* B. Weiss in various writings, and more recently in Der erste Petrusbrief und die neuere Kritik, has advocated a date early in the fifties, and he is followed by Kiihl, op cit. pp. 49-60. But this opinion has not found any tjeneral acceptance. A similar neglect has attended the hypothesis of a post-Trajanic d.ate, as adyocated, for example, by G. Volkniar, ' Ueber die katholischen Briefe und Henoch,' in ZWTh iy. [1861] 427-436, v. [1862] 46-75 ; and by E. Zeller. ' Zur Petrusfrage,' ib. xix. [1876] 35-56.
t The extensive literature has recently been summarized by L. H. Canfield, The Earlii Persecutions of the Chri.':tians, New York, 1913. The more important recent works of a general character are W. M. Uamsay, 2'Ae Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170, London, 1893 ; E. G. Hardy, Studies in Rotnayi History, 1st ser., do., 1906 ; H. B. Workman, Persecution in the Early Church, do., 1906; P. Allard, Uistoire des persicHtions pendant les deux premiers si^cles-^, Paris, 1903 ; A. Linsenniayer, Die Bekdmpfung des Chi%stentinnft durch den romischen Staat bis zum Totie des kaisers Julian, Munich, 1905. For treatises on special topics see Canfield, op. cit. pp. 211-215.
t .So Canfield. op. cit. p. 96 ff. Other authorities belieye this to have been the situation even in Nero's day, e.g. Moflfatt, op. ett. p. 324 f .
PETEE, EPISTLES OF
PETER, EPISTLES OF
203
tian ' might have aroused suspicion, but apparently suspected persons had to be convicted of some par- ticular crime — or at least the crime was assumed by the authorities to be capable of proof — before punishment was indicted. This, indeed, seems to have been the principle upon which Pliny himself had acted at hrst, for he was at a loss to know what to do when he found that the Christians were innocent of the usual charges brought against them, and that they had even obeyed the edict forbidding private assemblies. In the case of tho.se who refused to recant, he justihed his own severity on the ground of their criminal obstinacy, but Trajan's rescript removed all necessity for any such special justification. Henceforth, if one persistently confessed Christianity, that in itself was sufficient basis for legal action. Christianity was now, in the eyes of the law, a religio illicita.
Is this the situation of the Christians to whom 1 Peter is addressed ? Scholars who answer this question in the affirmative do so mainly because of the reference in 1 P 4'''"" to sufiering for the Name.* I'ut were the readers as yet technically suttering for the Name ? Apparently not, in the formal sense. Their opponents are certainly bringing specific charges against them (2'-- '=■ ""■ 3"- '"■ 4^), reviling their manner of life in order to persuade the authorities to act. Believers are not being arraigned because it is a crime ]>cr se to be a Christian, nor are they condemned on this charge ; it is only from the point of view of their own clear conscience that they can glory in being reproached for the name of Christ. The stress which the writer places on false accusations, and his earnest admonitions to avoid all criminal conduct, show that the letter was written to persons who were being charged — thougli falsely, the author hoped — with speciric crimes. Moreover, by a correct and (cautious mode of conduct they may hope to gain the favour of the governor who is thought capable of giving praise to them that do well (2'^), while even their accusers may be silenced and put to shame by the Christians' good manner of life in Christ (2'^ 3'^).t This encouragement would have been quite pointless if the mere acknowledgment of the ' Name' already constituted a capital offence in the ej-es of the law. The Christians might con- sole themselves with the thought that they were in reality being reproached simply for the name of Christ, but apparently their enemies were still obliged to make specific criminal charges against believers in order to effect legal action.
1 Peter can hardly have been designed to meet the new condition of affairs following the rescript of Trajan, if, as seems probable, the mere con- fession of Christianity was henceforth the only point needing to be established in law ('si defer- antur et arguantur {i.e. if they are proven to be Christians], puniendi sunt'). But a date shortly before Trajan's rescript, during Pliny's preliminary activity, would suit admirably certain details in the situation. Under the immediately preceding governors little attention had been paid to the internal aflairs of the province, which was in a wretched state generally. Pliny was a more efficient executive, and his efforts to establish better conditions must almost immediately have
* For statements of this opinion, in more recent times, see S. Davidson, An Introduction to the .^tudy of the NT", i. 522 ff. ; J. M. S. Baljon, Cotmn^ntaar op de kathotische brieven ; P. Schmidt, ' Zwei Kronen zuni ersten Petrnsbrief,' in ZWTh xli.\. [1907] 28-52. A. Jiilicher, Einleitung in das NTS, p. i82, would nialte the date about a.d. 100, because Polycarp, I^apias, and the author of James are thoujjht to have" linown and used 1 Peter.
t Perhaps the author even contemplated the possibility of some counter lejjal action against the false accusers when they failed to malte good their charges. According to Suetonius (Aufi. xxxii.), Augustus had enacted a law by which malicious informers made themselves liable for the very punishment which they soujjht to bring upon their innocent victim.