Of the remaining Christian literature produced in apostolic times, the Gospels and Acts are the most important for our present purpose. In the first part of Acts, Peter is the leader of the apostolic company, and in the Gospels he occupies a position of prominence, commensurate with the dominant part he subsequently played in the life of the early Christian community. Remembering the ample attestation of Peter's prominence given l)y his contemporary St. Paul, it is not at all sur- prising that the evangelists, in selectin" gospel tradition and giving it written form, shoiild men- tion Peter frequently and assign him a position second only to that of Je.su.s. His name does not appear in any of the non-Marcan sections common to Matthew and Luke {i.e. in the Logia [Q]), but in Mark he is a conspicuous figure from first to last. He, with his brother Andrew, is the first to answer Jesus' call to discipleship (1'^) ; they en- tertain Him at their home in Capernaum, where He heals Simon's mother-in-law (!"*'•); and the company of the disciples is now known as ' Simon and those with him' (P° ). He heads the list of the Twelve (3'"), he is named first among the favoured few to witness the raising of Jairus' daughter (5^'), he is granted similar favours at the time of the Transfiguration (9-), and in Gethsemane on the night of the betrayal (li*'), and it is to him in particular that the women are instructed to announce the resurrection of Jesus (16'). On several occasions he is chief spokesman for the disciples, and is mentioned first among those receiving private instructions or explanations (8-" 9° 10^ IP' 13'). Notices which reflect somewhat unfavourably upon him are also preserved. Al- though he is the first of the Twelve to affirm belief in Jesus' Messiahship, his failure to understand the true Messianic programme calls forth a sharp rebuke from Jesus (8''-'-) ; he is found asleep when left on duty in Gethsemane (14") ; and during the course of Jesus' trial Peter persistently denies his Master (14='>-»''-").
With the exception of a few alterations and supplements, Matthew and Luke take over most of the Marcan statements regarding Peter. Matthew omits the paragraph in which 'Simon and those with him ' seek Jesus to tell Him that the people of Capernaum desire His return to the city (Mk 1^), nothing is said of Peter's accompany- ing Jesus when the latter raised the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5"), and Peter's name is expunged from the instructions given to the women by the angel at the tomb of Jesus (Mk 16'). These omis- sions are relatively insignificant when compared with the main body of Marcan material which
PETER
PETl'lK
1U3
Matthew has presprveil. The adiiitional data of Matthew are more important, especially the jjara- graph supplementing Mark's account of Peter's contession (Alt 16""'"). In comparison with this incident, the other chief Petrine additions of Matthew — Peter's walking on the water (14-"'-), and the story of the coin found in the tish's mouth (IT'-'*'") — are of only secondary interest. Into Mark's narrative of Peter's confes- sion, otherwise copied rather closely, Matthew interjects three verses, ascribing Peter's excej)- tionnl perceptive powers to revelation, designat- ing him the corner-.stone of the Church, and com- mitting to his keeping the keys of the Kingdom. These statements are manifestly Mattliu^'in inser- tions, for they do not stand in Mark, wliich Matthew is copj'ing in both the preceding and the following contexts, nor do they appear in Luke, where the Marcan narrative at this point is also followed. But from what source the First Evan- gelist derived his information, and whether the words were actually sjjoken by Jesus, are much- debated problems. The balance of critical opinion at present inclines to tlie view that this tradition arose subsequentlj' to the death of Jesus and at a time when the tirst vivid expectations of an im- minent catastrophic end of the present world were being displaced by a growing interest in ecclesi- asticism. However this may be, it is perfectly clear from Matthew's language that Peter had lost none of the prestige which was his in St. Paul's daj', while his exact position with reference to all other Christians and to the Christian organization itself has been more specifically defined.
Luke furnishes scarcely any additional data to shed light upon the apostolic estimate of Peter. The Marcan account of the disciples' call is omitted in favour of another tradition somewhat richer in descriptive details (Lk 5'-"; cf. Mk l"'-^'') ; and in the account of Peter's denial Luke seems to be following a slightly dili'erent source, yet the varia- tions are formal rather than essential so far as the portrayal of Peter is concerned (Lk 22''''- ; cf. Mk 54=6-72^ In copying Mark's account of the Coesarea- Philippi incident, Luke omits the closing verses which tell of Jesus' upbraiding Peter for his pre- sumption in attempting to regulate the Messiah's conduct (Mk S'-"-)- Similarly, in Luke's version of the Gethsemane incident Peter is not singled out for relmke as in Mark (Lk 22* ; cf. Mk 14^'). Nor does Luke report the special message of the angel to Peter, telling him that he will see the Risen Lord in Galilee (Lk 24' ; cf. Mk 16'), becau.se Jjuke records only Judtean appearances ; but he does note that the first appearance was made to Peter (Lk24«).