to have been due essentially to his quick resolution and to his energy, and it was confirmed by Jesus both for the present and for the future; for the present by addressing to him questions and answers which concerned the other disciples as well (Matt. xvii. 25 sqq., xviii. 22, xxvi. 40; John xiii. 36); and for the future by the remarkable words recorded in Matt. xvi. 18-19, a prerogative which even temporary wavering and recreancy could not annul (cf. Luke xxii. 31-32).

4. Activity and Position in Palestine.

The apostolic activity of Peter in Judea and the neighboring districts after the resurrection of Jesus is recorded chiefly in Acts, although the Pauline epistles contain a few valuable allusions. It must be borne in mind that a certain amount of editorial change may be traced in the speeches ascribed to Peter in Acts, but there is no reason to doubt the essential authenticity of the facts there recorded. After the ascension, Peter, undismayed by the threats of the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, preached and worked in Samaria and along the Syro-Phenician coast, especially in Lydda, Joppa, and Cassarea (Acts viii. 14 sqq., ix. 32-x. 48), performing many miracles (Acts iii. 4 aqq., v. 15, ix. 34, 40). Returning to Jerusalem, he was imprisoned under Herod Agrippa after the death of James, the brother of John (Acts xii. 1 aqq.), but escaping, he left the city, though he seems again to have taken up his residence there after Herod's death. Paul visited him there three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18), and he was there at the time of the council of the apostles recorded in Gal. ii. 1-9. With Jerusalem as a base, he visited other churches (Gal. ii. 11), accompanied by his wife (I Cor. ix. 5). Despite the existence of a Petrine faction in Corinth (I Cor. i. 12; cf. ix. 5), there is no reason to suppose that Peter ever labored there (cf. also I Cor. iv. 15), and the tradition, preserved by Eusebius, that Peter founded the church in the Syrian city of Antioch is refuted by Acts xi. 19 aqq. As to the position of Peter as the leader . of the apostolic church, Acts and the Pauline epistles are in full accord. He took first place in the meeting which chose Matthias to succeed Judas Iscariot (Acts i. 15 aqq.), he was the spokesman of the whole company of apostles both in winning a large body of Jewish converts (Acts ii. 14 sqq.) and in defending the Gospel against the Jewish hierarchy (Acts iv. 8 sqq., 19 sqq., v. 29 sqq.), he reformed conditions within the mother

481

church at Jerusalem (Acts v. i sqq.), he watched over relations with other Christian communities (Acts viii. 14 sqq., ix. 32 sqq.), and he was the first to receive a pagan into the new church (Acts x. 1 sqq.). On the other hand, he enjoyed no absolute preeminence. He labored in Samaria together with John (Acts viii. 14), and he was called to account for associating with gentiles (Acts xi. 3 sqq.). At the council of the apostles, moreover, he was not only sot the leader, but was even subordinate, in a sense, to James (Acts xv. 6 aqq.). In like manner Paul at first describes Peter as the leader of the church at Jerusalem (Gal. i. 18), but by the time of the apostolic council he was, although still the virtual representative of the mission to the Jews, only one of the three pillars of the church, the other two being James and John (Gal. ii. 8-9).

5. His Teachings as Recorded in Acts.
The teaching of Peter, as recorded in Acts, was essentially apologetic, hortatory, and practical. Special stress was laid by him on the sufferings of Christ, which could allege no obstacle to full acceptance of his Messianic mission, since his death was an undeserved and unrighteous act of murder on the part of the Jews through pagan hands (Acts ii. 23, iii. 13 sqq.; cf. iv. 10-11, v. 30, x. 39). Christ was a true prophet (Acts iii. 22), anointed by the Holy Ghost (x. 38), and attested by miracles, wonders, and signs (ii. 22); and his death was due not to chance, but to the divine plan (Acts ii. 23) as foretold by the prophets (iii. 18), the purpose being the first of all the blessings of the Messianic kingdom, including the forgiveness of sins (cf. iii. 18-19). The proof of the Messianic kingship of Jesus, even during his human life and suffering, was sought in the fact that, in harmony with prophecy, he had been raised by God from the dead on the third day (Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, 26, iv. 10, x. 40), had been manifested to chosen witnesses (x. 40-41), and had been exalted to the right hand of God (ii. 31 sqq.). This resurrection, of which it was an essential duty of the apostles to be witnesses (Acts i. 22, ii. 32, iii. 13 sqq., v. 30 sqq., x. 40-41), had made Jesus the Messianic king (ii. 36, v. 31), the cornerstone of the divine kingdom (iv. 11), lord of all (x. 36, cf. ii. 36), the perfection of the divine kingdom established since the days of the patriarchs (iii. 13), and the consummation of the Messianic days foretold by the prophets (iii. 24). His mediation, therefore, conditions all the promised blessings of the perfect kingdom of God, forgiveness of sins (Acts u. 38, iii. 19, v. 31, x. 43), peace (x. 36), the gift of the Holy Ghost (ii. 38, xi. 17), salvation from a perverse generation (ii. 40), physical health (iii. 6, 16, iv. 10), all salvation (iv. 12), and every divine blessing (iii. 26). The condition on which man shares in these blessings is repentance (Alts ii. 38, iii. 19, viii. 22), which first becomes fully possible through the death and resurrection of Clirist (v. 31, xi. 18, of. iii. 26), as well as obedience to God (v. 32) and acceptance of the divine revelation that Jesus is the Christ, the pledge and the expression of acceptance on both sides being baptism in the name of Christ (ii. 38). The full realization of the divine kingdom, however, will be impossible until the last judgment, when God will send Jesus as the judge of the quick and the dead (Acts x. 42), and to bring to the faithful of all ages rest from the affliction of the present wo (iii. 19 sqq.).

