Peter, first epistle of

L. Transmission of the Text. IL. Reception in the Church. |. Use of the LXX, vocabulary, literary style. The readers to whom the Epistle was primarily ad- dressed, and their circumstances. V. Authorship and date. VI. Occasion of Composition, the Journey of Silvanus, . Summary of the Epistle. Doctrine of the Epistle. I. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT.—Little need be said on this subject. For the authorities—MSS and Versions—see art. JUDE (EPISTLE OF) in vol. ii. p. 799.

Two statements, however, with special reference to 1 P must be added. (1) The Epistle is contained in the Syriac Vulgate (Peshitta) ; but there does not seem to be evidence as to any Old Syriac text. (2) Fragments of the Epistle are containel in the following Old Latin MSS — the PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 779 Fleury palimpsest=h (1 P 47-5"); the Munich ce edited by Ziegler=q (15 }9 2-37 41°_5%) ; Cod. Bobiensis=s (11.153 29; see Old Latin Biblical Texts, No. iv. pp. xxf., 46ff.)

As to Patristic evidence, citations from the Epistle are abundant, in Greek writers from the time of Polycarp on- wards ; in Latin writers from that of Tertullian. peas critical problems are presented by the xt. II. RECEPTION IN THE CHURCH.—It will be con- venient to trace the stream of evidence backwards. In all those catalogues of Canonical Books which belong to the 4th cent.

and onwards, whether put forth by conciliar authority or found in the works of individual theologians, 1 P has a place. The only writer as to the favourableness of whose verdict there is any doubt is Theodore of Mop- suestia. In reference to him, Leontius of Byzan- tium (Migne, Pat. Gr. lxxxvi. 1365) states—atriy Te τοῦ μεγάλου ᾿Ιακώβου τὴν ἐπιστολὴν καὶ τὰς ἑξῆς τῶν ἄλλων ἀποκηρύττει καθολικάς. It seems probable (see Kihn, Theodor von Mopsuestia pp. 65ff., 374 f.)

that the language of Leontius is loose, and that nothing more is meant than that Theodore rejected James as well as the four Catholic Epistles—2 P, Jude, 1 and 2 Jn—which were not accepted by the Antiochene and the Syrian Churches. Of the prow for this conclusion two may be mentioned. f Theodore had really rejected 1 P and 1 Jn, the general Council of Constantinople (553) would not have failed to reckon this among the reasons for their condemnation of him. On the other hand, Junilius (Instit.

regularia i. 6, 7), whose state- ments as to the Canon reflect the views of Theodore (Kibn, p. 358 ff.), reckons beati Petri ad gentes ima among the books perfecte auctoritatis. In the earlier half of the 4th cent. Eusebius includes this Epistle among the books ‘generally received’ (ἐν ὁμολογουμένοις, HE πΙ. xxv. 2). In the earlier pas- sage of the History (Im. iii.

1) which deals with the Canon he makes the important statement—‘ this epistle the Fathers also of former days (ol πάλαι πρεσ- βύτεροι) have quoted in their writings as indisput- ably authentic.’ The evidence of Eusebius as to the general spoeptanice of the Epistle is carried back something like a century in a passage from Origen’s Commentary on St. John, quoted by Eusebius (HE vi. xxv. 8),, Πέτρος... μίαν ἐπιστολὴν ὁμολογουμένην καταλέλοιπεν, So far there has been no sign of divergence.

We are now brought to the writers who repre- sent the great Churches of Christendom at the beginning of the 8rd and at the close of the 2nd cent, (1) Alexandria, Clement again and again quotes words from the Epistle as those of St. Peter. Thus Strom. iii. p. 562 ed. Potter, καὶ ὁ Πέτρος ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ τὰ ὅμοια λέγει Ὥστε τὴν πίστιν ὑμῶν καὶ ἐλπίδα εἶναι εἰς θεόν ; ib. iv. p. 622, ὁ Il. ἐν τῇ ἐπισ- TOAD φησὶν ᾿Ολίγον ἄρτι, εἰ δέον, λυπηθέντες ; 80 with other formule of citation, Ped. i. p.

