III. Literature. — In addition to the works copiously cited above, we may here name the following on this apostle personally, reserving for the following articles those on his writings specially. Blunt, Lectures <>it the Hist, of Peter (Lond. 1833, I860, 2 vols. 12mo) ; Thomp- son, Life-Work of Peter the Apostle (ibid. 1870, 8vo) ; Green, Peter's Life and Letters (ibid. 1873, 8vo) ; Morich, Leben und Lehre Petri (Braunsch. 1873, 8vo). Among the old monographs we may name Meyer, Num Christus Petrum baptizaverit (Leips. 1672); Waleh, Be Claudo a Petro sanato (Jen. 1755) ; and on his denials of his Master, those cited by Volbeding, Index Programmatum. p. 58; and in Hase, Leben Jesu, p. 202; also the Jour, of Sac. Lit. July, 1862; on his dispute with Paul, Vol- beding, p. 85. See Apostle.
PETER, First Epistle of, the first of the seven Catholic Epistles of the N. T. In the following account of both epistles of Peter, we chiefly depend upon the articles in Kitto's Cyclopedia, with large additions from other sources. See Peter.
I. Genuineness and Canonicity. — This epistle found an early place in the canon by universal consent, ranking among the opoXoyovptva, or those generally received. The other epistle, by calling itself dtvripa, refers to it as an earlier document (2 Pet. iii, 1). Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, often uses it, quoting many clauses, and some whole verses, as 1 Peter i, 13, 21, in
chap, ii ; iii, 9, in chap, v; ii, 11, in chap, vi; iv, 7, in chap, vi ; and ii, 21-24, in chap, viii, etc. It is to be ob- served, however, that in no case does this father refer to Peter by name, but he simply cites the places as from some document of acknowledged authority ; so that Eusebius notes it as characteristic of his epistle that Polycarp used those citations from the First Fpistle of Peter as paprvpiai (Hist. Eccles. iv, 14). The same historian relates of Papias that in his AoyiW Kvpiaxwv t£//y//(T£tc he in a similar way used paprupiai from this epistle (Hist. Eccles. iii, 39). Irenseus quotes it express- ly and by name, with the common formula, "Et Petrus ait" (Hceres. iv, 9, 2), citing 1 Pet. i, 8 ; using the same quotation similarly introduced in ibid, v, 7, 2 ; and again, " Et propter hoc Petrus ait," citing 1 Pet. ii, 16 ; ibid. iv, 16, 5. Other quotations, without mention of the apostle's name, may be found, ibid, iii, 16, 9, and iv. 20, 2, etc. Quotations abound in Clement of Alexandria, headed with o Ilirpog X'tyti or ^jjcriv 6 Ylirpoc. These occur both in his Stromata and Pcedag., and need not be specified. Quotations are abundant also in Origen, cer- tifying the authorship by the words izapa Tip YliTp<i>; and, according to Eusebius, he calls this epistle piav tirioTo\))v opoXoyovpiv^v (Euseb. Hist. Eccles. vi, 25). The quotations in Origen's works need not be dwelt upon. In the letter of the churches of Yienne and Ly- ons, A.D. 177, there is distinct use made of 1 Pet. v, 6. Theophilus of Antioch, A.D. 181,' quotes these terms of 1 Pet. iv, 3 — ciSipiraic tldioXoXarptiaiz. Tertullian's testimony is quite as distinct. In the short tract Scor- piace this epistle is quoted nine times, the preface in one place being " Petrus quidem ad Ponticos" (Scorp. c. xii), quoting 1 Pet. ii, 20. Eusebius himself says of it, Ukrpov . . . aviopo\oyr}Tai (Hist. Eccles. iii, 25). It is also found in the Peshito, which admitted only three of the catholic epistles. See Mayerhoff, Einleitung in die Petrin. Schriften, p. 139, etc.
In the canon published by Muratori this epistle is not found. In this fragment occurs the clause, "Apoca- lypses etiam Johannis et Petri tantum recipimus." Wieseler, laying stress on etiam, would bring out this meaning— in addition to the epistles of Peter and John, we also receive their Revelations; or also of Peter we receive as much as of John, two epistles and an apoca- lypse. But the interpretation is not admissible. Rath- er with Bleek may the omission be ascribed to the frag- mentary character of the document (Einleit. in </<(.-' X. T. p. 613; Hilgenfeld, Der Canon und die Kritik des X. T. [Halle, 1833], p. 43). Other modes of reading and ex- plaining the obscure sentence have been proposed. Hug alters the punctuation, " Apocalypsis etiam Johan- nis. Et Petri tantum recipimus;" certainly the tantum gives some plausibility to the emendation. Believing that the barbarous Latin is but a version from the Greek, he thus restores the original, Kai Ylirpov fiovov rrapact- Xopt&cr, and then asks povov to be changed into \iovinv — an alteration which of course brings out the conclusion wanted (Einleit. § 19). Guericke's effort is not more sat- isfactory. Thiersch, with more violence, changes tantum into unam epistolam, and quam quidem in the following clause into alteram quidem. This document, so imper- fect in form and barbarous in style, is probably indeed a translation from the Greek, and it can have no authority against decided and general testimony (see the canon in Routh's Reliquice Sacrcr, i, 396, edited with notes from Freindaller's Commentatio [Lond. 1862]). Nor is it of any importance whether the words of Leontius imply that this epistle was repudiated by Theodore of Mop- suestia, and if the Paulicians rejected it, Petrus Siculua gives the true reason— they were "pessime adversus ilium affect?— personal prejudice being implied in their very name (Hist. Munich, p. 17).