WHO WROTE I PETER?

For centuries this has been a vexing question for scholars to ponder. The answer comes from a close look at several factors that bear on the subject.

Stylistic Considerations

The major sticking point in the way of simply agreeing that the apostle Peter was its author has been the style of writing. Commentators of a range of theological stances agree that I Peter, unlike II Peter, is written in excellent, polished Greek. It is felt doubtful that a Jewish fisherman would have been capable of producing such a sophistication of writing. This is even though almost all of the actual ideas expressed in the epistle have close correspondences with the speeches and life of Peter found in the Gospels and Acts (see my post titled “I and 2 Peter: a Study Outline” for a list of such correspondences]. So if Peter did not write this letter, then whoever did must have been very familiar with this apostle and his thoughts.

    “It is unthinkable that Peter as a fisherman from Galilee had command of the Greek language to the degree reflected in the letter, according to our stylistic analysis.” L. Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter

    “The person responsible for the poor Greek of 2 Peter could not have written 1 Peter and vice versa.” P. H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter

    “Such a letter could not have been written by him, the illiterate fisherman, if he had lived to be over a hundred.” F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter

Note that the above objections are based on the assumption that ancient writers always wrote their own compositions by hand with no extra help. This is a patently false assumption as any historian familiar with those times will attest. It was quite often the practice to employ a professional amanuensis, or secretary, to brush up the actual author's grammar and present his words using the correct rhetorical techniques of the day. Several of Paul's letters were obviously produced in this manner, as we can see in their final greetings. Such an amanuensis would have been especially necessary for someone like Peter whose command of the Greek language would probably not have been the greatest (as we see in the relatively unpolished II Peter).

I had pretty much finished analyzing the overall organization of the individual NT books years ago when I decided to compare their structures with one another. I noticed that three of the books stood apart from the rest in having a unique type of organization. They were I Peter and I and II Thessalonians, and they all took this form:

                        Introduction

                            A

                                     B

                            A'

                        -----------

                            A                                         

                                     B

                            A'

                        Conclusion

I wondered if there were any significance to this similarity, and then read the opening words of I and II Thessalonians: “Paul, Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians.” Turning to I Peter 5:12, we read, “Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter...” Some scholars have taken this last comment to mean that Silvanus (also called Silas) was just the carrier of Peter's letter, but the similarities in organization of the three letters make it clear that he served as a trained amanuensis to polish Peter's grammar and style. That effectively explains away this first objection to the traditional authorship of I Peter and makes it quite likely that Silvanus was a co-author of the letters to the Thessalonians.

As Michaels states, “If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor..., then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabuary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous. The burden of proof is still on those who reject the letter's claim to come from Peter the apostle.”

Historical Considerations

Then we come to what evidence we can gather from the letter itself regarding the historical setting in which it was written. Michaels explains that this sort of enterprise actually involves two different but interrelated enterprises – determination of the likely date of writing based on specific historical events alluded to in the letter as well as cultural factors in play at the time. Unfortunately, the latter consideration rarely leads to pinpointing any actual date of composition, even in general terms. Thus we turn next to specific events happening in the Roman world for comparison with the teachings in I Peter as well as what we know about Peter's life at the time.

The one overwhelming characteristic of this epistle is the emphasis on suffering for the faith, whether referring to tribulations present at the time or those predicted for the near future. Such passages include: 2:19-20; 3:9,14,17; 4:1,13,15,19; 5:9-10. But even with this broad hint, scholars come up with different conclusions.

The problems involved are many. For one thing, if the persecution had not begun to happen yet, then we need to know how far forward in the future was Peter predicting that to happen. Secondly, as we know from the Book of Acts, persecution of believers in the Roman world could come from a number of quarters: hostile Jews, local Roman magistrates, an infuriated populace, or the seat of power in Rome itself. And such contrary forces might take a form varying from social ostracizing to banishment to imprisonment to beatings to actual death by official execution or mob violence. So without knowing precisely the nature and scope of the persecution Peter is talking about, it is really impossible to say for sure when the author penned this epistle.