124, iii. pp. 206, 303; Strom. iii. p. 544, iv. p. 584f. Moreover, Clement’s Hypotyposeis contained ‘short exposi- tions’ of this as well as of the other Catholic Epistles and of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Apocalypse of Peter (Eus. HE VI. xiv. 1; Photius, Biblioth, 109); and some at any rate of his comments on 1 P re- main translated and possibly edited by Cassiodorus (cf. Zahn, Forschungen iii. 133 1f.) (2) Carthage. Tertullian quotes and refers to the ee as the work of St. Peter.

Thus de Orat. xx., ‘ De modestia quidem cultus et ornatus aperta preescriptio est etiam Petri, cohibentis eodem ore, quia eodem spiritu, quo Paulus’ (1 P 3%, 1 Ti 2%); Scorpiace, xii., ‘Petrus quidem ad Ponticos, Quanta enim, inquit, gloria,’ ete. For other Cera and re- ferences see Rinsch, Das NT Tertullian’s pp. 556-563. (3) South Gaul. Irenwns, a witness to the traditions of Asia Minor, Rome, and South 180 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE PETER, FIRST EPISTLE Gaul, quotes the Epistle by name, iv. 9.

2 (ed. Massuet), ‘Et Petrus ait in epistola sua Quem non uidentes’...; iv. 16. 4f., ‘Propter hoc ait Do- minus (Mt 12% 5*%4) . . Et propter hoc Petrus ait Non uelamentum’...; v. 7. 2 [after 1 Co 13°13 has been quoted, Iren. continues], ‘Hoc est nod et a Petro dictum est Quem cum non uideritis diligitis, For anonymous references see Zahn, Gesch. des NT Kanons i. 1, p. 303f. (4) Rome. When we turn to the Church of Rome we find the evidence very slight. Hippolytus on Dan. iv. 59 (p. 336 ed.

Bonwetsch) uses language derived from 1 Co 2° and 1P 1? (els ἃ καὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν τότε ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι).. The reference is clear, and the juxta- position with Pauline words shows that the phrase 1s regarded as scriptural. But it is not a case of definite quotation. In the Muratorian Canon there is no mentionof 1 P. It seems, however, inconceiv- able that a document in which, ¢.g., the Epistle of Jude and a (supposed) letter of St.

Paul to the Laodiceans find a place, should know nothing of an Epistle so widely accepted as 1 P, especially if Zahn’s view is correct that the African Church received its NT from Rome (Ges. Kan. i. 1, p. 25f.) The character of the fragment makes it quite possible that the apparent omission is due to the carelessness of a translator or of a scribe. But two other suggestions deserve consideration.

(a) There is no formal mention of 1 Jn; but the opening words of the Epistle are cited in the passage of the fragment which deals with St. John’s Gospel. It is probable, therefore, that the author of the Canon considered it unnece: separately to mention an Epistle to which he had already in- cidentally referred. It is likely enough that 1 P 5% was quoted in connexion with St. Mark’s Gos- pel and its relation to St.

Peter's preaching, with which the first sentence of the extant fragment appears to deal (see art. MARK). (δ) Zahn (Ges. an. li. 1, p. 110 n.) conjectures that a word and a line have fallen out in a later passage of the frag- ment, which he would restore are ‘Apocalypsi (ἢ) etium Johannis et Petri [unam] tantum recipimus {epistulam ; fertur etiam altera,] quam quidam ex nostris legi in ecclesia nolunt.

’ any case, the Muratorian fragment being what it is, it is un- reasonable to deduce rejection or ignorance of 1 P from its apparent silence. The remains of the literature of the 2nd cent. supply abundant evidence of the influence of the language of the Epistle on persons widely separ- ated from each other. (i.) Martyrdoms. In the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (Robinson, The Passion of St. Perpetua p. 106 ff.) who suffered at Carthage in A.D.

