cheenc03a.pdf

SIMON PETER
coming to Antioch wili have been the result merely of a
genial temper called forth by the pieasant conditions of
that particular community, not the resuit of any fimmly
established conviction. Peter war not so strictly Legal
as Jamer. but risenrially he was still unemvncipated
from the fetters of the law (see Corr~cr~, 4 3).
(f) That Peter suffered himself to be convinced by
SIMON PETER
considered. was wholly indifferent-viz.. ar to whether
john Markshouldor shouldnot be taken as a colnpanion
on the second missionary jonrney (Acts 1636-40). Such
a notice is very well adapted, it ia obviou, to counteract
any representatiun of the real state of the care that
,night have been derived from (let us say) theEpistle to
tile Galatians or from oral tradition, by its substitution
of another which deprives the affiir of any conridenble
Paul'sargumentvtion (Gal. 2 wzr) must not be supposed;
for the incidenl in Anlioch was followed by the syste- importance. Furthermore, of any missionary jourlley of
motic invasion of the Pauline communitier by Jewish Peter one learns nothing more thanthe little that is said
emissaries, with which we are made acquainted in in Actsgis 43; for, in spiteof 8 4 ('they . . . preached
Galatians and Corinthians. Had Peter recognired that , the gospel to many villager of the Samaritans'), 8rr-25
Paul had right on his side he needed only to assert his 1 is to be taken less as a missionary journey than as a
authority and to call to mind the arrangement indicated tour of inrpection (see below, 5 4b). 1" 1 2 we ~ are ~
in Gal. 'L9 and all attrmpts to undermine the inHuence of told merely that after his deliverance from prison Peter
Paul in the communitien he had founded and to win went from Jerusalem to another place. Whither he
them back to Judaism would have ceased. The leaders went or what he did there we are not informed. In
of the primitive church, and among there Peter so Long 157 we find him again in Jerusalem as if this were a
nr he was in Palestine, must he held responsible for a matter of course. The author of the book has not
share in this action against Paul by the withholding of deemed it necessary in speaking of u person of Peter's
their veto at least, if not even by overt action-such as, importance to giveany connected account of his activity.
for example, perhapi the issue of recommendatory ' (b) The account of the council in Jerusalem in Acts is
letters (z Cor. 3.). See Councl~, $ 3. m giarlng contradiction witli what we read in Paul.
(f) It will be convenient to take up at this point elm
1. di ace .,, of the arrangement with Peter, Jamcs, and John
the last notices of Peter that are found in Paul, even for a lvlrmn of the missionan. field we have a decree ui the
though there should lie the ,,f primitive Church which ir directly erciuded by Gal. Zqsr well
as by r Coi. 8 lor+-I1 I (;XZ-I+) and firldr as only hlrroricd
Peter's activity in Palestine. In Corinfh th=re was. foundation in recond not at ~i the
command fallowed by Peter in doing so had iven iir approval
Nevertheless the rise of a Cephas-party in Corinth is (11 5-r8). the quertion would ?l!erdy have teen settled and
explicable, ~~~l of peter to could not agam bc raised, ord a had ken rased nut have
Corillfh and the foll"wers whom they
hrrn anrwcred by a rimple!eference to this fact wirhoutresourw
in the bring needcd lo any counc~l (sea Con~e~~us, 5 .f, 5).
community there took up from them their watchword : (r) Finrlly,evenvhrt haiken~pok~nof~~d~~(~)~~~t
I am of Cephas.' Now, there was also at Corinth, as to antecedent objection-the absence of mention of P~ter on
,ve know, party Christ-party which was
the occ-ion of the firrt %it to Jer~~abm-rest$ upon false
infurmarion; for in Acrs 936-jo Paul is r~prernred not ar in
strictly judairtic (see CORINTHIANS. 5 16). Inasmuch G=I. 1 1 s 12, ~ .ir having ~ ~ rmer t but ~ nr ~ ~ ~ d
a! thr Cephar-party remained apart from it, we see having convzrvd in full p~~bllctl~ w~th fie entire Christian
here also another evidence that within Jewish Christen- commu"i'~ofJeruirlem.
dom Peter represented the milder school. In zCor. Thus, in so far as we are able to control Actr by
it ir only of the Christ-party that we continue to hear
(10,). no longer of that of Cephas.
(k) Finally, we learn incidentally that in his missionary
journeys, which in accordance with Gal. 29 we are
to think of as being made in regions having a Jewish
population, Peter was accompanied by his wife, and for
her ar well as for himself asked and received sustenance
the Epistles of Paul, Acts is seen to have little claim
to OUT confidence in anything it has to say about Peter.
We can hardly expect to be able to repose more confidence
in it in those portions where it is our role
informant.
The opinion is widely held that the trustworthiness of
Acts as regards Peter has beenstrengthened when it hns
from the communities in which he laboured (~Cor. 4, Other data been pointed out that the first half of
9 4 ) .
Acts has an older source behind it
In the accounts in Acts relating to these same events in Acts,
That we have to reckon with one or
there is practically no agreement with what we learn more sources become$ particularly plain in the discourser
3, Parallels from Paul except on the quite general of Peter (see Acrs. 14). in the pentecort narrative
statement that Peter at the time of the (Srr~~~uar. Grb-rs,
in
5 lo), and in that relating to
council heldalongwith Jamer aprominent primitive communirm (CVMMUNITY OF GOODS. 95 1-4).
position in the church at Jerusalem. All else is absent. It can only be regarded, however, as indicative of the
or otherwise reponed.
extreme recklessness with vhich many theologians deal
(a) As regards the silence of Actr, no one will find it
surprising that no express mention is made of the outstanding
importance of Peter at Pass first visit to
with n~ch questions if we find them taking for granted
that, once the existence of a source has been made out.
the trustworthioesr of its contents has also been forth-
Jeruraiem: the thing is presupposed (but cp c). It is with established. If Actr was composed about 100.130
ail the more remarkable, however, that thebook has not A.D. its sources may easily have been Late enough to be
a word to ray about the dispute of the two apostles at legendary in character, and even should many parts-
Antioch, about the Cephas-party in Corinrh, or about the discourser, let us say-be found worthy of credence,
the Judaistic invasion of the Pauline communities and
the part taken by the original apostles in this ; and
that io fact it substitutes for the first-mentioned dispute
another which arose between Paul and one of those
engaged in the conflict, only in this care not Peter
b:lt Barnaban, and on a question which, dogmatically
poser has also to be taken into account a a very important
factor (see Acrs, 59 3-6).
4563 4564