1. Author
1. Author
a. Evidence within the letter
The author identifies himself by name in the first phrase of the letter: ‘Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.’ This is consistent with the practice of other New Testament authors (cf. the opening phrases in the letters of Paul, James, John, and Jude; also in 2 Pet. 1:1).
Although further evidence for Petrine authorship will be given below, it should be noted at the outset that, even on historical grounds alone, this statement attests to the fact that from the earliest time the letter circulated in the church, it was known and accepted as a letter written by Peter.
1 Peter 5:1 gives additional evidence, for there the author calls himself ‘a witness of the sufferings of Christ’. Such a claim fits well with Peter’s presence at Jesus’ trial (Matt. 26:58, 67–69; Mark 14:54; Luke 22:54, 61). It also means that 1 Peter 2:23 may be the recollection of an eyewitness: ‘When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he trusted to him who judges justly.’
Finally, 1 Peter 5:13 indicates two facts which are consistent with authorship by Peter. It says, ‘She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark.’ If we understand ‘Babylon’ to refer to Rome (see commentary on 5:13), this verse is consistent with evidence from the early church which locates Peter in Rome during the end of his life and connects Peter with Mark (see below).
b. Evidence outside the letter
Early evidence relevant to the authorship of 1 Peter is found in 2 Peter 3:1, in which the author calls his writing ‘the second letter that I have written to you’. This same author earlier claims to be Peter (2 Pet. 1:1, 16–18). Whether or not one thinks that Peter wrote 2 Peter, 2 Peter 3:1 can still be understood as a very early testimony to the fact that an earlier letter claiming to be from Peter (and widely accepted as that) was known and was in circulation at the time 2 Peter was written.
In the present commentary, I have assumed Petrine authorship of 2 Peter (for this is my own position) and have therefore cited 2 Peter for parallel examples of themes and of word usage at several points. Yet, on any view of authorship, 2 Peter is illustrative of the use of Greek in the Christian community in the late first or early second century AD.
The earliest definite citation of 1 Peter outside the New Testament is found in Polycarp (died AD 155), Epistle to the Philippians. Polycarp quotes 1 Peter several times: for example, in 1.3, ‘in whom, not seeing, you believe with unutterable and exalted joy’ (cf. 1 Pet. 1:8); 2.1, ‘not returning evil for evil or reviling for reviling’ (cf. 1 Pet. 3:9); and 8.1, ‘who bore our sins in his own body on the tree, who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth’ (cf. 1 Pet. 2:24, 22).
Although the writings of Papias (died c. AD 130) have been lost, Eusebius says that Papias ‘used quotations’ from Peter’s letter.
The first extant writing which quotes Peter by name is Irenaeus, Against Heresies (AD 182–188): ‘Peter says in his epistle: Whom, not seeing, you love; in whom, though now you see him not, you have believed, you shall rejoice with joy unspeakable’ (cf. 1 Pet. 1:8).
There seems to have been no doubt anywhere in the early church that 1 Peter was written by the apostle Peter. Writing in AD 325, Eusebius includes 1 Peter among those books everywhere recognized as belonging to the New Testament. Wherever it was circulated, it was accepted as genuine.
c. The role of Silvanus (5:12)
The question of authorship is complicated somewhat by 1 Peter 5:12, which says, ‘By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it.’
Many have concluded that this verse indicates that Silvanus was the secretary or ‘amanuensis’ who recorded or wrote the letter at Peter’s direction (see, for example, Selwyn, pp. 11–17, and response by Beare, pp. 212–216).
However, this sentence gives little support to the view that Silvanus was involved in the actual writing of the letter. The Greek phrase meaning ‘to write to someone by someone else’ is nowhere else clearly seen to mean ‘to dictate a letter with the help of someone else’. Kummel notes, ‘No-one has yet proved that graphō dia tinos can mean “to authorize someone else to compose a piece of writing” ’. On the other hand, there are clear cases where this same Greek construction is used to designate the messenger who carries a letter to someone: note Acts 15:23, for example (Greek text: ‘through the hand of them [Judas and Silas]’).
Moreover, the fact that Peter calls Silvanus a faithful brother as I regard him, argues strongly for Silvanus as the bearer of the letter: this expression would have no function if Silvanus were merely the secretary, but it would be very appropriate as a personal recommendation if Silvanus were the bearer (note Paul’s similar commendation of the bearers of his letters in 1 Cor. 16:10–11; Eph. 6:21–22; Col. 4:7–9; Titus 3:12–13). And though Tertius mentions himself in Rom. 16:22, no New Testament author ever explicitly mentions or commends an amanuensis elsewhere.
