Online Encyclopedia
Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.
PETER, EPISTLES OF
Online EncyclopediaEncyclopedia Home :: PER-PIG
del.icio.us it!
|
See also:PETER, EPISTLES OF , the two books of the New Testament traditionally ascribed to the apostle Peter. I PETER This See also:epistle is addressed to " the elect who are sojourners of the See also:Dispersion [Diaspora] in See also:Pontus, See also:Galatia, See also:Cappadocia, See also:Asia and See also:Bithynia." The " Diaspora " was the name generally given to the See also:Jews who were " scattered abroad." This suggests that the See also:letter was intended for Jewish Christians in the provinces mentioned. But i. 14, 18; ii. 9, to; iv. 3 point rather to See also:Gentile Christians, and it is better to take this view, and interpret the " Diaspora " metaphorically as referring to the isolated position of Christians among the See also:heathen. The See also:general impression made by the epistle is that the central See also:idea was to strengthen the courage of the recipients, who were likely to undergo per- secution, and to enjoin on them conduct which would remove all reasonable excuse for thinking that See also:Christianity ought to be regarded as a See also:crime. Ch. i. 3–12 is an introduction of praise to See also:God that he had caused the recipients of the epistle to be See also:born again to the living See also:hope in a glorious salvation. The See also:rest of the epistle may be divided into three parts: (a) i. 13–ii. 10, mainly hortatory injunctions to live See also:holy lives in accordance with this new See also:birth, and to grow up as God's See also:people in communion with See also:Christ; (0) ii. II—iv. 6, particular directions as to the See also:line of conduct to be pursued towards the Gentiles and towards those in authority, with See also:special reference to the relations of slaves to masters, of wives and husbands to each other, and of Christians to one another; to the first of these a passage is appended dealing with the sufferings of Christ as an example (ii. 21–25), and the whole is completed by an exhortation to meekness and See also:patience in suffering, in the See also:light of the sufferings of Christ and the blessings given by them both to the living and to the dead; (-y) iv. 7–v. II, has less cohesion. It begins with exhortations not to forget See also:prayer and love, then the believers are warned to be careful to suffer only as Christians, not as breakers of the See also:laws. The elders and the younger men are reminded of their duties to the community and to one another. The whole is brought to a See also:close with an exhortation to all to fight manfully against the See also:devil and to See also:trust in God. Date and Authorship.—These two questions are so closely connected that they cannot be considered separately. The See also:external See also:evidence of tradition is that the epistle was written by St Peter. This can be traced back to See also:Irenaeus (iv. 9, 2) and See also:Clement of See also:Alexandria (Strom. iii. 18, See also:Ito), and it is thought by many writers that 2 Peter iii. 1, even if it be not itself Petrine, is See also:good evidence that the writer regarded 1 Peter as apostolic. Evidence for its use, without mention of its name, may be found in See also:Polycarp, but probably not in the other apostolic fathers (cf. The N.T. in the Apostolic Fathers, See also:Oxford, 1905, p. 137). It is, however, possible that See also:Papias made use of it. It is doubtful whether See also:Justin See also:Martyr used it, but probable that it was known to See also:Theophilus of See also:Antioch. It is not mentioned in the See also:canon of See also:Muratori. Thus external evidence, though unanimous in favour of the Petrine authorship, is not sufficient to See also:settle the question. The See also:internal evidence consists of (a) evidence bearing on the date in connexion with the persecution of Christians, (See also:J1) evidence establishing the relation of the epistle to otherdocuments in See also:early See also:Christian See also:history, and (y) evidence concerning St Peter personally. (a) It is clear from I Peter i. 6, ii. 12, iv. 12–19, V. 9, that the epistle was written during a See also:time of persecution. The question which is doubtful is to which persecution the description best applies. The traditional See also:opinion was that the persecution referred to was that under See also:Nero. But it has been argued that the Neroine persecution according to See also:Tacitus (See also:Ann. xv. 44) was not a persecution of Christians as such, but was rather the result of false See also:accusation. Moreover there is no See also:proof that there was any persecution of Christians at this time outside See