Although the document of 1 Peter does not necessarily garner quite the same attention as, per se, letters within the Pauline Spectrum, the foundational Gospel accounts, or texts such as Hebrews or Revelation, the widespread circulation of the letter and its historical impact on the early church cannot be undermined. Yet despite modern consensus among biblical scholars regarding the document’s influence, disputes surrounding the traditional authorship and dating may never be resolved. In order to most effectively approach the issue, one must thoughtfully consider and appreciate each unique vantage point before coming to any conclusion. The purpose of this paper is to present scholarly arguments concerning the authorship and dating of 1 Peter.
To begin with, it should be noted that traditional church history regards Simon Peter, debatably Jesus’ closest companion among his twelve apostles, as the author of this letter, thus titled in his name (Brown, 718). Considering his reputation within Jesus’ circle of disciples and his evident position of leadership in the early church, Scripture provides limited information and insight into the historical life of Peter. Born in Bethsaida with the Hebrew name Simeon, it is unknown whether he was the son of a man named Jonah (Matt. 16:17) or John (John 1:42). He was a married man (Mark 1:29; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5) and a fisherman whose business career probably paralleled that of a small, joint venture (Luke 5:1-11). Most importantly, he was a prominent figure in the early church and was specifically associated through ministry with four geographical locations: Jerusalem (the Jerusalem church), Antioch of Syria, Corinth (Corinthian church), and Rome.
Internal evidence to the attestation of Peter’s authorial hand is immediately found in the salutation of the epistle; the initial words quickly introduce the claim of the author to be: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:1a).” Being that Petrine authorship is the traditional holding, however, evidence in support of other possibilities will first be considered. To begin with, for a greeting that seems so intent on establishing the author’s authority through his apostolic relation to Jesus Christ, rightful speculations can be made for the fact that nowhere else is Peter’s name affixed in the document. Moreover, if Peter did pen the letter, it would seem appropriate or, at the very least, common sense that he include some personal reference to Jesus. Accreditation to Peter as the letter’s author only further complicates from this initial junction.
The fact that 1 Peter holds a number of striking similarities to documents under the Pauline tradition makes for a strong argument against traditional Petrine authorship. For one, the letter format follows that of typical Pauline structure (Kummel, 423). In addition, the author’s employment of the greeting “grace and peace” is distinctively Paul. In fact, such a greeting was so unique in its harmonization of Hebraic and Greek influences that it is historically accredited to have been created by Paul.
Of the numerous objections among scholars, however, one particularly fascinating is an argument on the grounds of linguistic and stylistic composition that go unnoticed to the common reader. Lost in translation, only can it be apparent to Greek scholars that the author of 1 Peter exemplifies a firm mastery of Greek that would be historically uncharacteristic and highly unlikely of Peter, or any of Christ’s apostles for that matter, to possess (Kummel, 423). Based on the modest biographical information regarding Peter in New Testament canonical works, it is known that Peter was as a simple Galilean fisherman whose native tongue was Aramaic and had a limited, or lack of, educational background. This would naturally present huge problems to the contention of Petrine authorship (Brown, 707).
In addition to the above speculations, the argument against the plausibility of Peter’s ability to produce such a considerably refined work is further strengthened by a textual comparison of 1 Peter to the Greek of non-disputed Pauline literature. Regardless of whether or not Peter ever received formal instruction in the Greek language, the fact remains that Paul would have been significantly more educated and skilled in the subject; nonetheless, 1 Peter displays a writing style that is not only smoother than that of Pauline works, but contains a surprisingly extensive and varied vocabulary and exhibits a strong command of Greek syntactical usage (Kummel, 423). With these linguistic and stylistic objections in mind, and without yet looking at historical objections to Petrine authorship, is it even possible to correlate the same Peter who is regarded as “illiterate” in Acts 4:13 to the accomplished author of his epistle’s namesake?
