Very
few scholars of our time would hold that Peter wrote this letter, and most would
instead maintain that it is a pseudepigraphic work. This is due largely to the
fact that the Greek in 1 Peter is much better than that in 2 Peter, or than that
which one would expect from a Galilean fisherman. When the term
αγραμματoς is used of Peter in Acts
4:13, it is by no means obvious that this means he could not read or write his
own native language (Aramaic). The picture that we get of Peter in the first
part of Acts is surely not of an illiterate, and both Acts and the Petrine
epistles show beautiful (Semitic) poetic structures (cf. Bailey, Poet &
Peasant).
What W. J. Dalton ("'So That Your Faith May Also Be Your Hope In
God' (1 Peter 1:21)", Reconciliation & Hope, ed.R.J.Banks,
Paternoster Press, Exeter 1974) writes is helpful: "Actually we know more
about the linguistic situation in Palestine in the time of the New Testament
that would appear in most commentaries on 1 Peter. Josephus is a good example of
what was possible at the time, an example which might well be meditated upon by
scholars who are so quick to turn to pseudepigraphy as a solution. Born about
A.D.38 at Jerusalem, he was educated in the Jewish law and actually spent three
years in the wilderness as part of an ascetical group. Only at the age of
twenty-six did he go to Rome. It was this Josephus who first wrote The Jewish
War in Aramaic, and then, with some assistance, translated this work into
the Greek version which we now have, a version which is remarkably free from
semitisms. Surprising but true! Of course, there is no strict parallel here to a
biblical work, and we do have the fact that the writer of 1 Peter cites from the
LXX version of the Old Testament. But can we be so sure that, in the more
Hellenized Galilee, the LXX was not in use among moderately educated Jews?"
(p.263). There is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Galilee was far more
influenced by Hellenism than Jerusalem. Fish seems to have provided the main
industry for the region, and Peter and Andrew seem to have been associated with
Zebedee, who had 'hired men'. Dalton suggests that we allow some force to
Peter's statement, 'We have left everything to follow you' (Mk.10:28). C. Spicq
concludes (perhaps too absolutely), "Peter’s alleged ignorance of Greek
ought not to figure in discussions of the authenticity of 1 Peter " (Les
Épîtres de saint Pierre, Paris, 1966, p.23).
It is perhaps somewhat ironic that the difference in the style and level of Greek between 1 and 2 Peter should be used as an argument, since (as we shall see next time) 2 Peter is almost universally recognized as having been written later and as not being an authentic composition of the apostle Peter. And thus differences in the Greek of the two letters cannot in all fairness be used to argue for the inauthenticity of 1 Peter! At any rate, F. W. Beare writes of the author of 1 Peter: “He is a stylist of no ordinary capacity, and he writes some of the best Greek of the New Testament, far smoother and more literary than that of the highly-trained Paul” (The First Epistle of Peter, Oxford, 1958, p.28). Although Paul was born in Tarsus, he was apparently raised in Jerusalem, albeit by Greek-speaking Jews, it must be admitted. If someone growing up in Jerusalem could speak excellent Greek, how much more someone who grew up in Galilee, which scholars are increasingly coming to regard as a multicultural and ethnically diverse area? [On the character of Galilee in this period see further Batey, Richard A., Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991; Freyne, Sean, Galilee from Alexander the Great to Hadrian 323 B.C.E. to 135 C.E., Wilmington: Michael Glazier/University of Notre Dame Press, 1980; Horsley, Richard A., Galilee: History, Politics, People, Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995]. The use of the LXX, in allusions and not merely in quotations, is a stronger argument against the author being a Galilean fisherman, although other explanations of this element can be offered.
Many scholars argue that 1 Peter shows signs of dependence on the
writings of Paul. However, it is hard to assert dependence from the evidence we
have of common phrases or words. Many suggest that the better Greek is due to
Silvanus' input as amanuensis; some have gone on to suggest that Silvanus wrote
the letter under the authority of Peter, and since Silvanus had also been a
companion of Paul, his input could explain similarities of phrase with Paul.
