H 



PETKH 



PETKH THK GREAT 



that make* somewhat for a residence, how- 

 t-ver brief, of IVt.-r in Koine i- hi- probable ronnec- 



i with Mark and the aecond gospel ( see MABK ). 

 It may be taken as certain that Peter was not in 

 Koine when the Kpistle to the Unman- was written, 

 if the Kith chapter of that epistle is to be accepted 

 as genuine ; and it U almost equallx evident that 

 he cannot have been theie when Paui was writing 

 \ the Philippines. Thus the comparatively late 

 tradition which assigns him a continuous bishopric 

 of twenty-five yearn in Kome from 42 A. u. to 67 A.D. 

 iini-t he regarded as unhistorica). If he came at 

 all to Kome it can only have lieen after 64 A.I). 

 Of the duration of his stay we have no means of 

 judging. 



The dimte between Protestant* and Catholics as to 

 whether Petor was ever at Rome began u early at least 

 s 1580, when Vehtan (Velenns) published hi* Demon- 



r primal ut Jisimentum ; it i 

 Bishop Fisher of Rochester in his Conruliio 

 emlmmnimrum Aldrieki Vrlrni. For the arguments cur- 

 rent in that and the following century, see Spanheim, 

 Dimertatio de Jleta profeetione Petri apottoli in urbrm 

 Komam ( 1679). In later times the question has been the 

 subject of equally acute controversy, but not with the 

 same motive* or entirely on the same grounds. The 

 recent discussion* began with Baur, who has been fol- 

 lowed by Upsiu*, Zeller, and others in a complete denial 

 01 any historical foundation for the ' Roman Peter-legem! : ' 

 among thone who have sought to vindicate for it some 

 basil of truth may be named Credner, Wieselcr, Ewald, 

 HUcenfeld, and Kenan. For the apocryphal A ett of Peter 

 JuT/Mii/.seeTiichendorf. The Creek text of the apocry- 

 phal Oatfiri octordimj to Peter and the Iterrlation of Peter. 

 loud in 1886-87 at Akhinlm in Egypt, was published in 

 1892 by J. A. Robinson and H. K. James, and by others. 

 For those of the Preaching of Prtrr, his Journeyi, Ac., see 

 alao Hilgenfelil. And see Uttledale's Petrine Claina 

 ||889). Ughtfoot's Apatlolie FaUert, part L (3d ed. 

 1890); on the Oatholio side. Allies, The See of St Peter 

 ' i 1 and 81 Ptter ( 3d L 1871 ) ; Dollinger's Pint Aye of 

 ttte CkorckCM Eng. r.L 1*77); and.lohann Schmid, Petrtu 

 m BMS. when the literature on both Hides of the question 

 i* very fully given. On the whole subject of the history 

 and legend* connected with the name of Peter the import- 

 ant work of Lipsiua, Die apokrypken Apoitelyetckickten 

 md ApotleUegtudn ( 1883 UO), ought to be consulted. 



Peter, THE EPISTLES OF, constitute two of the 

 even canonical writings of the New Testament | 

 which towards the beginning of the 3d century ! 

 began to In- spoken of as 'catholic' epistles. ' 

 I biuii // / n. :; u i!- u- that 'M to the 

 writings of Peter, one nf his cnistlos called the first : 

 acknowledged a* genuine. For this was anciently ' 

 twed by the fathers in their xvritingsasan undoubted 

 woik of theapimtle. Hut that which is called the 

 MiMid we have not indeeil understood to be em- 

 Imdicd with the sacred tiooks, yet, as it appeared 

 useful to ninny, it was studiously read with the 

 other scriptun-s. ' Among the earfiest witnesses to 

 tin- nntiin.iity of the lir-t epistle the first usually 

 cit.-.| i. ( InmeiiM Uomanu-. who is sup|x>sed t<i lie 

 lunting from it when he uses the phrase* ' his mnr- 

 velloii, light ' and 'charity roveroth a multitude of 



in..' It was kjMWI l.i the author of Tltc Sh,;,l,rr,l 

 ;f l/Tmat, and to Itasilidcs ; Papias was acquainted 

 ith it : and Polycarp u-.-d it largely ; but it is not 

 "t'onrd a* canonical in the Muratorian (anon 



" internal evidence, it claims t<. have 



MM written by the apiMtlc Peter, by the hand of 



Ivanii-. from ' lUbylon ' in the elect who are 



.jniinym of the Dbpanton in Pont us. (ialatia, 



ap|<loriit. AM/I, and Itithyiiia,' and in substance 



a pnurtiral exhnrtntion to a gmlly conversnlion, 

 |Mrticulatly in obedWncc to all .-.m-lituted authori- 

 Im, in the piactico of the domestic virtues and in 

 P""y ">!" ["n-cution. The elders ' are ex- 

 horted to frl their llock, the ' younger' to ol-v. 

