* When St. Paul first arrived at Rome, the Jews at Rome tell him that they know that ‘everywhere this sect is spoken
against’ (Ac 28%), The language of Tacitus (Ann. xv. 44) | clearly implies that before the Neronian persecution Christians
| were regarded at Rome with feelings of hatred and horror *quos per flagitia Inuisos uolgue Christianos appellabat ' aduersus sontes et noulmima exempla meritos
186 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
(land 2 Th, 2 Co) as the companion of St. Paul? Why, above all, should a forger give to Pauline thoughts and to Pauline language a prominent place in an Epistle bearing the name of St. Peter? These difficulties do not appear less formidable when we review the theories of those critics who have attempted to meet them. The Tiibingen school, indeed, had a clear and concise answer to the question why a Pauline element is found in a Petrine Epistle. The letter, in their view, is a Unionsschrift (see Holtzmann, Zinl. p. 316), celebrating the agreement of the two parties in the Church which bore the names of the two pet apostles. ‘But that theory,’ to quae arnack’s verdict (Dse Chronol. p. 456, cf. p. vii ff.), ‘is admittedly profoundly shaken in general, and in particular it is refuted in its application to 1 Peter.’ We turn at once to three recent theories. (a) Von Soden (Hand-Commentar zum NT iii. 2, B 117), putting the letter in the last four years of lomitian’s reign, suggests that Silvanus was the author of the Epistle (54): that, however, instead of speaking in his own name, he makes St. Peter, the glorious martyr (51), utter words of encourage- ment to Churches among which the apostle had himself once worked; that, conscious what judg- } ment the apostle had formed of him, he ventures to add the testimony to himself πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ ὡς λογίζομαι ; that he perhaps derived his right to speak in the apostle’s name from his own position as an ἀπόστολος (1 Th 2°) and a prophet (Ac 1583). A theory burdened with such complicated improba- bilities hardly merits serious discussion.
(ὁ) Jiilicher (Hind. p. 134 ff.) holds that the letter was written about the year 100. In view of 5% and of the author's familiarity with St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he conjectures that he was a Roman Christian. In spite of its obvious * catholic’ character, the letter is addressed to the
five provinces of Asia Minor; and Jiilicher finds
an explanation of this fact in the supposition that the writer was a native of Asia Minor, and thus had a natural interest in the brethren of that region. He had, it is clear, an intimate knowledge of St. Paul’s writmgs; but, when he wanted to give an apostolic authority te his own words, he refrained from using the name of that apostle, partly from motives of reverence and partly that he might not tear open in wounds which were now half healed. It is clear that this special view of the composition of the Epistle is open to all, or to nearly all, the objections mentioned above as generally valid against the supposition of its spuriousness,
_(c) Harnack (Chronol. p. 457 ff.) draws a distine- tion between the opening and closing sentences (1! 5!) and, on the other hand, the main body of the Epistle (18-5"). The latter—whether originally a letter or not, there is no evidence to determine—is the work of ‘ some prominent teacher and confessor, who, possibly writing from Rome, and, it may be, a prisoner there, was certainly so familiar with Pauline Christianity that he could move about erfect freedom.’* The date of
this document, which to us is a fragment, lies be- tween 83-93, but may conceivably be some 20 years earlier. The opening and closing sentences, on the other hand, Harnack, modifying a suggestion first | put forward by him in his edition of the Didaché | (p. 106 n.), considers to have been added between
A.D. 150 and 175. He further discovers resem-
blances in style between these sentences and
within its area with
2 Peter, the earliest document in which our Epistle is quoted as the work of St. Peter, and indulges the suspicion that the clauses which now begin and
* McGiffert (History of Christianity in the Apost. Age p. 599)
conjectures that the writer of the Epistle was Barnabas. accepts Harnack’s theory of interpolation.
He
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
end 1 Peter are the work of the same author sa 2 Peter.
Harnack (p. 458 ff.) urges that his view as to 117. 6126. 18. con- firmed by four arguments. (1) These sentences can without loss be removed from the document. Sut, on this principle, al) Epistles might profitably be curtailed at both ends. (2) Thes. sentences are poor in style, and present various ditticulties. But it is only natural that the beginning and the close of a letter should be simple and plain in style, and Harnack’s objection to the phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος ᾿ἴησοῦ Χριστοῦ (12) is due to a want of appreciation of the words (see below, p. 794). Further, the existence of ambiguities in those parts of a letter which deal with personal matters is often a strong proof of its authenticity. The writer of a letter assumes on m rest of his correspondents a knowledge of personal facts, obvious enough at the time, but soon forgotten. Moreover, any gaps in such knowledge the bearer of a letter would be trusted to fill up. (3) The motive of such additions lay in αὶ sense of the instructiveness of the document, and the feeling that words so full of edification must be apostolic, Phenomena not wholly dissimilar are found in connexion with other docu- ments—‘ Ephesians,’ Ep. Barnabas, the so-called Second Ep. of Clement. But the first assertion suggests no answer to the question why the fragment should be assigned to St. Peter and not rather to St. Paul, with whose writings it has obvious pointe of contact. In regard to the second assertion, the reply is obvious. The documents adduced fail as parallels, both in other respects and especially just in the crucial point, viz. the addi- tion to a document of sentences containing details geographical and personal, which are, as they stand, obscure, and are alto- gether lacking in Sposa seh precision, (4) Tradition favours the hypothesis. No writer before Irenwus quotes the letter as that of St. Peter. On the reception of the Epistle in the Church see above.