* Ramsay, op. cit. p. 2799., thinks Peter was still alive in the year 80, so that the letter may have been written under Vespasian. But there is little, if any, positive evidence for a persecution of Christians at this time, and there are very strong reasons for believing that Peter's death occurred in the sixties.
t See the pertinent note of J. B. .Mayor, The Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, p. cxxv.
: Cf. Clement, ad Cor. xxx.'l with 1 P 5= ; xxxviii. 1 with 28 410 65; xlix. 5 with 48; Ivii. 1 with 21 55; lix. 2 with 29; bci. 1 with 2131-
§ Cf. Hernias, Vis. ill. xi. 3 with 1 P 6' ; Vis. iv. iii. 4 with 1'; Maud. ii. 1 with 22; Sim. ix. xxi. 8 with 416; Sim. ix. xxviii. 5 f. with 4i3f. 16 ; Sim. ix. xxix. 1 with 22.
II Cf. Ignatius, ad Uagn. xiii. 2 with 1 P 56 ; od Polye. Iv. 3 with 26.
H E.n. Polycarp, ad Phil. i. 3=1 P 18- 12; ii. 1 = 113.21; ,_ 3 = 211; viii. i=22iii'-22. 2J 414. 16; X. 2 = 212. Cf. also ii. 2, vii. 2, X. 1 with 45 47 217 respectively.
PETEK, EPISTLES OF
PETER, EPISTLES OF
205
the letter was known in the East as early as tlie second decade of the 2nd cent., when I'olycarp wrote to the Pliilippians (c. 115). But even this conclusion would admit the possibility of a Neronic, or a Domitianic, or a Trajanic date. Jiilicher, it is true, would date the letter about the year 100 in order to allow time for Polycarp to become familiar with the document ; hut .so early a <late is not necessary, since I'olycarp was in a position to become acquainted with the letter almost immediately after it was dispatched. Moreover, the habit of diligently exchanging letters during these trying days is brought out clearly in Poly- carp's own epistle (iii. 1, xiii. 1 f. ; also Ignatius, ad Polyc. viii. 1).
Further data on the problem of authenticity have to be drawn from internal indications. Petrine authorship is explicitly affirmed in the salutation, and this, apparently, is corroborated by 2 P 3'. Yet several traits in the letter have often been thought to count seriously against its authenticity. Much stress has been placed upon its alleged ' Paulinism.' Possible parallels to the earlier Pauline letters have been pointed out (e.g. 1 P58=l Th 5"; 1 P l'"-2'« 38 = Gal 3=^ 4' 5'* 4-^ 1 P 2if- = l Co 3'-- 1"), but the closest affinities in both language and thought are with Romans ; and, with few exceptions (e.g. B. Weiss, Kiihl), scholars generally admit the priority of Romans. A com- parison, e.g., of 1 P 2'^"" with Ro 13'"' shows close similarity not only in language and subject-matter but also in the very arrangement of the ideas. In various other places there is a striking parallelism between the two documents.* The points of agreement between 1 Peter and Ephesians are so close that even identity of authorship has sometimes been assumed. t This is an extreme conclusion, yet literary interdependence can hardly be doubted, and priority is generally allowed to rest with Ephesians. This distinctly Pauline, or deutero- Pauline, character of 1 Peter is thought by many interpreters to make Petrine authorship impossible. Still other data are also brought forward in favour of this sce"pticism. The close affinities of 1 Peter with certain late NT writings, such as the Pastorals and James, is said to show that it belongs to the same period as, even if it is not dependent upon, those books. J Nor would Peter, it is said, write to Christians belonging to Paul's territory without so much as mentioning the latter's name ; and a writer who had been a personal companion of Jesus would surely have made more frequent reference to that relationship. Even stronger is the objection that Peter, originally a Jewish Gali- loean lisherman, cannot, for purely linguistic reasons, have been the author of a letter the Greek of which is not only thoroughly idiomatic but shows a richness of vocabulary ancl an appreciation of style thought to be quite beyond his ability.
Although this is a formidable array of objections, the force of which has led several well-known scholars to doubt the authenticity of the letter, others prefer an explanation of the difficulty which will admit the possibility of some form of Petrine authorship. Among more recent writers, the arguments in favour of full authenticity have been
" E.n. 1 P l» = Eo 122; 1 p 2i-8=Ro 932f-; IP 4i = Ro «i \
1 P 4lOf. = Ro i;6f. ; I p 39 = Ro 12".
t So W. Seufert. ' Das Verwancitschaftsverhaltniss des ersten Petrasbriets unci Epheserbriefs,' in ZWTh xxiv. [1S81J 178-197, 332-380. The following parallels mav be noted : 1 P lS-5 = Eph 18-14; 1 p ii2=Eph 35i»; 1 p 114-18 4:r. = Eph 4" 68; 1 P 2«= Eph 218-22; 1 P 218= Eph 65; 1 P 31-' = Eph 622-33; 1 p 321f- =
Eph 120-22 ; 1 P o8'. = Eph e"-".
J Cf. 1 P 13-5 with Tit 3J-', 1 P 112 with 1 Ti 316, 1 p 21- » with Tit 33 214, 1 p 11. 6r. 123-22 55f- with Ja 11. 2r. 18-22 46.10. For lists of parallelisms between 1 Peter and other NT writings see J. Monnier, La premiere &p'Ure de l'ap6tre Pierre, Paris, 1900, pp. 259-274 ; C. Bigg, ICC, ' St. Peter and St. Jude,' New Torli, 1901, pp. 15-24 ; F. H. Chase, ' Peter, First Epistle," BDB iii. 788 ; E. Knopf, op. cit. pp. 7-10.