Finally, we should note that (as we also mentioned in connection with the
letter of James), those who write in the name of an earlier authoritative
individual, usually do so with a purpose: to combat a heresy, to promote a
doctrine, etc. In the case of 1 Peter, it seems unlikely that the author is
making any point that would have warranted the adoption of the name of Peter as
a pseudonym. Encouragement to those undergoing persecution could be found in the
Gospels and in the oral tradition of what Jesus himself had said. It seems
unlikely that someone would have felt the need to write in Peter’s name for
this aim alone. And so, while there are no conclusive historical arguments that
prove authenticity, neither are there decisive arguments against it, and so we
choose to work with the hypothesis that Peter was indeed the author of this
letter. And so for the time being, unless further evidence is forthcoming, we
consider it best to take at face value the statement at the start of the letter,
'From Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ...', a statement which has quite good
confirmation from external attestation (the witnesses of the early Church for
this epistle is as good as, if not better than, that of any other NT book - it
is thus surprising how little attention has been given to the book by modern scholarship and exegesis).
It
is generally assumed that Peter died (by crucifixion upside-down) during the
Neronian persecution in the 60s. The witness of John 21:18-23 is not clear (as
Michaels notes, it could fit an aged man in a nursing home as well as a heroic
martyr for Christ; p. lviii). John's own comment relates this clearly to Peter's
death, but not necessarily to martyrdom; while the reference to stretching out
his hands could imply crucifixion, it is rather ambiguous. The fact that John
uses 'will' rather than 'would' makes it impossible to assert with certainty
even that Peter was dead at the time he wrote, although it is not therefore
rendered impossible or unlikely that he was. The earliest external evidence for
Peter having died as a martyr is 1 Clement, and this refers only to Peter
enduring many hardships before going to glory (5.4). The Apocalypse of Peter and
the Acts of Peter, written later, tell of his martyrdom in Rome by crucifixion
upside-down, but in a legendary manner (the latter says Peter fled from Rome,
but on the way met with Christ who was on his way to Rome to be crucified again,
and so Peter returns for his death; cf. Acts Pet.30-41, and the movie Quo
Vadis). Tertullian and Eusebius seem to have known such traditions about
Peter's martyrdom as well (cf. HE 2.25.5-8; 3.1.2-3). Yet alongside these
must be taken evidence that Peter lived long enough to ordain Clement as his
successor, which is well evidenced in Roman tradition (by Tertullian) and in
Jewish Christianity (by the Pseudo-Clementine homilies). It is not likely that
tradition is right to say both that Peter lived in Rome a long time
(according to the 4th century Catalogus Liberianus, 25 years) and that he
died a martyr's death in Nero's time (William M. Ramsay in light of this argued
for both Petrine authorship and a date c.AD 80; this serves as a good
warning against making the question of authorship too dependent on the date).
Stephen Neill (Jesus Through Many Eyes, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976)
notes that 1 Peter 4:12 is a strong evidence for an early date (p.88). He
comments, "It is hard to see how any Christian in the Roman Empire, after
the fierce persecution in Rome in A.D.64-65, could regard persecution as a
strange thing, even though he might not himself have been exposed to the fiery
trial". And so the evidence for the date of the letter does not disprove
Petrine authorship.
Many
claim that the persecution reflected in the epistle is that of a later time than
the apostolic age. For example, F. W. Beare argued in his commentary that
4:12-16 can only refer to Christians being accused on a political charge propter
nomen ('on account of the name') as sedition-mongers and enemies of the
state. Beare asserts that the only time that fits is that of Trajan (111-112 C.E.),
and notes that in Pliny's correspondence (Ep.10:97) Christians in
Pontus-Bithynia were accused of 'crimes adhering to the name' (flagita
cohaerentia nomini), which links neatly with 1 Peter 4:14-16. Yet there are
also serious doubts concerning this. As G. Edmundson (The Church in Rome,
p.139 n.1) comments, "The Rescript of Trajan merely confirmed in writing
the practice, which had subsisted since the time of Nero, of treating the very
name of Christian as a crime against the State". J. N. D. Kelly (A
Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude, Harper/Black, 1969) concludes
that because "there is no evidence for any very extensive persecution
initiated by the government in the 1st or early 2nd centuries" (p.10),
there is no reason to disagree with "the impression which the letter as a
whole conveys...not of juridical prosecutions by the government (these seem
ruled out by the references themselves, by the statement that the ill-treatment
is world-wide, and by the respect shown to the emperor), but of an atmosphere of
suspicion, hostility and brutality on the part of the local population which may
easily land Christians in trouble with the police" (p.29). The descriptions
of persecutions in the epistle lack any reference to the official inquiries and
torture practiced in Pliny's time, and rather suggest that the hardships,
although widespread (5:9), are each individual outbursts confined to the area,
"originating in the hostility of the surrounding population. The technical
terms for official persecution (diôgmos, etc.) are noticeably absent,
nor is there any unambiguous mention of formal accusation (katêgoria),
much less of imprisonment or execution" (ibid, p.10).
