informed. In the next century there is the testimony that both took about their wives, who acini as their CO-
of Caius, the liberal and learned Roman presbyter adjutors in ministering to women at their own homes;
(who speaks of Peter's tomb in the Vatican), that of ] by their means the doctrine of the Lord penetrated with-
Origen, Tertullian, ami of the ante- and post-Nicene out scandal into the privacy of women's apartments."
fathers, without a single exception. In short, the Peter's wife is believed, on the same authority, to have
churches most nearly connected with Rome, and those Buffered martyrdom, and to have been supported in the
least affected by its influence, which was as yet but in- hour of trial by her husband's exhortation. Some crit-
considerable in the East, concur in the statement that ics believe that she is referred to in the salutation at
Peter was a joint founder of that Church, and Buffered the end of the First Epistle of Peter. The apostle is
death in thai city. What the early fathers do not as- said to have employed interpreters. La-Hide-, an early
Bert, and indeed implicitly deny, is that. Peter was the Gnostic, professed to have derived his system fromGlau-
sole founder or resident head of that Church, or that cia-. one of these interpreters. This show- al least the
the See of Lome derived from him any claim to su- impression that the apostle did not understand Greek,
premacy: at the utmost they place him on a footing of or did not speak it with fluency. Of far more impor-
equality with Paul. That fact is sufficient for all pur- tance is the statement thai Si. Mark wrote hi- Gospel
poses of fair controversy. The denial of the state- under the teaching of Peter, or that lie embodied in
incut- resting on Buch evidence seems almost to in- thai Gospel the Bubstance of our apostle's oral instruc-
dicate an uneasy consciousness, truly remarkable in tions. This statement rests upon such an amount of those who believe that they have, and who in fact real- external evidence, and is corroborated by so many in- ly have, irrefragable grounds for rejecting the preten- ternal indications, that they would scarcely be ques- aions of the papacy. Coteler has collected a large tioned in the absence of a strong theological bias. (Pa- number of passages from the early fathers in which pias and Gem. Alex., referred to bj Eusebius, //. /•'. ii. the name of Paul precede* thai of Peter I Pat. \post. i. 16; Tertullian, <■. Marc iv, <\ 6; [renseus, iii. l : iv, 9. •Ill; Bee also Valesius, Euseb. H.E. iii, 21). Fabricius Petavius [on Epiphanius, p. 428] observes that Papias observes that this is the general usage of the Creek derived his information from John the Presbyter. For
father-. It is al-.. to be remarked that when the fa- Other passages, sec Fabricius [ liihl. Gr. iii. 182 ]. The
thers of the i tli and 5th centuries- -for instance, Chry- slight discrepancy between Eusebius and Papias indi-
sostom and Augustine — use the words 6 'AttootoXoc,, or cates independent source- of information.) Th< fact
PETER
is doubly important, in its bearings upon the Gospel, and upon the character of our apostle. Chrysostora, who is followed by the most judicious commentators, seems first to have drawn attention to the fact that in Mark's Gospel every defect in Peter's character and con- duct is brought out clearly, without the slighest extenu- ation, while many noble acts and peculiar marks 01 fa- vor are either omitted or stated with far less force than by any other evangelist. Indications of Peter's influ- ence, even in Mark's style, much less pure than that of Luke, are traced by modern criticism (Gieseler, quoted by Davidson).
II. Discussion of Particular Points. — We subjoin a closer examination of certain special questions touched upon in the above history.
1. Peter's Name. — His original appellation Cephas (Kjj</>(<c) occurs in the following passages: John i, 42; 1 Cor. i, 12; iii, 22; ix, 5; xv, 5; Gal. ii, 9; i, 18 ; ii, 10, 14 (the last three according to the text of Lachmann and Tischendorf). Cephas is the Chaldee word Keyphd, NS^S, itself a corruption of or derivation from the He- brew Keph, w|3, "a rock," a rare word, found only in Job xxx, 6 and Jer. iv, 29. It must have been the word actually pronounced by our Lord in Matt, xvi, 18, and on subsequent occasions when the apostle was ad- dressed by him or other Hebrews by his new name. By it he was known to the Corinthian Christians. In the ancient Syriac version of the N. T. (Peshito), it is uniformly found where the Greek has Uirpog. When we consider that our Lord and the apostles spoke Chal- dee, and that therefore (as already remarked) the apos- tle must always have been addressed as Cephas, it is certainly remarkable that throughout the Gospels, no less than ninety-seven times, with one exception only, the name should be given in the Greek form, which was of later introduction, and unintelligible to Hebrews, though intelligible to the far wider Gentile world among which the Gospel was about to begin its course. Even in Mark, where more Chaldee words and phrases are re- tained than in all the other Gospels put together, this is the case. It is as if in our English Bibles the name were uniformly given, not Peter, but Rock ; and it sug- gests that the meaning contained in the appellation is of more vital importance, and intended to be more care- fully seized at each recurrence, than we are apt to recol- lect. The commencement of the change from the Chal- dee name to its Greek synonym is well marked in the interchange of the two in Gal. ii, 7, 8, 9 (Stanley. Apos- tolic Age, p. 116). The apostle in his companionship with Christ, and up to the time of the Lord's ascension, seems to have borne the name of Simon ; at least he is always so called by Jesus himself (Matt, xvii, 25 ; Mark xiv, 37 ; Luke xxii, 31 ; John xxi, 15), and apparently also by the disciples (Luke xxiv, 34 ; Acts xv, 14). But after the extension of the apostolic circle and its rela- tions (comp. Acts x,5, 18), the apostle began to be known, in order to distinguish him from others called Simon, as Simon Peter; the name of Pete?; which had at first been given him as a special mark of esteem, being added, as that of a father often was in other cases ; and, in the course of time, it seems that the latter name supersed- ed the former. Hence the evangelists call the apostle Peter oftener than Simon Peter. As to the epistles of Paul, he is always called Cephas in 1 Cor., but in the other epistles often Peter. As above suggested, the appellation thus bestowed seems to have had reference to the disciple individually and personally. Attaching himself to Christ, he would partake of that blessedt spir- itual influence whereby he would be enabled, in spite of the vacillations of his naturally impulsive character, to hold with persevering grasp the faith he now embraced. He would become rooted and grounded in the truth, and not be carried away to destruction by the various winds of false doctrine and the crafty assaults of Satan. The name imposed was continually to remind him of what he ought to be as a follower of Christ. Compare