Attitude toward Gentile Christians.

While Peter realized that, in accordance with his divine promises, God would extend the blessings established in Christ to all the world and would call all the gentiles (Acts ii. 39, iii. 25-26), he also knew that thesd boons were primarily for the children of the old dispensation (iii. 25, x. 36), and he hoped that, despite their unbelief and rejection of Jesus, they might still be won for Christ (ii. 39). He was, moreover, certain that he and the other apostles were ordained to preach solely to the Jews (x. 42), and so strong was his aversion to the gentiles that only special divine commands could make him enter the house of the Roman centurion Cornelius in Caesarea and preach the Gospel to him and his family, concluding by baptizing them (Acts x.). The growth of the Church in non-Jewish territory, however, forced Peter and other Judeo-Christians to modify their views, and at the council convened at Jerusalem to decide on the requirements to be laid upon gentile converts to Christianity, Peter deprecated excessive ritual exactions of the converts, though agreeing with James that the gentile Christians should refrain from all things forbidden in the Noachian laws binding on every gentile (Acts xv. 7 sqq.). Further light is cast upon this council by the account given by Paul (Gal. ii. 1 sqq.), according to which the final conclusion was complete harmony, and it was decided that James, Peter, and John should preach to the Jews, and Paul and Barnabas to the gentiles. Neither does the disagreement between Paul and Peter recorded by the former as taking place at Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.) point to any opposition of principle between the two, particularly as they both agreed that true righteousness was to be sought, not in works of the law, but solely in faith in Christ (Gal. ii. 16). There can be little doubt that Peter's sudden change of attitude at Antioch was hypocritical, although at the same time it must be remembered that some uncertainty as to the proper course to be pursued may have existed in Peter's own mind.

The Closing Years.
Except for the prophecy in John xxi. 18 sqq. and the Petrine epistles (see below), the New Testament gives no information regarding the closing years of Peter. The sole remaining source is tradition, which, though constantly receiving unhistoric accretions, seems to preserve a kernel of truth in the legend that the apostle went to Rome toward the close of his life and there suffered martyrdom under Nero. Thus Clement, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, written in 95-97, records: "Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and, when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him" (ANF, i. 6). It is also noteworthy that no source describes

482

the place of Peter's martyrdom as other than Rome, the place evidently implied by Clement, as the context shows. It would also seem that Papias of Hierapolis knew of Peter's residence at Rome (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III.; xxxix. 15). There are, however, a number of direct statements that Peter lived at Rome. Dionysius of Corinth (about 170) states that Peter and Paul founded the church at Corinth and then taught in Italy, both suffering martyrdom at Rome (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., II., xxv. 8; and like declarations are made by Irensaeus (Haer., iii. 1, of. iii. 3), Tertullian (De praescriptione, xxxvi.; cf. Scorpiace, xv.; Adv. Marcionem, iv. 5), Clement of Alexandria (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI., xiv., II., xv.), and the Roman presbyter Caius (Eusebius, Hist. eel., II., xxv. 7). A similar story is told both by the late second-century Acts of Peter (perhaps Gnostic in origin) and by the almost contemporary Acts of Peter and Paul. Reference must also be made to a tradition, evolved in the small pseudo-Clementine circle and devoid of historicity, that Peter carried on a conflict at Rome with Paul, here represented as a false apostle masked as Simon Magus. There is no evidence that Simon Magus was ever at Rome, the alleged proof being an erroneous interpretation of an inscription to the Sabine deity Semo Sancus as being in honor of the sorcerer (NPNF, 2 ser., i. 114, note 11). The residence of Peter in Rome is first brought into connection with the alleged presence of Simon Magus there by the Acts of Peter (chap. cxc.). The attempt has also been made to prove that Peter really suffered martyrdom by crucifixion at Jerusalem as a result of the Neronian persecution, evidence being drawn from a combination of the Romans Albinus and Agrippa, mentioned by the Acts of Peter as the persecutor and judge of the apostle, with Albinus, the successor of Festus as procurator of Judea, and Agrippa II., tetrarch of Galilee; but the argument is inadequate, as is another theory that Peter suffered at some unknown place in the East.

8. Confused and False Traditions Concerning Peter.
Of the other patristic traditions concerning Peter's residence at Rome probably the only one which may be regarded as certain is that which makes Mark his companion at Rome, where the second Gospel was written after Peter's death on the basis of his oral communications. When, however, Jerome declares (De vir. ill., i.) that Peter, after being bishop at Antioch and laboring in Pontus, Galacia, Cappadocia, Asia Minor, and Bithynia, went to Rome in the second year of Claudius to oppose Simon Magus, and was bishop of the church there for twenty-five years, finally being crucified head downward in the last year of Nero's reign and buried on the Vatican, his statements rest on a combination of fugitive allusions. The Antiochian episcopate is based on Gal. ii. 11 sqq., his activity in Asia Minor on I Pet. i. 1, his crucifixion is perhaps drawn from a literal interpretation of John xxi. 18, while the manner of it (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., III., i.) savors of post-apostolic rather than of apostolic taste, and his burial on the Vatican is deduced from the statement of Caius (see above) that there was a monument on that hill to commemorate the martyrdom of the apostle. The twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter at Rome is evidently due to the statement of Justin Martyr regarding the labors of Simon Magus at Rome (see above), combined with the tradition of Peter's residence in the same city, especially as it would seem that the Roman Church had actually been formed early in the reign of Claudius through the indirect influence of the Petrine Christianity of Palestine. All this giving rise to the belief that Peter himself came to Rome early in the reign of Claudius, the combination of it with the tradition of his martyrdom toward the close of Nero's reign evidently gave rise to the legend of his twenty-five years' residence in Rome. A further element of confusion was added by the increasing parallelism of Peter and Paul, leading not only to the unhistoric tradition of their joint founding of the church at Corinth, but also to their simultaneous labors in Rome; and a similar idea may have given rise to the belief that the death of Peter, almost coincident with that of Paul, took place in 64, the year of the general persecution of the Christians instigated by the burning of Rome. Still later the death of both apostles was put on the same day, June 29, although the persecution actually took place in July or August. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, ii., xxi.), like Irenaeus, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Rufinus, seems to have regarded Linus, not Peter, as the first bishop of Rome; . and it was not until the middle of the third century that Peter was definitely claimed as bishop of Rome (Cyprian, Epist., lv. 8, lie. 14). The reckoning of the twenty-five years in Rome varies irreconcilably in different sources, and the whole is rendered impossible by the data of the New Testament, which shows that he was living in Jerusalem at the time of the council of the apostles in 53 (Acts xv.), whence he later visited Antioch (Gal. ii. 11 sqq.), while Paul's failure to mention him either in his epistle to the Romans (written in 59) or in his letters from Rome (in the seventh decade of the first century) would imply that Peter was not in the city even then. It seems most probable, on the whole, that Peter died a martyr's death in Rome toward the close of Nero's reign, some time after the cessation of the general persecution. Absolute certainty is, however, unattainable.

