The Pauline Character of the Document
Part Three
Introduction to the Commentary on 1 Peter
The Name
His father’s name—Jonas (Mt 16:17—Βαριωνᾶ), or John (John 1:43; 21:15-17)—the correct reading see Tregelles, pp. 382, 485. See the article in the Contemporary Review, p. 159ff. on the name. The significance of Mt 16:17 should be stressed.
Συμεών, שימון The above form is the proper name in 1 Chron 4:20 which the LXX renders Σεμεών or Σεμών, the Hebrew form of the name. James naturally uses the strict Jewish form of Peter’s name in Acts 15:14, Συμεών and elsewhere in the New Testament only at 2 Pet 1:1, and even there the use is doubtful (B and several others have Σιμών). Peter’s Greek autograph would probably have been Συμεών (cf. Simon in the LXX, e.g. Simon Maccabee) that would easily be changed into more common Greek form, remembering the practice of substituting a Greek name that nearly resembles in sounds the Hebrew one. Σιμών a Grecized form of the name—Simon, Simonides from the Greek σιμός. In this particular case there would be hardly any change. See Josephus, Ant. xii.5.1. Note the naturalness of its occurrence at the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. On the meaning of the Hebrew word see Gen 29:33 Peter is nowhere else called simply Simon or Simeon except in the Gospels. Of his other name, Πέτρος, hereafter.
According to John 1:45 he is a native of Bethsaida, and his fellow townsmen are Andrew, John, James, and Philip. In regard to the house of St. Peter we have Mt 8:14; Mk 1:30; Luke 4:38. It was not necessarily at Capernaum, though without the narrative of St. John, it might be thought so. Still, there is no difficulty in supposing that he lived at Capernaum. St. John does not say more than that Bethsaida is the city (i.e. the native place), of Andrew and Peter.
Peter was a married man—so 1 Cor 9:5. On the later tradition, see Clement of Alexandria, Strom. iii.6, p. 535; Strom. vii.11, p. 869, Eusebius, H.E. iii.30 (Schwegler [?], p. 105). For other traditions of possible relevance see Clement. Homilies xiii.1,11; Clement. Recogn. vii.25, 36; ix. 28. On his daughter Petronilla, see Tillemont I, p. 189.
What of his possible education? The Galileans were bilingual: 1) Aramaic, a corrupt dialect thereof (cf. Mt 26:69-73; Acts 2:7) and 2) Greek. On the general spread of the Greek language, see Josephus, Ant. xii.12.5 on Tyre, xiv.10.2 on Sidon, and xiv.10.3 on Askelon (cf. Hug, II, p. 35). On Caesarea see Josephus, Bell. Jud. iii.9.1; ii.13.7; ii.14.4, especially in the neighborhood of Galilee. On Galilee of the Gentiles see Isaiah 9:1. But what must be taken into account is the Greek cities set up after the time of Alexander in the region. We have the catalogue of the Greek cities defeated by the Jews at Caesarea in Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii.18.1 (see Hug, II, pp. 40sqq. pp. 259sq). Gadara and Hippos were especially Greek cities (Ant. xvi.11.2—Hug, p. 38). On Tiberias as a Greek city see Josephus, Vit. Jos. xii (Hug, p. 39); see Bell. Jud. iii.3.2. As for Jewish encounters with Roman governors notice that the pleadings with Titus by the Jewish Zealots were in Greek—Bell. Jud. vi.6.2 (cf. v.9.2; vi.2.1; vi.6.2). As for the Apostles speaking Greek, see Acts 2:14 for St. Peter, Acts 7:1 sq. for St. Stephen, and for St. Paul Acts 21:40 and Acts 22:1, whose Greek was of exceptional character. For an important statement that speaks to the linguistic state of the times, Josephus, Ant. xx.12.1 after talking about his own skill in Greek adds ‘For our people do not favor those persons who have mastered the speech of many nations, or who adorn their style with smoothness of diction, because they consider that such skill is common to ordinary freemen but that even slaves who so choose may acquire it.’ Josephus is reliable for a general testimony about the linguistic state of things.
The impression left is that the priests in Jerusalem did not highly value linguistic or literary culture, but rather ‘rabbinical’ culture. It was the trade classes that had a larger knowledge and use of Greek, not the learned classes, so Acts 4:13. They may have in other respects been much better educated practically than the Jewish leaders, but they had not the learning from the schools which qualified them to teach. They were not disciples of the schools. Comp. John 7:15. They were the ‘am ha’aretz.
The Galileans were more free from the influence of the priests and scribes, and therefore more likely to learn the Greek language and adopt the customs of their Greek neighbors. According to John Lightfoot (Vol. II, p. 78) there were no priests there—see Bab. Erubhim 5.5—‘The Galileans hear one Master in one language and another in another and the distinctions of language and pronunciation confounded them so that they forgot.’