180, we find the words, ‘ Do- nata dixit: Honorem Czesari quasi Czsari; timorem autem Deo,’—words which are closer to 1 P 917 than to Ro 137. Again, in the Letter of the Churches of Lyons and Vienne (A.D. 177), preserved in Eus. HE vy. i.f., there is an echo of 1 P 5%in the words ἐταπείν- ov ἑαυτοὺς ὑπὸ τὴν κραταιὰν χεῖρα, ὑφ᾽ ἧς ἱκανῶς νῦν εἰσιν ὑψώμενοι (ii. 5); of 1 P 5% in ἤδη δοκῶν ὁ διά- βολος καταπεπωκέναι (i. 25), and in οὖς πρότερον wero [ὁ θὴρ] καταπεπωκέναι (ii. 6). (ii.) Apologists.

The language of Theophilus, ad Autolycum ii. 34, τὸν δὲ ποιητὴν . . τῶν ὅλων... ἀθετοῦσιν, πειθόμενοι δόγμασιν ματαίοις διὰ πλάνης πατροπαραδότου. . ot [οἱ προφῆται] καὶ ἐδίδαξαν ἀπέχεσθαι ἀπὸ τῆς ἀθε- μίτου εἰδωλολατρείας, recalls 1P 211 118 48 When Justin Martyr, Dial. 103, dealing with Ps 9918. suggests the alternative interpretation — ἢ λέοντα τὸν ὠρυόμενον ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔλεγε τὸν διάβολον,, 8. prob- ably has in mind 1 P δ8, (111.) Heretics.

There is some evidence that the Gnostic sects, who early broke away from the Catholic Church, were familiar with the Epistle—(a) the Marcosians (re- presentatives of the Western school of the Valen- tinians), whose actual words Ireneus (I. 18. 3) seems to be reproducing, τὴν τῆς κιβωτοῦ δὲ olka voulay... ἐν ἣ ὀκτὼ ἄνθρωποι διεσώθησαν, pavepwrard φασι τὴν σωτήριον ὀγδοάδα μηνύειν (1 P 353); (8) the Eastern Valentinians, according to Clem. Alex., Excerpta ex Scriptis Theodoti \xxxvi.

, ob συνεισῆλθον els τὰ ἡτοιμασμένα ἀγαθὰ, εἰς ἃ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν ἄγγελοι παρακύψαι (1 Ῥ 113); (γ) Basilides, according to Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. p. 600, μηδὲ λοιδορούμενοι ὡς ὁ μοιχὸς ἢ ὁ φονεὺς, ἀλλὰ ὅτι χριστιανοὶ πεφυκότες (1 P 414), (iv.) Ep. to Diognetus ix., αὐτὸς τὰς ἡμετέρας ἁμαρ- tlas ἀνεδέξατο, αὐτὸς τὸν ἴδιον υἱὸν ἀπέδοτο λύτρον ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν... τὸν δίκαιον ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδίκων ; οὗ, 1 P 9254 315 (v.) Hermas, Vis. IV. iii. 4, ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ χρυσίον δοκιμά- ζεται διὰ τοῦ πυρὸς κ.

εὔχρηστον γίνεται, οὕτως καὶ ὑμεῖς κιτιλ. ; ef. 1 P 17, but see also Pr 178, Sir 2°. Again, Vis. I. xi. 3, IV. ii. 4, 5 (ἐπιρίψατε τᾶς μερίμνας ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τὸν κύριον) ; ef. 1 P 5’, but more probably Ps 54 (55) 33 is the source. Thus the references to 1 P in Hermas are very doubtful. (vi.) Barnabas, xvi. 10, τοῦτό ἐστιν πνευματικὸς ναὸς οἰκοδομούμενος τῷ κυρίῳ ; ef. 1 P 25. (vii.) Didaché i. 4, ἀπέχου τῶν σαρκικῶν καὶ σωματικῶν ἐπιθυμιῶν ; cf. 1 P24. (viii.) Papias. Eusebius, HZ Il. xxxix.

16, tells us of Papias— Κι αι δ᾽ αὐτὸς μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου ὁμοίως. Since Eusebius (HE Iv. xiv. 9) uses similar ᾿Ἰδθθτθεε as to Polycarp (see below), we cannot infer from this notice that Papias did more than sendy adopt Petrine ex- pressions. It must, however, be remembered that the character of Papias’ Expositions differed widely from that of Polycarp’s Hpistle. The latter is hortatory.