As
has already been noted earlier, many have suggested that 1 Peter appears to be
imitating Paul, and not succeeding very well. This is to ignore the distinctive
features of the letter, as well as the fact that Paul was not the only source of
Christian truth in the first century, even though we have more letters from him
than from others. This is not to say that we should not look for influences of
the thought of others; we know Paul influenced Peter on at least one occasion
(Gal.2:11ff), but Peter is probably the main source of Paul's knowledge of the
traditions concerning Jesus (Gal.1:18), and so we should suggest a two-way
mutual influence rather than merely a one-way relationship. The epistle shows
affinities of subject with James, Romans, and Hebrews (also with the 'household
duty codes in Ephesians and Colossians), although there is no apparent direct
literary link. Significant differences can also be found between 1 Peter and the
Pauline letters. When 1 Peter mentions justification, it does not specify ‘by
faith’, nor does one sense any awareness of a tension between faith and works.
As regards the similarities, one should remember 1 Corinthians 15:11, where Paul
asserts that he and Peter preached
the same basic Gospel message. The letter also mentions Silvanus and Mark, both
presumably references to one-time collaborators with Paul. And since we have so
little of the writings of Peter, it is at least as possible that he was the
'source' of many ideas which influenced the wider Church, as that many others
influenced him, although both are probably true. It should also be mentioned
that we do not have any real evidence that Peter was a particularly original
thinker! The epistle also seems to show evidence of influence by (although not a
literary dependence on) Jewish pseudepigraphic apocalyptic writings (such as 2
Apoc.Bar.).
The picture of Peter that we get from the epistle is significant. It is
certainly one of humility; he uses of Jesus the very language which Jesus used
of him: 'rock' (2:4-8), 'shepherd'. While some have sought to place Peter and
Paul at odds with one another (and they were so on at least one occasion!), the
impression we get from Acts and Galatians is that, while there was a
confrontation, Peter had even from the start in essence agreed with Paul, but
had given in to the influence of Jewish Christians whom he did not want to
offend. Peters' statement that the Law was a burden that 'neither we nor our
forefathers were able to bear' suggests he would have agreed with Paul's
negative assessment of the Law as bringing a curse and unable to be kept. The
earliest preaching of Peter does not contradict this, since it was still within
the confines of Judaism. And he seems to have accepted the revelation that
distinctions between clean and unclean foods and people are no longer in effect.
Peter's theology as expressed here is not a copy of Paul's, but it is not in
antithesis to Paul's either. Peter speaks of obedience to Christ rather than to
the Law, sanctification through the Spirit (through Jesus' blood), new birth and
living hope because of Jesus' resurrection, the expectation of the Parousia.
Cf.1:21 and Rom.4, especially v24. The fact that Peter is not just a copy of
Pauline theology, and yet agrees with Paul on so many points and seems to have
so many common ideas in the background, is an important evidence for the fact
that there was an underlying unity in all the streams of Christian thought in
the first century Church.
While
some have suggested that we actually have more than one letter combined here
(mainly because the doxology in 4:11 would provide an appropriate close to a
letter), but this is an unnecessary hypothesis. J. Ramsey Michaels (in his
commentary on the epistle for the Word Biblical Commentary series, Waco 1988)
suggests that the epistle is divided into three major sections by the two
occurrences of the direct address, 'Dear friends' (αγαπητoι)
in 2:11 and 4:12 (as well as by the 'I appeal to you' in 2:11 and, in the second
section, delayed until 5:1. He thus sets out the structure as follows:
I. Greeting (1:1-2)
II.
The Identity of the People of God (1:3-2:10)
1. A Great Salvation (1:3-12)
i. Salvation as Hope (1:3-5)
ii. Salvation as Joy (1:6-9)
iii. The Witnesses of Salvation (1:10-12)
2. A New Way of Life (1:13-25)
i. A Life of Holiness (1:13-16)
ii. A Life of Reverence (1:17-21)
iii. A Life of Genuine Love (1:22-25)
3. A Chosen Priesthood (2:1-10)
i. Receiving the Word (2:1-3)
ii. Coming to Christ in Worship (2:4-5)
iii. Argument from Scripture (2:6-8)
iv. An Identity Affirmed (2:9-10)
III.
