not in the opinion of the present writer probable) that St Peter's life may have been prolonged until 70–80 A.D.

(2) That the Epistle is written in good idiomatic Greek, and shews an appreciation of the niceties of the language in the use of tenses, prepositions and synonyms. The writer must have been a diligent student of the LXX., probably including the Apocrypha, and he is saturated with its language. Besides this he uses sixteen Classical words not found in the LXX. or N.T. and several other Greek words (chiefly compounds) for which there is no contemporary or earlier authority. Such literary attainments, it is urged, are incredible in a Galilean peasant like St Peter, who is described in Acts iv. 13 as "ignorant and unlearned” (idiótŋs kaì ȧypáμμatos), and is stated by Papias and other early Fathers to have required the services of St Mark as his interpreter (épμnvevrýs). Dean Armitage Robinson says (Study of the Gospels, p. 16) "It is extremely probable that St Peter could not write or preach, even if he could speak at all, in any language but his mother tongue, the Aramaic of Galilee." Similarly Dr Swete (St Mark, Int. p. xx) says "Simon Peter, if he could express himself in Greek at all, could scarcely have possessed sufficient knowledge of the language to address a Roman congregation with success." On the other hand Lightfoot (Excursus on St Peter in Rome, Clement, Vol. ii. p. 494) says "When Mark is called épμnvevrýs the interpreter of Peter, the reference must be to the Latin, not to the Greek language. The evidence that Greek was spoken commonly in the towns bordering on the Sea of Galilee is ample, even if this had not been the necessary inference from the whole tenour of the New Testament." In view of the large element of Greek life in Galilee, it is certainly probable that St Peter had some knowledge of colloquial Greek from the first. The epithets "ignorant and unlearned" applied to the Apostles need not mean more than that they had no professional training in Rabbinic schools. Although there is no warrant for the idea that the "gift of tongues" enabled the Apostles to preach at will in foreign languages, we may well suppose that in choosing St Peter as one of His messengers our Lord discerned in him intellectual as well as spiritual gifts and fitted him for his work by blessing the use which he made of those gifts. In his intercourse with Hellenists at Jerusalem, with Jews of the Dispersion

on the day of Pentecost, and with Cornelius the centurion St Peter must almost certainly have spoken in Greek, yet there is no hint of the employment of an interpreter, and his knowledge of the language would steadily increase during his sojourn in Jerusalem and his missionary work (see 1 Cor. ix. 5) when Antioch was perhaps his headquarters. Moreover he would be dependent upon the study of the LXX. in "searching the Scriptures." It is generally agreed (Edersheim, Nöldeke, etc.) that Hebrew was only familiar to scholars in the time of our Lord. Apparently Jewish children were taught to read Hebrew and the lessons in the Synagogue were still read in Hebrew (except possibly among the Hellenists). But already an "interpreter" was required to give an Aramaic paraphrase, though this did not take written form in the Targums until a much later date. Hebrew Manuscripts seem to have been very costly, whereas Greek Manuscripts were quite cheap. Thus even in Galilee it is probable that the LXX. was "the people's Bible." It would therefore be by no means impossible for the language of the Epistle to be chiefly St Peter's own, though it is conceivable that his amanuensis (possibly Silvanus, as the style is quite unlike that of Mark, his only other known companion) may have assisted him in expressing his thoughts in an idiomatic form.

(3) The comparative absence from the Epistle of allusions to the facts or teaching of our Lord's earthly life.

It is urged that if the Epistle was written by St Peter, the close companion of Christ, we should find more signs of a vivid remembrance of His life and teaching. But it is surprising how few facts concerning our Lord's life and ministry are found in any of the N.T. Books outside the Gospels. The story of His words and works must have been constantly preached by the Apostles, as we learn from St Luke's preface and from the unanimous tradition that St Mark's Gospel was based upon the preaching of St Peter. Yet in the recorded speeches of St Peter in Acts the only references to events before the Passion are three allusions to the Baptism and two to the Miracles of our Lord. Similarly in the Epistles of St John and of James, the Lord's brother, very few facts are alluded to. Therefore the absence of such direct allusions in 1 Peter can only be used as an argument against its genuineness if the same is applied also to the other speeches and

epistles attributed to Apostles. On the other hand, if they were late forgeries, such allusions would almost certainly have been introduced to support their professed Apostolic authorship.

