Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 18.djvu/727

 PETER G95 writers than the first twelve chapters of that book, in which the &quot; Acts of Peter &quot; are contained. The attack has been made (Baur, Schwegler, Overbeck, Zeller, and others) partly on the speeches and partly on the narrative. (1) It is alleged that the Petrine speeches form no exception to the general uniformity of phraseology and style which characterizes the Acts, and that they ignore the marked differences in the conception of Christianity between Peter and Paul. It must be admitted that the coincidences are such as to render it probable that the author of the Acts dealt freely with his materials, but at the same time the peculiarities are sufficiently numerous to support the view that these speeches contain a true representation of the primitive teaching. 1 (2) The narrative passages which have been most keenly contested are those which relate to Simon of Samaria and to Cornelius. It is alleged that the account of the former is the mere reflex of the later legends in which the name of Simon Magus was substituted for that of St Paul as the representative of false Christ ianity, and it is said of the latter that it is a mere attempt to claim for Peter the opening of the door to the Gentiles which was the special honour of Paul, and that it cannot be reconciled with the division of labour between the apostle of the circumcision and the apostle of the uncir- cumcision which is spoken of in the Epistle to the Gala- tians. 2 At the great crisis of early Christianity which is known as the conference or council of Jerusalem Peter advocated (according to the Acts), or accepted (according to Paul), the policy of conciliation. Afterwards he went to Antioch, where Paul had preceded him, and there he carried out his acceptance of Gentile Christianity to the further point of eating at the common meals at which Gentiles were present. For this step the members of the original community at Jerusalem were not prepared ; and, when a deputation from them came to Antioch, Peter &quot;drew back and separated himself&quot; (Gal. ii. 12). There upon followed an argument and a remonstrance on the part of Paul which has been fruitful of results to both ancient and modern Christianity. Peter was &quot; withstood to the face&quot; because of (1) inconsistency, (2) practical calumny of Christ, (3) transgression of the law, (4) making void the gift of God (Gal. ii. 14-21). It is altogether too much to assume that this remonstrance led to a permanent alien ation of the two apostles from one another ; it is more probable that with a character such as Peter s, which had more energy than steadiness of resolution, it may even have been effectual. But it is upon the assumption of such an alienation that the Jewish party in the ancient church pictured Peter as the champion and hero of the faith, and Paul as its vanquished opponent, and also that in modern times the Tubingen school have endeavoured to reconstruct not only early church history but also the New Testament. This incident at Antioch is the last that is certainly known of Peter. The prophecy recorded in John xxi. 18, 19, is in harmony with early tradition in pointing to a violent death. But of the time and place of that death we know nothing with even approximate probability. The only historical mention of him for more than a hundred years afterwards is in Clement of Rome (Ep., i. 5, 4), who sets before the Corinthians the example of &quot; Peter, who through zeal undertook not one or two but numerous labours, and so having borne witness went to the place 1 The question of the relation of tlieir language to the rest of the Acts and to the Petrine epistles is discussed in detail with various results by several writers, e.g., Mayerhoff and Weiss in the works mentioned below, and more fully Kahler in Studien u. Kritiken for 1873, p. 492 sq. - The details of the discussion will be found in most recent books which deal with the Acts ; on the negative side the most convenient book for English readers is the translation of Zeller s Contents and Orirjln oftfie Act* of the Apostles, 1875. that was due to him.&quot; It is sometimes supposed that an indication of the place in which he &quot; bore witness &quot; or &quot;suffered martyrdom&quot; is afforded by the phrase &quot;among us,&quot; i.e., among the Romans, in the next chapter ; but this, though possible, is quite uncertain. Outside this state ment, which if it were more definite would be conclusive, there is only the doubtful interpretation of &quot; Babylon &quot; in 1 Peter v. 13 as meaning &quot;Rome,&quot; and the echo of a vague tradition in the apocryphal Petri et Pauli Prxdicatio? The testimony of the &quot; presbyter &quot; who is quoted by Papias in reference to Peter s connexion with Mark (Euseb., //. E., iii. 39, 15) says nothing of the place at which they were together, and the coupling of the names of Peter and Paul by Ignatius (Ad Roman., c. 4) would not, even if the early date of Ignatius were established, afford a solid argument that &quot; in their death they were not divided.&quot; But from the beginning of the last quarter of the 2d century the testimony to the presence and death of Peter at Rome is almost uniform ; the tradition, whatever may have been its foundation in fact, had firmly established itself. Diony- sius of Corinth (Euseb., //. E., ii. 25, 8) says that Peter and Paul founded the church at Corinth together and then proceeded to Italy. Irenseus (A dv. Hseres., iii. 1 ) speaks of Peter and Paul as having together founded the church at Rome ; the Muratorian Fragment (not earlier than the end of the 2d century) refers to the &quot; passion of Peter &quot; i.e., his martyrdom ; the presbyter Gaius (Euseb., H. E., ii. 25, 7, early in the 3d century) says that he saw the rpoTrcua (whatever that may mean) of the two apostles Peter and Paul at Rome ; in Tertullian (e.g., Scorp., c. 15 ; De Prsescr., c. 24 and 36) the tradition is fairly established; and no later Latin father expresses any doubt of it. But, besides the fact that there is an interval of more than a hundred years between what must have been, in the ordinary course of nature even if not through violence, the approximate time of Peter s death and the first certain tradition of the place and manner of it, there are two other important considerations which render the ordinary patristic statements doubtful. (1) One stream of tradition, for the existence of which it is difficult to account if the other tradition had been uniform, represents Peter as having worked at Antioch, in Asia Minor, in Babylonia, and in the &quot; country of the barbarians &quot; on the northern shores of the Black Sea. This is in harmony with the geo graphical details of the first of the two epistles which bear his name. That epistle is addressed to the &quot;elect who are sojourners of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappa- docia, Asia, and Bithynia,&quot; and the &quot; Babylon &quot; from which it is obviously written (v. 13) is best understood not as a cryptographic expression for Rome, but, like the other geographical names of the epistles of the New Testament, in a literal sense. All this, no doubt, is not inconsistent with the supposition that Peter went to Rome towards the end of his life, but it seems to exclude the theory that he made a lengthened stay there and was the founder of the Roman Church. (2) The other consideration is that the presence of Peter at Rome is almost inextricably bound up with a story of whose legendary character there can be little doubt, that of the Simon Magus of the Clementines* Under the name of Simon Magus the conservative Jewish Christians, who could never forgive the admission of the Gentiles to be &quot; fellow-heirs &quot; with the &quot; children of the promise,&quot; seem to have represented Paul 5 ; and, throwing 3 Hilgenfeld, Xov. Test, extra Can. rec., fasc. iv. p. 57. 4 Uhlliorn, Die Homilicn u. Recognitionen des Clemens Rornanus, Cottingen, 1852, makes an unsuccessful attempt to show that the two stories may be separated. 5 For the detailed proofs of this reference may be made to Baur, Church History, E. T., vol. i. p. 91 ; Zeller, TJie Acts of the Apostles, E. T., vol. i. p. 250; and Hilgenfeld, iii his Zeitschrift f. wissensch. Theolofjie, 1868, p. 367.