Who Wrote the Book of . . . 1 Peter?
August, 6, 2016
Having
discussed the contested books of Paul and the authorship of the
gospels, this series on New Testament authorship will now turn toward
the writings of Peter. It may or may not surprise some readers to
hear that both epistles that bear the apostle Peter's name are highly
questioned, and in many cases, considered pseudonymous. This belief
has arisen from the school of source criticism that gained prominence
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, but recent
scholarship has begun to demonstrate the inability of these
conclusion to truly account for the authorship of the Petrine
epistles.
It
has been the format of this series to present the case against
traditional authorship, followed by a parallel case for it. I have
decided that for this article and perhaps the next, the format will
be more amalgamated in which each objection to traditional authorship
will be challenged immediately. We will then conclude with a brief
summary and discussion on additional evidence for the Petrine
authorship of this epistle.
Who
wrote 1 Peter?
This
question is, of course, the heart of the entire article, but given
that 1 Peter begins with a salutation attributed to the apostle
himself (1:1) it becomes glaringly important. The nature of
pseudonymity has been discussed in earlier articles on Paul and will
not be regurgitated here, but it has become a prevalent opinion with
many modern scholars to accept authorship of this epistle by a
Petrine group in Rome between AD 75 and 95, seeking to accurately
represent the apostle's thoughts.1
For those that embrace a late dating to the book, the existence of
such a group would be inevitable from a sociological standpoint, but
even if this were a sociological inevitability, it does not explain
why such a group would write in such a way.
By
way of example, both in the letter's opening and close, references
are made to Mark and Silvanus (1:1; 5:12-13). Are these to be
understood as pseudonymous fiction? If this epistle were carried by
Silvanus, as has been suggested, how was he to represent the letter
to its recipients, knowing it was a forgery? Even if we are to
accept that the Gospel according to Mark is Peter's testimony, the
author of the gospel does not presume to write it in the apostle's
name. Perhaps more importantly, while a Petrine group of faithful
followers might present an attractive alternative, there is no extant
evidence from the first century that such a group ever existed.
Major
Challenges to Traditional Authorship
Almost
all modern challenges to apostolic authorship can be contained within
4 categories: 1. The Greek of the epistle is to advanced for the
apostle Peter; 2. The content of the book reflects a church
structure and social environment that corresponds to a time decades
after the apostle's lifetime; 3. The epistle reflects a dependence
on the deutero-Pauline letters (those letters contested as
pseudonymous in their own right) making its dating to be after them
and thus beyond Peter's lifetime; and 4. Christianity could not have
reached the remote areas of Asia Minor spoken of in the letter and
become a target of major persecution until a decade after Peter had
died.
Taking
each of these objections in turn, it must be acknowledged that the
Greek of 1 Peter does appear to be of a higher quality than one would
expect from a fisherman-turned-apostle. Most who support the earlier
dating of this authorship will at least propose the use of a
considerably more skilled Greek amanuensis. That being said, quality
of language can be, to some extent, subjective. The letter is argued
to have such features as, “polished Attic style, Classical
vocabulary . . . and rhetorical quality. . . mak[ing] it one of the
more refined writings in the NT.”2
But the question persists as to whether such language and style
require
an author formally trained in Greek, and whether or not the apostle
Peter could have attained such skill in his lifetime.
The
second argument against apostolic authorship is based on the
addressed persecution and church structure of 1 Peter. Three
emperors of note instituted Christian persecution in the Roman empire
during the first century: Nero (54-68), Domitian (81-96), and Trajan
(98-117). The nature of persecution in the book is far too vague to
be used as a method of dating however. When examining the letter
itself, the persecution listed appears to be limited to malicious
talk, verbal slander, and false accusations (1:6; 2:12, 15: 3:9, 16;
4:12, 16). This form of persecution need not necessarily point to
the level of martyrdom seen under the emperors mentioned and could
easily refer to a time period prior to the escalation of government
sanctioned and enforced persecution.
The
historian Pliny the Younger wrote approximately 60 letters tot he
emperor Trajan over a three year period in AD 90, some of which
concerned the persistent problem of Christianity. In these letters
he recounted Christians abdicating their faith twenty years prior.5
If what is written in 1 Peter regards a less dire situation than
that of Pliny then it must be written more than twenty years prior.
Much of the debate around the persecutions centers on the “fiery
ordeal” of 1 Peter 4:12. Those who claim t a late dating see this
as a reference to Nero who used Christians as living torches to light
the streets of Rome at night, but recent scholarship suggests this is
more likely am acknowledgment to the philosopher Seneca, a
contemporary of Peter, who wrote, “Fire tests gold, affliction
tests strong men.”6
The image of trials as a testing analogous to fire smelting gold is
characteristic of the epistle (1:7, 18; 4:12). Peter describes the
trial as worldwide (5:9), which suggests a persecution faced by all
Christians, not one executed by Roman officials in one place.