 nil all to be solwr, watchful M il constant in the 

 faith, resisting Uieir ailxersary thedevil. Tlirmigh- 



0111 it abounds with echoes of Pauline expressions 

 and modes of thought ; in particular the exhorta- 

 tions contained in limn. xu. 1-xiii. 14 have been 

 reproduced virtually veree by verse. This circum- 

 stance of it - dependence on the 1'auline writings i 

 one of the main argument- x\ ith tlm-e critir- i such 

 as liaur, Schwi-gler, Keim. Lipsius, Ffleiderer, 

 \Vci/-:irker, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann) who fix ite 

 ilate at some period after 112 A.D. in the reign of 

 Trajan, liy xvlioin formal proceedings were firnt 

 instituted against ( 'hii-tians. They find confirina- 

 tion of their view in the use of the name ' Itahylon ' 

 for 'Home;' a use that seems to have been tii-t 

 introduced by the author of the Apocalypse. The 

 second epistle claims to lie by 'Sytneou Peter' 

 (i. 1 ), the associate of Paul (iii. 15), and a xvitness 

 of the resurrection (i. 17, 18) ; the c\prc.->ion 'your 

 apostles' (iii. 2, R.V.), on the other hand, is hrfd by 

 many critics to l>e a confession of the author's non- 



pie ion. and vocabulary conclusively show that it 

 cannot have been written by the author of 1 Peti-i. 

 Its relation to the Epistle of Jude i-also -till under 

 ili-c-iissioii, but the weight of opinion seems to lie 

 in favour of the priority of the latter. The external 

 evidence as to its existence down to the end of the 

 .M century is very uncertain ; and Origen is quoted 

 by Eusebins as saying that even in his day 'there 

 was some doubt ' as to whether it was by Peter. 



The genuineness of both epistles is argued for (to 

 mention only two out of many weighty names ) by Sal- 

 mon ( Introduction to the Nnc Tettament) and by \\ 

 ( Kinltitung ; Eng. trans. 1888 ) ; the opposite view is taken 

 by Holtzmann (Einleitung, 1886), who may be consulted 

 for references to other authors, many of whom accept the 

 first epistle while rejecting the second. There are com- 

 mentaries on both by Froniuullcr (in Lange's BiMtnrk ). 

 Huthcr (in Meyer's Kommentar ; Eng. trans.), Lillie. and 

 Plumptre. Leighton's Practical Commentary on 1 Peter 

 is one of the classics of English theology. 



Peter tbe Cruel. See PEDRO. 



Peter the Great. Peter I., Alexan- 

 dreievich, emperor of Russia, was the son 

 of the Czar Alexei by his second wife, Natalia 

 Narislikina, and was born at MOSCOX.V. I Ith June 

 1672. His father died in 1676, leaving the throne 

 to his eldest son, Feodor, Peter's half -brother. 

 This prince, however, died in 1682 without issue, 

 after naming Peter as his successor, to the exclu- 

 sion of his own full brother, Ivan, who was weak- 

 minded. This step ii ediately provoked nn in- 

 surrection of the ' streltzi ' or militia, fomented by 

 Ivan's sister, the grand-duchesn Sophia, who, after 

 a carnage of three days, succeeded in obtaining the 

 coronation (. I ^v- p82)of Ivan and Peter as joint 

 rulers, and her own appointment as regent, I'p 

 to Peter's coronation his education had licen greatly 

 neglected, but after this time lie had the good 

 fortune to fall under the guidance of Lefort (q.v.), 

 a Oenevese, who initiated him into the sciences and 

 the arts of civilisation, and by showing him lioxv 

 much Muscovv was in these respects behind the n 

 of Kuropc, influenced the whole of his future career. 

 I/efort also formed a small inilitaiv company nut 

 of the young men of noble family who attended 

 Peter, and he rendered the czar himself all the xvhilc 

 amenable to strict discipline. This course of train- 

 ing in all probability saved Peter from becoming 

 the _mere savnge despot which his brutal and 

 passionate dis|xwition and indomitable energy 

 inclined him to IK> ; it also protected him from the 

 jealou-y of his half-sister, the regent Sophia, who 

 thought him alorlnil in military exercises, -tu.li.-~. 

 and amu-cmcnts. She, however, soon discovered 

 her error, for Peter, contrary to her wishes, married 

 ( I6WJ), by his mother's advice, Eudoxia Feodorovna 



