stated most elaborately by F. TI. Chase (np. cit. p. 78511'.). He would account for the ' I'.-iulinism ' of the letter by supposing that Peter had been sum- moned to Rome by Paul '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.' The time spent by Peter in missionary work outside Palestine is believed to have been sutlicicnt to give him the necessary linguistic equipment for writing in Greek ; and failure to mention Paul, or absence of other per- sonal data, is to be explained by the fact that Silvanus, who carried the letter himself, supplied such information.
Other scholars would defend only a secondary form of Petrine authorship. Peter wrote ' through Silvanus' [Sid SiXouai'oi'] ; that is, the Apostle was responsible for the general content of the letter, but the diction and even to some extent the thought were due to Silv.anus. Since the latter, who is identified with the Sil.as of Acts ( i .T--'- 27. 32. 4o Igis. 25. 2a 174. 10. i4t. ig.-i)_ |,(id bggn a personal com- panion of Paul (e.g. \ Th 1', 2 Th l\ 2 Co l'"), it was quite natural that 1 Peter should show a Pauline colouring and should be written in a more excellent style than Peter himself could command. This supposition also allows room for the recogni- tion of the stylistic resemblances between this Epistle and the early chapters of Acts as well as certain portions of the Synoptic Gospels.* They all contain, so it is said, a more or less strong Petrine cast, due ultimately to the influence of the Apostle. On this hypothesis 1 Peter will have been written from Rome in the time of Nero.t Failure to mention Paul may be taken to imply that he was already dead. Others would not attach any special significance to this silence, and would assume that the letter was sent from Rome before the death of either of the two leading apostles.
A few niino problems remain to be considered briefly.
6. Place of writing.— The only hint which the author gives as to the place of writing is contained in 5'^ ' the co-elect [fem. sing.] in Babylon salutes you.' The ' co-elect' (17 <rwfKXf/cT7)) probably refers to the church with which he is associated at the time, although it has been supposed that he might be referring to some individual, and more particu- larly to his wife (cf. 1 Co 9^). This is the view of several older commentators and, more recently, of Bigg. As for the location of this church, there are three possibilities, viz. (1) Babylon on the Euphrates, (2) Babylon in Egypt, or (3) Rome. The first of these possibilities has several advocates, both among the defenders of the letter's authen- ticity (e.g. B. Weiss, Kiihl) and among those who make it post-apostolic (e.g. R. A. Lipsius, H. J. Holtzniann, P. W. Schmiedel). The former opinion is based upon the assumption that 1 Peter is too early to allow time for the Apostle to have reached Rome, and the latter view presupposes that the (fictitious) tradition about his Roman residence had not yet grown up when the letter was written — or, at least, that this tradition was not approved by the author. Both positions are open to serious doubt, as is also the suppo.sition that the author was residing in the Egyptian Babylon. This town, located on the site of the present Cairo, is men- tioned by Strabo (xvil. i. 30), and apparently it was at that time mainly a military station and is not likely to have been the home of a Christian community in the 1st century. Furthermore, ecclesiastical tradition does not connect Peter's
* See E. Scharfe, Die petriniache Stromung der neutatamenU lichen Literatur,
t Some of the better known names attaching to this view are J. M. Usteri, T. Zahn, J. Monnier, B. W. Bacon, J. Moffatt
206
PETER, EPISTLES OF
PETER, EPISTLES OF
name with Eirypt in any such way as we should expect if he liad actually worked there or if tradi- tion reftardinf; his allegcil activities in that territory liad been sutliciently f^eneral to make tlie reference to ' Bal)ylon ' intelligible in a pseudonymous epistle. Hence the probabilities favour the view that Babylon is used metii])horically for Rome, as is the case in Revelation (14» IG'» 17° IS-'"-'; cf. Sib. Orac. v. 143, 158 ; Eusebius, HE II. xv. 2). Mark, who is included in the greeting, was also closely associated with Rome in early tradition (Col 4", Philem=^, 2Ti 4"; cf. Irenaiiis, III. i. 1; Eusebius, HE II. xv. If., VI. xiv. 6f.).
Does the assumption that Rome was the place of composition meet the implied conditions regard- ing the delivery of the letter ? The phrase 'through Silvanus' probablj* means that he was the bearer, yet he may also have been the amanuensis. Simi- lar expressions in the writings of this period commonly refer, however, more particularly to the bearer. * A pparently he is supposed to take a route bringing him lirst to Pontus, whence he swings in a circle through Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia, completing his journey in Bithynia. To accom- plish this he would follow one of the main lines of travel by water from Italy to the Black Sea, landing perhaps at Amastris or Sinope, and after completing his mission he may have returned to Herakleia, where he would take ship again for Italy (see F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter I. l-II. 17, London, 1898, pp. 157-184).