PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 791
But why does St. Peter seize the opportunity of Silvanus’ journey to write an Epistle to the Churches of Asia Minor? There is no indication that he had any personal knowledge of his readers in any of the districts to which he writes. It does not appear that he wished to bring before them and the Church generally any characteristic con- victions of his as to the interpretation of the Christian faith, as St. Paul desired to do in the Epistles to the Romans and to the ‘ Ephesians,’ No controversy is touched upon by him. The Epistle bears no trace of having been called forth Ae the difficulties or needs of any particular Church. Is not the motive which led St. Peter to write a letter to the Christians scattered over the vast districts of Asia Minor the same which we saw reason for thinking brought him to Rome? It is plain that if Riven who long before had been known to some of these Churches as a companion of St. Paul, and who now was travelling as St. Paul’s delegate, brought with him a letter from St. Peter, the effect on the minds of the Asiatic Christians would be only less powerful than that produced on the Roman Christians oe the sight of the two apostles working and planning together in the Capital. The fact that the letter was written and received under such circumstances, would be the strongest enforcement of the lesson of the Church’s unity. The Epistle may even have been written at St. Paul’s request. But however that may be, the motive suggested seems adequate and simple. It harmonizes with the phenomena of the Epistle, and indeed throws fresh light on some of them. Thus it is no longer surprising that there is no great thought or purpose, doctrinal or personal, which dominates the whole Epistle. Its scope is truly summed up in the very general words — ἔγραψα παρακαλῶν καὶ ἐπιμαρτυρῶν ταύτην εἶναι ἀληθῆ χάριν τοῦ θεοῦ (5). Again, the Pauline tone of the Epistle is seen to correspond with all the circumstances of its composition. If these were what we have found reason to think them to have been, the letter could not but be Pauline. Once more, have we not here a final explanation of the fact that, though the mind of St. Peter care recurs to the words of Christ, he makes only indirect allusions to the privilege hich he: ἐπ. had GF Wwatehinne the life ΚΣ τη 5 Incarnate Lord? To have dwelt on this would have been te appear to disparage the apostolate of St. Paul.
To sum up: all the conditions of the problem seem to be satisfied if we assign the Epistle toa time shortly after St. Paul's trial had ended in his
uittal. The power of the Roman State seemed ite on the side of the Church. But the hatred of the Jews was an enemy ‘scotched, not killed,’ nay, perhaps it was intensified because deprived of its expected prey. Nor would the social trials of the Christians among their heathen neighbours be lessened by the Imperial decision, The daily ex- perience of a Christian at Rome might well suggest serious warnings as to the proving of faith through suffering. The situation was as follows. St. Paul had himself summoned St. Peter to Rome, with the supreme object of showing to the Christians at Rome and to ‘the brotherhood in the world’ the unity of the Body and of the Spirit. St. Peter had arrived in Rome, and with him St. Paul’s old com- panion Silvanus. After St. Paul’s release Silvanus consents to become his delegate, as he had been years before, and on his behalf to undertake a long journey in Asin Minor. Silvanus would explain to these Churches the situation at Rome. He would enforce the spiritual and doctrinal lessons which were uppermost in St. Paul's mind. But the work of consolidating the Churches, and in thom the Church, would be greatly advanced if Silvanus,
792
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
the messenger of St. Paul, brought with him a letter from St. Peter. The letter itself might deal with general topics, as indeed was inevitable when it was addres to readers spread over so vast an area. But the fact that it was written by St. Peter, now 4 fellow-worker with St. Paul at Rome, and transmitted by the common friend of both apostles, now executing St. Paul’s commission, was itself the revelation of the mind of the apostles, and a call to deepen the common life of ‘the brother- aos the significance of which cannot be exagger- ated,
It is right to notice two other recent reconstructions of the Ogee history in connexion with the composition of 1 P. TY eon in whioh they are open to criticism have been sufficiently indicated in the preceding sections and in art. Perse. (1) Zahn’s theory (Hin. ii. p. 18f.) is as follows :— It is almost im ible to explain the silence of the Epistle as to St. Paul if St. Peter wrote either at a time when the two apostles were ether in Rome or after St. Paul’s death. It is probable that Mark went from Rome to Asia Minor (Col 410 in the autumn of 62, or early in 63, and afterwards visite Jerusalem. From him St. Peter learned the difficulties which the Jewish Christian teachers had created for St. Paul, and also the intention of the latter after his expected release to under- take a journey to the far West. St. Peter felt these tidings to be a call to himself to visit Rome. Such a visit was no violation of the compact recorded in Gal 29, since the Roman Ohurch had not been founded by St, Paul, and was composed of Jewish Christians, many of whom were Palestinian Jews. St. Peter arrived in Rome in the autumn of 63 or early in 64. St. Paul had already left the city. Since the duration of St. Paul’s stesy er ΤΠ τ πο to Spain could not be foreseen, it was natural t St. Peter should tread in St. Paul’s footateps in other ways, and in icular in caring for the Churches of Asia. The fact that Silvanus assisted him in writing the Epistle, enabled him to strike a note in the letter which would find an echo in the hearts of men who directly or indirectly owed their Ohristianity to St. Paul. As nothing in the Epistle implies that he had recently arrived in Rome, and as his correspondents aes to be already aware of the fact that he was in the city, St. Peter probably wrote the Epistle in the course of the year 64, a few months before his martyrdom. (2) Swete (St. Mark Ε xvii f.) follows Lightfoot in dissociating the martyrdom of St. ‘eter from that of St. Paul, but argues that ‘it is open to con- sideration whether St. Paul's was not the earlier.’ He thinks that ‘an examination of 1 Peter supplies more than one reason for believing the Epistle to have been written subsequently to St. Paul’s death.’ Over and above the references to persecution which, he thinks, point to 70-75 as the limit of date, he notices that the letter is addressed to Christian communities some of which were Pauline Churches ; that its bearer is ‘a well-known colleague of St. Paul’; that it contains reminiscences of two of St. Paul's writings (Eph, Ro). ‘The conclusion can scarcely be avoided that at the time when it was written St. Paul had finished his course. The care of the Churches had devolved on St. Peter; the two oldest sasociates of St. Paul had transferred their services to the surviving Apostle; both had originally been members of the Church at Jerusalem, and, when the attraction of the stronger personality had been withdrawn, both had returned to their earlier leader. St. Peter on his part is careful to show by the character of his letter and by his selection of colleagues that he has no other end than to take up and carry on the work of St. Paul.’