reasonably found between the writing and its contemporary background (Haupt, SK, 1895, pp. 390-393).1 The main points which would make such a position tenable, could they be established, are, (a) that Peter survived Paul, and wrote this letter after 642; (b) that his Roman residence is historical; (c) that as the survivor of the company (Gal 2), he wrote out of his Christian authority to the Gentile Christians of Northern Asia, just as Paul had previously written to the collective churches in the Ephesus district; (d) that Peter not only had read and absorbed Romans, which under the circumstances was highly probable, -but had also access to one of the copies which had been made of Ephesians. That the latter writing (i.e. a copy of it) came back to Rome some years after its circulation in Asia, is far from improbable, in view of the close communication between Rome and the Asiatic provinces. At the same time it must be admitted that no case for the authenticity of the writing amounts to much more than a combination of slender probabilities, and in face of the evidence and adherents of the pseudonymous theory, no one can hold even provisionally to the seventh decade date without reluctance and uneasiness.

Giving up the Petrine authorship, the older school (Schwegler, Hilgenfeld, Mangold, etc.) fixed the date (cp. Schmiedel, EWK, ii. p. 34, 1883, article "Catholic Epistle") in Trajan's reign, c. 112 A.D., or slightly later, 113-115, when persecution for the Name was prominent. This favourite position is still held by Holtzmann (Einl. pp. 310-320), Weizsäcker (AA, ii. p. 160), S. Davidson (INT, i. pp. 529–563), and W. Brückner (Chron. pp. 67-80). Similarly Pfleiderer (Urc. pp. 654-660), whose arguments, as well as those of Holtzmann, are put aside with

The

1 The really difficult points of the seventh decade date are (a) the relation of the writing to Rom.-Ephes., and (b) the existence of so developed a Christianity north of the Taurus by that time, as Pliny's evidence only carries us back to c. 90 A.D. latter point is not decisive, for the evangelisation of Asia Minor, even during the period of Paul's activity, lies partly in shadow, except for the possible activity of Aquila and Priscilla. The literary connection of 1 Peter with the later Pauline epistle is indubitable, and can hardly be explained apart from the hypothesis of an amanuensis who was familiar with these writings. Peter must in that case have been himself acquainted with the leading Pauline ideas-impregnated in fact with certain phrases and thoughts of his fellow-apostle. (Even Klöpper, though unable to admit that either is genuine, recognises the use of Ephesians in 1 Peter.) He reproduces these freely and in a modified form (cp. his treatment of Christ's sufferings and of man's faith), writing as he does with a practical object in view. Still the epistle requires a historical situation sufficient to admit of "the marriage of true minds" involved in such an attitude to Paulinism, and this is furnished if we suppose that Peter reached Rome early in the seventh decade, a fact which it is becoming more and more difficult to ignore, even under the mass of subsequent traditions. One of the advantages of the "newer chronology" is that it leaves room for this residence of Peter in Rome after the death of Paul.

2 It is not a crucial objection to this date that the epistle contains none of the definite and poignant allusions which we should expect to the recent Neronic persecution. The references to contemporary hostility are explicit enough for practical purpose-and for safety.

3 To them the OT predicates of worship and privilege are consistently transferred. Zahn (Einl. ii. pp. 7, 8) ingeniously turns the difficulty of Peter writing to Gentiles, by the remark that they would feel inspirited and confirmed in the faith by receiving such care and advice from the prominent leader of the circumcision (Gal 27). Like several others of Zahn's acute explanations, this smacks of Hofmann. Nor is there any basis for Chase's ingenious hypothesis that Peter was summoned by Paul to Rome to show their unity, and that Silvanus started from Rome to Asia as the messenger of Paul, but also carrying a supplementary letter from Peter.

considerable force by Usteri (op. cit. pp. 240-247) and Ramsay (CRE, p. 187 ff.). Jülicher, like Cone (Gospel and its Interpret. p. 260 f.), considers we cannot go far wrong with the general date 100 c.,1 and Bousset places 1 Peter with Apoc. 2-3 at the beginning of the second century (in Meyer's Comm. "Apoc." p. 284); while von Soden-arguing mainly (after Neumann) from the references to persecution-prefers to come back definitely to Domitian's reign (JpTh, 1883, pp. 461-508; HC, III. ii. p. 109 f.), like J. Réville (Les orig. de l'Episcopat, i. p. 358 f.), Scholten, and Harnack (in its original form, 83-93 A.D., or possibly even earlier, "Die Möglichkeit ist nicht ausgeschlossen, das es schon geraume Zeit vorher verfasst ist "), with Wrede (ZNW, 1900, pp. 75-85) and McGiffert (AA, pp. 482 f., 593 f.). The last-named supposes that the writing was composed by a Paulinist during Domitian's reign, anonymously; it is hardly possible to take seriously his further suggestion that Peter's name was added, not to give it apostolic authority (as Harnack suggests), but simply as "the chance act of an individual scribe," though it is a really ingenious conjecture that Barnabas was the author. More plausible, though with as little basis in actual evidence, is Harnack's subtle hypothesis that the writing, an anonymous and earlier homily, received between 150 and 175--.e. before the age of Clement Alex., Tertullian, and Irenaeus, who evidently knew the letter as Petrine-the addition of its present address and conclusion; these were the work of the author of 2 Peter, modelling his style on Ac 15 and Heb 13.2

