for the legendary Peter, Albert of Aix. The whole career of the Hermit has been thoroughly and excellently discussed by H. Hagenmeyer, Peter der Heremite (Leipzig, 1879). (E. Br.)
PETER THE WILD BOY (fl. 1725–1785), a Hanoverian
imbecile of unknown parentage, who, having been found living
wild in the woods near Hanover in 1725, was brought to England
by order of George I., whose interest had been aroused in the
unfortunate youth. An extraordinary amount of curiosity and
speculation concerning Peter was excited in London, and the
craze was the subject of a biting satire by Swift, and of another
entitled The Most Wonderful Wonder that ever appeared to the
Wonder of the British Nation, which has been attributed to Swift
and Arbuthnot; Defoe also wrote on the subject, and Lord
Monboddo in his Origin and Progress of Language presents the
idiot Peter as an illustration of his theory of the evolution of
the human species. He lived to an advanced age, was seen by
Lord Monboddo in 1782, and died in 1785.
See Henry Wilson, The Book of Wonderful Characters (London, 1869).
PETER, EPISTLES OF, the two books of the New Testament traditionally ascribed to the apostle Peter.
1 Peter
This epistle is addressed to “the elect who are sojourners of the Dispersion [Diaspora] in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” The “Diaspora” was the name generally given to the Jews who were “scattered abroad.” This suggests that the letter was intended for Jewish Christians in the provinces mentioned. But i. 14, 18; ii. 9, 10; iv. 3 point rather to Gentile Christians, and it is better to take this view, and interpret the “Diaspora” metaphorically as referring to the isolated position of Christians among the heathen. The general impression made by the epistle is that the central idea was to strengthen the courage of the recipients, who were likely to undergo persecution, and to enjoin on them conduct which would remove all reasonable excuse for thinking that Christianity ought to be regarded as a crime
Ch. i. 3–12 is an introduction of praise to God that he had caused the recipients of the epistle to be born again to the living hope in a glorious salvation. The rest of the epistle may be divided into three parts: (α) i. 13–ii. 10, mainly hortatory injunctions to live holy lives in accordance with this new birth, and to grow up as God’s people in communion with Christ; (β) ii. 11–iv. 6, particular directions as to the line of conduct to be pursued towards the Gentiles and towards those in authority, with special reference to the relations of slaves to masters, of wives and husbands to each other, and of Christians to one another; to the first of these a passage is appended dealing with the sufferings of Christ as an example (ii. 21–25), and the whole is completed by an exhortation to meekness and patience in suffering; in the light of the sufferings of Christ and the blessings given by them both to the living and to the dead; (γ) iv. 7–v. 11, has less cohesion. It begins with exhortations not to forget prayer and love, then the believers are warned to be careful to suffer only as Christians, not as breakers of the laws. The elders and the younger men are reminded of their duties to the community and to one another The whole is brought to a close with an exhortation to all to fight manfully against the devil and to trust in God.
Date and Authorship—These two questions are so closely connected that they cannot be considered separately. The external evidence of tradition is that the epistle was written by St Peter. This can be traced back to Irenaeus (iv. 9, 2) and Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. 18, 110), and it is thought by many writers that 2 Peter iii. 1, even if it be not itself Petrine, is good evidence that the writer regarded 1 Peter as apostolic. Evidence for its use, without mention of its name, may be found in Polycarp, but probably not in the other apostolic fathers (cf. The N.T. in the Apostolic Fathers, Oxford, 1905, p. 137) It is, however, possible that Papias made use of it. It is doubtful whether Justin Martyr used it, but probable that it was known to Theophilus of Antioch. It is not mentioned in the canon of Muratori. Thus external evidence, though unanimous in favour of the Petrine authorship, is not sufficient to settle the question The internal evidence consists of (α) evidence bearing on the date in connexion with the persecution of Christians, (β) evidence establishing the relation of the epistle to other documents in early Christian history, and (γ) evidence concerning St Peter personally.