This
type of persecution was common in the early church.7
Most who hold to a pseudonymous authorship maintain that the letter
was written after AD 70 but prior to the reign of Domitian. This is
based on 1 Peter 4:15-16 which suggests that Christians were being
arrested simply for being Christians, as though it were akin to a
common thief, something argued to be impossible prior to Nero.8
Regarding
the church structure, it is stated that the use of the term
episkopountes
(overseeing) in 5:2 refers to the monarchical bishop of the second
century. Given the history of this term, the above challenge is more
of a case of reading a second century reality backward into the text.
As far back as the book of Acts, the apostle Paul uses presbyteroi
(elders) and episkopoi
interchangeably. In Acts 20:17 and 28 the apostle exhorts the
Ephesian elders (presbyteroi)
to shepherd (promainein)
the people of God because they are overseers (episkopoi)!
There is clearly no distinction of terms here, nor any suggestion of
official offices. Given that 1 Peter is not written tot a local
body, but to a wide area likely covering a territory that would
surpass a single bishop there is no reason to assume the later
meaning is applied to the term here.
Coming
finally to the epistle's dependence on deutero-Pauline literature.
First, it must be recognized that this claim assumes the pseudonymity
of those letters, which is not a certainty. Second, the argument has
been adjusted simply to 1 Peter's dependency on Paul the apostle as
well. Even to assume this dependency would be to suggest a
pseudonymous author from a Pauline school rather than a Petrine one,
but this creates the added question of why this letter would not then
be attributed to Paul instead of Peter? Some have sought to avoid
this difficulty by explaining the dependence as an amalgamation of of
Petrine and Pauline traditions in which “much Pauline tradition is
now set forth under the name of Peter”, the assumed primary apostle
of Rome.9
This view struggles some, first in its assumption that Peter was in
a position of hegemony in the early church beyond that of other
apostles, and second this must be assumed to have consistently
developed within twenty years of his death.
Notwithstanding
these objections, Peter makes no reference to Paul or his letters in
this epistle, and similarities that do exist are of terms and themes
that could be less reliant on Paul and more understandably based upon
a common faith and Christian tradition. The connection between the
two apostles is strained. Too strained even to be a reliable
objection to traditional authorship.
Secondary
Support for Traditional Authorship
A
final note on pseudonymity must be mentioned. While the prevalence
of pseudepigraphy has already been discussed, such writings were
largely connected to certain genres. Primarily wisdom literature
(Wisdom of Solomon) and apocalyptic (1 Enoch). 1 Peter is neither of
these and the acceptance of pseudonymous letters as a genre is
contestable. To argue that the book is pseudonymous while retaining
a direct link to apostolic authority (as is often claimed) is
unverifiable when the link can only be inferred, and merely consists
of an attempt to remain skeptical while retaining some sense of
authority.
However, even a motive of honoring the apostle by way of
pseudonymity finds no support in the first century. In fact, it is
quite the opposite. The spurious letter of 3 Corinthians, attributed
to Paul, enjoyed acceptance until it was recognized as being
non-Pauline. When a presbyter of Asia Minor was discovered as its
author, he was not congratulated but censured and removed from church
office.
Lastly,
the epistle of 1 Peter contains several allusions to the teachings of
Jesus. While the value of these allusions in determining authorship
is debated, the list ranges from thirty to at least fifteen. These
verba
Christi, as
they are known, parallel teachings found in all four Gospels, but do
not quote the Gospels which does not indicate a literary dependence
but one of experience. On this topic, Gundry writes, “The most
striking feature about the verba
Christi
in 1 Peter, however, is that they refer to contexts in the gospels
which are especially associated with the apostle Peter.”10
Conclusion
While
more could be said regarding the geography of the intended recipients
of this epistle, and even the theology within its text, sufficient is
the discussion at this stage to close. As has been seen in may of
the earlier articles, source-criticism has always sought to
understand New Testament literature from a vantage point of
skepticism. While this is not necessarily inappropriate, the result,
as we see here, is too often one in which the critic will maintain
skepticism even in light of insufferable difficulties. It is not a
position of integrity to assert a skeptical position solely on the
basis of group think or an unwillingness to admit previous error.
The evidence must always lead those investigating to a conclusion,
wherever it may lead. In the case of New Testament authorship, what
we often see is a magnifying of contrary evidence against authorship
and a diminishing of evidence for. However, when the data is
objectively analyzed the traditional authorship rises above
accusations as the more likely at best or inconclusive at worst.
1J.K.
Elliott, Essays and Studies in the New Testament Textual
Criticism, (Cordoba: Ediciones
el Amendro, 1992), 127-30.
2Elliott,
ESNTTC, 120.
3Karen
H. Jobes, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: 1
Peter, (Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2005), 7.
4Jobes,
1 Peter, 7.
5Pliny
the Younger, Letters,
10.96.6.
6Seneca,
On Providence, 5.10.
71
Thess.1:6; 2:14-16; 3:3-5; Matt. 10:16-20; Gal. 4:29.
8L.
Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter,
trans. J.E. Alsup, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 39-45.
9M.E.
Boring, Abingdon New Testament Commentary Series: 1 Peter,
(Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 43.
10R.
H. Gundry, “Verba Christi in 1 Peter: Their Implications
Concerning the Authorship of 1 Peter and the Authenticity of the
Gospel Tradition,” New Testament Studies,
13 (1966-67), 349.