On the trade of Galileans see Kern I, p. 312. The bearing this has on the genuineness of 1 Peter. The ‘gift of tongues’ was apparently not available for the general preaching of the Gospel (Acts 14:11). Peter had interpreters—Mark (so Papias in Eusebius, H.E. iii.39—for Greek) and Glaucus (so Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vii.17 p. 898—i.e. for Latin). Thus we must concur with the possibility that Peter had aid in composing 1 Peter—see 1 Pet 5:12-13. On Sylvanus see Acts 15:22, obviously from the part that he bears here, he is able to speak Greek. So also he is a companion and fellow-preacher of St. Paul’s in Greece. But in Paul’s case an interpreter was not necessary.
The Galileans however seem to have been bilingual or in some cases of old trilingual, but it is difficult to state the level of interest or knowledge of Greek at this time (see Robert’s discussion on the Gospels). We do have Greek names at Bethsaida—Philip, and Andrew. The general impression about the character of the Galileans is that they were hearty, handy, honest, courageous, Peter being a typical Galilean of the higher type (see Kern I, p. 315).
As for St. Peter’s position in life, note that his house was a large one—Mt 8:4; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38. On his property see Mt 19:27—what he left behind to follow Jesus. On his call see John 1:22 (and Notes on St. John’s Gospel, p. 11). Note that the incident in Mt 4:18; Mark 1:16; Luke 5:1 sqq. is later.
On the Confession, Conversion, and Primacy of St. Peter
On the familiar confession and conversion see Mt 16:18. Jesus is the Son of God, but Simon Βαριωνᾶ—the son of God’s grace (remembering the story of Jonah), as is evident from the words ὅτι σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα οὐκ ἀπεκάλυψέν σοι. Comp. 1 Pet 1:3—ὁ κατὰ τὸ πολὺ αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς ἐλπίδα ζῶσαν (and 1 Pet 1:23).
Jesus says, ‘Thou art Peter and upon this πέτρᾳ.’ The πέτρᾳ is clearly Peter. The original would be Cephas (Aramaic) which includes both πέτρᾳ and Πέτρος. The former is a rock, the latter a place of rock, stone, or the substance rock, stone. In this case it must be Peter himself or something connected with St. Peter—his faith, his constancy, the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets.
There are two ways of regarding the relationship of our Lord to the edifice (built upon it): 1) He is the foundation—see 1 Cor 2:12; 2) He is the chief cornerstone, Eph 2:20. This last concept appears in St. Peter’s Epistle itself—1 Pet 2:5 sqq. But in this case the Apostles are the foundation stone. Cf. Ephesians l.c. to Revelation 21:14—of the New Jerusalem and the Church of Christ glorified.
The prominent position held by St. Peter in these earliest days of the church leads naturally to the question: What is meant by the primacy of St. Peter, and how far are the Romanists justified in the views which they hold? It seems both futile and dangerous to deny this primacy altogether, for it is clearly enunciated in Holy Scripture and this in two ways. Directly and indirectly—or in other words dogmatically and historically—in the account of the promises given to Peter, and in the narrative of his subsequent Acts. Peter is one of the favored three. This however is, of course, inconclusive.
Consider the special prominence given to Peter, and commands addressed to him.
(1) Matthew 16:13-19.
σὺ εἶ Πέτρος. Πέτρα is certainly to be preferred to Πέτρος. The change of gender being easily accounted for (cf. Stanley p. 120), and so not an allusion to a spot or building, in allusion to which Ruskin says, speaking of what he calls the ‘accursed architecture, that mighty place where the seven hills slope to the Tiber, that marks by its dome the central spot where Rome has reversed the words of Christ and as he vivified the stone of the apostleship, she petrifies the apostleship into the stumbling stone.’ (Lectures p. 138)
(2) John 21:15-23.
(3) Luke 5:1-10. Luke 22:31, 32
Allowing then the primacy of St. Peter, we may challenge the Romanist to show that the Bishop of Rome, or the Roman church has a real title to this inheritance.
May we go further?
If we ask the question what happened to St. Peter and his work after the last mention in Acts while Acts 12:17 (ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἕτερον τόπον) has been interpreted to mean that Peter went to Rome, this is most unlikely. Such an important fact would not be slurred over in this way. The simple interpretation is the correct one—he got out of the way of Herod. When we meet him again he is not in the West, he is still in the East. Acts 15:15 (about 51 A.D.) he is in Jerusalem, and shortly after Gal 2:11 he is in Antioch. He could probably remain in Palestine and in the neighboring countries where Jews and Judaic Christians most abounded, thus fulfilling his special function as Apostle of the Circumcision (Gal 2:7).
Was he at Corinth? There is mention of him in 1 Cor 1:12 and 3:22, but this does not imply his presence. His name would naturally be adopted as a party standard. While 1 Cor 9:5 speaks of his journeys, it does not say where. On the other hand, the silence of St. Paul is important, but where we should expect him to mention St. Peter’s labors, if he had labors in the same sphere (cf. 1 Cor 2:6; 2 Cor 1:19; 10:12 sq.). This points to an entire distinctness of sphere (in accordance with Gal 2:19). This language seems altogether inconceivable if St. Peter labored at Corinth, and indeed not natural if he had been at Corinth at all. Furthermore, the silence of St. Paul conforms with the silence of Acts, more especially as regards Corinth. The inference is that up to the close of the period comprised in Acts or thereabouts, St. Peter had confined his labors to the East.