II. Writings:
1. Occasion and Circumstances of I Peter.
The authenticity of the two epistles canonically ascribed to the Apostle Peter has been severely attacked by modern criticism, although the problems connected with each are essentially different in character. The first epistle purports (I Pet. i. 1) to be addressed to readers in Pontus, Galatia (doubtless including, as in official Roman parlance, Pamphylia, Pisidia, and part of Lycaonia), Cappadocia, Asia (Caria, Lydia, Mysia, and probably Phrygia), and Bithynia. There is no reason to suppose, as has long been maintained, that the Petrine epistles were intended solely, or even primarily, for Jewish Christians, especially as the only known churches in Asia Minor were the gentile congregations established by Paul and his associates (cf. Gal. iv. 8, 19;

483

Eph. ii. 11-iii. 13; T Cor. iv. 15, xv. 1-3; Acts xv. 3, 12, 19, xxi. 19), as well as in view of Peter's own attitude toward gentile Christians (Gal. ii. 12). The fact that the epistle was addressed to recent converts from paganism, not to Jewish Christians, is clear, moreover, from repeated allusions, such as i. 14, 21, ii. 10, iii. 6, and iv. 3. A similar meaning is plainly contained in ii. 25, while " the strangers " of i. 1 (R. V., " sojourners of the Dispersion ") clearly denote, not the Jewish Diaspora, but gentile Christians regarded as the true Israel scattered among the heathen (cf. ii. 9-10), even though Peter plainly considered these gentile churches as daughters of the mother church at Jerusalem. The epistle implies that the gentile Christians of Asia Minor had already been assailed by their pagan compatriots (iv. 4). Although the apostle evidently regarded acts of violence as a very possible eventuality (iv. 15-16; cf. i. 6, iii. 14, 17), at the time the only dangers were taunts and insults (iv. 4, 14) and the charge that the Christians were evil-doers (ii. 12, iii. 16), based on their rejection of heathen vices (iv. 3), an attitude attributed by their enemies to a hatred of the human race which might lead even to theft oz murder (iv. 15). Such accusations were, generally speaking, unjust, but it is clear, from Peter's earnest admonitions to uprightness of life (I Pet: 13-iii. 22), that he feared that the charges might prove real ones, and was also apprehensive that the Christians would relapse into pagan abominations to gain the friendship of the world (ii. 11, iv. 2). The general situation described in the epistle points to the period of the Neronian persecution, not, as some maintain, to the persecution under Trajan, for Christianity had not yet been made a crime against the State (cf. ii. 12, iii. 6, 13, 16, iv. 15), and obedience to temporal superiors could still be urged, a thing impossible after the faith was officially proscribed. Apart from these sufferings of the Christians of Asia Minor, and their consequent perils, nothing is known regarding their condition. It was these distresses and these dangers which had evoked the letter and had formed its purpose (cf. v. 12).

2. Relation to Other N. T. Writings.
The contents of I Peter can scarcely be systematized. The introduction, with its hopeful outlook beyond the evils of the present (i. 1-12), is followed by general admonitions to upright life (i. 13-21), brotherly love (i. 22-25), and the building of a spiritual temple (ii. 1-10). Then come admonitions bearing more directly on present conditions of earthly pilgrimage. (ii. 11-12), obedience to earthly superiors, even though they be oppressive (ii. 13-25), mutual respect between husbands and wives (iii. 1-8), abstinence from revenge (iii. 8-12), and patient endurance of suffering (iii. 13-17), herein imitating Christ (iii. 18-22). The Christian must not relapse into pagan licentiousness (iv. 1-6), but must show sobriety, service, and affection (iv. 7-11), as well as endurance of undeserved affliction (iv. 12-19). Both old and young are admonished to perform their several duties (v. 1-5), and all must trust in God and be ever watchful (v. 6-9); while the epistle concludes with a benediction (v. 10-11), notes on the apostle's purpose in writing (v. 12), and salutations (v. 13-14). The epistle shows unmistakable dependence on Romans, Ephesians, and James (cf. I Pet. i. 14-15 with Rom. xii. 2; iv. 10 with xii. 3-8; iv. 8, i. 22 with xii. 9; iii. 9 with xii. 17; ii. 13-14 with xiii. 1; ii. 19 with xiii. 5; ii. 1, iv. 13 with xiii. 1213; ii. 24 with vi. 2; i. 5, iv. 13 with viii. 17-18). There is, on the other hand, no reason to assume that I Peter is dependent on Hebrews, Colossians, or any other Pauline epistles and what dependence there is must be considered rather as general reminiscences than as mechanical borrowing.