also:Rome, and I Peter alludes to persecution in the provinces of Asia See also:Minor. Therefore many critics have See also:felt obliged to bring the epistle into connexion with the epistle of See also:Pliny to See also:Trajan, written c. 112, and asking for See also:advice as to the See also:procedure to be followed in trials of Christians. This is.the earliest evidence which implies organized persecution in the provinces in question, and therefore See also:Holtzmann, See also:Weizsacker and others regard this as fixing the date of the epistle in the beginning of the 2nd See also:century, and excluding the Petrine authorship. Against this view it may be argued that the epistle describes the beginning of persecution. The writer still hopes that Christians will not be obliged to suffer " for the name " and is clearly aware of false accusations of crime. On the other See also:hand Pliny's letter implies a time when Christianity was in itself a crime and was recognized as such. Thus it is urged, probably correctly, that the epistle belongs to the beginning of a See also:period of which Pliny's letter marks a later development, and we can only say that c. 112 is the See also:terminus ad quem. The terminus a quo is more difficult to find. We do not know with certainty when Christianity became a recognized offence, and scholars have supported various hypotheses. T. See also:Mommsen, See also:Hardy and Sanday think that even under Nero it was criminal to be a Christian ; See also:Neumann thinks that this was first the See also:case under See also:Domitian; See also:Sir W, M. See also:Ramsay believes that this attitude was one of the results of the Jewish See also:War of 70, and ascribes it to See also:Vespasian. If the Domitianic date be adopted the Petrine authorship is almost excluded, and it is difficult to reconcile the traditional date of St Peter's martyrdom with Ramsay's theory.
(#) The relations of I Peter to other books in early Christian literature is shown in the following table:
From this table it is sufficiently See also:plain that I Peter is closely connected with See also:Romans, See also:Ephesians, See also: There is less agreement as to Ephesians and James, though in the former case the general opinion favours the dependence of I Peter, in the latter case ite priority. In See also:England, however, the priority of James has been supported by See also:Mayor and See also:Hort. In the light of the established use of Romans it is possible that t Peter also used other Pauline epistles and some scholars have seen special traces of the See also:influence of I Cot. and Gal. (for a See also:list of these cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N.T., 3, p. 314). It has been argued that the use of the Pauline epistles is improbable for Peter, but this is a subjective See also:argument which is not decisive. (y) According to tradition Peter was martyred in Rome, and it is probable that this was in the Neroine persecution. If this be so, the See also:year 64 is the terminus ad See also:quern of the letter, if it be See also:authentic. Ramsay, however, thinks that Peter may have survived this persecution and suffered at the beginning of the persecutions which, he thinks, were initiated by the See also:Flavian emperors (see PETER, ST: § 5, 4 and 6). The whole question of authorship and date is thus a complex of smaller problems, many of which do not seem to admit of any definite See also:answer. If St See also:Paul's epistle to the Ephesians be genuine, and it were really known to the writer of I Peter, and if Peter were martyred in 64, the theory of Petrine authorship demands that it was written by Peter between 59 and 64. On the Petrine See also:hypothesis this is the most probable view. The weak point is that it assumes a See also:great spread of Christianity in the provinces of Asia Minor outside the activity of Paul, and that the See also:official persecution of Christians as- such began throughout the See also:Roman See also:Empire under Nero, for neither of which is there I Pet. Rom. I Pet. Eph. I Pet. as. I Pet. Polycarp. i. 14 — xii. 2 i. I seq.— i. 3seq. 1 i. 8— i. 3 ii. 5 — xii. I i. 14 — ii. 3 i. 6 seq.— i. 2 seq. i. 13— ii. I ii. 6—Io— ix. 32 ii. 18 5 i. 24 — i. I0 1. 21 ii. I ii. 13 —X111. I iii. I — v. 22 i. 23 — i. 18 ii. I I— V. 3 iii. 9 — xii. 17 iii. 22 — i. 20 iv. 8 — v. 20 ii. 12— X. 2 iii. 22 —viii. 34 V. 5 — v.21 V. 5 seq.—iv. 6,10 1,2 iv. 3 II iii. 9— ii.2 iv. 7 —xiii. 12 iv. 7— vii. 2 iv. 9 13 iv. 16—viii. 2 iv. To — xii. 6 corroborative evidence. On the non-Petrine hypothesis a date is demanded some time before the letter of Pliny; this suits the internal evidence better than any possible on the Petrine hypothesis, but it fails to explain the really considerable and early evidence for the Petrine authorship, and necessitates some purely hypothetical See also:suggestion, such as See also:Harnack's view that the epistle was originally See also:anonymous, and that the opening and closing sentences (i. 1 sqq., v. 12 sqq.) were added between A.D. 150 and 195, perhaps by the writer of 2 Peter. The Provenance of the Epistle.