PETER, FIRST EPISTLE OF.—Genuineness and epistle found an early place in the canon by universal consent. The other epistle, by calling itself Scurepa, refers to it as an earlier document (2 Peter iii. I). Polycarp, in his Epistle to the Philippians, often uses it, quoting many clauses, and some whole verses, as I Peter i. 13, 21, in chapter ii. ; iii. 9, in chap. v. ; ii. II, in chap. vi. ; iv. 7, in chap. vi. ; and ii. 21-24, in chap. viii., etc. It is to be observed, however, that in'no case does this father refer to Peter by name, but he simply cites the places as from some docu ment of acknowledged authority ; so that Eusebius notes it as characteristic of his epistle, that Poly carp used those citations from the First Epistle of Peter as Aaprupial (Hist. Eccles. iv. 14). The same historian relates of Papias, that in his Awylcop Kuplazdo'y lEnyi2aus, he, in a similar way, used flap rvplat from this epistle (Hist. Eccles. iii. 39). Ire nmus quotes it expressly and by name, with the common formula, et Pelrus ait (Her. iv. 9. 2), citing I Pet. i. 8 ; using the same quotation simi larly introduced in do., v. 7. 2 ; and again, et propter hoc Petrels ait, citing I Pet. ii. 16 ; do. iv. 16. 5. Other quotations, without mention of the apostle's name, may be found, do. iii. 16. 9, and iv. zo. 2, etc. Quotations abound in Clement of Alexandria, headed with 6 Ilerpos Neyee or cbncrlp 6 Ilerpos. These occur both in his Stromata and Paedag., and need not be specified. Quotations are abundant also in Origen, certifying the author ship by the words rapci 741 Ilerp4i; and, accord ing to Eusebius, he calls this epistle Afar brurroXiiv 6/./oXo-yomuemp (Euseb. Hist. vi. 25). The quotations in Origen's works need not be dwelt upon. In the letter of the churches of Vienne and Lyons, A. D. 177, there is distinct use made of I Pet. v. 6. Theophilus of Antioch, A. D. 181, quotes these terms of i Pet. iv. 3— clOciLtraes ciawNoXarpetats. Tertullian's testimony is quite as distinct. In the short tract Seorpiace this epistle is quoted nine times, the preface in one place being Petrus quident ad Ponlicos (Scarp. xii.), quoting I Pet. ii. 20. Eusebius himself says of it,
Ilerpou dvc:µoX6yrraL (Hist. Eccles. iii. 25). It is also found in the Peshito which admitted only three of the catholic epistles. See Mayerhoff, Ein leitzing in die Petrie. Schriften, p. 139, etc.
In the canon published by Muratori this epistle is not found. In this fragment occurs the clause, Apocalypses etiam Yohannis et Petri tantunt reap in:us. Wieseler, laying stress on etiam, would bring out this meaning—in addition to the epistles of Peter and John we also receive their Revela tions ; or also of Peter we receive as much as of John, two epistles and an apocalypse. But the interpretation is not admissible. Rather with Bleek may the omission be ascribed to the fragmentary character of the document (Einleit. in das N. T., p. 643 ; Hilgenfeld, der Canon and die Kritik des N. T., p. 43, Halle 1863). Other modes of reading and explaining the obscure sentence have been pro posed. Hug alters the punctuation : Apocalypse's etianz 9ohannis. El Petri tantum recipimus ; cer tainly 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 flerpou µ6vav rrapaSex6µ60a, and then asks /26vov to be changed into ,uoviy--an alteration which of course brings out the conclu sion wanted (Einleit., sec. 19). Guericke's effort is not more satisfactory. Thiersch, with more violence, changes tae:term into Ilna77z epistolare!, and quam quidem in the following clause into alteranz; guidon. This document, so imperfect in form and barbarous in style, is probably indeed a trans lation from the Greek, and it can have no authority against decided and general testimony (see the canon in Routh's Reliquia Sacra, vol. i. 396, edited with notes from Freindaller's Comnzentatio, London 1862). Nor is it of any importance whether the words of Leontius imply that this epistle was re pudiated by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and if the Paulicians rejected it, Petrus Siculus gives the true reason—they were pessime adverse's ilium affiuti personal prejudice being implied in their very name. (Hist. Manich. p. 17).