The question of the date is thus dependent upon the question of authorship to a large degree (Reuss, pp. 262-275). Certainly a prolific literature grew up in the second century under the name of Peter; but so far from discrediting, this fact seems rather to increase the probable genuineness of at least the present writing, which

1 Besides the fact that the readers are not addressed as members of a second generation, but as people who had been brought to Christianity not long ago, although they had no personal intercourse with Christ, another cardinal objection to the second-century date ought probably to be admitted in the literary relation (Usteri, pp. 320-324) between Clem. Rom. and this epistle, cp. Pet. 11 119 21 29 217 221 310 33 CR. 11 7+ 362 59 24 517 2211. 337 apart from the use of words like ȧratoria and porrows. Some of these may be due to Clem. Rom.'s acquaintance with Ephes.-Heb.; but even so, that analogy tells for the previous date of 1 Peter. A similar conclusion is to be drawn from the resemblances between it and the Apocalypse. (Each handles the question of the Christian's conduct in suffering.)

2 This theory, which would add 11-2 512-14 to the writing, as a title and conclusion composed after the middle of the second century, has really not much more support here than the similar hypothesis in the case of James. The fact that the MSS. supply no evidence, makes it difficult for us to suppose that all extant MSS. are descended from an ancestor which was thus altered before the end of the second century. Also it is hard to see why a similar process was not applied to 1 John (TU, ii. 2, pp. 106-109; Chron. pp. 455-465). The allusion in 1 P 51 does not, of course, necessarily imply an eyewitness, for aprus can quite well be taken in the sense of passages like 1 Co 1515, and "the sufferings of the Christ" mean probably (as in 1 P 413) Christian trials. Indeed, had Peter written the epistle, it is hard to see why he would not have used a word like airós, or some definite and clear expression. On the other hand, it is a good point to notice that, so far as we can judge, only three men could have stood in the relations indicated by 1 P 511-14 to Mark and Silvanus. These three were Paul, Barnabas, and Peter. Between them the authorship (real or intended) probably lies. F. W. Lewis (Exp. x. pp. 319, 320) argues that the epistle was written after Paul's death, since the absence of any mention of Panl (1 P 512. 183) indicates that Mark and Silvanus had been deprived by death of their former master.

HISTORICAL NEW TESTAMENT

stands quite by itself among the Petrine literature ("Er steht für sich ohne innere Verbindung mit den anderen petrinischen Schriften, und auch seine Geschichte ist mit der der anderen unvermengt," Harnack), and supports 2 Peter (31, Taúτηy ồn devтépav vμîv y papw ToTony). Such later productions must have had some previous literary basis to build upon, besides the mere tradition of the apostle's authority. In this case the existence of one authentic writing (Euseb. HE. iii. 3) is almost a necessary postulate for the composition of allied pseudonymous documents.

Recent criticism has eased-it is too much to say, solved-some of the main obstacles in the way of the seventh decade date. (a) Historically, the Trajanic date has been found unnecessary and even indefensible. (b) Theologically, all idea of a direct dogmatic tendency or of a mediating and conciliatory unionism, has been abandoned (e.g. Holtzmann, Einl. pp. 331, 332). These two points really include à large amount of the evidence which would incline one to favour a later period of composition. To them also must be added (c) the possibility of an amanuensis. The seventh-decade date, with its implicate of authenticity, is not seriously affected by the further question, which has been recently discussed, whether the style of the epistle does not require its actual authorship to be assigned to some interpreter of Peter (épunveús) who had been in touch with Paul at some previous time. This may well have been Silvanus, who wrote (1 P 510. 12 Ac 1532) the letter under his master's supervision (as by tradition Mark wrote his gospel), or after his death. Usteri1 adopts the latter view; while von Soden, following Ewald, Grimm (SK, 1872, p. 688 f.), and Spitta (Der 2 Pet. und Jud., 1885, p. 531), similarly gives the authorship to Silvanus, who, in his opinion, wrote some twenty-five years after Peter's death. But if it cannot be admitted that Peter wrote the Greek of this epistle, or indeed any of the speeches attributed to him in Acts,—and, despite all that has been urged in defence of Galilean culture and education, this is a most reasonable conclusion, then the secretary-hypothesis is valid and accessible. In this case Peter dictated the letter, and the phrase dià Σιλουανοῦ (512) ἔγραψα would be equivalent to expressions like

