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)