What of what Dionysius says (in Eusebius, H.E. ii.25; Schwegler, p. 72)? But Dionysius or his authorities may have inferred this from St. Paul’s of St. Peter, and it may not rest on any independent tradition. Or it may refer to a later date than St. Paul’s visits recorded in the Acts. It will therefore be at a time subsequent to the Acts that St. Peter turned his steps westwards, if at all. Did he actually visit the West? More especially did he visit Rome? He writes to the churches in Asia Minor. But there is no mention of any personal intercourse thoroughout, indeed nothing suggests it. In 2 Pet 3:2 the correct reading is ὑμῶν, but even if ἡμῶν (T.R.) is the correct reading it does not imply personal intercourse. But Rome?
It is one thing to accept the visit to Rome, and another to accept the Papal legends and pretensions built thereupon. The visit to Rome and martyrdom there, seem to be sufficiently authenticated. Notices combine to this end: 1) 1 Pet 5:13—The interpretation—a church is meant. Note the opening of the letter’s ἐκλεκτοῖς the closing συνεκλεκτή (1 Pet 5:13). 2) the personification, compare 2 John—the opening ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ (2 John 1:1) and the closing τῆς ἐκλεκτῆς (2 John 1:13). Obviously a church is meant throughout the Epistle (cf. 2 John 1:4—the children, 2 John 1:6; 2 John 1:7—the antichrist, going out from us; 2 John 1:10). On the personification of the church cf. the Apocalypse and the Shepherd of Hermas. 2) But what church? Not Babylon in Egypt, though St. Mark’s connection with the Egyptian Church might suggest this. But the Egyptian Babylon was a mere fortress (see Strabo, xvii. p. 807). Therefore, it must refer to either the great Babylon, or Rome. There is no a priori necessity as to why St. Peter should not have been at the great Babylon. But Mark at this time is said to be in the West (Col 4:10; Philem 24; 2 Tim 4:11). Thus the earliest traditions point to Rome as to the scene of his first labors with St. Peter (e.g. Papias, Irenaeus, etc.). Probably therefore we must conclude that Rome is locale.
In regard to the Neronian persecution, and the application of the term Babylon to Rome (as a result), see Rev 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21. It is said that the Apocalypse is prophecy, but such allegorical designations reach far beyond the limitations of prophecy, properly so called (cf. e.g. Edom = Rome, Feubauer [?] Geg [?], p. 425). At this juncture we should consider the Sybilline Oracle v.158 which refers to Βαβυλὼνα Ἰταλίῆς. This comes from a Hebrew Sibylline writer during the time of the Flavians. The quote here is in accordance with the allegorical expressions elsewhere in the Epistle—1 Pet 1:1 παρεπιδήμοις Διασπορᾶς, 1 Pet 2:11—παρεπιδήμους; and Μάρκος ὁ υἱός μου (notice ‘my son’; figurative not τό τέκνον).
Early Tradition. ἐκκλησία added in Aleph. Syr. Peshit., Arm. Vulg. It is generally interpreted of the Church in Rome in early times. See Hippolytus p. 51 (περί Βαβυλὼνος see Hillenb. Zeitschrift xv, p. 355); Origen, Comm. Matt. III p. 440; Clement of Alexandria, Adumbraetiones p. 1007 (IV, p. 56). When we turn to Papias, Irenaeus etc. we shall see that they interpret it in the same way.
John 21:18, 19. It seems to refer to the place and manner of Peter’s death. With it we can supplement the other passages. But it will be said that there is no necessary connection between the two. As a matter of fact, even tradition seems to have separated the two. In no form of tradition do we find the idea that St. Peter was martyred somewhere else other than at Rome. Therefore, the tradition has a value for a purpose.
2 Pet 1:14-15. But the genuineness of this tradition is disputed. But even if the Epistle is not genuine, that perhaps makes the tradition even more valuable for my purpose. The Epistle must be very early, and it expresses the belief of the early Church with respect to St. Peter’s death.
Clement of Rome 5 (circa A.D. 95). Martyrdom is here implied. The two Apostles are connected together, and they alone are mentioned. The writer is a Roman. It was surely true of James, Jesus’ brother, who died about the same time (cf. Peter of Alexandria, Routh [?] iv, p. 34).
Ignatius of Antioch, Romans 4—speaking of his coming martyrdom, he adjures the audience not to try and prevent it from happening and then he says:
I do not enjoin you, as Peter and Paul did. They were Apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am a slave to this very hour. Yet if I shall suffer, then am I a freed-man of Jesus Christ, and I shall rise free in Him. Now I am learning in my bonds to put away every desire (4.3).
Note that he is writing to the Romans, and he singles out Peter and Paul, therefore there must be some special propriety in his doing so, otherwise, why not John? He was a guest of a disciple of John at the time. He was sojourning in the country where John was the prominent name (cf. Polycarp, Phil. 9—see Helg. Zeitschr. xv, p. 354).