3

1"Bald nach des Petrus Tod war allerdings für [Silvanus] ein rein gemüthlicher, aber psychologisch sehr begreiflicher und völlig zureichender Beweggrund vorhanden, pietätsvoll im Namen desjenigen Apostels, mit welchem er zuletzt, noch verbunden gewesen, sein Sendschreiben abzufassen" (op. cit. pp. 345, 346). The authorship of Silvanus (himself an àrórrohes (1 Th 26) and prophet (Ac 1532)) turns the scale in favour of a date somewhat earlier than Domitian's reign, as there is no evidence that he lived so long, and as the use of Peter's name would be more effective in the years immediately succeeding his death. Zahn agrees (Einl. ii. pp. 9-11) in laying stress upon Silvanus' share in the epistle, which, however, he takes as Petrine through and through. Reuss (pp. 144-148) evidently was undecided, though some of Chase's objections seem conclusive (DB. iii. pp. 789, 790). The latter, à propos of the style, speaks of the writer's "delicacy and accuracy of perception in regard to the rhythmical arrangement of words," the range of his vocabulary, and his use of synonyms, tenses, and the like. But he seems to find little difficulty in attributing these to Simon Peter. Bacon (INT, 150-158) follows Zahn.

2 Cp. Seufert's articles (ZwTh, 1881, pp. 178-197, 332-379) on the relation of Ephes. to 1 Peter. Both of these he regards as written in Trajan's reign by the same irenical author, Silvanus (also ZwTh, 1885, pp. 350-371). The main resemblances between the two writings are in Eph. 13 118-20 35.10 218-22 218 487. 120-22

Pet. 13 13-5

110-12 24-6 3181. 322

3 Cp. Zahn (Einl. ii. 16). Dionysius (apud Eus. HE, iv. 23. 11) refers to the epistle of Clem. Rom. as τὴν προτέραν ἡμῖν διὰ Κλήμεντος γραφεῖσαν.

Ac 1522 23, Ro 1622; Ignat. ad Rom. x1 etc. (cp. Link, SK, 1896, pp. 405– 436, "Die Dolmetscher des Petrus, zur Beantwortung der Frage nach den griechischen Sprachkenntnissen des Apostels"). The absence of motive and evidence has led many critics to bluntly reject the idea of pseudonymity; and if his own theory should turn out to be incorrect, Harnack, e.g., would "consider the improbable to be possible," and attribute the letter to Peter rather than believe in the authorship of a pseudo-Peter. If these are the alternatives, there can be small doubt ultimately which will be adopted. The scales then turn in favour of the seventh-decade date. And it seems as though the hypothesis of a secretary, who in this case translated Peter's thoughts into a Greek style which the apostle could hardly have managed himself, would help to solve the undoubted difficulties besetting a position which is otherwise inherently probable. In face of Col 415-17 and 2 Co 11, the spread and organisation of Christianity in Asia Minor are perfectly credible. The readers are comparatively new converts (22. 25 43); their Christian life has no long retrospect, and no fixed consolidation. They have been overtaken by trials, which are a novelty to them (412). These are to be borne with patience, and the hope is held out that by this blameless endurance on their part and a better understanding on the part of their opponents, some fresh advance may be secured for the gospel. Heresy is unknown. The situation is marked (as Resch and Beyschlag argue correctly) by none of the traces of decline and controversy that appear, e.g., in Hebrews or James. Here the charismatic gifts are in exercise (410), and the end of the age (47) is awaited as the prelude to the Messianic realm. The favourite words of the letter are ἀποκάλυψις and ἀναστροφή. Rudimentary and vexed and guileless, these Christians in the provinces of the Empire (21) merely needed-as they received-a letter of kindly, wise counsel to steady hope and consistent conduct, which is as suitable to the situation as it is wholly worthy of its reputed author 3 (" vielleicht das liebenswürdigste Buch des neuen Testamentes," A. Meyer). In Ascensio Isaiae, 318-51, for example,-a fragment to be dated not later

