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).