Keener cites a number of notable Bible scholars such as Moule, Best, Davids, Green and Donelson who all agree with him that “1 Peter does not speak of widespread or outright state persecution in Asia Minor in Peter's day. While Peter speaks of others facing testing..., he is not very explicit about its present character.”

Because of the above uncertainties, the various attempts found in current commentaries to make “definitive” statements based on the known actions of various Roman emperor at the general time (whether Nero, Domitian or Trajan) are somewhat misguided and should be taken with a grain of salt. The goal, of course, is to compare the dates of those rulers with the traditional date of AD 63-64 for the death of Peter at the hand of Nero. But even that date is based on extrabiblical sources, however reliable they may prove to be.

External Evidence

All of the above concerns various types of internal evidence relating to the author whereas we can now turn to later sources which actually quote from I Peter or make allusions to that epistle. The following comes from Keener, who notes that such evidence from early church leaders is often ignored by scholars in making their pronouncements. He starts his discussion of this subject by saying, “Writing in the early second century, Polycarp clearly reflects language from 1 Peter, as might Clement of Rome. It is highly unlikely that early authors would quote from 1 Peter if they believed the letter to be spurious. One cannot suppose, as some do with early allusions to the Gospels, that those who used the work were ignorant of its authorship claim; the claim is explicit in 1 Pet. 1:1...Polycarp was already a bishop during Ignatius's lifetime (ca. 50 to probably 108), so that Polycarp (ca. 69-155) surely reached adulthood and Christian maturity well before the end of the first century. His confidence in 1 Peter, therefore, is telling.”

Within Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, Keener detects language which is quite close with that in I Peter 1:2,8,13,21; 2:11,12,1721-24; and 3:9. Such an extensive amount of borrowing is certainly not a mere accident.

Keener concludes, “Clearly Polycarp accepted 1 Peter (or at least its first two chapters, where the authorship claim explicitly appears) as authoritative, combining allusions to the letter with allusions to other apostolic sources. Not surprisingly, Eusebius [Christian historian writing ca. AD 312-324] explicitly notes Polycarp's use of 1 Peter.”

Other putative sources attesting to the widespread acceptance of I Peter as a genuine composition of that apostle include the following:

    Polycarp's Letter to Diognetus in which v. 9:2 echoes I Peter 3:18 with its phrase: “the just for the unjust.”

    Eusebius points out that Papias (early 2^nd century) quoted from both I John and I Peter.

    Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians 9:2 (ca. 105-180) mentions the prophets awaiting the coming of Jesus by the Spirit (see I Peter 1:10-11).

    The Epistle of Barnabas (ca 107-132) seems to allude to that same passage in I Peter.

    There are a number of possible borrowings found in the writings of Clement (ca. AD 95). However, Keener cautions that “it could simply reflect language and ideas popular to the church in Rome at the time.” The sheer number of such parallels is indicative, however, and includes echoes from the following passages in I Peter: 1:1-2,18; 2:9; 3:1-4,10-12; 4:8; 5:5, as well as other cited by additional scholars.

    The widely distributed church document called Didache (early 2^nd century) contains an allusion to I Peter 2:11.

    And then there is the specific reference to 1 Peter in 2 Peter 3:1, “taking for granted the acceptance of its authenticity among 2 Peter's audience at the time of 2 Peter's writing. This attestation is extremely valuable on any date for 2 Peter earlier than Polycarp.”

Keener concludes from all this that, “The external attestation for 1 Peter is thus stronger than for most ancient works accepted by classicists...If external attestation counts for anything at all, then, it is strong enough in this case to outweigh arguments from silence regarding internal evidence. It should weight the case in favor of acceptance rather than suspicion...Not surprisingly, therefore, Petrine authorship was virtually undisputed until nineteenth-century criticism and was still widely defended afterward. It remains a respectable and vigorous minority opinion today and, as I have argued, merits far more attention than it has received in some quarters.”