—This is defined in r Peter v. 13 as See also:Babylon. It has sometimes been argued that this is Babylon in See also:Mesopotamia, in which there were, until the time of the See also:emperor See also:Caius, many Jews; but no good tradition connects St Peter with the evangelization of Mesopotamia, and this See also:district would have had little in See also:common with the Graeco-Roman See also:world of Asia Minor. Another suggestion is that the See also:Egyptian Babylon is meant (Old See also:Cairo); but in the 1st century this was probably merely a fortress. Thus there is an overwhelming See also:weight of opinion in favour of the view that Rome, the Babylon of Apocalyptic literature, is intended. This also agrees with the tradition in 2 Tim. iv. 1 r, which (cf. 1 Pet. v. 13) suggests that St See also:Mark was in Rome.
Reception in the Canon.—r Peter seems to have been the earliest of the See also:Catholic epistles to obtain recognition. By the year 200 it was accepted everywhere except in two places—the See also: The leaders are called presbyters or elders, and their See also:duty is to See also:act as shepherds to the See also:flock. Beyond this there is no sign of a See also:developed organization: each is to act in accordance with the See also:gift (x&pwp.a) which he has received. There is no trace of a specially set apart See also:ministry either for the service of the community or for teaching, as to which the only See also:limitation given is " If any See also:man speak let him speak as the oracles of God," i.e. probably, in accordance with the Old Testament. 2 PETER This epistle may be divided into five parts. (i) The writer who describes himself as " See also:Simon (See also:var. lect. Symeon) Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ," exhorts his readers to become perfect in knowledge and virtue, so as to enter the See also:kingdom of Christ (i. 3-11). (2) He then explains his See also:desire once more to testify to the See also:power of Jesus, and bases his testimony partly on his own experience in the Holy See also:Mount (apparently a reference to the Transfiguration), and partly on the " word of prophecy " (i. 12-21). (3) The mention of prophecy leads him to See also:deal with the question of false prophets, who are accused of false doctrine and immoral practices. In this See also:section is incorporated almost the whole of the epistle of See also:Jude (ii. r-22). (4) He then discusses a special feature of the false teaching, viz. doubts thrown on the Parousia, the certainty of which for the future he defends (iii. 1-13). Finally he warns his hearers that they must be found spotless at the Parousia, and emphasizes the agreement of his teaching with St Paul's (iii. 14-18). The See also:main See also:object of the epistle is to be seen in the attack made on the false teachers, and in the See also:defence of the certainty of the Parousia of the See also:Lord. Authorship.—The traditional view is that it was written by St Peter from Rome after 1 Peter. This view is however untenable for the following reasons. (I) The epistle is not quoted by any writer of the 2nd century, and See also:Origen, who is the first to mention it as Petrine, admits that its authorship was disputed. (2) The See also:style and See also:language differ greatly from that of i Peter: this argument may however fairly be met by the suggestion that it is improbable that he wrote See also:Greek with ease, and that he may have used a variety of amanuenses. (3) The growth of immorality and false teaching to which it witnesses seems irreconcilable with a very primitive period of church life. (4) It has incorporated the greater See also:part of Jude in a whole-See also:sale manner difficult to reconcile with See also:apostolical authorship. (5) It seems to attribute a position of scriptural authority to the Pauline epistles, and this is improbable either in the mouth of Peter, or during the 1st century. Any one of these arguments would be weighty by itself; in See also:combination they See also:form an irresistible cumulative argument against the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. Date.