|
Kummel adduces arguments that tell against the authenticity of I Peter (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 423-4):
a. The language of I Pet is cultivated Greek which employs many rhetorical devices: word order (1:23; 3:16), parallel sentences (4:11), a series of similar constructions (1:4, etc.). The numerous OT quotations and allusions originate without exception from the LXX. For a Galilean fisherman, Peter, none of these is conceivable.b. I Pet presupposes the Pauline theology. This is true not only in the general sense that the Jewish-Christian readers, the "people of God" (2:10), are no longer concerned about the problem of the fulfillment of the Law, but also in the special sense that, as in Paul, the death of Jesus has atoned for the sins of Christians and has accomplished justification (1:18 f; 2:24). Christians are to suffer with Christ (4:13; 5:1), obedience to the civil authorities is demanded (2:14 f), and the Pauline formula en cristw is encountered (3:16; 5:10, 14). The frequently advanced proposal that I Pet is literarily dependent on Rom (and Eph) is improbable because the linguistic contacts can be explained on the basis of a common catechetical tradition. But there can be no doubt that the author of I Pet stands in the line of succession of Pauline theology, and that is scarcely conceivable for Peter, who at the time of Gal 2:11 was able in only a very unsure way to follow the Pauline basic principle of freedom from the Law for Gentile Christians.
Many scholars have sought to weaken both these arguments on the ground that 5:12 dia eigouanou umin. . . egraqa assumes that Silvanus is the real author to whom Peter gave the responsibility for the actual writing. Some think that they can prove that clearly common elements in language exist between I and II Thess, I Pet, and Acts 15:29, which indicates a common authorship by Silvanus. But these linguistic contacts are much too insignificant for much weight to be attached to them, and furthermore the distinction in style between I and II Thess and I Pet is important. No one has yet proved that grayw dia tinos can mean to authorize someone else to compose a piece of writing. Furthermore, if this were the case, then Peter would not be the real author of I Pet in any sense.
But even if the attempt is made to counter the arguments given under a and b by referring to the authorship of I Pet by Silvanus under commission from Peter, still there are two further incontestable arguments tracing the letter back to Peter.
c. I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the "sufferings" of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way.
d. The situation of persecution of those addressed can be understood only as occurring at the beginning stages of civil persecution (see pp. 418 f). According to the unanimous tradition of the early church, the first persecution of Christians on more than a merely local basis (cf. 5:9) took place under Domitian. But that, of course, takes us beyond the life-span of Peter.
The most natural reading of the evidence, therefore, is that this epistle is pseudonymous. Kummel comments on provenance and dating (op. cit., p. 425):
If by "Babylon" (5:13) is meant Rome (see p. 422), then I Pet could well have been written in Rome, where presumably Peter died, and where early on appeal was made to his authority (I Clem 5:3 f). The fact that I Pet was known in the East as early as the time of Polycarp (Phil 1:3; 8:1; 10:2) and Papias, whereas in the West it is missing from the Muratorian Canon (though cited by Irenaeus and Tertullian), shows only that it was from the churches in the East that I Pet became known but proves nothing concerning its place of writing. The reign of Domitian should probably be taken as the time of writing, since the mention of the persecution "as Christians" (4:16) is not sufficient ground for going down as late as the beginning of the second century or even to the time of the persecution under Trajan. 90-95 is therefore the most probable time of writing.
Although most scholars would agree with dating I Peter to the time of Domitian, some would like to see the letter as written with Peter's supervision under Nero, while some critics such as Perrin would date the letter to the persecution under Trajan.
Go to the Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers homepage.
Please support this web site by buying the CD with over 250 MB of information and texts!
For convenience, a copy of the table of contents is provided here.
This web page is copyright © 2001-2003 Peter Kirby <kirby@earthlink.net>.
Web development by 76 Web Design: Orange County Web Design.
Hosting provided by Cheap Domain Name Hosting.