Papias, on the authority of the Presbyter John (Eusebius, H.E. iii.39), from perhaps about A.D. 60–70, but written perhaps A.D. 130–40. Whatever be the meaning of the passage, therefore, it is carried very far back. Note: 1) ἑρμηνευτής—this is not Greek but Latin for interpreter. 2) this notice seems to have been connected by Papias with 1 Pet 5:13 because: a) Papias was acquainted with and quoted the First Epistle of Peter, and b) in the context of the passage edited by Eusebius he had already said something about the connection of St. Mark with St. Peter. It is thus natural to connect the two. And 3) Papias was so understood by writers who followed and had his book before them (e.g. Irenaeus).
Dionysius of Corinth (in Eusebius, H.E. ii.25, Schwegler p. 72)—a letter in the time of Bishop Soter (A.D. 166(7)–75(6)). See Lipsius, Chronologie, p. 263. On this letter see Eusebius, H.E. iv.23, p. 148. Here there is an explicit statement.
Muratorian Fragment from about A.D. 170 (Tregelles p. 39). Where the author is speaking about Luke who wrote Acts and adds that he only mentions—‘the individual events that took place in his presence—(37) as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter (38) as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] (39) when he journeyed to Spain.’
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 197–217), Frag. p. 1024 (IV, p. 88 in Klotz) quoted in Eusebius, H.E. iv.16 (p. 215) comp. Ad . . . [?] (IV, p. 56 Klotz). The story is already adorned [?]. Clement’s opportunities. Tertullian. De Prescrip. 36; Scorpiace 15; de Baptismo 4, adv. Marc. Gaius (Hippolytus?) A.D. 199–217. In Eusebius, H.E. ii.25 (p. 72). Origen (in Eusebius, H.E. iii.1—p. 74 Schuyler). And Op. II, p 24 (Delare?). Cyprian etc. The Pseudo-Petrine Writings [Cypr] de bapt. 17. Lactantius, Inst. Div. iv.21
Origen, In Joan xx no.12; Epistle Clem. Ad Jac. 1 On the appointment of Clement as a successor cf. e.g. to the extant Acts of Peter and Paul. No stress can be laid on such sources of information in themselves. But there are some of them very early and it is more probable that they should be grounded in a nucleus of fact (St. Peter’s visit to Rome), than not. At all events, the other testimonies are all quite independent and not to be regarded lightly (cf. Hilgenfeld, Zeitschrift XV, p. 351, and Renan, Ant. p. 182sq.). Caution—in the Romish controversy, it is wise not to adopt principles that render history impossible.
But was Peter bishop of Rome for twenty-five years, or bishop of Rome at all? St. Peter was martyred in A.D. 67–68. Some would put this a bit earlier, but the data supports the later date. Therefore, on the twenty-five year supposition, the chronology must have begun in A.D. 42. So Jerome, Vir Ill. 1 who dates it to the ‘secundo Claudii Imperatii anno.’ The second year of Claudius was A.D. 42–43, the fourteenth year of Nero, A.D. Oct. 67–June 68. This would be somewhere before Acts xii. The death of Herod Agrippa related in Acts 12:21 sqq. took place in A.D. 44. Whence then the silence of Acts about this most important event in the missionary labors of St. Peter? He appears again on the scene in Acts 15. He says much about Paul’s work amongst the Gentiles. He alludes to the conversion of Cornelius etc. in Acts 15:7. But neither he nor anyone there speaks of his preaching in the metropolis of heathendom. And nothing more is said about him in Acts.
St. Paul goes to Rome in A.D. 60–61, his procedure is all as unlikely as possible, if an earlier Apostle had been living there off and on for some eighteen years. See Acts 28:17 sq. and verse Acts 28:20. St. Peter, it will be remembered, is the special Apostle of the Circumcision. Notice the reference to two whole years of dialogue with Jews in Acts 28:30-31. The Acts extends over a period of about twenty years from the time when St. Peter’s Roman episcopate began. Yet there is not a word of it.
St. Paul’s Epistles are not only equally silent, they are more than silent. In Galatians 2:17-18 the division of labor is confirmed. Yet according to the hypothesis in question, St. Peter was the head of the first church in Gentile Christendom. The meeting was held in A.D. 51, with the Galatian letter probably A.D. 57–58. Romans in any case was written about A.D. 58. And there is no mention of Peter notwithstanding the long list of salutations (Rom 16). And obviously, St. Paul writes as if the church in Rome had never been visited by an Apostle (see Rom 1:11-14; 16:16, 18, 20 sq.).
Then there are the letters written from Rome by St. Paul—Philippians, Colossians, Ephesians, Philemon in A.D. 61–63. Many salutations, but no mention of Peter, though Mark is mentioned. In 2 Timothy we are up to about A.D. 67 and it exhibits the same phenomenon. Therefore, St. Peter’s visit to Rome must have been brief, and probably during St. Paul’s absence, a period which is not represented either by the Acts or his Epistles. But how came then the story of the twenty-five years? What of the list of Popes and papal succession?
