In later times, the genuineness of the epistle has. been impugned, as by Cludius in his UransicAten des Chr%stcnthun,s, p. 296, Altona 18°8. He imagined the author to have been a Jewish Chris tian of Asia Minor, and his general objection was that the similarity in doctrine and style to Paul was too great to warrant the belief of independent authorship. His objections were exposed and an swered by Augusti in a program, Jena 1808, and by Bertholdt, Einleit., vol. vi. sec. 667. Eichhorn, however, took up the theory of Cludius so far as to maintain that as to material Peter is the author, but that Mark is the actual writer. De Wette also throws out similar objections, hinting that the author may have been a follower of Paul who had been brought into close attendance upon Peter. While there is a similarity between the thoughts and style of Peter and Paul, there is at the same time a marked individuality, and there are also many special characteristics, in this first epistle.
And, first, as proof of its genuineness, there is a peculiar and natural similarity between this epistle and the speeches of Peter as given in the Acts of the Apostles. Not to mention similarity in mould of doctrine and array of facts, there is resemblance in style. Thus Acts v. 30, x. 39, I Pet. ii. 24, in the allusion to the crucifixion and the use of Mov, the tree or cross ; Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, I Pet. v. i, in the peculiar use of pziprvy ; Acts iii. 18, x. 43, I Pet. i. 10, in the special connection of the old prophets with Christ and his work ; Acts x. 42, I Pet. iv. 5, in the striking phrase, `judge quick and dead ;' Acts iii. 16, I Pet. i. 21, in the clauses it 7rE0TLS i7 CILIT01,—TOUS CLI)T01) 7rECTOLiS ; and in the mode of quotation (Acts iv. 2; I Pet. ii. 7). Certain favourite terms occur also—dvacrrpok, and ci-yaOcuroulv with its cognates and opposites. There are over fifty words peculiar to himself in this brief document, nearly all of them compounds—as if in his profound anxiety to express his thoughts as he felt them, he had employed the first, and to him at the moment the fittest terms which occurred. He has such phrases as 1X7r2s Ncra, i. 3 ; cruvefariats &of), ii. 19 ; 6a˘6es Slavotas, i. 13 ; q5Iarlµa eryciirns, v. 14. The nouns S6Ea1, i. i 1, and aperaf, ii. 9, occur in the plural. He uses cis before a personal accusative no less than four times in the first chapter. The article is often separated from its noun, iii. 2, 3, 19 ; iv. 2, 5, 8, 12. Peter has also a greater proneness than Paul to repetition—to reproduce the same idea in somewhat similar terms—as if he had felt it needless to search for a mere change of words when a similar thought was waiting for immediate utterance. Compare i. 6-9 with iv. 12, 13; ii. 12 with iii. 16, iv. 4; iv. 7 with v. 8. And there are in the epistle distinct and original thoughts—special exhibitions of the great facts and truths of the gospel which the apostle looked at from his own point of view, and applied as he deemed best to a practical purpose. Thus the visit of Christ ' to the spirits in prison' (iii. 19) ; the typical connection of the deluge with baptism ; the desire of the old prophets to study and know the times and the blessings of the gospel—are not only Petrine in form, but are solitary statements in Scripture. Thus, too, the apostle brings out into
peculiar relief regeneration by the `word of God,' the `royal priesthood' of believers, and the qua lities of the future `inheritance,' etc.
Again, in phrases and ideas which in the main are similar to those of Paul, there is in Peter usu ally some mark of difference. Where there might have been sameness, the result of imitation, there is only similarity, the token of original thought. For example, Paul says (Rom. vi. to, II)—Nv rci3 Oe ; Peter says (ii. 24)—Nv ri7 ouccuomivv. The former writes (Rom. vi. 2)—cbro0v4o-xEcv rfj et4capri; the latter 24) — Tar exp.apriats dro-ylpecOat. Besides, as Bruckner remarks, the representation in these last clauses is different—death to sin in the passage from Romans being the result of union with the sufferings and death of Christ, while in Peter it is the result of Christ's doing away sin (Siindenver nichtung. De Wette, Erkkirzing, ed. Briickner, p. 9). So, too, the common contrast in Paul is ricip and yrpEgpa, but in Peter rve1.4ca and }t/ux.rj ; ixXo-yr is con nected in Paul with xdprs, or it stands absolutely ; but in Peter it is joined to government is with the first rot; Nog OLara-yh, Rom. xiii. 2 ; but with the second it is KTICTLY, ii. 13 ; the expression with the one is Kazan drOpunros, Ephes. iv. 24 ; but with the other 6 arOpcoros, 4; what is called dOopplj in Gal. v. 13 is named brirci?w,uua r Pet. ii. 16, etc. Now, not to insist longer on this similarity with variance, it may be remarked that for many of the terms employed by them, both apostles had a common source in the Septuagint. The words found there and already hal lowed by religious use were free to both of them, and their acquaintance with the LXX. must have tended to produce some resemblance in their own style. Among such terms are chanegia, cecrirXa-yxvos, KaraXaXia, inrEpexew, Opoupcip, xopn-yeiv (compare Mayerhoff, Rister. Crit. Fin /ailing in a'. Petrin. ..S'ehrift., pp. t07-8). That two apostles, in teaching the same system of divine truth, should agree in many of their repre sentations, and even in their words, is not to be wondered at, since the terminology must soon have acquired a definite form, and certain expressions must have become current through constant usage. But in cases where such similarity between Peter and Paul occurs, there is ever a difference of view or of connection ; and though both may refer to ideas so common as are named by inratcoll, 54a, or KXupopomia, there is always something to show Peter's independent use of the terms. One with his ' beloved brother Paul' in the general view of the truth, he has something peculiar to himself in the introduction and illustration of it. The Petrine type is as distinct as the Pauline—it bears its own unmistakable style and character. The Galilean fisherman has an individuality quite as recognisable as the pupil of Gamaliel.