3. Its Theology.
There is, moreover, a marked individuality both in style and in dogmatic content, so that, despite a certain adoption of Pauline material (cf. I Pet. iv. 1-2, ii. 24, iii. 22 with Rom. vi. 7, 18, via. 34), the type of doctrine represented is primitively apostolic, and is essentially a further development of the Petrine passages recorded in Acts. In both there is the same basal concept of Christianity as the realization of the Old-Testament kingdom of God, harmonizing with prophecy and brought into being by the crucified but risen Christ. There is, however, no such antithesis between the law and the Gospel as in the Pauline writings, nor is there the Pauline stress on the atonement or on justification by faith; . but soteriology is more prominent in Peter than in James. Faith is not so much an acceptance of the forgiveness of sins based on the death of Christ upon the cross (as in Paul's teaching) as a trust in God grounded on the recognition of Jesus as the glorified Messiah who shall be revealed in the fulness of time. The moral life, consequently, is regarded as connected with faith from the first, rather than as a mere fruit of faith. The close union of prophecy. and the entire theocracy of the Old Testament leads Peter to the conclusion that the salvation sought by the prophets is become the possession of the Christian, while the spirit which worked in the prophets was essentially the same as the spirit of Christ (I Pet. i. 10 sqq.). The ideal of the Old-Testament people of God is realized in the Christian Church (I Pet. ii. 9), which is to include all gentiles called of God (Acts ii. 39). The sufferings of Christ are not only the model for the Christian's patience under outward affliction (I Pet. ii. 21, iii. 18, iv. 1), but, since they most clearly reveal his moral greatness (ii. 22 sqq.), they inspire the Christian to all self-denial and to all struggle with sin (iv. 1 sqq.). Redemption from the power of sin is founded on the redemptive work of the death of Christ (I Pet. i. 18-19), which has crushed the might of sin forever (iii. 18, iv. 1). From this it follows that Christ is the great shepherd of his flock (v. 4), that the salvation of the risen Lord extends even to the dead (iii. 19, iv. 6), that the moral effect of baptism, as " the answer of a good conscience toward God," is given through the resurrection of Christ (iii. 21), and that the sufferings of the Christians mark the beginning of the judgment (iv. 12). The result of all this is a lively hope (i. 3, 13, 21, iii. 15) in the Christian, who is but a pilgrim and a stranger in this world (i. 17, ii. 11), a situation which should only inspire him to still greater moral earnestness.

484

4. Place of Composition; Authenticity.

According to I Pet. v. 13, the epistle was written at " Babylon." The ruined condition of the great Babylon at the time, however, as well as the fact that in the reign of Caligula the Jews had been driven from it by pestilence and Date and persecution, render it certain that Peter did not compose his epistle there. It is equally improbable that "Babylon" here means Mesopotamia in general or the Egyptian town of Babylon in the Nile delta. Neither is there any tradition during the first five centuries of any activity of Peter in either Babylonia or Egypt. So it is indubitable that here, as elsewhere, "Babylon" means Rome (cf. Rev. xiv. 8, xvi. 19, xvii. 5, xviii. 2, 10, 21; Oracula Sibyllina, v. 153; II Esdras, iii. 1; cf. also I Pet. v. 14; Col. iv. 10). The letter can not have been written before 64, both because of its dependence on James and Romans, and because of the designation of Rome as Babylon, which did not come into vogue until the Neronian persecution had begun. It may be concluded, then, that it was written either soon after the outbreak of the persecution, shortly before the return of Paul from Spain and the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul, or, if the death of the former be placed shortly before the fall of Nero, in the closing years of this reign. The testimony of the early Church favors the authenticity of the epistle. Besides the allusion to it in II Pet. iii. 1, it is mentioned by Her mas, Papias, Polycarp, is cited by Irenseus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, and is placed in the canon by Eumbius. On the other hand, it was rejected, for dogmatic reasons, by the Paulicians, and in the nineteenth century its authenticity was denied by many critics; while others supposed either that it was translated from the Aramaic of Peter into Greek by Mark or Silvanus, or that one of these two developed the outline given by Peter. It has also been maintained that it was written later and then ascribed to Peter, although no credible motive can be assigned for such a proceeding. The optimism which pervades the epistle, like the theological attitude midway between James and Paul, is in entire accord with the temperament and position of Peter as revealed through out the New Testament. Hence there is, in short, no good reason to doubt the authenticity of I Peter.