Therefore, the expression ‘through Silvanus’ or ‘by means of Silvanus’ (RSV, by Silvanus) even by itself would probably designate Silvanus as the bearer of the letter, and the commendation of him as a faithful brother, similar to several other commendations of messengers in New Testament letters, makes it very likely that he carried Peter’s letter to its readers.
If it is admitted that 5:12 designates Silvanus as the bearer of the letter, then the amanuensis view must be seen for what it is: a theory with no hard historical data left to support it. For if 5:12 designates Silvanus as the bearer of the letter, then there is nothing in 5:12 which also designates him as the amanuensis, nor is there historical data elsewhere which would indicate this role for him.
It is best to conclude that there is no clear evidence in the letter indicating that Silvanus had any role in the composition of the letter. Authorship by Peter the apostle means simply that Peter himself wrote the letter.
d. Objections to Petrine authorship
Although many major commentaries can be found in support of Petrine authorship of 1 Peter, several objections have been raised against the internal and external evidence noted above. These objections have seemed convincing enough to lead some commentators (such as Beare and Best) to deny Petrine authorship. Indeed, Beare says, ‘There can be no possible doubt that “Peter” is a pseudonym’ (p. 29).
The following four objections to Petrine authorship are listed in Kümmel; a fuller statement of these objections can be found in the introduction to Beare’s commentary (pp. 28–50) and in Best (pp. 49–63).
1. The Greek is too good for Peter. It is argued that the polished and rather elegant style of the letter could not have been written by a Galilean fisherman such as Peter, a man who was called ‘uneducated’ in Acts 4:13. And Mark is said to have been the ‘interpreter’ (hermēneutēs) of Peter in Eusebius (similarly Irenaeus). Someone who needed an ‘interpreter’, it is argued, could not have been very fluent in Greek. Beare writes of Peter, ‘That he should ever become a master of Greek prose is simply unthinkable’ (p. 47).
2. 1 Peter reflects a time after Peter had died, a period of intense persecution not seen until the persecutions under Domitian (AD 95) or Trajan (c. AD 112). But Peter died under Nero during the local persecution of Christians in Rome in AD 64–68.
3. 1 Peter is said to be too Pauline in theology to come from the apostle Peter, and to be too dependent on Paul’s writings.
4. The author of 1 Peter shows no evidence of familiarity with the earthly life of Jesus, and gives little if any attention to the earthly teachings of Jesus in what he writes. But this is thought to be unlikely for Peter, who accompanied Jesus throughout his earthly ministry.
These four objections may be considered in the order presented above.
1. The Greek is too good for Peter to have written
It is true that 1 Peter is written in very good Greek, exhibiting an extensive vocabulary and ability to use effectively a wide variety of verbal forms and sentence structures. But the stylistic quality can be overestimated: note Nigel Turner’s allegations of several areas of stylistic weakness and departure from high literary standards in 1 Peter. The Greek may be said to be excellent, but to say it is a literary masterpiece is probably an overstatement. Yet the question remains whether Peter could have written Greek of this good quality.
a. Was Peter illiterate or in need of a translator?
The word agrammatos, ‘unlearned’, is used of the apostles Peter and John in Acts 4:13: The members of the Sanhedrin perceived ‘that they were uneducated, common men’, and were amazed at their boldness and wisdom in defending themselves. Does this mean that Peter was unable to read or write?
Although agrammatos can at times mean ‘illiterate, unable to read or write’, it can also mean ‘not formally educated’, and would readily have that nuance next to idiotēs, ‘common man, layman, non-expert’ in Acts 4:13. Moreover, the Sanhedrin would not have known from the brief verbal exchange whether or not Peter and John could read or write, nor was that the focus of their amazement. They were amazed rather that people without formal rabbinic training could hold their own in argument with the scholarly experts of the nation and, recalling how Jesus had similarly handled them in discussion, ‘they recognized that they had been with Jesus’ (Acts 4:13b; cf. John 7:15). It is therefore best to conclude that Acts 4:13 means that Peter and John were ‘not formally educated’, apparently because they had not received formal rabbinic training.
With respect to references to Mark serving as the ‘interpreter’ of Peter, it should be noted that hermēneutēs, ‘interpreter’, does not always mean ‘one who translates from a foreign language’, but can also mean ‘expounder’, or ‘one who explains a teaching’. The related verb hermēneuō takes this sense in the variant reading at Luke 24:27 (Jesus interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself); also in Josephus (‘interpreting’ Scripture). In Clement of Alexandria, Moses is called an ‘interpreter’ (hermēneus) of sacred laws.
The sentences which have been quoted alleging Peter’s need of a translator are in contexts discussing Mark’s Gospel, where it would be useful to say that Mark was explaining or expounding Peter’s gospel message, and that is the sense we must give those passages.
b. Could Peter have known Greek well?