Mommsen pointed out from internal evidence that the earlier part of the list ending A.D. 230 came from a different source. The name of the councils is differently given. But what was this other source for the papal sucession list? Mommsen’s answer is the Chronicles of Hippolytus. It is actually anonymous, and chronicles from Adam to 235 A.D. It was originally written in Greek, and there are two extant versions. The papal list agrees in all particular with the Chronicles of Hippolytus (see Salman [?] p. 93sqq.). The first part of the manuscript begins with a reference to the ‘episcoporum Roma’ but this part is lost. But there can be no doubt it [was] present in the Liberian catalogue. Hort says this list of bishops was no part of the Chronicles of Hippolytus (see the Academy Sept. 15th 1871, the article on Lipsius’ Chronologie). Here is the list (see Lipsius, p. 265, the date of the crucifixion thought to be that of Hippolytus):
Petrus xxv.i.ix
A.D.
Linus xii.iv.xii
A.D.
Clemens ix.xi.xii
A.D.
Cletus vi.x
A.D.
Anaclitus xii.x.iii
A.D.
(Eu)Aristus xiii.vii.ii
A.D.
Alexander vii.ii.i
A.D.
Now the object of these catalogues were to meet Gnostic errors, by exhibiting the succession as a testimony to the orthodox tradition. Now the earliest known catalogues are those of Hegisippus. Eusebius, H.E. iv.22 (p. 145—Schwegler). Irenaeus iii.3.1, perhaps founded on Hegisippus before (iii.1.1) spoke of St. Peter and St. Paul as founding the church of Rome. He says that they passed on the Episcopate to Linus, who is mentioned in 2 Timothy by Paul. Anacletus succeeds Linus, and Clement is said to succeed him, the Clement who wrote the letter to the Corinthians. There is then mention of Euarestus and Alexander. According to all traditions, the letter of Clement is placed during the reign of Domitian, and according to the internal evidence of the letter itself. But Hippolytus has a somewhat different list (see above). There are two changes: 1) Cletus split up into two; and 2) Clemens placed before Cletus and Anaclitus. Now Salman’s [?] solution is that Hippolytus had before him the list of bishops in the traditional order with those from Linus on with the numbers of years given, AND he had before him the Clementine forgery that represented Clemens as having been consecrated by St. Peter, and he believed it. It was certainly believed before his time (e.g. Tertullian de Praesc. 32 which says Peter ordained Clemens). But when one added together the numbers of the dates, this brought back the accession of Linus to the Episcopate to A.D. 55. Linus was bishop for twelve years (see Eusebius, H.E. iii.13). Therefore, his Episcopate was from A.D. 55–67. And St. Peter was known, or generally believed to have been martyred in A.D. 67–68. The common order however puts Cletus next to Linus and therefore left no time for the consecration of Clement by St. Peter. He therefore disposed of the difficulty by transposing the order and placing Clemens next to Linus, so that he would be consecrated by St. Peter to the Episcopal office immediately prior to Peter’s martyrdom. Thus we get in the Liberian catalogue Peter A.D. 55, Linus A.D. 67, Clement A.D. 76, Cletus A.D. 83, Anaclitus A.D. 95. In Hort’s view this was not Hippolytus’ catalogue (source). This does not affect the particular solution. The Roman church has continued and still continues today with the old order of its bishops Linus, Cletus, Clemens. If the list be anonymous, it still very extensively prevailed and exerted an enormous influence.
But what results from this list? The crucifixion takes place A.D. 29, Linus becomes bishop A.D. 55. Neglecting the parts of years, as these are habitually neglected in the list, we still have twenty-five years to account for. Now the object of Hippolytus was to trace the succession back to Christ. He therefore lists Peter as having received his consecration from our Lord, and as having himself consecrated Linus. Is it just as an Anglican having the succession in England and going back after Augustine of Canterbury, would name Gregory the Great and his predecessors, as links in the succession, not meaning that they were archbishops of Canterbury?
But two things he did not intend: 1) he did not intend that Peter was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years; and 2) he did not mean that Peter died in the year A.D. 55. He must have known well enough that Peter died after the Neronian persecution but left it out. He probably accepted the common date of A.D. 67 or 68. Compare this to the Liberian catalogue, altered and supplemented as it obviously is, referring to the death of Jesus in 29, and the blessed Peter’s episcopate, and his securing of the succession. Here false consuls are given for the year of Peter’s death, but the consuls are probably no part of the original list. At all events, the mention of the simultaneous martyrdom of Paul, suggests that in its first form, it suggested that the original notice referred to a later date. Thus, the twenty-five years origin is the interval between the Ascension and the accession of Linus, supposed to have taken place in
a.d.
55. But Peter’s death was known to have been in
a.d.
67 or 68, and the twenty-five years was afterwards referred to his Roman episcopate, and counted back from the date of his death.
If this solution is correct, the twenty-five years in the orginal form had reference to a false chronology, which placed the twelve years of Linus during the lifetime of St. Peter. But it was afterwards transferred to a truer chronology which placed these twelve years after Peter’s death, hence his episcopate is from A.D. 42-67 or 68. It is thus Eusebius who is the first who makes him go to Rome during the reign of Claudius. Jerome then is the first to date the episcopate from
a.d.
42-67.