The Responsibilities of the People of God (2:11-4:11)
1. The Mission of God's People in the World (2:11-12)
2. Respect: The Key to Living in the World (2:13-3:12)
i. Respect for Everyone (2:13-17)
ii. Deference of Slaves to Masters (2:18-25)
iii. Deference of Wives to Husbands (3:1-6)
iv. Respect of Husbands for Wives (3:7)
v. Once More: Respect for Everyone (3:8-12)
3. The Promise of Vindication (3:13-4:6)
i. Suffering for Doing Good (3:13-17)
ii. The Vindication of Christ (3:18-22)
iii. Living for the Promise (4:1-6)
4. Mutual Love: The Key to Christian Community in the End Time (4:7-11)
IV.
The Responsibilities of a Church and its Elders (4:12-5:11)
1. The Fiery Trial (4:12-19)
i. Suffering and Glory (4:12-14)
ii. Suffering as a Christian (4:15-19)
2. The Responsibilities of a Church under Judgment (5:1-11)
i. The Elders (5:1-4)
ii. The Rest of the Congregation (5:5)
iii. Humility and Trust in God (5:6-7)
iv. Warfare against the Devil (5:8-11)
V. Final Greeting and Benediction (5:12-14)
He
suggests that the letter should thus be regarded as an essential whole. If the
break after 4:11 does indicate that there were two versions of the letter, it is
probably not because some were more persecuted than others (which C. F. D. Moule
suggested), but that some congregations to which this circular letter was
addressed had elders like his own, while others did not, and so for this reason
there were two versions (this is what Michaels suggests as a possibility,
although he favors the integrity of the letter).
It
is clear from the address that the Christians being addressed are scattered
throughout the Roman empire, and Peter' description of their former way of life
indicates clearly that they are Gentiles. Some have accused Peter of holding to
a 'Judaizing' type of Christianity, but this is not an accurate description of
the author's relationship with Judaism or of his understanding of the place of
the Gentiles. Peter has continued to understand the world in a Jewish way, and
maintains a strong continuity with the OT, but this is also true in a very real
and significant way for the Apostle Paul as well. We must admit that we have too
little information to make definitive judgments concerning Peter's beliefs and
theology. But since 'Pauline' thought was so widespread, it seems unlikely that
Peter would not have mentioned circumcision or some other significant issue of
this type if it were important to him. It would seem that Peter would have
agreed with Paul's metaphor of the olive tree: the Gentiles have not become Jews
in becoming Christians, but they have been joined into the 'salvation history'
of the Jews, and likewise the salvation history of the Jews looked forward to
and anticipated Christ (he does not mention the place of the Jews now, and does
not mention the 'displacement' suggested in Matt.21:42f and elsewhere, although
the author has very clearly transferred the language once applied to Israel to
these Gentile Christians). Peter could not have known whether the Gentile
Christians to whom his letter would be read would have been 'God fearers' or 'Noachians'
before becoming Christians, and whether they were now keeping any or all of the
Jewish Law, and so it is difficult to maintain on the basis of 1 Peter that
Peter's form of Christianity compelled Gentile believers to ‘Judaize’, i.e.
to convert to Judaism in converting to Christianity.
Michaels notes the surprisingly small amount of interest that there has been and continues to be in studying the Petrine epistles from the point of view of Biblical Theology (probably mainly due to skepticism about authorship). This is unfortunate, considering the important role that Peter played in early Christianity, his closeness to Jesus himself and also his authority in the Church. There are also some very difficult passages in both, and in some ways the differences in style and content between 1 and 2 Peter make it difficult to connect the two.
Peter in 1:2 uses a 'Trinitarian' formula, and this he does in passing
without drawing attention to it (much as Paul does), suggesting that he expected
such formulas to be widely known and easily understood within the Christian
community. Peter speaks immediately of God as Father, and in the epistle he
gives most space not to describing the relationship of Father and Son, but that
between the Father and Christian believers (cf.1:17). Michaels writes, "The
God-centeredness of 1 Peter is especially adapted to the letter's Gentile
audience. Peter addresses primarily not Jews who have come to embrace their
Messiah but Gentiles who have come to know God - the God of the Jews - for the
first time through the good news of Jesus and his resurrection" (op.cit.,
p. lxviii; cf.1:21; 2:10; etc.)."The knowledge of God is a new and
wonderful thing to the intended readers of 1 Peter, and never something to be
taken for granted" (ibid). Michaels further writes, "If God is
the Actor in the work of human salvation, Jesus Christ is the Agent, and
therefore the one with whom the theology of 1 Peter is most directly
concerned" (ibid); Neill (op.cit., p.89) suggests that the
epistle is 'fully christocentric', the Spirit being mentioned only 5 times, and
a particularly warm devotion to the person of Jesus being expressed (1:8), not
as a remote figure in history, nor even as a heavenly figure, but as a
well-known companion and friend in daily life, whose care they have experienced
(2:25). The main areas which Peter addresses in relation to Christ are his
future 'revelation' (since he is now 'hidden'), salvation (Michaels notes that
the gospel which Peter proclaims/believes is clearly fundamentally the same as
that held by Paul, Luke-Acts, and Hebrews; Peter is distinctive from Paul in
that he emphasizes far more strongly the notion of imitatio Christi, an
emphasis on discipleship and sharing in Christ's sufferings which is also
significantly present in Mark) and ethics (which is not to be too sharply
distinguished from salvation and the emphases mentioned above). The Holy Spirit
is not (as in Paul) what clearly defines the new age - the prophets of old are
said to have had the 'Spirit of Christ'. Michaels rightly notes that 1 Peter
should be studied on its own to note its distinctive 'flavor', and also its
similarity with other writers (such as Paul and Hebrews), which is also very
significant when examining the unity and diversity of thought and belief and
conception in the early Church.