Even if we conclude that Peter was not illiterate, and that he did not need a translator, the question still remains: how much Greek could he have known? A response to that question requires a knowledge of the degree to which Greek was spoken by Jews in Palestine in the first century AD.
When Alexander the Great conquered Palestine in 332 BC, a process of ‘Hellenization’ (the imposing of Greek language and culture on non-Greek people) began, and it continued for the next four centuries. Thus, by the time Peter wrote, there had been nearly four hundred years of Greek influence in Palestine.
There were many Greek cities, especially in and around Galilee. Joppa on the coast had been a centre of Greek influence for many years. The ten Greek cities called the ‘Decapolis’ were within easy travelling distance. In addition, such newer cities as Caesarea (the administrative capital of Judea), Antipatris, Sebaste (ancient Samaria), Neapolis, Tiberias (on the sea of Galilee), and Caesarea Philippi, were more or less thoroughly Greek cities, peopled mainly by non-Jews and using Greek as their everyday language.
Ancient evidence of the use of Greek in Palestine is abundant. Hundreds of Jewish ossuaries (stone ‘coffins’ in which the bones of dead people were placed) have been uncovered in and around Jerusalem, all dating from the first century AD or earlier. Yet, ‘Of the inscriptions on ossuaries in Jerusalem mentioned by Frey, 97 are in Hebrew or Aramaic, 64 in Greek and 14 are bilingual.’ These ossuaries are significant because it is likely that surviving relatives writing the name of the deceased person on a stone coffin would write in the language most familiar to them or in the language in which the person was usually addressed.
A large plaque from the entrance to the temple in Jerusalem, unearthed in the 19th century, and dating from before AD 70, warned all non-Jews not to enter beyond that point. The inscription is written only in Greek. Of course, one might argue that this inscription does not prove that the Jews spoke Greek, for it was addressed to non-Jews living in Jerusalem. This is true, but it does indicate that Greek was assumed to be the language which at least every Gentile in Jerusalem could read and understand. Therefore, if the Jews in Jerusalem spoke with Gentiles at all (which they certainly did in everyday life) they probably would have spoken frequently in Greek.
Even more remarkable is an inscription from the wall of a synagogue which was found on the Ophel, the hill south of the temple area in Jerusalem. The inscription, written only in Greek, reads:
Theodotos, son of Vettenos, priest and archisynagogos [ruler of the synagogue], son of an archisynagogos, grandson of an archisynagogos, built the synagogue for the reading of the law and for the teaching of the commandments; furthermore, the hospice and the chambers, and the water installation for the lodging of needy strangers. The foundation stone thereof had been laid by his fathers, and the elders, and Simonides.
The fact that a memorial plaque on the wall of a Jewish synagogue in Jerusalem could be written in Greek, and that it commemorated the work of the ruler of the synagogue who was both a priest (presumably in the Jerusalem temple) and the son and grandson of synagogue rulers, shows how thoroughly the use of the Greek language had penetrated even to the centre of Judaism in Palestine at or before the time of the New Testament. All this indicates that it would not have been unusual for Peter to have used Greek regularly for over thirty years in the Jerusalem church (as well as earlier in even more thoroughly Greek-speaking Galilee), and to have become very familiar with the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint (as the Old Testament quotations in 1 Peter indicate).
Public decrees and proclamations were also written in Greek and posted where they could be seen by all.
A passage in the Babylonian Talmud seems to indicate extensive knowledge of Greek in Palestine in the school of Gamaliel in the first century AD: ‘Behold Rab Judah declared that Samuel said in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamaliel … there were a thousand pupils in my father’s house; five hundred studied the Torah and five hundred studied Greek wisdom’. Moreover, Josephus comments that in his day ‘even slaves who so choose’ could acquire fluency in Greek, and that it was ‘common’ to ordinary freemen.
It seems fair to conclude that the Greek language was well known and commonly used in Palestine in the first century. This was true even in Jerusalem (although Aramaic was still the most commonly used language there). But it was even more the case in Galilee, where Peter grew up, surrounded by Greek cities and the influence of residents and visitors who spoke only Greek.
Sevenster writes:
There were many regions of the Jewish land which bordered directly on areas where mainly or almost exclusively Greek was spoken. The obvious assumption is that the inhabitants of such regions at least understood Greek, often spoke it and were thus bilingual. This can probably be said of people from all levels of society, not merely the top social or intellectual layer.
Joseph Fitzmyer similarly states:
Greek was widely used at this time and not only in the clearly Hellenized towns, but in many others as well. Indeed, there are some indications that Palestinian Jews in some areas may have used nothing else but Greek.