There are other points in the tradition, for example about the conflict with Simon Magus. Due to the Pseudo-Petrine writers: 1) the conflict in Samaria (Acts 8:9 sqq.); 2) the conflict in Syria and Palestine. The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. The Recognitions refer to Simon’s intended visit to Rome, and Peter’s also (Recognitions iii.63-64 comp. i.74); 3) the conflict in Rome. About Simon in Rome we have Justin’s error (Apol. i.26). The idea of flying was based on the incident of one Icarus (see Suetonius, Nero 12, the place was the same—the Campus Martius, see Acts of Paul at Phil.). His error was propagated but not reported [?] by Hippolytus (comp. Recognitions ii.9). Was this error the origin of the story about Simon’s visit to Rome? Possibly, but perhaps not. He was likely enough to go there like any other religious pretender. Did St. Peter meet him there? That we cannot say. The story about Simon involves his magic, attempt to fly, and St. Peter’s prayers. See Acts of Peter and Paul, 32sq. (p. 13sq. Tisch.). This is a late link but perhaps founded on an earlier one.
What of the famous Domine quo vadis legend? See Origen, Ioannes. xx. no. 12 (IV, p. 322). ἄνωθεν μέλλω σταυρωθῆναι is quoted, from the Acts of Paul. Pseudo-Linus p. 70 [Martyrium Petri, Lipsius 1:7-8]—‘Domine, quo vadis. Respondit ei Christus: Romam venio iterum crucifigi.’ The tradition occurs in the present Acts of Peter and Paul no. 82, (p. 36, Tisch.). It is also related by Ambrose.
The Martyrdom
First of all, the St. Pietro in Vincoli has nothing to do with Peter’s chains in Rome. The Mamertine prison may figure in the discussion. As to the mode of crucifixion see Tacitus, Annals xv.44 (on Christ’s death by crucifixion, but all the crucifixion of Christians). See also Seneca, Dialog. iii.2.2—‘Can anyone be found who would prefer wasting away in pain dying limb by limb, or letting out his life drop by drop, rather than expiring once for all? Can any man be found willing to be fastened to the accursed tree, long sickly, already deformed, swelling with ugly wounds on shoulders and chest, and drawing the breath of life amid long drawn-out agony? He would have many excuses for dying even before mounting the cross.’ St. Paul of course was beheaded, which is natural for a Roman citizen (Eusebius, H.E. v.1). Origen first relates it κατά κεφαλῆς. He probably got it from the Acts of Paul, which he quotes there. Thus it is an early tradition.
The Vatican—its place. This is a very likely place, where the circus of Nero was (see Acts of Peter and Paul, 84). See Pseudo-Linus p. 71 [Martyrium beati Petri apostoli a Lino, section 10] (‘ad locum qui appellatur iuxta obeliscum Neronis, in monte’). On the circus of Caligula and the obelisk of Nero see Birn’s Rome, p. 270. It was apparently called the circus of Nero because it was so much visited by him. St. Paul’s martyrdom by contrast is placed elsewhere, on the Appian Way. See Eusebius, H.E. ii.25—the place where they suffered rather than the place of their graves. There is an old tradition that Peter was buried at the catacombs.
The Time of the Martyrdom—1) either during the interval between St. Paul’s first and second visits to Rome, say A.D. 63–66, or 2) after the Second Epistle to Timothy was written. This accords with the provenance of the Epistle which was written after Ephesians in A.D. 62–63, and also after the Neronian persecution had broken out in July of A.D. 64. The legend says that both St. Peter and St. Paul died on the same day—the fourteenth year of Nero, June 29th (i.e. A.D. 68). There are obvious objections to this: 1) Nero was no longer living by June 29th; 2) there are reasons for suspecting that June 29th is not the day of the martyrs but the day of the common depositing of their bones at one of their mausoleums. The 22nd of February is given in one authority (see Tillemont I, p. 533), so this tradition may have been the origin of the simultaneous martyrdom tradition. 3) One early tradition speaks of St. Peter suffering on the same day as St. Paul but in the previous year (e.g. the Prudentius passage on Peter and Paul from the latter half of the 4th century). Augustine too refers to it—Sermon 381 ‘de natali Apost. Petr. et Pauli’ (V, p. 1481A see more in Tillemont p. 533). This seems obviously to be a device to reconcile two different things: 1) the known fact that they did not perish at the same time; and 2) the fact that this day, supposed to be the day of their death but really the day of their deposition or burial was celebrated together. Certainly, if they had perished on the same day, this form of tradition is inexplicable. The different places of their death point to different times.
St. Peter may have come to Rome after St. Paul left, perhaps while he was in Spain. The Muratorian canon connects it to the westward trip. He may have perished in the spent wave of the Neronian persecution. The place and time of his death points to this, say A.D. 65–68. As for the tradition, it places the death of two Apostles in the twelfth year of Nero (i.e. October 65–October 66 A.D.). So Epiphanius xxvii.6—‘in the twelfth year of Nero.’ So then perhaps Peter went to Rome in A.D. 64, and was martyred in 65 or 66.