5. II Peter.
With the second Petrine epistle the case is different. The occasion of its writing was the rise of false teachers, some of them libertines like those described by Jude, and others mockers and deniers of the second advent (II Pet. ii.-iii.), although it seems probable, on the whole, that only one class of false teachers is really meant. The epistle is composed of an introduction reminding the readers of the boon of salvation and urging them to remain faithful (i. 1-10), and three parts: an assurance of the certainty of the second coming of Christ (i. 11-21); a characterization of the libertinism of the false teachers and their sure punishment (ii. 1-22); and prediction of the destruction of the world by fire, the delay of the day of judgment through the mercy of God, and an admonition to righteousness and Patience (iii. 1-13); the whole concluding with an allusion to the writings of Paul, warning, admonition, and glorification of God (iii. 14-18). The epistle is clearly influenced profoundly by Jude (cf. ii. 4, 11, 13 with Jude 6, 9, 12); but, on the other hand, a comparison of the second Petrine epistle with the first shows a marked difference in style, as well as in dogmatic position. The concepts of "knowledge" and "godliness," unmentioned in I Pet., are prominent in II Pet., while the characteristic optimism of I Pet. here disappears.. The center of expectation is the end of the world rather than the perfection .of salvation; but, on the other hand, the second advent is thought of as more remote than in I Pet. Christ appears in II Pet. especially as the Savior, but the pattern of his life and passion, so stressed in I Pet., is as little mentioned in II Pet. as are his death and resurrection. The difference between the two epistles can not be explained from their divergent purposes; and a considerable time must have elapsed between the composition of the two, since II Pet. is later than Jude, which was probably written after the fall of Jerusalem (see JUDE, EPISTLE OF). Certain points in II Pet., moreover, imply a date subsequent to the apostolic age (cf. II Pet. iii. 3 sqq., 15-16), and the tradition of the Church is unfavorable to the authenticity of the epistle. There is no clear evidence that it was known to the apostolic Fathers or to the church writers of the second century. In the time of Origen only I Peter was considered canonical, and Eumbius reckoned II Peter among the antilegomena (Hist. eccl., III., xxv. 3,), although Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia seems to have considered it authentic (Cyprian, Epist., lxxv.). Despite certain doubts of Gregory Nazianzen (Carmina, xxxiii. 35), Jerome, who himself recognized the fact that the epistle was rejected by most critics on the basis of its stylistic deviation from I Peter, was largely responsible for securing general acceptance of the epistle. At the Reformation period its authenticity was again doubted by Calvin and Erasmus, and since the time of J. S. Semler (q.v.) it has generally been deemed spurious by adherents of the critical school. (F. SIEFFERT)

III. Apocryphal Petrine Literature:
Of writings of this class four claim mention here, the Gospel, the Apocalypse, the Preaching, and the Acts.

1. The Gospels.
1. Early Mention.
That such a gospel existed has been known since the end of the second century. The most explicit account of it is found in several passages in Eusebius (Hist. eccl., VI., xii the longest reference, III., iii. and xxv., Eng. transl. in NPNP, 2d ser. vol. i.) and it is mentioned by Origen ("Commentary on Matthew," x. 17), Jerome (De vir. ill., i., Eng. transl. in NPNP, 2d ser., iii. 361), Theodoret (Haereticarum Fabularum, ii.2), and in Decretum Gelaaianum (De libris recipiendis). The Principal notice by Eumbius includes a letter by Serapion, bishop of Antioch 190-191-211-212, to the church at Rhossos in Cilicia, on the Mediterranean coast on the bay of Issus in Asia Minor. This church had been using the Gospel of Peter in its services, and when Serapion visited them he had granted

485

permission to continue this use, though he did not himself examine the document closely. But he later read the book and found it tinged with Docetic heresy, though "most of it belonged to the right teaching of the Savior, but some things were additions." The clear implication is that Serapion wished the reading suspended till a secbnd visit, when he would probably give directions to cease using it. The other references to the gospel add little information beyond the fact that these documents attributed to Peter were not accepted or generally used as testimony by ecclesiastical authorities.

2. Rediscovery.
Being heretical, or at least being regarded as heretical, the Gospel was lost for centuries. Finally a Frenchman, Urbain Bouriant, discovered in the winter of 1886-87 at Akhmim in Upper Egypt a vellum manuscript in Greek containing on thirty-three pages parts of three Christian works, the Book of Enoch (pp. 21-56), the Gospel of Peter (pages 2-10), and the Apocalypse of Peter (reversed pages 19-13). The pages measure about six by four and three-quarters inches, and the manuscript itself is not earlier than the eighth century. The identification of the fragments as parts of the works named is granted by all critics. The documents were not published, however, till 1892, when they were issued under the auspices of the French Archeological Mission at Cairo as vol. ix. of a series devoted to Egyptology (pp. 137 sqq., Paris, 1892). The reason for the delay was probably that French scholars did not at first realize the importance of the documents. Immediately on the publication intense interest was manifested in the discovery, and discussions by leading scholars in the New Testament and in patristics issued in great numbers, as a result of which the principal questions which were raised may be regarded as settled.

8. Contents
The fragment of the gospel is about 150 lines in length, and deals with the passion and resurrection of Jesus. It begins abruptly in the midst of the account of the trial, and closes as abruptly in the middle of a sentence which in complete form possibly recorded the first appearance of Jesus to his disciples after his resurrection. Evidently what preceded was the account of Pilate's washing of his hands (Matt. xxvii. 24). The document then proceeds to state that none of the Jews washed their hands, not even Herod, who gives Jesus up to the Jews to do as they would with him. Then Joseph, a friend of Pilate and of Jesus, begs of Pilate the body (in anticipation of the crucifixion), and Pilate refers the request to Herod, who accedes. Then follows the account of the mocking, scourging, and crucifixion, Jesus ("the Lord") being silent "as if in no wise feeling pain" while the Jews would not have his legs broken in order to prolong his agony. The document tells of the midday darkness, and the administration of gall and vinegar. "The Lord" thereupon cried out: "My Power, my Power, hast thou forsaken me" (or, "thou hast forsaken me"), and then died. The veil of the temple is rent, and the Jews draw the nails "from the hands of the Lord" and remove him from the cross. To Joseph is given the body, and he performs the last rites and lays it in his tomb. Then the Jews come to a consciousness of their sin and a fear of the coming judgment. The murmurings and dread anticipations of the people lead the scribes and Pharisees to ask of Pilate a guard for the tomb lest the body be stolen and resurrection be fictitiously claimed. The tomb is then sealed. Early in the morning the guard hear a great voice, see two men descend from the open heavens, and the stone of the tomb-door roll away of itself; the men enter the tomb, and emerge supporting a third, while a cross follows them. The two men's heads reach to heaven, the head of the third is still higher. A voice asks: "Hast thou preachers to them that are asleep?" and the cross answers yea. The soldiers deliberate whether they shall tell Pilate, and from the open heavens a man descends and enters the tomb. The soldiers relate all to Pilate, who asserts innocence in the matter, but enjoins silence through fear of the Jews. At dawn "of the Lord's day" Mary Magdalen and her friends come to mourn Jesus, find the tomb open and a young man sitting there who tells them Jesus is risen. In the closing paragraph, on the last day of unleavened bread "the twelve disciples " after weeping and grieving withdrew to their homes. Simon Peter (the narrator) and Andrew took their nets and went to the sea with "Levi . . . whom the Lord . . ."

