cheenc03a.pdf

SIMON PETER
(o) .As for the conversion of Cornelius, it ir only
necessary to recall what has been said already (above,
5 3 b) that, regarded as a Grnttle conversion, it is an
imporilbility urrlerr we ale to take it as having happened
at u dnte subieqtxenf to the Counchl of Jeruialem-a
supposition, however, which is also impossible (see
C~KNELIVS. 5 2).
'The only possible way of raving somc historical kernel for the
,tory be by rezarding ?orne~iur ss a Jew~rh prorelyre
who had nlrerdy been clrcumclrsd. No such thing, howeve!,
i\ anywh.rc raid in Acts (nor even in 102 12 zs) rnd the idea '3
dlrv~r~lrically 0pp03ed to Lhe,representafi?n as ? wllole (see
Cuxxs~los o 3). The narratlvc is aconiplcuour lllustmtlor of
rile extent 1:which the author could be led away from hl\f~n~=l
fruih by hlr tendency or rooted inclinatiu. rq regard Peter, nut
Paul u ,he arigillrrur of "very progrgrs,ve movzmenr m
chr~~rianirY, and prriiculnrly of rhe rn~rr~on ru the Gentiles.
1 bur it is nor nr all n~cesrnry fur us lo dwell upprl ihc special
dificulrics that nttarh ru the claely correrpndlng virlonr of
Cornelius and Peter (gg-ib) as integral prrt? of the fir-rcnchlng
parallelirm between I'eter md Paul which ir $0 be olnerred in
Acts (see Acr. * 4, end).
(6) That Peter and John should have visited Samaria
after Philip's missiorhary labours there (8 X~-SS) ir very
conceivable. The main thine reoorted in this connrcn
.
tion, however-namely, that it war by means of the
laying-on of hands of the two origltral apostles that the
Samaritans who had airradv been baotisrd received the
HolyGhost-cannot beregardedas hirtorical(A~~s,~~o.
cnd ; MINlsmu. $ jqr) The statement rests upon a
strorrg1y hieiarchical idea which, moreover, in virtue of
the pnrvllcliim just alluded to, is extended to Paul also
(196). arrd marks out this journey of Peter and John
as one of episcopal inspection. On the unhistorical
character of 818.14 see SIMON hl~~as, 5s I. 13f
(6) The miracles of Peter-the healing of the man
lame from his birth (31.~). of mnear in Lyddn who
had been lame for eight years (9nz-35). the raising of
Tabitha at Joppa (Q16-+z), and the many works ofhealing
performed by the apostles r>hich led to the telief that
they could be crsected even byPeter's shadow (jIZ 15 f)
-are all primarily to be lewd 111 the light .of the
purallelirm with I'aul. de ;he author of Acts had
at Iris conlmvnd a lnieer suoolv of materials relatine to
SIMON PETER
just at this point rendered questionable by the circumstance
that within the compass of a few verses he sets
forth tao wholly irreconcilable views on the subject ~f
commurlity of goods in the primitive church (see Cot+
MUNITY OF GOODS, g 3f ).
(a) With respect to the three imprisonmentr of Peter
(in 43 518 along with the other apostles, in 123-5 without
them) and his two miraculous deliverances (519
126-1,). the conjecture hnr long been current that all
the accounts relate to but one occurrence which graduall>
came to be told in different nays.
In chap. 12 on the other hand the picture ir v~
vivid and it would be difficult to believe that, for
example, the ".?me Rhoda is a mere invention. In
this case in point of fact there is no need to deny the
imprisonment and the liberation, or even that the
liberation appeared very rvonderful alike to Peter and
to all the other persons mentioned; and yet it admits
of a very intelligible explanation if with Hausrath we
suppore that the angel who brought Peter forlh from
the prison will have been the deathangel of Herod
Agrippi (NTliehe leiis.erch.lzl, Z35r f ). With the
death of a ruler the prison doors often opened for those
whom he perchance had locked up more out of caprice
than in any s~pposed interests of justice.
If) There is yet another consideration which tells
.. .
I. , ,I,, ! *.,..:*,I 1,,r . I ,f ?,I. 5. ch,A e\,.~3t.t,#or.
I r, ! 8 , . , I ,, ii ,1111 'I,: ,I.., I,. t1.e
corlrse of ~r.?armission or at the time when it war fixed
in writing the occorrence acquired a more dramatic
character than originally and actually it possessed. It
can hardly he doubted that the composer of Acts regards
it as a miracle; but the credibility of his narrative is
146 4565
so markedas to call for the intervrniion ofthe s!ieclriun',
that body would hardly have rested satisfied with merely
enjoining them not to preach Christ (418 11) or with
scourging them (5.0).
~ ~
.I Ice I..n;e, wl.. t, JW,> I,, I,,% ,e.e!,c mi".5#r, 1.3,l I r ught
",LA. the ,,,.r.,,.l ,C~,CI .I x u .,,I. ,,trh in ",..I.. rl.rn,.r,h
,,,I the r:.rm.t#.,.-r .f ih. ..",. Ir,.p.r ,I. .>.I carrlllll u "Id
x~.##rc 11, h:~>c ~u~hrj .st "#kt. ,I., dtsob.>t >>:,~r ..d r1.s 1h.r.
.. .ttt.n ,f .I.Z l'l.cj~t~~s~~ fit*, rnc~c~~#1,\,~.~;9.:/
. , . " I . 11ua.
, . I " , ' 8 . 8" c1.c
,, . ""1.1 I . . 2 : I i :. h. -,i*,..l ...I .,I-,
3 ! 2 % I . I . , I h f I . .,I;...., ,.,.I,.. I. I L t
"."Ill I,.* I. I i 8 I . 8 . " A. I I.. I. I.
, , . .. ..
. . ,*, e-,'r.4p ..,~
is,
,,.,
'L!.e ilr.ru I. . f .\:I. rc:n nr f I ctt. \$?I ?.,c,