He adds,
I would maintain that the most commonly used language of Palestine in the first century AD was Aramaic, but that many Palestinian Jews, not only those in Hellenistic towns, but farmers and craftsmen of less obviously Hellenized areas used Greek, at least as a second language … in fact, there is indication … that some Palestinians spoke only Greek.
A. W. Argyle notes:
To suggest that a Jewish boy growing up in Galilee would not know Greek would be rather like suggesting that a Welsh boy brought up in Cardiff would not know English. If Joseph and Jesus wanted their carpentry business to prosper, they would be happy to welcome Gentile as well as Jewish customers. They would therefore need to speak Greek as well as Aramaic if they were to converse with all their customers … There is greater readiness now than there was formerly to admit that Jesus and his disciples, all of whom were Galileans (Acts 2:7), were bilingual, speaking Greek as well as Aramaic.
Could someone who lacked a formal education have learned to write Greek well enough to write 1 Peter? If lack of such an education was not an insuperable obstacle to John Bunyan, the Bedford tinker who wrote Pilgrim’s Progress, can we assume that Peter could not have written the letter which bears his name?
Those who object that Greek was not Peter’s first language overlook the fact that in bilingual areas, such as Wales and the French-speaking areas of Canada, a high degree of fluency in a second language is quite common. It is also possible, as the example of Joseph Conrad (1857–1924) demonstrates, to become a highly accomplished writer in a second or even third language. Conrad’s first language was Polish; his second, learned as a youth, was French. He began to learn English only at the age of twenty-one when he signed on as a seaman on a British ship, yet his novel, Lord Jim, is acknowledged as an English literary classic. Those who deny that Peter could have written 1 Peter would probably also consider it ‘unthinkable’ that a Polish sailor could have acquired the elegance and fluency in English evident in Conrad’s novels and short stories, particularly without benefit of formal education. (He once said, ‘I’ve never opened an English grammar in my life.’) That Conrad should have done this may be ‘unthinkable’; but he did it none the less. Such an accomplishment is many times more incredible than that the leader of the early church in a thoroughly bilingual culture could have written a letter like 1 Peter. It is unthinkable only if we have not carefully examined the evidence.
2. The letter reflects a time after Peter died
This objection assumes that 1 Peter must be reflecting official persecution by the government which extended throughout the entire Roman empire. Such an assumption is hardly justified by the text itself. Indeed, Peter’s specific directive regarding the government is simply to be submissive to it (1 Pet. 2:13–14) and to ‘honour the emperor’ (1 Pet. 2:17). And he does not specify one kind of suffering but says his readers may have to suffer grief in ‘various trials’ (1:6). All the other statements about suffering in 1 Peter can be understood as general statements addressed to Christians where there was a likelihood of localized persecution. This would not be unusual for the first century in Asia Minor. From the first spread of the gospel there had been hostility and even violent opposition in many places (see detailed discussion in commentary at 4:12).
Thus the letter cannot be said clearly to reflect a time after Peter’s death, and can fit well with the situation which existed throughout Peter’s lifetime.
3. 1 Peter is too Pauline to have been written by Peter
This objection assumes a necessary divergence of viewpoint or even conflict between Pauline and Petrine ideas of Christianity. Such a view has been widely criticized in many places, and it is not necessary to deal with the question in detail here.
On the contrary, it would be quite surprising if a letter written near the end of Peter’s life did not show several similarities in thought, and perhaps even in wording, to some of Paul’s letters. If we are to trust the historical traditions reported by Eusebius and Tertullian (see below), then Peter near the end of his life was teaching with Paul in Rome. Moreover, the Silvanus whom Peter names as the messenger carrying his letter (1 Pet. 5:12), was Paul’s travelling companion and assistant (also known by the name Silas) for many years. This also suggests some close association between the two apostles. Further detail may be noted if necessary (see Stibbs-Walls, pp. 39–48, for a very helpful discussion), but it is sufficient to note here that affinities to Paul’s writings weigh more heavily in favour of authorship by Peter the apostle than against it.
4. 1 Peter shows no evidence of familiarity with the earthly life of Jesus
The primary weakness of this objection is a failure to give due weight to the difference between a gospel and a brief letter. Peter was writing not to recall many details of Jesus’ earthly life, but rather to give instruction to his hearers regarding specific situations which they faced. With regard to the situation of persecution, Peter does certainly employ the example of Christ (2:21–23; 3:18; 4:1–2, 13; 5:1). Such repeated reminders of Christ’s sufferings appropriately and specifically applied to the situation of the readers; further detail was unnecessary, especially if Peter could assume that the elements of the gospel stories were well known.
In conclusion, the objections to authorship by Peter remain unpersuasive. There is no compelling evidence to keep us from accepting what the early church universally believed and what the letter itself clearly states, that 1 Peter was written by Peter the apostle.