The Epistle Itself
To whom is it addressed, Jewish or Gentile Christians? Many critics, guided by the use of the term ‘diaspora’ suppose the audience is Jewish. But certainly there is internal evidence that Gentiles are addressed—1 Pet 1:14, 18—impossible as spoken by a Jew to a Jew. Then there is 1 Pet 2:10, 25; 4:3—the ἡμῖν of the Received Text disappears, and therefore we understand ὑμῖν based on the preceding ὑμεῖς. What then is the meaning of ‘diaspora’? It refers to the Christian ‘dispersion.’ The ‘diaspora’ in existence in a lost world. Christians are παρεπιδήμοι (1 Pet 1:1), not ‘among the Dispersion’ but ‘belonging to the Dispersion’ (comp. 1 Pet 2:11). This is a transference to the Israel after the Spirit from the Israel after the flesh. So too 1 Pet 2:9, 10—ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, νῦν δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ and 1 Pet 3:6—ἧς ἐγενήθητε τέκνα ἀγαθοποιοῦσαι.
The Time—When was it written? A season of persecution, see 1 Pet 1:6 (λυπηθέντες ἐν ποικίλοις πειρασμοῖς), 1 Pet 2:12; 3:13-16; 4:12-16; 5:6, 9. Not desultory persecution, but more or less systematic. The leading purport of the letter is to console and encourage those under the fiery trial. There is no other book in the canon so burdened with the subject of persecution, other than the Apocalypse. Persecution is in the atmosphere. Was it part of the Neronian persecution? Nothing previous answers to this condition. Its focus chiefly at Rome, the dogs let loose by the Imperial master. But it was felt in the provinces, most especially in Asia Minor. See Rev 1:9, of St. John himself, and the churches in Rev 2; 3, especially Rev 2:10-11. Rev 2:13—Ἀντιπᾶς ὁ μάρτυς μου ὁ πιστός μου. Comp. Rev 3:11; 4:11; 20:4 and Renan, Le Antichrist p. 183. Therefore, not before July A.D. 64. This agrees with other indications, writings known to the author, for example:
A.D.
Rom 12:1—see 1 Pet 2:5
Rom 12:2—see 1 Pet 1:14
Rom 12:3-8—see 1 Pet 4:10, 11
Rom 12:9, 10—see 1 Pet 1:22; 2:17
Rom 12:14-19—see 1 Pet 3:8-12
Rom 13:1-7—see 1 Pet 2:13-14
also
Rom 4:24—see 1 Pet 1:21
Rom 6:7—see 1 Pet 4:1, 2
Rom 6:18—see 1 Pet 2:24
Rom 8:18—see 1 Pet 5:1
Rom 8:3, 4—see 1 Pet 3:22
Rom 9:33—see 1 Pet 2:6 sqq.
EPHESIANS (A.D. 62 or thereabouts). The whole should be compared with 1 Peter.
Eph 1:4
1 Pet 1:3
Eph 1:3; 2:2
1 Pet 1:4, 5
Eph 1:10, 18
1 Pet 1:14
Eph 2:3
1 Pet 1:18
Eph 4:17 sq.
1 Pet 2:5
Eph 2:21, 22
1 Pet 2:18 sqq.
Eph 6:5
1 Pet 3:1 sqq.
Eph 5:22
1 Pet 3:7 sqq.
Eph 5:25
1 Pet 3:22
Eph 1:20, 21
1 Pet 4:3
Eph 2:2; 4:17
Comp. also the Epistle of St. James
Therefore 1 Peter written after about A.D. 62, 63.
St. Paul’s Life
(main facts—release from captivity A.D. 63–64, martyrdom 67-68)
Notice the reciprocal silence: a) they are not together at Rome; b) did not clash in Asia Minor. Though he presumed that St. Paul was there in the one place, he was in direct communication with the other. These three lines of investigation point to the same conclusion with regard to date. St. Paul’s release was before
a.d.
64, and his martyrdom about
a.d.
67–68. Meanwhile (in between) there is his visit to Spain. These Epistles therefore must probably be placed either during this (Spanish) visit (when Paul was separated from the East), or after his death. Perhaps on the whole the former is more likely and more in accord with the tradition.
So what is to be placed earlier? The ordination of Linus by St. Peter? According to the view preferred, St. Peter was martyred before St. Paul. Yet we have 2 Tim 4:21, on this supposition, after Peter’s death. Nevertheless, Linus is not singled out, but mentioned after others. It is not probable that he was then bishop, in the modern sense of bishop. The earliest form of the tradition in Irenaeus iii.3.3 says ‘The blessed apostles then having founded and built the church, commited the ministry of the episcopate to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in his Epistles to Timothy.’ Notice it says, ‘the Apostles’ not St. Peter specially. The later attribution to St. Peter does accord with the general tendency of later legends to accumulate (and focus) everything on St. Peter, as ‘the prince of the Apostles.’ This ordination of Linus may have been one of the latest acts of St. Paul. The only result however on which we can safely depend is that after the death of the Apostles, Linus held the chief place in the government of the church in Rome, was (we may say), bishop of Rome, though the bishop cannot be separated from his presbyters by such a direct line of demarcation, as is later true.
Circumstances then had obscured or obliterated the boundary line between the spheres of the two Apostles, laid down in Gal 2:7-9. St. Paul was occupied in missionary work in the far West (Spain). The Asiatic Christians were sorely tired of persecution. St. Peter was prompted [?] out of his prominence to address these words of exhortation and comfort. Accordingly, he writes. Their conduct under persecution may be regarded as the main topic of the letter. Compare 1 Pet 5:12—ἔγραψα, παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰς ἣν στῆτε. The Gospel that they had received from their teachers, especially St. Paul.
