• E.fi. J. Weiss, Der erste Korintherbrief, Gottingen, 1910, p. 15 1.; K. Lake, op. cil. p. 1271.; not to mention earlier authorities.
his superiority in other respects might not cau.se him to be ' exalteil over-much.' But in the ulti- mate and crucial test of the new religion's power — ability to perform signs and wonders and miracles — he had tuUy displayed the qualifications of the true apostle. Whether he means to imply that all these credentials of his are set over against similar claims put forward by his opponents, or whether he is emphasizing his own superior qualifi- cations ('are they ministers of Clirist? ... I more ! '), he does not dclinitely state ; but quite apart from this uncertainty, the characteristics of his opponents are clearly portrayed. Their criti- cism of St. Paul for failure to take support from the Corinthian Church would seem at first sight to identify them with those sectaries mentioned in 1 Co 9^"-, and so they would be a continuation of the Cephas-party. This view has been generally adopted by Tiibingen scholars, who also identify these factionists with the Christ-party and make them all a continuation of the ultra - Jewish 'Petrine' movement which is assumed to be everywhere opposed to St. Paul. But such a conclusion seems wholly untenable. Even identi- fication with the Cephas-party is very questionable. Those features of 1 Co 9, which there suggested a connexion with Peter, viz. reference to the ' weak ' and St. Paul's conciliatory attitude, are entirely lacking in 2 Co 10 ff. J urthermore, St. Paul's wholesale criticism of these later opponents is quite different both in spirit and content from that which he metes out to Peter on any previous occasion, not excepting even the aggravating situation at Antioch. If the troublers of 2 Cor. are a continuation of the Cephas-party, they have departed so far from the position of Peter that the bond of attachment between him and them consists in little more than a name. If, on the other hand, they are the lineal descendants of the Judaizers, who have already caused St. Paul so much trouble in Galatia, it becomes still more improbable that Peter is to be connected in any essential way with their propaganda. Several of their characteristics favour identification with the Judaizers.* They were Jews, they claimed full apostolic authentication, and they were ' Christ's ' ; but the astonishing thing is that the question of circumcision is not mentioned, and there is no hint of any discussion about faith versus works of the Law — questions which were central in St. Paul's controversy with the Judaizers. It is commonly said that for policy's sake the disturbers had sup- pressed these features of their propaganda in the strongly Gentile atmosphere of Corinth ; but whetlier that neglect would not have left them without any real mission is a serious question. If still another explanation, to the effect that we have here to do with a Jewish theosophical or antinomian tendeney,t is accepted, Peter must be still further removed from any connexion with this faction.
Although we have found the NT record of Peter's later activities very meagre and obscure at many points, we are not to imagine that he played no important r61e in the history of Christianity during this period. His greatest significance prob- ably lay in his missionary labours, carried on not only in Palestine but also among the Jews of the Dispersion, although in regions quite unknown to us at present. In this work he must have had some contact with Gentiles, particularly with those known as 'God-fearers.' Later tradition
* This view, which has had various adherents, has perhaps been argTied most fully by W. Beyschlag in SK xxxviii. 2 [1865] 217-276 and xliv. 4 [1871)636-676. Of. the more recent state- ment by B. W. Bacon in Exp, 8th ser., viii. [1914] .sn9-415.
f Most recently advocated by \V. Liitgert, ' Freiheitspredict und Schwarmgeister in Korinth,' in Beitrdfje zur Forderung christl. Theot. xii. [Gutersloh, 1908J ; K. Lake, op. cit. p. 222 fi.
PETER
PETER
199
made Mark and Glaukias his interpreters, but we are not sure that lie did not know, or ultimately learn, sufficient Greek for conversation with Gentiles when occasion required. His sympathies doubtless were on the side of a Jewish inter] ireta- tion of Christianity's mission, !but he certainly was not a vigorous ' Judaizer,' and there was no such wide breach between him and St. Paul as has sometimes been imagined. While the Judaizers, or other opponents of St. Paul, may often have claimed the authority of the Jerusalem leaders, this claim was sometimes quite factitious and largely a misrepresentation of Peter's real position.
5. Peter in tradition outside the NT.— It is not surprising that a person of Peter's prominence, whose career had been so incompletely described in the NT, should have been made the subject of a vast amount of later tradition. This material has often been collected and interpreted, but, since much of it has little or no historical value, only the more important items will be treated in the present connexion. These sources, roughly classiKed, are (1) data from the Church Fathers or from catalogues of bishops and martyrs, (2) stories bearing the general title of apocryphal Acts, and (3) the so-called ' Clementine ' literature — the Homilies, the Recognitions, and the Epitome (an abridgment of the Homilies). The materials in the first division are so varied, fragmentary, and widely scattered, that they cannot easily be sub- jected to specific description ; but the Acts and the Clementines are distinct bodies of literature whose chief characteristics may be briefly noted.*