4. Date, Sources, and Character.
The date of composition of this gospel must be placed in the second century. This is proved by the fact that it was in use at Rhossus in the early part of the episcopate of Serapion; and it must have been some time in circulation to have gained the favor able reception which the Church there accorded it. It is evident, also, from a remark of Serapion that it was in quite extensive use among Docetic Christians. How far back into the second century it can be carried is doubtful. Harnack and MeGiffert find traces of its use by Justin Martyr in his First Apology, therefore before 161 at the latest. But the majority of scholars, probably with good reason, reject this hypothesis, explaining the parallelism by a common use of sources, so that the terminus a quo can with assurance not be placed very high. There is no clue to the authorship, the one mark being a very evident and somewhat extreme antagonism to the Jews. Thus there is brought out in bold relief at the very beginning of the fragment the assumption by the Jews, including Herod, of responsibility for the death of Jesus. It is probable that the author was not a Palestinian (he speaks of the temple "at Jerusalem "). The relation of this gospel to the four canonical Gospels is clear, as it uses them all (this is perhaps best exhibited to the eye in H. von Schubert's Das Petrusevangelium, synoptische Tabelle, Berlin, 1893, Eng. transl., Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical Tables, Edinburgh, 1893), noteworthy here being the employment of the Fourth Gospel. But the material is used with freedom, and with a view to the author's purpose. Joseph, e.g., is made to ask the body of Jesus as soon as the condemnation of Jesus is assured. The character of the gospel is by nearly all the com-

486

mentators called docetic, following the classificar tion of its users by Serapion as cited by Eusebius (ut sup.). That it is Gnostic is clear, that it is docetic is vigorously denied by McGiffert, who is not, however, strongly supported by other scholars. Docetism is on the surface of the document: to deny that quality requires strenuous argumentation. The docetism is of an early type. The reports referred to above (§ 1) all indicate that this book was outside the circle of ecclesiastically permitted writings. That it should be lost is therefore less strange than that it lingered so long as to become the object of copyist's care in the eighth century. Its recovery, however, showed it in pseudepigraphic company, and this company was in high favor in Egypt at a late date.

2. The Apocalypse:
1. Early Notices
This work is one of those which received frequent and to some extent favorable mention in early Christian literature, and left their impress of ideas and even of expression upon it, and yet vanished under the stress of authority acquired by the canonical New Testament. The Muratorian Canon (q.v.) mentions it as a book which "some of our number will not have read in the churches "; Clement of Alexandria commented on it (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VI., xiv. 1), and three passages from it are quoted in fragments of his "Miscellanies," in one of which it is "Scripture"; Methodius (q.v.) cited it as inspired; Eusebius (ut sup., III., iii. 2, xxv. 4) pronounced against it, as against the gospel and the Preaching, though not as being heretical in tendency; Macarius Magnes (see MACARIUS, 3) used it, possibly citing from Porphyry of the third century, and speaks of it as in agreement with prophecy and the Gospel. The Nicephoran list of apocryphal books (c. 850) says that it contained 300 lines (about equal in size to Galatians, which has 311) and this agrees approximately with the length as given in Codex Claromontanus (D₂) of the fourth century and with other evidence. After having been used with more or less reserve, sometimes being absolutely rejected, in Rome, Egypt, and Asia Minor, it survived in Palestine and Egypt till the eighth or ninth century. Certain fragments were known through the citations indicated above before the rediscovery (given in J. E. Grabe, Spincilegium, i. 74, Oxford, 1698; and in J. A. Robinson and M. R. James, The Gospel . . . and . . .Revelation of Peter, pp. 94-96, London, 1892). The knowledge of this book was greatly extended by the discovery, on the same manuscript as that which contained the fragment of the gospel, of a considerable part of the Apocalypse also.

2. Contents.
The newly recovered fragment of about 140 lines (nearly half the reported length of the book) consists of three parts: (1) the conclusion of an eschatological discourse, (2) a vision of paradise, and (3) part of a vision of hell. The eschatological part predicts false prophets, and the coming of God for the relief of the saints and the judgment of the lawless. The vision of paradise comes after the Lord had taken the twelve disciples into a mountain to pray, and is given them for encouragement in their preaching. While they are at prayer two of the righteous appear as glorious forms, and then a view of paradise with its inhabitants is granted. The vision of hell is more extended, and shows the punishment of blasphemers of various sorts, of adulterers, murderers and abortionists, persecutors of the saints, false witnesses, the wealthy and uncharitable, usurers, lewd persons, idolaters, and apostates from Christianity. The situation in which the book is placed is apparently a period after the resurrection of Christ and before the ascension, during which he instructs his disciples in order to their encouragement and equipment for the world-mission which (impliedly, according to the fourth complete sentence) they have already received.