The former dealt largely with matters of history and tradition. Thus Papias’ use of 1 P is likely to have been of such a kind as to necessi- tate an explicit reference to the Epistle. These a priori considerations are confirmed by an examina- tion of Eusebius’ words elsewhere. In HE τι. xv. 2, Eusebius, giving an account of the composition of St. Mark’s Gospel, mentions a story (φασί) that St. Peter ΒΡΡτο θα of the evangelist’s action, and gave his authority to the Gospel.

He then parentheti- cay gives his authorities—‘ Clement in the sixth book of the Hypotyposeis has recorded the story ; and, further, ihe bakop of Hierapolis, by name Papias, confirms his testimony ’—and at once pro- ceeds (in the oratio obliqua): τοῦ δὲ Μάρκου μνημονεύειν τὸν Πέτρον ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ ἐπιστολῇ, ἣν καὶ συντάξαι φασὶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς Ῥώμης, σημαίνειν τε τοῦτ᾽ αὐτὸν τὴν πόλιν τρο- πικώτερον Βαβυλῶνα προσειπόντα διὰ τούτων ᾿Ασπάζεται x.7.d. (1 P 513).

From this somewhat confused pas- sage we learn that Eusebius found three points noted in the writings either of Clement or of sar or of both—(1) the reference to Mark in 1P; (2) the composition of 1P at Rome; (3) the allegorical use of the name Babylon in 1 P. Now, when we turn to the extant fragments of Clement’s Hypotyposeis (ed. Potter p. 1007), we find that of these three points Clement mentions the former two and is silent as to the last.

It appears, therefore, to be a just inference that in regard to this last Papias was Eusebius’ authority. Moreover, that Papias’ Expositions did contain a passage in which 1 P 5% would naturally be appealed to, is certain from the words of Papias himself (ap. Eus. HH ut. xxxix.

15)—odre γὰρ ἤκουσε τοῦ κυρίου [Μᾶρκος] οὔτε παρηκολούθησεν αὐτῷ, ὕστερον δὲ, ὡς ἔφην, Ilérpw—a passage which makes it clear that in the now lost portion of his work Papias gave a detailed account of Mark’s connexion with St. Peter. If, then, 1P 5! was referred to in that earlier section of the Expositions in regard to Mark’s presence with St. Peter at Rome, it follows that Papias must have appealed to the Epistle, and therefore have recognized it, as the work of St. Peter. (ix.) Polycarp (c. A.

D. 115). There is a long series of coincidences between Polyearp’s Epistle and 1 P—EZp. Polyc. i. els ὃν οὐκ ἰδόντες πιστεύετε χαρᾷ ἀνεκλαλήτῳ καὶ δεδοξασμένῃ els PETER, FIRST EPISTLE PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 781 ἣν πολλοὶ ἐπιθυμοῦσιν εἰσελθεῖν || 1P 1513, ii, διὸ ἀναζωσαμένοι τὰς ὀσφύας || 18; ii. πιστεύσαντες εἰς τὸν ἐγείραντα τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν καὶ δόντα αὐτῷ δόξαν || 13} ; ii. μὴ ἀποδιδόντες κακὸν ἀντὶ κακοῦ ἢ λοιδορίαν ἀντὶ λοιδορίας || 3°; ν.

πᾶσα ἐπιθυμία κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος στρατεύεται || 24 (cf. Gal δ}7) ; vii. γήφοντες πρὸς τὰς εὐχάς || 47; vili. ὃς ἀνήνεγκεν ἡμῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ἰδίῳ σώματι ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον, ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν, οὐδὲ εὑρέθη δόλος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ... τοῦτον γὰρ ἡμῖν τὸν ὑπογραμμὸν [sc. τῆς ὑπομονῆς] ἔθηκε δι’ ἑαυτοῦ || 241; x. fraternitatis amatores dili- gentes inuicem . . omnes uobis inuicem subiecti estote, conuersationem uestram irreprehensibilem habentes in gentibus, ut ex bonis operibus uestris, ete.

|| 271% 5° 24. That Polycarp was thoroughly familiar with 1 P cannot be doubted. He does not, however, preface any of its words and phrases which he weaves into his letter with any formula of citation, nor does he ever mention St. Peter’s name. Harnack (Die Chronologie, p. 463) therefore concludes that Polycarp did not regard the Epistle as the work of St. Peter, alleping that this Father deals differently with St.

