urpose of the existing central government as being (on one side)
e ‘commendation’ of ‘ well-doers’ goes considerably beyo the earlier dictum of St. Paul (τὸ dyalléy wolu, καὶ ἵξως ἔπαινον ἐξ airys); and this description he still further emphasizes by the explanation—‘ thus (i.e. in accordance with His «ries —the Divine institution of civil government) it is the will of God, that by well-doing men silence the ignorance of those who are senseless.’ To this passage must be added the other Ἐ5 in the Epistle where the writer speaks in a tone of unwave ng ho ness as to the effect of ἀγαθοσοιΐα on the heathen worl 81.16), St. Paul wrote Ro 18 when he still rded the an State as ‘the restraining power,’ and still looked to the Empire as the protector of the Church. That a Christian teacher, writing from Rome after Nero's attack on the Church to fellow-Ohristians in the provinces, should adopt St. Paul's language, only making it more explicit and emphasizing its hopefninoes, seems inconceivable. How impossible such a position at that time would have been, is clear when with the paragraph in 1 P we compare the symbolism of the Apocalypse —the beast and the harlot seated on the seven hills, ‘drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Rev 178. 9%),
To sum up: the strong reason for t * Of. Didachéd xvi. δ, τότε ἔξω ὁ κτίσις τῶν ἀνθρώπων ule τὸν σύρνσιν φῇς δοκιμασίας, καὶ σκανδλαλσθόσοενται σελλεὶ κτλ, The previous Sontext speaks of the advent of the ‘ world-cleceiver.’ VOL. I11.—50
assage last considered affords finking that the storm of the
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 785
Neronian pereccnii had not as yet swept over the Church at Rome, and that no persecuting policy against the Church had been adopted by the Roman magistrates in Asia Minor. Not a word is found in the Epistle about men shedding their blood or laying down their lives for the gospel. None of the passages in any of the above groups, as we have seen, contains any reference to, or hint of, an organized persecution. But it needs only a little reflexion in the light of actual history to convince us how much of the keenest suffering the confession of Christ must have cost these Asiatic Christians, though the State had not as yet become their enemy. They were called upon to face violence, slander, the severance of social and eanily, ties, worldly ruin. In the earliest days of their missionary activity St. Paul and Barnabas frankly told their converts—dia πολλῶν θλίψεων δεῖ ἡμᾶς εἰσελθεῖν els τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ (Ac 14%). Such tribulations were not confined to the Churches of Asia Minor. It was well that St. Peter, out of his wider experience at Kome* and elsewhere, should remind them that these sufler- ings were the lot of the Christian brotherhood everywhere (5°).
V. AUTHORSHIP AND DatE.—It will be con- venient to preface the discussion of these questions with a tabular statement (founded on that given by Holtzmann, Lind. p. 318 ff.) of the diflerent views held by representative critics.
I. On the Assumption of the Authenticity of the Epistle: (1) ¢. 54 a.p. (before St. Paul's 7 pe at Ephesus)—B. Weiss, Kiibl. (2) shri, Ho later period of St. Paul's activity before his imprisonment—B. Briickner. (8) 69 or 60—Gloag. (4) ¢. 62 (during St. Paul's imprisonment at Rome)—Steiger, Guericke, Bleek, Wieseler. ® Shortly before the Neronian persecution— Hofmann, Renan, F. 0. Cook, Zahn. (6) 6. 65 (or a little later)}— e.g. Eichhorn, de Wette, Neander, Grimm, Huther, Sieffert, Ewald, Wiesinger, Usteri; probably the ras ats of English scholars, ae: Plumptre, Salmon, Farrar, Sanday (apparently ; Expositor, June 1893, p. 411), Hort (not earlier than 62, prob- ably after Neronian persecution), Lightfoot (‘probably written not earlier than the summer of δέ, Clement ii. p. 499). (7) 70-80, Ramsay πο would assign 80 as the probable date,
The Ch. and the Empire p. 279ff.), Swete (preferring apparently
the first half of the decade, St. Mark p. xviif.).
II. On the Assumption of the Spuriousness of the Epistle: (1) Under Domitian (81-96)—Scholten, von Soden (92-96), Harnack 83-93, but ibly one or even two decades earlier than ἘΞ,
ie Gheonokews 454), McGiffert (about 90). (2) Under Trajan ‘98-117)}—Schwegler, Baur, Keim, Lipsius, Pfleiderer, Hausrath,
. Briickner, Hilgenfeld, 8. Davidson, Jiilicher (about 100) (8) Under Hadrian (117-138)—Zeller. (4) 140-147—Volkmar.
The difficulties involved in the theory that the Epistle is spurious may be conveniently considered first. They are many, and of various kinds. A close study of the document itself reveals no motive, theological, controversial, or historical, which ex- plains it as a forgery (cf. Harnack, Die Chronol. Ρ. 456f.). It denounces no heresy. It supports no special system of doctrine. It contains no rules as to Church life or organization. Its references to the words and the life of Christ are unobtrusive. It presents no picture of any scene in St. Peter's sailing life, and does not connect itself with any of the stories current in the early Church about his later years. Why, moreover, should a forger, with all the world to choose from, select so strangely wide a district, four provinces, as the supposed des tination of the letter, and why should ia mention them in an order (on this supposition) so chaoti: and so inexplicable? Why should he represent Silvanus as the amanuensis or the bearer of ¢ Peter's letter, though in the Acts he nowhe: appears as in any way connected with that apostle, but both in the Acts and in three Epistles