* Eus. HE πι. xi.: μετὰ τὴν ᾿Ιαχώβου μαρτυρίαν καὶ τὴν αὐτίκα. γινομίνην ἅλωσιν τῆς ᾿Ἰερουσαλὴμ λόγος κατέχει τῶν ἀπόστόλων κα. τῶν τοῦ χυρίου μαθητῶν τοὺς εἰσέτι τῷ βίω λειπομένους ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ πανταχόθιν συνιλθεῖν χιτιλ. Eusebius places the death of St. James immediately before the siege of Jerusalem, according to the statement of Hegesippus (ap. HH τι. xxiii. 18). Josephus (Ant. xx. ix. 1), however, puts it between the death of Festus and the arrival of Albinus. It seems that the latest date which can be assigned to Albinus’ entrance on his office is the summer of 62 (Schurer, HJP τ. ii. p. 188 n.).
t Actus Petri x.: [Simon] me tantum suasit ut statuam Ul ponerem, suscribtioni tali; ‘Simoni iuueni deo.’
PRIER, FIRST EPISTLE
should go to Rome when the expiration of the twelve appointed years set him free to leave Jeru- salem (Actus Petri v. ed. Lipsius Pp. 49). Some- what thus does it seem probable that the legend ew, and, as was natural, assumed somewhat ifferent forms—e.g. Simon in the Clementines is rather the heretic, in the Petrine Acts the magi- cian. The final stage in the evolution of the story was reached when Simon was utilized by the Ebionites for a covert attack on St. Paul.
The iod which succeeded the Council at Jerusalem.—Setting aside, then, the Simonian legend as historically worthless, we are brought to the question—What is the probable account of St. Peter’s life after the events at Antioch related by St. Paul in Gal 2 (i.e. probably A.D. 50) and St. Peter’s arrival in Rome (i.e. probably A.D. 61). The absence of any trace of personal knowledge of the Churches in Asia Minor in the letter which the apostle addressed to them is a strong argu- ment that he had not visited those districts. Though the tradition which connects St. Peter with the Syri Antioch, and makes him the organizer of the Church there, does not (a from the Clementine literature) meet us before the time of Origen, yet in itself it is probable. St. Paul’s narrative in Gal 2 is too incidental and too little to St. Peter’s credit to have originated a legend. On the other hand, it is natural to sup- pose that the Clementine literature, especially if its Bizthplece was Syria, located the xpostie’s con- flict with Simon in towns in which a still living tradition γτεβεσυθα the memory of St. Peter’s activity. e are most faithful to the suggestions of the somewhat scanty evidence if we suppose that, after he ceased to make Jerusalem his home, St Peter laboured in the towns of Syria, and not improbably made the Syrian Antioch the centre of his work.
It may be useful to state probable results in a tabular form—
A.D, 29-35 Ministry at Jerusalem : towards the close of the period a visit to Samaria (Ac 8), 35-44 Close of the ministry at Jerusalem: a mis- sionary journey in which periods of some- what protracted residence at Lydda, Joppa, Cesarea, and probably other Syrian towns, had a place: somewhat frequent visits to Je em (Ac 113, Gal 1.5, Ac 125%), 44-61 Work in Syrian towns with Antioch as its centre: at least one visit to Jerusalem in 49 (Ac 157), but such visits few. $1-64 Work at Rome, interrupted probably by a visit to Jerusalem (Eus. HZ Ul. xi.): martyrdom shortly after the fire at Rome in July 64. : Lyrranatuns.—See at the end of the article on 2 Peter. F, H. CHASE.
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.