cheenc03a.pdf

SIMON PETER
regarded as birhop of Rome in spite of thir presupposition.
I" Petu's lifetime there were no
monarchical bishops at all (Mt~lsmu, I466. 47). and
even if there had been, his office war that of an apostle,
never that of bishop. And even if he had been birbop,
his special dignity would not have passed over to his
successor ; for apart from the fact that the aposlolical
succession was not believed in till a date long after the
lifetime of Peter (MINISTRY. 5 37). it is in itself an
empty doctrine. Tertullian has well expressed this as
against Calixtun of Rome (P~dic. 91, middle) : 'qualis
es. evertens atque commutans marlifestam domini
inrentionem personaliter hoc [~t. 1613 f ] ~etro con-
116 back.
We porrersno genuinewitingr of Peter; nor can thespcechn
.ttributed to him in Acts lay any claim to authenticity notwith-
8 miles SE of Tanis; cp Petrie. Tan& 11. (On the
4. On the Canonical Epistln see Perrn proposed identification with Tahpnnhes, see TAHattributed
(Ensr~rr), and Cxxlrnr~, 8 8; also, on ~AXHZS.) For the identification Pelusium-Sin there
to pet, 2 Pet., above, B .+a. As apocryphal ~rjti~gs
of Peter, n book of Actr (not, however clalmlng remains only the fact that PelusVlm (or a fort near
to be by him) a Gospel a 'Preaching' (Ki Tpilld) ="d an it?) in called by some Arabic sources (@I- Tinelr (i.e..
Apmplypre .r: enumernr:d by Eureblvr (HJ nu. 81). cp piece of clay, lump of mud); but thir seems to be
Asocnu~~~, 88 264 301 311: Zmhn, Glrch. d. Nrliihm only a translation of the Greek name or a popular
Knnonr, 2 nr.7;r. sxvs).: Harnnck, ACL, ii. lw~(~5,
621-613. On the 'Preaching' of Peter see also above, 8 25r. etymology of Pelurium which also Strabo (803) derive.
Of the gospel of Peter the second hnlf is fully considered under from the muddy surroundingr3 At any rate, a com-
Rervnn~cno~-N~nn~~~v~s,
B j d$nrrim. Leafly, mention
must be made of the Epkrle of Peter to Jam- prefixed to the
~reudo-Clementine HumiIizs, on which see Srrorr MAGUS.
SIMRI
SIPRI ( q~w).
r ch. 2610 ar. RV HI ME, (T.o. I.
SIN (I'D ; for 6's readings see below) an Egyptian
city, EL. 3015: 'and I will pour my fury upon Sin
(AVms, Pelusium), the strength of E~pt: It stands
parallel to Noph-Memphis (u. I~). Pathror, Zoan-Tanir
and No-Thebes (a. I ~ ) , in direct parallelism to No
(Cornill: Noph-Memphis after 6). Verse 16 groups
together Sin (but @-except Q which has &ir as in
a. 15-Syene, and thus with great pmbability Cornill.
; see SYENE), No, and Noph ; in w. f. less
ilnportant cities are enumerated. As in Y. 16 6 seenls
10 be right, only u. 15 remains for Sin. Nothing can
be concluded from the parallelisms, especially because
the text (No occurs 3 finlrs in the present Hebrew text)
has been corrupted in several places, except that Sin
must have been h very important city ; in view of the
paralkliam with Memphis (6, see above), it would seem
to belong to northern Egypt. More inlportant is the
designation 'strength (RV stronghold, fly?) of Egypt,'
which seems to point to theeastern frontier of the Delta.
BB renders Za~v (accusative of Sais or transliteration ?).
B* Tavu (of collrse incorrectly, na Tanir is ZOAN. q.ir.).
Vg. Pelurium. Modern scholars have always adhered
to the Vulgate's identification with Pelusium, because
Pel~~rium would meet the requirements best and because
of the Aramaic word Pyon, Syriac Pydnri ' mud.' which
seemed to furnish the Semitic equivalent for the Greek
IInholistav-i.e.. mud-city (ep Lutetia). This identification
has been ohen repeat& by Egyptologirtr (still
by Steindorff, Beifmge sur Arryr. 1599 us late ns 18go).
but on the basis of erroneour conclorione Brugrch (Diet.
Clogr. 1091 : cp Dumichen, Ceh. Aey 263) had
assumed that Coptic ome, 'dirt, mud,' furnished the
etymology for the great fortified frontier-city Ame(t).
and that the latter. consequently, was Pelusiurn. The
~ity in question-Ame(f)l-had its official etymology
rather from a word meaning ' prince of Lower Egypt ';
but this might have been artificial. The city itself
was, however, discovered by the excavations and invertigations
of Petrie and Griffith, at the modern Nebisheh.
parison of the words Sin or the Aramaic flyan with
Arabic tin is inadmissible for the Semitist. Pelurium.
besides, does not seem to have had any importance
before Greek timer; Herodotus (21,~. etc.) knows
it as the entrance to Egypt, and in this capacity it
appears in many Greek writers; but no hieroglyphic
name for it has been found so far, and it is not unlikely
that cities more to the East (see above on Amet-
although later it wa; still the seat of a Coptic bishop.
The Coptic name war TTEPEMOYN. Arabic For(n)ma.
The earternmost branch of the Nile was known an
the Peluriac : the Pelusiac mouth is now dried up completely.
and the insignificant ruins of the ancient city are
situated in the desert.3
It will be wsn, therefore, that the popular identification
with Pelusium rests on very feeble grounds. Jerome
(~ee above) was most likely guided by the Aramaic
I The ambiguous letter 0 had here the vdue of Aleph, to