stands quite by itself among the Petrine literature ("Er steht für sich ohne inrere Verbindung mit den anderen petrinischen Schriften, und auch seine Geschichte ist mit der der anderen unvermengt," Harnack), and supports 2 Peter (3', ταύτην ἤδη δευτέραν ὑμῖν γράφω ETLOTOλ). 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 a 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 (épμnveús) who had been in touch with Paul at some previous time. This may well have been Silvanus, who wrote (1 P 510. 12-Ac 1582) the letter under his master's supervision (as by tradition Mark wrote his gospel), or after his death. Usteri 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 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 &rórroλos (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. 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 48f. 120-22 Pet. 13 13-5 110-12 24-6 318f. 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 have 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 2 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. Rudi. mentary and vexed and guileless, these Christians in the provinces of the Empire (214) 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 was so vital and deep? And if so, must it 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 are most noticeable. 8 "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. 4 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.1 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 (11 51). 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,2 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. 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. question, precluded not only by natural inaptitude, but by the more pressing concerns (ἐξυπηρετούμενοι ἅτε μείζονι καὶ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον Siakovia, Eus. HE, iii. 24) of practical organisation and propaganda.1 The αὐτόπται became, in virtue of their position, ὑπηρέται τοῦ Móyou (Lk 11-4); authorship was reserved for a subsequent generation. No motives existed among the first disciples for preserving a chronicle of their own lives or a register of their reminiscences. 66 1 For an interesting parallel compare some sentences written by John Knox upon himself, in view of the absorbing necessities of the church in his day: Considering myselfe rather cald of my God to instruct the ignorant, comfort the sorrowfull, confirme the weake, and rebuke the proud, by tong and livelye voyce in these most corrupt dayes, than to compose bokes for the age to come. I decreed to containe myselfe within the bondes of that vocation, wherunto I founde myselfe especially cald. I dare not denie but that God hath revealed unto me secretes unknowne to the worlde; and also that he hath made my tong a trumpet, to forwarne realmes and nations, yea, certaine great personages. These revelations and assurances notwithstanding, I did ever absteyne to commit anye thing to writ, contented onely to have obeyed the charge of him who commanded me to cry" (Works, vi. 229, 230). An interesting study of Peter's character from the critical standpoint is given by Rapp (PM, 1898, pp. 323-337); more elaborately by Chase (DĒ, iii. pp. 756-779). But it is unsafe to argue directly from the tone of a purely practical and occasional letter (or homily) like 1 Peter, either to the character of its author or to the theological standpoint of the writing in question. Because these pages are dominated by the superlative temper of hope (113), it does not necessarily follow that Peter (or the author of the prosopopoeia) was particularly characterised by that virtue, or that in the development of this idea the writing represents a divergence from orthodox Paulinism (Holtzmann, NTTh, ii. pp. 308-311). The epistle has a practical bent. It was composed for a special emergency. The author discoursed of hope, simply because hope was what his readers needed. The line of argument must have been congenial to him, of course, for it is applied with great insight and sagacity; but because it is thus used at this epoch, it must not be inferred to have been normal to the writer. Its emphasis is due to the urgent situation of the moment rather than to any general idiosyncrasy upon his part, or to some dogmatic movement of his consciousness. Many other Christians might have written in much the same fashion under the circumstances; and, as Wrede (Ueber Aufgabe, etc., pp. 18, 19) correctly argues, the author of 1 Peter might easily have written another letter in another situation, which would have lacked any such preoccupation with hope. Epistles were in fashion; from simple correspondence the epistle had become a literary form, an imaginary framework, which served as a setting for little religious treatises. . . . The epistle of Peter, in spite of its bad style, which resembles that of Paul rather than that of James or of Judas, is a touching fragment, in which the condition of the Christian consciousness towards the end of Nero's reign is admirably reflected. A sweet melancholy, a resigned confidence, fills it. The last times are approaching. . . . If, as we readily believe, this epistle really belongs to Peter, it does great credit to his good sense, to his uprightness, to his simplicity. It is probable that, little versed in composition, and not hiding from himself his literary sterility, he did not hesitate to appropriate the pious phrases constantly repeated around him, which, although derived from different systems, did not contradict one another. It is useless to seek in his work for the rigour of a logical system.-Renan. 11-12 Introduction: thanksgiving for the readers' Christian hope. 113_210 Moral Obligations of this hope: duties of holiness towards God, 211-37 A table of duties: for Christians, in the outside world - towards 218-25 31-6 37 authorities, in the household-as slaves patience under suffering, the suffering of Christ. wives, 38-419 Common duties and their motives: patience and meekness under |