Paul, to whom he several times refers by name, and more than one of whose sayings he introduces with an εἰδότες ὅτι, clearly marking it thereby 84 a quotation. But, on the other hand, it may be urged—(1) that Poly: uses, without any note of quotation, phrases derived from Clement’s Epistle and from the Epistles of his master St. John (ch. vii., cf.

1 Jn 47%, 2Jn7), as Harnack admits, and we must add phrases from the OT, the Acts, and from the Gospels; (2) that the piace εἰδότες ὅτι in each case (chs. i. iv. v.; ef. ch. vi. εἰδότες ὅτι πάντες ὀφειλέται ἐσμὲν ἁμαρτίας) introduces an epigrammatic, axiomatic statement (ef. Ro δ᾽ 6°, 1 Co 15%, 2Co 17 45%, Gal 25, Eph 6%-, Ph 116, Col 3% 41), while the phrases quoted from 1 P are rather of a hortatory type ; (3) that Poly is writing to a Church which St.

Paul founded and to which he addressed an Epistle, and that it is in reference to these facts that he men- tions St. Paul’s name (chs. iii. ix. xi.); that on the one occasion when he appeals directly to the authority of St. Paul’s writings (ch. x1, ‘sicut Paulus docet’), it is for a statement which is of the nature of a revelation—Sancti mundum iudi- cabunt (1 Co 6).

Further, Foon ἐν love for and familiarity with 1 P are a proof that he regarded the Epistle as a document of supreme interest and authority —a document which he had by heart ; they must be interpreted in the light of the fact that Irenzeus, his spiritual son, habitually refers to it as the letter of St. Peter. (x.) Clement of Rome, Vii. ἀτενίσωμεν els τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ γνῶμεν ὡς ἔστιν τίμιον τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ || 1 P 1%; xxxvi. ἀναθάλλει εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς [so Codd. AC (om.

αὐτοῦ), τὸ φῶς Syr., Clem. Alex.]; lix. 5: οὗ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ σκότους els φῶς, ἀπὸ ἀγνωσίας els ἐπίγνωσιν x.7.d. || 1 P 2%. Again, Clement uses the Petrine word ὑπογραμμός in reference to ὑπο- μονή (v.) and, after quoting Is 53, Ps 22, to Christ's humility (xvi.), cf. 1 P 2%. Further, in 1 P 4° we have Pr 10% quoted in the form ἀγάπη καλύπτει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν, a form approximating to the Hebrew but widely different from the LXX. The Petrine rendering 1s found in Clem. xlix.

and in ‘the Ancient Homily’ (2 Clem.) xvi. Again, Pr3™ (κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται LXX, Heb. ‘ He’) is quoted in Ja 4°, 1 P 5%, in the form ὁ θεὸς ὑπερηφάνοις x.7.d. In this latter form the words are cited in Clem. xxx. (θεό), Ign. Eph. v. (ὑπερηφ. ὁ Beds ἀντιτάσσεται). To sum up: 1 P is, with the single exception of 1Jn, the only one among the Catholic Epistles ‘of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

’ No sooner did a theological literature (properly so called) spring up in the Church than this Epistle is quoted by name as the work of St. Peter. In the earliest Christian literature outside the NT (i.e. A.D. 90-190) it is second only to the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles in the extent of the influence which it exercised on the language and thoughts of writers widely separated from each other in place and in circumstances.

The testi- mony which these writers bear to the Epistle is indirect, with one probable exception. here is good reason for thinking that Papias referred to it explicitly as the Epistle of St. Peter. The only natural interpretation of the facts—the early and wide influence of the Epistle on the one hand, on the other the consistent and unwavering attribu- tion of it to St.

Peter on the part of all writers from Ireneus’ time onward—is that from the first it was regarded as the work of that apostle. III. USE oF THE LXX, VocasuLary, LITERARY