1 One can go heartily with Usteri and Harnack in their dissatisfaction with the pseudonym hypothesis, as that is sometimes applied to this writing. It is certainly difficult to see how, twenty or thirty years after the death of Peter (as e.g. von Soden argues), a writing could have been composed in his name, which contains such a minimum of personal references; a writing, too, which is neither apocalyptic nor ecclesiastical nor evangelic. The lack of individual allusions is remarkable, whether the writing be taken as authentic or pseudonymous. But it is certainly not better explained upon the latter theory. Besides, we have really no data for supplying us with a standard of how a personal disciple of Jesus ought to have written; and perhaps it is rather a modern and unfair demand to insist that Peter would and should have filled his letter with references to the great Master who had been his companion and leader. Are we sure the personal impression (as opposed to the general) must have taken this form of expression? This assumption -in all schools of criticism-is not borne out by 1 John, if that be apostolic; and otherwise it is destitute of evidence and probability alike.

2 The use of the book of Wisdom and of the LXX is most noticeable.

3 "Der unter den katholischen Briefen noch am ehesten den Eindruck des naiv und primitiv Christlichen machen könnte" (Jülicher). On the value of the tradition which connects Peter and Rome, cp. Harnack, Chron. pp. 703-707, and Charles, Ascension of Isaiah (1900).

The passage (1 Pt 414) on reproach for the name of Christ ought to be no longer seriously advanced as an argument for some later date, when the name of Christian had become a familiar term in the Empire. In Mark (938-41), a document almost contemporary with 1 Peter, the same phrase (?) is employed as a familiar description, unless that passage be a later insertion.

than 80 A.D.,-the tone is at once more definite and inferior. Strife on the second advent, quarrelling and love of money, corruption of elders and shepherds, the reign and defeat of Berial, the Neronic persecution, these are all well marked, and stand out in great contrast to the less developed situation reflected in this epistle.

The strong case afforded by tradition in favour of the epistle as a Petrine fragment deserves to be mentioned as a subsidiary argument, when the question of the authorship is involved. "The only natural interpretation of the facts-the early and wide influence of the epistle on the one hand; on the other, the consistent and unwavering attribution of it to St. Peter on the part of all writers, from Irenaeus' time onward-is that from the first it was regarded as the work of the apostle" (Chase). Also, one of the most serious drawbacks to the ordinary "pseudonymous" theory, which otherwise is so attractive, is the absence of definiteness and authority assigned to Peter. This feature is not in keeping with the reputation and growing prestige of the apostle in the later church, as evinced even in Matthew, Acts, and Clem. Rom., and one cannot help feeling that a later Christian, composing in Peter's name, would have laid more stress on the apostle's position than is contained in the meagre and modest reference (1151). Neither in connection with the author nor à propos of the community (55 ?) is there a trace of the incipient hierarchical tendencies prevailing at the close of the century (e.g. Clem. Rom. xl-xli). Surely any writer, producing a work under Peter's name towards the end of the ninth or tenth decades, would have naturally coloured the personality of the apostle to suit not merely the tradition but the contemporary status of his office. It may also be noted that there is no hint of Gnosticism, and that the "Paulinism of this epistle is corroborated by the "Paulinism" of the tradition preserved in Acts (cp. 159-11). Unless the latter is simply due to the editor, it is rooted in the sources of the Petrine history.

In another aspect the letter possesses some significance. Taken thus, with its title and date, it forms practically the nearest written evidence we have for the activities of the primitive apostles. In regard to their careers and fortunes the utmost that can be safely gathered from tradition is an impression of extensive movement, scattered preaching, and occasional settlements in various localities. No literary expression survives. Any records which may have existed were soon lost probably, at the best, they were scanty. If tradition is to be credited, any such attention to literature was out of the

1 It is doing an injustice to 1 Peter to group it with the rest of the so-called "catholic" epistles. The category of "catholic" is merely a late ecclesiastical device, and is significant mainly for the history of the canon. NT criticism has to take each writing ultimately upon its individual merits; and whatever be the affinities of the other catholic" epistles, 1 Peter at least demands to be recognised and judged by itself. [So Monnier, a recent (1900) French editor, dating it in the 7th decade.]

The unique passage in chap. 3 on Christ's descent to the under-world is simply, like Mt 2752. 53, a naïve attempt of the early Christian consciousness to express, in terms of apocalyptic imagery, the significance of Christ's death, and its influence even on the dead. It does not necessarily throw suspicion on the writing, nor is there any obvious reason for regarding it (with A. Meyer: Die moderne Forschung über d. NT, pp. 41-43) as an insertion.

2 On the dissemination of early Christianity, cp. Hausrath, ii. 195-216. From the tone of a passage like 1 P 112, it does not seem likely that the readers owed their initial faith to the direct mission of the author, nor (43-5) can they have been Jewish Christians.