Zahn, pp. 194–198, argues that 2 Pet. 3:1–2 cannot refer to the contents of 1 Peter, but must refer to another letter of Peter’s with similar content to 2 Peter. But this view depends on too narrow an understanding of 2 Pet. 3:2, which means in general just ‘to remember the Old Testament writings and the apostolic teachings’—something which could certainly describe 1 Peter, as the early church thought it did.
For arguments in defence of Petrine authorship of 2 Peter see the extensive discussion in Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude (Leicester: IVP, 1987), pp. 19–74; also Guthrie, NTI, pp. 814–863 and 671–684.
EH 3.39.17.
Against Heresies 4.9.2; Irenaeus also quotes Peter by name in 4.16.5. An extensive list of other citations, some certain and some merely possible (or even unlikely), is given in Bigg, pp. 7–15. The clear citations increase in frequency after Irenaeus.
1 Peter is not mentioned in the Muratorian Canon (c. AD 170), but neither are Hebrews, James, or 2 Peter, probably due to a textual corruption at this point. Cf. B. F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 71896), pp. 222–223.
EH 3.25.2.
W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, revised edition, tr. H. C. Kee (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), p. 424.
Other examples of this construction designating the messenger are Ignatius, Rom. 10:1; Phil. 11:2; Smyr. 12:1, and the subscripts (in the Byzantine text tradition) at the end of many of Paul’s letters (Rom., 1 and 2 Cor., Eph., Phil., Col., Phlm.): see subscripts in Nestle-Aland Greek text, and discussion by F. H. Chase, HDB 3, p. 790.
Commentators supporting Petrine authorship include Hort, Bigg, Selwyn, Stibbs-Walls, Cranfield, and Blum. Kelly (pp. 32–33) is non-commital. Lengthy defences of Petrine authorship may be found in Guthrie, NTI, pp. 773–790, and in Stibbs-Walls, pp. 15–68. Many who support Petrine authorship allow a large role to Silvanus in the actual style of Greek used.
Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 423–424.
EH 3.39.15.
Against Heresies 3.1.1 and 3.10.6.
See the stylistic analysis by F. H. Chase in HDB 3, pp. 781–782; cf. MHT 2, pp. 26–27.
MHT 4, pp. 127–130.
See BAGD, p. 13, and references there.
LSJ, p. 690 (cf. the entry under the alternate spelling hermēneus); so also Lampe, p. 549.
Ant. 20.264.
Stromata 1.22 (end).
J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How much Greek could the first Jewish Christians have known? NovTSup 19 (Leiden: Brill, 1968), p. 146.
See photograph in CIJ, 1400 (vol. 2, p. 329).
See photograph and transcription in CIJ, 1404 (vol. 2, p. 333); the translation here is taken from E. Sukenik, Ancient Synagogues in Palestine and Greece (London: British Academy, 1934), p. 70.
See Sevenster, op. cit., pp. 117–121, with discussion of a marble plaque from Nazareth.
Sotah 49b.
Ant. 20.263.
Sevenster, op. cit., p. 99.
‘The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.’, CBQ 32 (1970), pp. 512, 531; cf. C. F. D. Moule, ‘Once More, Who Were the Hellenists?’, ExpT 70 (1958–59), pp. 100–102; R. H. Gundry, ‘The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine’, JBL 83 (1964), pp. 404–408; also P. E. Hughes, ‘The Languages Spoken by Jesus’, in New Dimensions in New Testament Study, eds. Richard Longenecker and Merrill Tenney (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), pp. 127–143.
‘Greek Among the Jews of Palestine in New Testament Times’, NTS 20 (1974), pp. 87–89.
Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1945 ed., vol. 6, p. 278.
C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Nature and Purpose of 1 Peter’, NTS 3 (1956–57), pp. 7–9, demonstrates parallels between references to persecution in 1 Peter and similar references in the rest of the New Testament.
See D. A. Carson, ‘Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: The Possibility of Systematic Theology’ in Scripture and Truth, eds. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan; Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1983), pp. 71–72, with notes to other literature.
Guthrie, NTI, adds another significant point: If the author was using Peter’s name as a pseudonym, it seems impossible to free him from the charge of intentional deception (pp. 787–788). Those who argue that pseudonymous writing was a commonly accepted literary style in the first century have failed to answer Guthrie’s demonstration that this practice was not found in personal letters (pp. 671–684). He notes that if someone actually did write under ‘Peter’ as a pseudonym, no adequate motive can be found which does not involve the intention to deceive (p. 788).
Diod. Sic. 2.9.9.
Geography 16.1.5 (C738). In Geography 17.1.30 (C807), Strabo mentions another ‘Babylon’ near Memphis in Egypt, on the Nile River, where a Roman legion was stationed, but this city was even more obscure than Babylon in Mesopotamia, and there is no record of Christian influence there in the first century. It is highly unlikely that Peter would have meant this Babylon without further specification in the context of 1 Pet. 5:13.
See the very thorough discussion concerning Peter in Rome in O. Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, tr. F. Filson (London: SCM, 1953), pp. 70–152. A more recent but much less careful analysis of the evidence is found in Carsten Thiede, Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome (Exeter: Paternoster, 1986), pp. 171–194.
Against Heretics 36.
EH 2.25.8.
EH 3.1.2–3.
EH 2.15.2.
See Tacitus, Annals 15.44.
EH 3.1.2.
Guthrie, NTI, pp. 589–599.
Guthrie, NTI, p. 850.
‘The Provinces of Asia Minor Included in St. Peter’s Address’, in Hort, 1 Peter, pp. 154–184, especially pp. 183–184.
Guthrie, NTI, pp. 792–793, discusses some other theories, none of which has gained much acceptance.
‘The Address of 1 Peter’, ExpT 89 (1978), pp. 239–243.
Leighton, p. 9.
The original statement is found in H. Windisch, Die Katholischen Briefe, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 15, revised by H. Preisker (Tübingen: Mohr, 31951), pp. 156–162. An excellent statement of the arguments for a baptismal background is found in F. L. Cross, 1 Peter: A Paschal Liturgy (Oxford: Mowbray, 1954), pp. 28–35 (Cross argues that the baptismal service occurred at a Good Friday-Easter celebration).
C. F. D. Moule, ‘The Nature and Purpose of 1 Peter’, NTS 3 (1956–57), pp. 4–7; note also the objections of Walls in Stibbs-Walls, p. 61–63.
NTI, p. 798.
Stibbs/Walls, p. 60.
A clear statement of the view that New Testament moral codes depend on certain moral codes common in the pagan world is found in J. W. C. Wand, The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Luke (London: Methuen, 1934), pp. 3–9 (see especially the table on p. 7—the claimed parallels are not clear enough to be convincing).
Bigg, p. 23, lists some close parallels with James, but arguments for dependence one way or another are inconclusive. We do not have enough data to make a reliable decision.
NTI, p. 807, with further notes to the literature.
Selwyn, p. 311.
R. Gundry, NTS 13 (1966–67), pp. 336–50, and (answering objections) Biblica 55 (1974), pp. 211–232.