But although direct allusions to our Lord's Life and Work are rare there are numerous indirect allusions and undesigned coincidences which support the Petrine authorship.

As in St Peter's speeches in Acts the author lays special stress upon the fact that he was a "witness" of Christ's sufferings, and, although the word μáprus does not in itself necessarily mean a "spectator," the vivid imperfects in ii. 23 seem to describe the author's own recollection of the scene of Christ's Trial and Passion.

The implied contrast between himself and his readers ôv ouk · ἰδόντες ἀγαπᾶτε i. 8 is not only an indirect claim to have been himself an eyewitness but suggests a reminiscence of our Lord's words to St Thomas, Jn xx. 29.

The instruction to gird themselves with humility to serve one another, v. 5, would come most naturally from one who had been so put to shame by the Lord Jesus in girding Himself to wash the disciples' feet, when none of them would demean themselves to do the slave's duty.

The exhortation to watch (ypnyopeîv) and to resist the devil in his attempts to devour them by making them deny their faith in the hour of danger, v. 8, would have special force if it came from one who had himself fallen, in spite of his Master's warning that Satan had desired to have him and his companions to sift them as wheat, because he failed to watch and pray, from one whose faith had been saved from utter failure by his Master's prayer and who now that he is converted desires to strengthen his brethren.

The charge to his fellow-presbyters to shepherd (Toμaive) the flock of God is the same that was given to St Peter on his repentance, Jn xxi. 16.

There are also numerous echoes of our Lord's sayings in the Epistle.

1 Pet. i. 4.

The Christian's inheritance reserved in heaven,

Mt. xxv. 34. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, cf. Mt. v. 5, vi. 20.

I PETER

1 Pet. iv. 14. εἰ ὀνειδίζεσθε ἐν ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ μακάριοι.

1 Pet. v. 1. Witness of sufferings fellow-sharer of glory.

1 Pet. v. 3. κατακυριεύοντες.

1 Pet. v. 6. ταπεινώθητε...ἵνα ὑμᾶς ὑψώσῃ.

Mt. ν. 11. μακάριοι ὅταν ὀνειδίσωσιν...ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ.

Lk. xxiv. 47. Ye are witnesses of these things.

Mt. xix. 28, Lk. xxii. 30. When the Son of Man shall sit upon the throne of his glory ye also, etc. Mt. xx. 25. οἱ ἄρχοντες τῶν ἔθνων κατακυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν. οὐχ οὕτως ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν.

Mt. xxiii. 12. ὅστις ταπεινώσει ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται.

3. CANONICITY.

With the exception of the First Epistle of St John, the First Epistle of St Peter is the only one among the Catholic Epistles “of whose authority there never was any doubt in the Church.”

It was rejected by the heretic Marcion because he only accepted the Pauline books of the N.T. Theodore of Mopsuestia is also said by Leontius to have rejected “the Epistle of St James and the other Catholic Epistles in order," but probably this only means 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter and Jude, which were not accepted by the Syrian Churches. There is however some evidence which tends to shew that originally none of the Catholic Epistles were included in the Syrian Canon, but 1 John, 1 Peter and James had been accepted by them long before Theodore's time.

It is also omitted in the present text of the Muratorian fragment, which gives a list, possibly drawn up by Hippolytus, of the books accepted in the Church of Rome at the end of the second century. But this list, as we have it, is admitted to be incomplete. Some suggest that St Peter and his Epistle may have been mentioned in the lost portion dealing with St Mark's Gospel, while Zahn thinks that a passage, which in the existing text deals with the Apocalypse of Peter, may have originally referred to his first Epistle.

With these insignificant and doubtful exceptions the evidence for the reception of 1 Peter by the Church is extraordinarily strong.

In the fourth century Eusebius includes it among those books which are "generally received" (H. E. iii. 25. 2) and says that "the