Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/726

 694 PETER (Mark i. 30 and parallels), and that his wife accompanied him when he finally left his home to preach the gospel is implied by St Paul (1 Cor. ix. 5) ; there is an early tradi tion, which is not inconsistent with probability, that she also suffered martyrdom, and that Peter called out to her as she was being led away, &quot; O wife, remember the Lord ! &quot; l The statement that he had children 2 is probably only an inference from the fact of his having been married ; the alleged name of his daughter, Petronilla, is as suspicious as the story of his having cured her of the palsy 3 ; and the majority of commentators take the expression &quot; Mark, my son,&quot; in 1 Peter v. 13, to refer only to spiritual kinship. Of the beginningof his discipleship there are two accounts which have sometimes (by Baur, Keim, Holtzmann, and others), though without sufficient reason, been supposed to be inconsistent with each other. (1) According to St John, he was brought to Jesus by his brother Andrew, who had been a follower of John the Baptist, but who, after the Baptist s testimony, recognized in Jesus the promised Messiah (John i. 40-42). The fact that he was then not at Capernaum but in the Jordan valley, where John was baptizing, seems to indicate that he, like his brother, had been attracted by John s preach ing. It is not stated that he at once became one of those who followed Jesus, and there is consequently room for the supposition that he returned home ; and the statement that it was upon the occasion of this first meeting that he received his distinctive surname, Cephas or Peter, is not inconsistent with Mark iii. 16, Luke vi. 14, which men tion the fact rather than the occasion, or with Matthew xvi. 18, which gives to an existing name a new application. (2) According to St Matthew and St Mark, it was at the beginning of the Galiliean ministry that Jesus called Simon and Andrew 7 to become &quot; fishers of men &quot; (Matt. iv. 18-20; Mark i. 16-18). The manner of the call seems to imply a previous acquaintance, and is consequently not out of harmony with that of St John. It is less easy to determine whether the account in Luke v. 1-11 refers to the same or to a different incident ; Schleiermacher, Neander, Bleek, and others treat it as the fuller and more accurate account ; Ewald, Weiss, Keim, and others regard the miraculous draught of fishes as a reminiscence of a later tradition, and probably identical with John xxi. 5-11. From the time of his call Peter has a place in most of the important events of the Gospel narrative. It was to his house in Capernaum that Jesus went as if to a home (Matt. viii. 14; Mark i. 14, 33; Luke iv. 38), and it is consequently sometimes spoken of as simply &quot;the house &quot; (Matt. ix. 28, xiii. 1, 36, xvii. 25). He formed, with his two former partners, James and John, an apostolic trium virate, which was admitted when all others were excluded, and to whom, with Andrew, was committed the great pro phecy of the last days (Mark xiii. 3). The most important incident which is recorded of him between his call and the crucifixion is that which happened at Ciesarea Philippi (Matt. xvi. 13-23; Mark viii. 27-33; Luke ix. 18-22; probably recorded in substance, though in a different form, in John vi. 66-69). The incident links itself closely with the history which had immediately preceded it. The ex pectation which the Galilaean peasantry had begun to form of Jesus had been disappointed ; the miracles of healing and feeding had not been followed by the assumption of the national leadership ; many of the disciples had begun to drift away, and those who were looking for the Messiah saw in Him only &quot; one of the prophets.&quot; Those who 1 Clem. Alex., Strom., vii. 10, p. 869, quoted by Eusebius, //. E. t iii. 30, 2. 2 Clem. Alex., Strom., iii. 6, p. 535, quoted by Eusebius, ibid. 3 St Augustine, c. Adimant. Manich., c. 17, vol. viii. 139, ed. Ben. remained were tested by a direct question ; whether the form of the question was that of the Synoptists, &quot; Whom say ye that I am 1 &quot; or that of St John, &quot; Will ye also go away 1 &quot; it was Peter who answered for the rest, in words which have an equivalent meaning, whether they were in the form &quot;Thou art the Christ,&quot; or in the form &quot;Lord, to whom shall we go 1 Thou hast the words of eternal life.&quot; The further detail which St Matthew gives, xvi. 17-19, has sometimes been thought to be a later addition, reflect ing a fact of subsequent ecclesiastical history ; but its absence from St Mark does not seem to be an adequate ground for rejecting it, and its substance is found in Justin Martyr (Tryph., c. 100). Round the words which St Matthew records many controversies have raged ; nor does it seem possible, with existing means of investigation, to fix to the sentence &quot; upon this rock I will build My church &quot; a meaning that will be beyond dispute. Whatever may be its precise meaning, it seems at any rate to be in har mony with other passages of the Synoptic Gospels, which indicate, not only that Peter was foremost among the apostles by virtue of natural force of character, but that he was also their ordinary leader and representative : the most important passage is Matt. x. 2, where the expression &quot;the first,&quot; which is applied to him, cannot be restricted to mere priority of enumeration in the list. It is possible that his colleagues James and John, or their more ambi tious mother, endeavoured to dispute this position with him (Matt. xx. 20, 21 ; Mark x. 35-37), and it has been contended (Baur, Strauss, Holtzmann) that in the Fourth Gospel John holds the place which the Synoptists assign to Peter ; but even if this contention w r ere admitted it would merely afford one more argument to show that the priority of rank was limited by natural affection as well as by the law of equality among the Christian brotherhood (Matt, xxiii. 8-11; Mark ix. 33-35; Luke xxii. 24-27). But, although Peter w r as foremost in expressing the con fident belief of the disciples that Jesus was the Messiah, it seems clear that in his conception of the Messiah he did not rise above the current ideas of his countrymen. u He that should come &quot; was to be a national deliverer. This conception appears on two occasions especially when Jesus first told the disciples of His coming sufferings, &quot; Peter took Him and began to rebuke Him,&quot; and received the answer, &quot; Get thee behind Me, Satan,&quot; as though this atti tude of the disciples were a new temptation (Matt. xvi. 21-23; Mark viii. 31-33); and, when Jesus was actually in the power of His enemies, and no &quot; legions of angels &quot; appeared either to rescue or to enthrone Him, Peter s natural hopefulness gave way to complete despondency, and he more than once &quot;denied that he knew Him.&quot; In the earliest account of the resurrection (that of St Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 5) it is mentioned that Jesus appeared to Peter before and separately from the twelve ; and the last chapter of the Fourth Gospel gives him an especial pro minence : it adds one more example of the impulsive energy of his character (ver. 7); it portrays more vividly than any other passage in the Gospels the depth of his attachment to his Master (vers. 15-17) ; and it forecasts the manner of his death (vers. 18, 19). His prominence in the early community at Jerusalem is proved by the testimony of St Paul ; for it was to visit &quot; Cephas &quot; that he made his first journey to Jerusalem after his conversion, and fourteen years afterwards, though James and John as well as Cephas &quot;were reputed to be pillars,&quot; it was the latter who stood out above the rest as the special preacher of &quot; the gospel of the uncircumcision &quot; (Gal. i. 18, ii. 1-10). These facts undoubtedly confirm the general picture of the relations of Peter to the early church which is drawn in the Acts of the Apostles ; at the same time no part of the New Testament has been more strongly attacked by modern