New Testament Study Helps:
    Peter's Letters

Peter's Letters

First Peter

1. The Epistle in the Ancient Church.

   So strong is the evidence for the use of this epistle in the early church that some scholars have regarded it as proven and maintained that it was considered to canonical as early as this word had a meaning. There are clear parallels in Clement of Rome's Epistle to the Corinthians, which would appear to indicate his knowledge and use of this epistle. There are traces of it in Ignatius' writing and definite citations of it in Polycarp's writing. By the time of Irenaeus, it was often quoted as the words of peter. Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian also provide examples of this. Fronm this evidence it may justly be concluded that the attestation for this epistle is as strongs as for the majority of the New testament writings. Yet one gap remains to be filled: the Muratorian fragment omits reference to both epistles of Peter, and some scholars have supposed that this could only mean that the church of Rome towards the close of the second century did not regard this epistle as canonical. But at this point, the text of the fragment is open to doubt. In any event, the conclusion called for is that this epistle not only exerted a wide influence on early Christian writings, but it also possessed for them apostolic authority. This makes clear that the primitive church, as far back as any evidence exists, regarded it as a genuine epistle of Peter, and thus any discussion of objections to Petrine authroship must sufficiently take this into account.

2. Authorship

   Despite the great weight of patristic evidence in favor or Petrine authorship and the absence of any dissenting voices, some scholars have either wholly rejected the genuineness of the epistle's opening address or else have proposed various theories to get over the difficulties they think are involved with the traditional view. The main objections to the traditional view are either linguistics and stylistic objections or historical objections. On language and style, it is suggested that the writer's acquaintance with the Septuagint (evidenced in his writing) is a literary knowledge and not the kind of knowledge that a practicing Jew would possess. The wrier's vocabulary is extensive and varied, and his command of greek syntactical usages is considerable. Indeed, his Greek is smoother than Paul's, and herein lies the difficulty. For the question is whether such facility in the Greek language could be possessed by a Galilean fisherman whose native language was Aramaic and whose educational background would not have prepared him for this type of literary ability.

   In response to this objection, however, we are left in no doubt that Peter employed Silas as his scribe and secretary, for he tells us so in this very epistle (5:12). If this Silas is the same as the Silas of Acts, then he is well acquainted also with Paul and in fact participated in the construction of both Thessalonian letters. The historical objection arises from the historical situation presupposed in the epsitle. The author is writing to persecuted Christians and particularly mentions reproach suffered for the name of Christ. Yet although the Neronian persecutions were directed against Christians in Rome there is no evidence that such persecution spread to the provinces to which this letter is addressed (ie: Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia). Yet Christians were certainly made scapegoats in Rome, and the savage nature of Nero's treatment of them must have been widely known throughout the provinces, where great apprehension must have arisen among the Christians. Peter may well have imagined an extension of the attack and wished to warn the Asian Christians of what was in store for them. There is nothing in the references to persecution in this epistle which rules out this explanation.

3. Purpose

   Assuming that Peter is writing as he says he is, to God's elect "scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" (1:1), we may arrive at the purpose of this letter with a fair degree of precision. It is clearly designed for a specific group of Christians, although scattered over a wide area. The key note of the letter is hope and Peter wishes to exhort these Christians to live in accordance with the hope they have received through Christ. He gives practical guidance to assist in their human relationships and particularly exhorts them to endure suffering in a joyful manner for Christ's sake. His main purpose is, therefore, hortatory, but not infrequently he introduces theological condiderations which press home ethical injunctions. In particular he presents the work of Christ as a stimulus for the Christian endurance of suffering, while at the same time drawing out more fundamental aspects of its meaning. In this way he shows the indissoluble link between doctrine and practice.

4. Date

   Due to the connection between the epistle's occasion and a rise in persecution against Christians, the three main proposals for a date are: (a) in Trajan's reign (ca 111 AD); (b) in Domitian's reign (90-100 AD); (c) in Nero's reign (62-65 AD). There is little justification for preferring either of the first two and nothing prevents the third from being the most probable.

Second Peter

1. Authenticity

   This is the most problematic of all the New testament epistles because of early doubt regarding its authenticity and because internal evidence is considered by many to substantiate those doubts. In short, the majority of scholars reject it as a genuine work of the apostle Peter, in spite of its own claim, and regard it as a later pseudepigraphon. The choice regarding authenticity seems to lie between two fairly well defined alternatives. Either the epistle is genuinely Petrine (with or without the use of a secretary), in which case the main problem is the delay in its reception. Or it is pseudepigraphic, in which case the main difficulties are lack of an adequate motive for writing and the problem of the epistle's ultimate acceptance into the canon. Both alternatives obviously present some difficulties, but of the two, the former is easier to explain. If 2 Peter was sent to a restricted destination, it is not difficult to imagine that many churches may not have received it in their early history of the canon. When it did begin to circulate it may well have been received with some suspicion, particularly if by this time some spurious Pertine books were beginning to circulate. That it ultimately became accepted universally must have been due to the recognition not merely of its claim to apostolic authorship, but also of its apostolic content. Under the latter hypothesis it would be necessary to assume that its lack of early attestation and the existence of suspicions were because its pseudepigraphic origin was known, and that its later acceptance was due to the fact that this origin was forgotten and the epistle was thought to be genuine. While there is nothing intrisically impossible about this latter reconstruction, it requires greater credibility than the authenticity hypothesis.

2. Date.

   On the assumption that 1 and 2 Peter are genuine, the date of this epistle would be towards the end of Peter's life, that is, before 68 AD. It seems most probable that 2 Peter was written not too long after 1 Peter (ie: at a time when Peter was old enough to realize that his passing could not be far away). On the assumption that 2 Peter is not genuine, specifying a date becomes very difficult. A variety of dates have been proposed, ranging from late first century to late second century. The latest possible date, however, is fixed at 150 AD, when the author of the Apocalypse of Peter cites 2 Peter. Those who date 2 Peter later than this are obliged to regard 2 Peter as borrowing from the Apocalypse of Peter, but the evidence is strongly against this.

Outlines

In progress