3. Literary Influence; Date.
The literary influence of this Apocalypse is very far-reaching and important. Its general ideas affiliate with those of such books as Enoch and the Apocalypse of Baruch. But it has a much closer connection with (1) The Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, (2) the Sibylline Oracles (ii. 6-30, 154-213), the vision of Josaphat in "History of Barlaam and Josaphat" and (4) II Peter. It appears to be very probable that the Testament is an expanded paraphrase of the first part of the Apocalypse, and that from it a fair idea can be gained of the content of the lost first part of the original. The Sibylline lines show close relationship with both the Testament and the Apocalypse, following the latter in the part where the Testament fails, and so making tenable the conclusion that the Sibyl employed as its source the Apocalypse. The description of paradise in the vision of Josaphat so reproduces not only the ideas but the language of the Apocalypse that identity of theme does not suffice to explain the close resemblances in expression. Finally, the connection between the verbal statements of II Peter and the Apocalypse (conveniently exhibited in DB, iii. 814-815) has made it clear either (1) that the writer of II Peter borrowed from the Apocalypse, (2) that both are by the same writer, or (3) that the authors were of the same school. Other Christian books which were influenced by the Apocalypse ®f Peter are the Apocalypse of Paul and the Apocalypse of Esdras, the Acts of Thomas, and the Passion of Perpetua. The notes of citation show that the document was composed in the second century, and the place of composition may have been either Palestine or Egypt.

3. The Preaching
(Gk. Berugma Pelrou, L at. Prcedicatio Petri et Pauli): This book is cited by Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III., iii.) as one of the four spurious works attributed to Peter; Clement of Alexandria (Strom., i. 29, ii. 15, vi. 5-7, 15; Eng. transl. in ANF, vol. ii.) uses it as a genuine writing of Peter; Origen (In Johannem, xiii. 17) quotes Heracleon as employing one of the passages used by Clement, but is generally unfavorable in his attitude to the book; still earlier use seems assured on the part of Justin Martyr, Aristides, and the author of the Epistle to Diognetus, and later use by Apollonius of Asia Minor. It is possibly the same as the "Preaching of Peter and Paul" quoted by Lactantius ("Divine Institutes," iv. 21; Eng. transl. in ANF, vii. 123). The extant fragments

487

have been collected by A. Hilgenfeld in Novum Testamentum extra canonem (iv. 51 sqq., Leipme, 1884); by E. von Dobschiltz, in TU, xi. 1 (1894); and by E. Preuschen, Antilegomena (pp. 52-54, 143-145, Giessen, 1901). Its date is placed by Harnack (and Von Dobschiitz) as between 110 and 130, and by Zahn between 90 and 100 (too early!); Harnack and Von Dobschiits agree upon Egypt as the place of composition, the latter more definitely settles upon Alexandria. The fragments preserved indicate that the work was given as the substance of discourses by a spokesman for the apostles, the first person plural being used. It seems to have inculcated particularly a Christian monotheism, and to have been a polemic against Judaistic error and paganism, and an apology for Christianity. The faithful or saints are "a third race" (Gk. triton genos) among heathens and Jews.

4. The Acts:
Brief mention should be made of the fact that about Peter's name there grew up a considerable literature, much of it having the character of "tendency writings." Of "Acts" there are two series quite distinct, the "Gnostic Acts" and the "Catholic Acts," which cover practically the same ground but with a marked difference in form of statement. For references and description of these see APOCRYPHA, B, II., and for part of the literature which developed on the same basis as these series of "Acts" see CLEMENTINA.

GEO. W. GILMORE.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The life and development of Peter is treated with more or less completeness in the works on the life of Christ (see under JESUS CHRIST); sketches usually appear also in the introductions to the commentaries on the epistles. For further treatment of his life and activities consult: T. W. H. Grifth, The Apostle Peter, New York, 1905; M. Marquardt, Simon Petrus ala Mittle- und Ausgangspunkt der christlichen Urkirche, Kempten, 1908; G. V. Lechler, Das apostolische und das nach-apoatolische Zeifalter, Gotha, 1857, Eng. transl., The Apostolic and Post-Apostolic Times, Edinburgh, 1888; E. Renan, Lea Apdtrea, Paris, 1808, Eng. transl., The Apostles, London, n.d.; A. Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Munich, 1879, Eng. transl., particularly Times of the Apostles, London, 1895; J. Sehmid, Petrus in Rom, Lucerne, 1879; F. W. Farrar, Early Days of Christianity, London, 1882; J. S. Howson, Studies in the Life of St. Peter, ib. 1883; C. von Weizahcker, Das apostoliache Zeitalter, Freiburg, 1888, Eng. transl., Apostolic Age, London, 1894; H. A. Birks, Life and Character of St. Peter, London, 1887; J. B. Lightfoot, in his Apostolic Fathers, S. Clement of Rome, ii. 481 sqq., London, 1890; C. Fouard, St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity, London, 1892; F. W. Puller, Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, London, 1893; W. M. Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, London, 1893; idem, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, ib. 1895; A. C. McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New York, 1897; J. V. Bartlett, Apostolic Age, Edinburgh, 1900; J. G. Greenhough, Apostles of our Lord, London, 1904 (devotional); W. H. G. Thomas, The Apostle Peter, London, 1904; J. Ninek, Simon Petrus, der Fischer aus Galilaa, Leipsic, 1903; G. Matheson, Representative Men of the N. T., London, 1905; A. Brun, Easai sur l'apotre Pierre, Montauban, 1905; L. C. Fillion, Saint Pierre, Paris, 1908; A. J. Southouse, The Making of Simon Peter, New York, 1908; A. Drews, Die Petruslegende Ein Beitrag sur Mythologie des Christentums, Frankfort, 1910. The discussions in the dictionaries usually cover both the life and the epistles: DB, iii. 756--818 (elaborate); EB, iv. 4599-4827 (life), iii. 3877,85 (epistles); JB. xi. 388-388; DCG, ii. 349-351; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fasc. xxxi., cols.358-379 (valuable citation of literature).

On the theology of Peter consult the pertinent sections in the works on N. T. theology mentioned in and under
BIBLICAL THEOLOGY:
also C. A. Briggs, Messiah of the Apostles, pp. 21-41, New York, 1895; R. W. Dale, The Atonement, pp. 97-148, London, 1875.

