PETER, THE FIRST EPISTLE OF. The First Epistle General of Peter claims to be by the well-known apostle of that name, and the claim is strongly attested by the external evidence. The Epistle was known to the author of the Second Epistle of Peter, to Polycarp, to the author of the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, and (according to Eusebius) to Papias. It is quoted as the work of Peter by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Ter 'Wiliam and Origen. It is reckoned by Eusebius and Origen as one of the quite authentic books of the New Testament. It is not, it is true, included in the Mura torian Canon; but it is found in the earliest versions. The internal evidence is not so strong. No visit of Peter to the " sojourners of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," to whom the letter is addressed is known. Paul was closely associated with them, and yet be is not mentioned. If the Babylon in v. 13 is a name for Rome, Mark and the author of the epistle were in Rome when it was written. Does this mean that Paul, who is not mentioned, was dead? The author seems to have made use of some of the Epistles of Paul (Romans xii. and sill.; Galatians iii. and v.: Ephesians ii. and iv.), and his whole epistle is Influenced by Pauline teaching. Prof. Peake thinks it is no use minimising the extent of the Pauline influence. " We may rather state the problem in this form. Granting that the dominant influence is that of Paul, is this incom patible with Petrine authorship? It should be observed that the influence of Christ's teaching is not wholly absent, and there are reminiscences which gain much of their point if they are seen to rest on the personal recol lections of an eye-witness." Peake thinks it not un
natural that Peter should have come to assign a chief Place to the death and resurrection of Christ, and points out that in this particular epistle the writer wishes, at a time when a State persecution has begun, " to encourage the readers to patient endurance, and even joy in their distress." But what was this State persecution? That is another difficulty. If Peter wrote the epistle, it must have been the persecution in the time of Nero. Ramsay thinks, however, that the relations of Church and State, as they are indicated in the Epistle, imply a date not earlier than 80 A.D. Others (e.g., P. W. Schmiedel) think the date implied is not earlier than the edict of Trajan in his letter to Pliny. Others again (e.g., Von Soden) assign the epistle to about 92-96 A.D. (reign of Domitian). On the other band. Mommsen thinks that the circumstances do not preclude the time of Nero. If Peter was not the author of the Epistle, it has been suggested that it may have been written by Paul, Barnabas, or Silvanus. Barnabas is supposed to have written two other epistles, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Epistle of Barnabas. A number of writings were fathered on Peter (e.g., the " Gospel of Peter," the " Preaching of Peter," the " Apocalypse of Peter). See the Eneyel. 1301.; J. A. M'Clymont; G. Currie Martin: Arthur S. Peake, Intr.; J. Moffatt, Intr.