—If the Petrine authorship be abandoned, the terminus ad quem of the epistle is its use by Origen (or, just possibly, by Clement of Alexandria), and the terminus a quo is fixed by the following considerations: (1) the activity of an immoral See also:Gnosticism; (2) the attainment by the Pauline epistles of great authority, and their perversion by heretics; (3) the use made of the epistle of Jude. It is difficult to define the exact date to which these indications point, but there is a general agreement that it must be sought in the 2nd century, and perhaps the decades immediately before and after the year A.D. 150 are the most probable. See also:Place of Origin.—There is hardly any evidence on this point: but the most probable place seems to be See also:Egypt, as the letter has points of connexion with See also:Philo, Clement of Alexandria and the See also:Apocalypse of Peter, and seems first to have been used in the church of Alexandria. It should however be noted that Deissmann argues on lexical grounds in favour of Asia Minor (Bibel See also:Stud. pp. 277-284). Relation to other Early Christian Documents.—The documents with which 2 Peter has the greatest See also:affinities are the epistle of Jude, and the Apocalypse of Peter, of which a fragment was found in See also:Akhmim in 1892 by M Bouriant. In each case the See also:affinity is very close, and is capable of more than one explanation. Roughly speaking 2 Peter ii. reproduces Jude: it is possible therefore either that Jude is an See also:epitome of 2 Peter or that the writer of 2 Peter used Jude. The former hypothesis has a few supporters, notably T. Zahn and See also:Spitta, but most writers are emphatic in thinking that 2 Peter has incorporated Jude, and this view is almost certainly correct (see JUDE, EPISTLE oF). The connexion with the Apocalypse of Peter is more complicated: the evidence of a comparison between the two documents (which is made in full in F. H. See also:Chase's See also:article in See also:Hastings's See also:Dictionary of the Bible) is to show that either one document is dependent on the other, or both were written by the same See also:person, or both come from the same circle. Of these theories there is least to be said for the dependence of the Apocalypse on 2 Peter, and perhaps most for the dependence of 2 Peter on the Apocalypse. Reception in the Canon.—2 Peter was the last of the Catholic epistles to be accepted as canonical. It was first regarded as such in Alexandria, perhaps originally in connexion with the Apocalypse of Peter rather than with r Peter. Thence it passed into the canon used by the church of See also:Constantinople, in the 4th century made its way into the Roman canon, and in the 6th was accepted last of all by the See also:Syria church (see also BIBLE: New Testament Canon). The Theology of 2 Peter.—The theology of the epistle is specially marked by two characteristics—its high Christology and its eschatological See also:character. Christ is referred to as " our God and Saviour," and the fatherhood of God is apparently only regarded as referring to the Divine Son. The See also:work of Christ was the redemption of the elect, and this redemption awaits its consummation in the Parousia. This is the central point of the teaching of the epistle and is obviously directed against that of the false prophets. The writer looks forward to the destruction of the See also:present world by See also:fire, when the wicked, whether angels or men, who have been reserved for See also:judgment will be finally condemned, and a new era of happiness for the elect will begin. Church Organization.—There is very little in 2 Peter which throws light on church organization. From his silence it would appear that the monarchial See also:episcopacy did not yet exist in the church to which the writer belonged, and perhaps the prophets were still the See also:chief guides, but the argument from silence cannot be pressed. In any case the growth of false and immoral prophets, which ultimately led to the obsolescence and suppression of this See also:order, was far advanced and was one of the reasons which led to the See also:writing of the epistle. AuTxoRITIEs.—Besides the books and articles already mentioned the following are important: F. H. Chase, " Peter " and " Epistles of Peter " in Hastings's See also:Diet. Bible; P. W. Schmiedel, " Simon Peter " in the Ency. Bib. ; See also:Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, 1, 201–315 and I I , 481-502; Harnack, Altchr. Litt. and Chronologie ' (the relevant sections). The relevant sections in the Introductions of Holtzmann, T. Zahn, Julicher, See also:Salmon, See also:Weiss and See also:Moffat. The commentaries of Bigg, Mayor, F. Spitta, Kuhl (in See also:Meyer's Commentary), von See also:Soden (in Holtzmann's Commentary), and Weiss. (K. Additional information and CommentsThere are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML. Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide. |
|
|
[back] PETER WENTWORTH (1530-1596) |
[next] PETER, ST |