On its Genuineness. It was never once questioned until the present [i.e., nineteenth] century. The Paulicianus (on the authority of Petrus Siculus Hist. Man. p. 17—‘Binas vero catholicas . . . Petri principiis apostolo . . .’). Alford (p. 114) treats this as an insignificant example. It is not an exception at all. They (the Paulicianii) rejected the Epistles not because they were not by St. Peter, but because they were his. They regarded him as no apostle because he had denied Christ. Similarly with Marcion. Citing Theodore of Mopsuetia, is a mistake. The First Epistle of Peter is not mentioned. [Check his commentaries to see whether there is any reference to 1 Peter.]
The testimony about the genuineness of this letter is very early and of the most satisfactory kind. See Origen in Eusebius, H.E. vi.25 and H.E. iii.3 (on the second Epistle of Peter), Clement c.36 (cf. 1 Pet 2:9 and see Zahn, Hermas, p. 478); Ignatius, ad Magnes. viii.9 is doubtful, but Polycarp, a bishop of Asia Minor, is indisputable; Papias, with his probable reference to Mark, Irenaeus iii.17.4 (see 1 Pet 2:2—elder in Irenaeus?), Letter to Diogenetus, Shepherd of Hermas (the date?—see Zahn, p. 421sq.—on 1 Pet 5:7—see Zahn, p. 438; on 1 Pet 1:6 see Zahn, p. 429; on 1 Pet 3:20—see Zahn, p. 425; on 1 Pet 4:14, see Zahn, p. 429). Then there is Melito to Antonius Caesar p. 51—‘an eternal substance which fadeth not away’ (see 1 Pet 1:4), and Theophilus ii.34 citing 1 Pet 1:18. As for the Muratorian Canon, it was probably mutilated. Then there is the Old Latin and the Peshitto. What of the Heretics? There was not very much in 1 Peter which would lend itself to Gnostic speculation. On the Simonians see Hippolytus, Haer. vi.10, and Theodotus as well.
Turning to the Internal Evidence, since the External Evidence created the very sharpest presentation in its favor, the objection against the genuineness should be really valid to weigh against it. What are these objections based on the Internal Evidence?
The Pauline Character of the Document
This objection however rests on a petitio principii, namely the attempt of the Tübingen school to reconstruct Christian history on the basis of a few verses—Gal 1:18; 2:6-9 (but here it is a matter of a separation of spheres, not a difference of teaching), Gal 2:11-21. It assumes throughout that St. Peter was at one with St. Paul in belief. He is only reproached for inconsistency in his practice. But if there was no such fundamental difference in belief, why should St. Peter not have been influenced by St. Paul’s modes of expressing the truths of Christianity? This is much more natural than the contrary.
Consider St. Peter’s character: 1) essentially open to impression. The stronger intellect and obvious energy of St. Paul would not fail to make itself felt; 2) his opportunities to be influenced see a) personal intercourse at Jerusalem with Paul—first visit, third visit, and at Antioch; b) Paul’s Epistles. For example the Corinthian Epistles mention St. Peter’s name and influence at Corinth. It is probable he should have seen these letters which were regarded as weighty and powerful and which produced so much effect. But there were two letters above all which he would be likely to have seen—Peter was staying at Rome so Romans (its circular character), and Ephesians, addressed to these very Asiatic churches which 1 Peter addresses. Likewise consider Ephesians’ circular character (copies circulated without any special opening address to the Ephesians). These are the two Epistles of which 1 Peter shows the greatest knowledge. 3) Common Friends—Silas, Mark. Silas had been with St. Paul at Antioch and Jerusalem on his second missionary journey, was with him for several years during the most active part of his life, he takes part in the superscription of 1-2 Thessalonians. Mark was with Paul on his first missionary journey and again in Rome (Col 4:10; Philem 24), so that he was fresh from dealing with things with St. Paul when he found St. Peter.
But how far is the document Pauline? It is very unlike St. Paul’s own Epistles, not Pauline in the sense that Hebrews is Pauline. There are indeed reminiscences of St. Paul’s language and his thoughts, but there is nothing distinctly Pauline. Yes ‘faith’ is mentioned in 1 Pet 1:5, 7, 9, 21; 5:9 but it is in all the Apostolic writings (e.g. the Apocalypse). It is not emphasized in 1 Peter nor connected with works. Here it is as much steadfastness, reliance on God as anything else. In short, it has no special prominence. Grace is frequently mentioned but not contrasted with Law. The most Pauline passage is 1 Pet 2:24. It has coincidence with Rom 6:2, 10, 18, but it may be explained by Gal 2:19, 20 (see Lightfoot, Gal. p. 339). The ransom/atonement is as strong in St. Peter as St. Paul. [N.B. The manuscript, sadly, breaks off here. We have not found the additional missing pages of the introduction. We do know, however, there were only two more pages, as this page was numbered by Lightfoot as p. 57, and the commentary proper begins on p. 60. (BW3)]