On questions of introduction to the epistles the reader should consult the relevant sections in the works on N. T. introduction and on the Canon (see BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION; and CANON OF SCRIPTURE). Consult further: Harnaek, Littertur, ii. 1, pp. 450-475; D. Volter, Der erate Petruabrief, seine Entistchung und Stellung in der Geschichte des Urchristenthuma, Strasburg, 1908; B. Weiss, Der erate Pstrusbrief and die neuere Kritik, Gross-Liehterfelde, 1908; E. T. Mayerhoff, Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften, Hamburg, 1835; B. Weiss, in TSK, 1866, pp. 258 sqq.; Grimes, in TSK, 1872, pp. 857-894; B. B. Warfield, in Southern Presbyterian Review Jan., 1882, Apr., 1883; F. Spitta, Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas, Halle, 1885; P. J. Gloag, Introduction to the Catholic Epistles, Edinburgh, 1887; H. Groeeh, Die Echtheit des sweiten Briefes Petri, Berlin, 1889; E. Saharfe, Die petrinische Stromung der neutestamentlichen Literntur, Berlin, 1893; G. A. Deissmann, Bebelstudien, pp. 244245, 277 sqq., Marburg, 1895; L. Monnier, La Premiere Epitre de lapotre Pierre, Paris, 1902; L. Gontard, Essai critique et historique sur la premiere epitre de S. Pierre, Lyon, 1905; Link, in TSK, 1898, pp. 405-138; E. A. Abbot, in Expositor, 2 ser., iii. 49 sqq.; Vigouroux, Dictionnaire, fascs. uxi.-xuii., cola. 380-413.

Commentaries are: C. Bigg, in International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh and New York, 1901; J. B. Mayor (on II Peter and Jude), London, 1907; W. Steiger, Berlin, 1832 (I Peter); J. Brown, 3 vols., Edinburgh, 1848-58; T. Demarest, 2 vols., New York, 1851-85; A. Barnes, New York 1859' T. Schott, 2 volt., Erlangen, 1881-33; T. Adams, Edinburgh, 1882 (II Peter); F. Steinfam, Rostock, 1883 (II Peter); R. Leighton, republished Philadelphia, 1884; J. Lillie, New York, 1889; T. Harms, Hermannaburg, 1873 (II Peter); G. F. C. Fronmaller, in Lange's commentary, Eng. transl., New York, 1874; J. C. K. Hofmann, Nbrdlingen, 1875; in C. J. Ellicott's Handy Commentary, New York, 1883; E. H. Plumptre, in Cambridge Bible, 1883; G. D. F. Salmond, in P. Schaff's Popular Commentary, New York, 1883; F. C. Cook and J. R. Lumby, in the Bible Commentary, London, 1881; J. E. Huther, in Meyer's commentary, Eng. transl., 1881; in the Pulpit Commentary, London and New York, 1887; J. M. Usteri, Zurich, 1887; R. Johnstone, Edinburgh, 1888; F. B. Meyer, London, 1890; M. F. Sadler, London, 1891; H. von Soden, in Hand-Kommentary Freiburg, 1892; S. Goebel, Gotha, 1893; J. K. Lumby, in Expositor's Bible, London, 1894; K. Burger, Munich, 1895; H. Couard, Potsdam, 1895; J. T. Beck, GOtersloh, 1895; E. Kiihl, GSttingen, 1898; W. F. Besser, Halle, 1899; J. Moonier, Paris, 1900 (I Peter); E. Hopp, Giltersloh, 1901; B. Weiss, Leipsic,1902; K. Henkel, Freiburg, 1904 (II Peter); J. H. Jowett, London, 1905; H. Gunkel, in Die Schriften des Neuen Testament ubersetzt and fur dis Gegenwart erklart, ii. 25 sqq., Giittingen, 1908 (I Peter), and G. Hollmann, in the same, ii. 81 sqq. (II Peter).

On the Apocryphal literature: The principal worbs on the Gospel are named under APOCRYPHA. Of the books named there (vol. i., p. 229, col. 1, bottom), those by Harris, Robinson and James, Von Gebhardt, Hamack, and Lode deal also with the Apocalypse. Further literature covering either Gospel or Apocalypse, and sometimes both, is: Funk, in TQS, lxxv (1893), 25& -288; A. Hilgenfeld, in ZWT, i (1893), 439-454; J. Kunze, Das neu aufgefundene Bruchuck des . . . Petrusevangeliums, Leipaic, 1893; H. von Soden, in ZTK, iii (1893), 52-92; H. B. Swete, The Akmim Fragments of the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, London, 1893; W. C. Van Manen, Hel Evangelic van Petrus, Leyden, 1893; E. Klostermann, Reste des Petrus-Evangelium, der Petrus Apokalypse und des Kerygma Petri, Bonn, 1894; A. C. MoGiffert, in Papers of the American Society of Church History, vi. 101-130, New York, 1894 (contains a very full bibliography, including contributions to periodicals, which may be supplemented from Richardson, Encyclopedia, pp. 37, 412-413); E. Koch, in Kirchliche Monateachrift, xv (1898) 311388; G. Salmon, Introduction to the Study of the . . . New Testament, pp. 581-591, new ed., London, 1897; V. H. Stanton, in JTS ii (1901), 1-25; idem, The Gospels as Historical Documents, Cambridge, 1903; L. Henneeke, Neutestamentliche Apokryphen, pp. 27-32, Tubingen, 1904; Haraaek, Lit-

488

[Page 488]

489

[Page 489]

490

[Page 490]

491

[Page 491]

492

[Page 492]

493

[Page 493]

494

[Page 494]

495

[Page 495]

496

[Page 496]

497

[Page 497]

498

[Page 498]

499

[Page 499]

500

[Page 500]