(α) It is clear from 1 Peter i. 6, ii. 12, iv. 12–19, v. 9, that the epistle was written during a time of persecution The question which is doubtful is to which persecution the description best applies. The traditional opinion was that the persecution referred to was that under Nero. But It has been argued that the Neroine persecution according to Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) was not a persecution of Christians as such, but was rather the result of false accusation. Moreover there is no proof that there was any persecution of Christians at this time outside Rome, and 1 Peter alludes to persecution in the provinces of Asia Minor. Therefore many critics have felt obliged to bring the epistle into connexion with the epistle of Pliny to Trajan, written c. 112, and asking for advice as to the procedure to be followed in trials of Christians. This is the earliest evidence which implies organized persecution in the provinces in question, and therefore Holtzmann, Weizsacker and others regard this as fixing the date of the epistle in the beginning of the 2nd century, and excluding the Petrine authorship. Against this view it may be argued that the epistle describes the beginning of persecution. The writer still hopes that Christians will not be obliged to suffer “for the name” and is clearly aware of false accusations of crime. On the other hand Pliny’s letter implies a time when Christianity was in itself a crime and was recognized as such. Thus it is urged, probably correctly, that the epistle belongs to the beginning of a period of which Pliny’s letter marks a later development, and we can only say that c. 112 is the terminus ad quem. The terminus a quo is more difficult to find. We do not know with certainty when Christianity became a recognized offence, and scholars have supported various hypotheses. T. Mommsen, Hardy and Sanday think that even under Nero it was criminal to be a Christian; Neumann thinks that this was first the case under Domitian; Sir W. M. Ramsay believes that this attitude was one of the results of the Jewish War of 70, and ascribes it to Vespasian. If the Domitianic date be adopted the Petrine authorship is almost excluded, and it is difficult to reconcile the traditional date of St Peter’s martyrdom with Ramsay’s theory.
(β) The relations of 1 Peter to other books in early Christian literature is shown in the following table:—
| 1 Pet. | Rom. | 1 Pet. | Eph. | 1 Pet. | Jas. | 1 Pet. | Polycarp. | ||||
| i. 14 | — | xii. 2 | i. 1 seq. | — | i. 3 seq. | i. 1 | — | i. 1 | i. 8 | — | i. 3 |
| ii. 5 | — | xii. 1 | i. 14 | — | ii. 3 | i. 6 seq. | — | i. 2 seq. | i. 13 | — | ii. 1 |
| ii. 6–10 | — | ix. 32 | ii. 18 | — | vi. 5 | i. 24 | — | i. 10 | i. 21 | — | ii. 1 |
| ii. 13 | — | xiii. 1 | iii. 1 | — | v. 22 | i. 23 | — | i. 18 | ii. 11 | — | v. 3 |
| iii. 9 | — | xii. 17 | iii. 22 | — | i. 20 | iv. 8 | — | v. 20 | ii. 12 | — | x. 2 |
| iii. 22 | — | viii. 34 | v. 5 | — | v. 21 | v. 5 seq. | — | iv. 6,10 | ii. 21 | — | viii. 1,2 |
| iv. 3 | — | xiii. 11 | iii. 9 | — | ii. 2 | ||||||
| iv. 7 | — | xiii. 12 | iv. 7 | — | vii. 2 | ||||||
| iv. 9 | — | xiii. 13 | iv. 16 | — | viii. 2 | ||||||
| iv. 10 | — | xii. 6 | |||||||||
From this table it is sufficiently plain that 1 Peter is closely connected with Romans, Ephesians, James and Polycarp. The majority of scholars are agreed that in the case of Romans the dependence is on the side of 1 Peter, and in the case of Polycarp on the side of Polycarp. There is less agreement as to Ephesians and James, though in the former case the general opinion favours the dependence of 1 Peter, in the latter case its priority. In England, however, the priority of James has been supported by Mayor and Hort. In the light of the established use of Romans it is possible that 1 Peter also used other Pauline epistles and some scholars have seen special traces of the influence of 1 Cor. and Gal. (for a list of these cf. Holtzmann, Einleitung in das N.T., 3, p. 314). It has been argued that the use of the Pauline epistles is improbable for Peter, but this is a subjective argument which is not decisive.
(γ) According to tradition Peter was martyred in Rome, and it is probable that this was in the Neroine persecution. If this be so, the year 64 is the terminus ad quem of the letter, if it be authentic. Ramsay, however, thinks that Peter may have survived this persecution and suffered at the beginning of the persecutions which, he thinks, were initiated by the Flavian emperors (see Peter, St: § 5, 4 and 6).
The whole question of authorship and date is thus a complex of smaller problems, many of which do not seem to admit of any definite answer. If St Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians be genuine, and it were really known to the writer of 1 Peter, and if Peter were martyred in 64, the theory of Petrine authorship demands that it was written by Peter between 59 and 64. On the Petrine hypothesis this is the most probable view. The weak point is that it assumes a great spread of Christianity in the provinces of Asia Minor outside the activity of Paul, and that the official persecution of Christians as such began throughout the Roman Empire under Nero, for neither of which is there