As we saw in studying Hebrews, New Testament authors often incorporated into their writings ideas and perhaps extended arguments that they had developed in the context of preaching. The same has been suggested as being the case in 1 Peter. In particular, some have gone so far as to suggest that the first part of 1 Peter incorporates part of an early Christian creed and/or baptismal liturgy. But while the author may have taken over language commonly used by Christians in a baptismal context, attempts to see a whole liturgy in the order of words in 1 Peter are less than convincing. It is more likely that in 1 Peter 1:3-4:11 we are dealing with material that had been previously used in a baptismal sermon, than that we have here a baptismal liturgy per se (see further the discussion in Ernest Best, 1 Peter, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971, pp.24-27). At any rate, the letter has a ‘homiletic’ feel to it at many points, but it is nonetheless a genuine letter, if a circular rather than a personal one.
The author has a strong eschatological emphasis, one that can be contrasted with 2 Peter and with the tendencies in later NT writings, and so this feature can probably be appealed to as evidence regarding the letter’s date as well. Not only is there reference to the inheritance of the Christians being kept safe for the readers until it is revealed at the appointed time (1:5), but the readers are also living in a time of fulfillment of prophecy (1:12), which is reminiscent of Paul’s emphasis on Christians as those on whom the ends of the ages have intersected. There is also an emphasis on final judgment, in a manner that does not however go to extremes of imminent expectation (cf. 2:12; 4:5-7). In this respect, the author’s emphases are comparable to those of the Gospel of Matthew. Yet the ongoing presence of motifs relating to imminent judgment, such as in 4:17, suggests that this letter is not to be dated any later, to a time when the ‘delay of the Parousia’ was making itself felt as a pressing theological problem.
The author also emphasizes a number of things that have interesting points of contact with other streams of Christian tradition. Most striking are the points of similarity with the Johannine tradition. There is clearly no direct literary dependence, and so here we have further evidence that ‘Johannine’ ideas were not limited to one small, sectarian corner of Christianity. Note the emphasis on loving one another/the brothers (1:22; 3:8; 4:8) which is a major theme in the Johannine literature (cf. John 13:34-35; 15:12-17; 1John 3:11-14; see also Rom 12:10). The phrase "you have been born anew of imperishable seed" (1 Peter 1:23) is found in close connection with the theme of love, and alludes to John 1:13 and perhaps also John 3:3. Also noteworthy are allusions to the Synoptic tradition, of which we may give but one example: the words "you are blessed if you are reviled for the name of Christ" (4:14) allude to the beatitude of Jesus in the Q tradition (Matthew 5:11; Luke 6:22). The author is thus in touch with mainstream Christian tradition, and like other of the earliest Christian authors, he alludes to the words of Jesus rather than quoting him directly word for word. Later authors tend to refer in a more exact way to the Gospel tradition, which by then had been codified in written form in the Gospels.
See also the other important themes that are noted by Felix Just on his web page (http://clawww.lmu.edu/faculty/fjust/Bible/Peter.htm).
First Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline Article by Daniel B. Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Other documents relating to 1 Peter are available at the same web site, http://www.bible.org.
Introduction
to the First Letter of Peter From the New American Bible
Epistles
attributed to Peter Courtesy of Prof. Felix Just, S.J. of Loyola Marymount
University.
1 Peter
Information and links from Peter Kirby's website, Early Christian Writings
"The
Non-Pauline Epistles," from A Historical Introduction to the New
Testament, Robert M. Grant, 1963. Full text at Religion Online.
1 Peter at ‘The Text This Week’: http://www.textweek.com/epistlesrevelation/1peter.htm