As briefly aforementioned, the questionability of Petrine tradition also lays susceptible to historical objections in regards to the text’s subject matter. 1 Peter presupposes a historical situation of persecution (cf. 1 Pet 1:6; 2:12, 15; 4:12, 14-16; 5:8-9) that would present some contradiction to the provinces to which a presumed Peter wrote (Guthrie, 765). If Peter were the author of this epistle, the only reasonable dating would fall within the reign of Emperor Nero in the years of AD 62-65; however, “Neronian persecutions were directed against Christians in Rome; there is no evidence that such persecution spread to the provinces to which this letter is addressed (i.e. Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia) (Guthrie, 765).” The historical argument against Petrine authorship, and apostolic authorship for that reason, can be even further intensified by giving the only other possibilities that are historically congruous to the topic of Christian persecution.
Other historical facts that seem to refute the possibility of Peter as the letter’s original author make considerable sense when coupled with additional internal evidence. For one, in 5:13, the author’s closing words, he relays a greeting from a presupposed sister church in “Babylon.” The problem here is that established church history (cf. 1 Clement 5) understands Peter to have been killed during the Neronian persecutions, as was the similar fate of Paul. However, it was not until Jewish apocalyptic literature later in the first century that “Babylon” became a known cipher for Rome (Kummel, 422). The book of Revelation, written approximately in the 90s and the primary example of apocalyptic genre in the New Testament, refers to Rome as “Babylon” on numerous occasions in a cryptic manner (e.g. Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5). During the life of Peter, this assuming that church tradition accurately accounts for the general dating of his death, such an allusion would have been completely foreign to his readers (Kummel, 422).
Although additional sources to present objections to Petrine authorship remain, it is only fair to consider the equally thought-provoking counterarguments to the more weighty evidence against Peter’s case of copyright that has been already discussed. To begin with, in response to those who argue that 1 Peter holds too close of a tie to Pauline tradition, some would defend that 1 Peter lacks the typical presence and emphasis of Pauline theology dealing with justification, the Law, the new Adam, and the flesh (Guthrie, 774). Additionally, proponents of Petrine authorship would continue by highlighting the distinct utilization of Old Testament passages in conjunction with the author’s church-consciousness, historic-consciousness, and Christ-consciousness (Guthrie, 774).
In terms of issues with the author’s linguistic and stylistic mastery of Greek, contenders of Petrine authorship would argue that they are not logically sufficient in measure to completely discredit Peter as the author. First, one must remember that Peter lived in a bilingual region that would have required of him to have spoken Greek of a colloquial kind with Hellenistic Jews preceding his ministry with Christ (Guthrie, 767). Furthermore, the capability or incapability of Peter, or any other man for that matter, to attain fluency in a language apart from his native tongue obviously cannot be determined by an outsider. The most conservative dating of the epistle’s conception would generate an interval of more than thirty years separating Peter the writer over Peter the fisherman. Is it not possible that in those thirty years, Peter attained a polished and masterful comprehension of Greek literary composition and tongue?
Another alternative to the issue of authorship might suggest Peter’s usage of an amanuensis. In 5:12, it reads: “Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter.” Silvanus, identified as the same Silas of Acts and who was well acquainted with Paul, may have been either solely responsible for the authoring of the epistle or simply wrote under Peter’s direction (Guthrie, 769). This introduces the prospect of 1 Peter being of pseudonymous literature, particularly following the notion of Silas as the author. Yet why would Silas choose not to forego any possible speculations and simply publish the letter in his own name? This can of course be reasoned, and although the likelihood of 1 Peter being a pseudonymous work should not be wholly disregarded, the evidence surrounding other known possibilities is simply more overwhelming. Therefore, if Peter did author the epistle with the help of Silas, it makes most sense that Silas would have acted in the traditional role of an amanuensis (Brown, 719). Though the duty of recording Peter’s thought processes would have made for freedom in a literary sense, the fundamental ideas would have belonged to Peter (Guthrie, 768).
In terms of authorial debate, much can be said to question the traditional Petrine hold; however, there is no irrefutable evidence to either completely remove Peter from the epistle to which has conventionally been accredited to his authorship nor fully support that belief. Among the three sources utilized for this information, Donald Guthrie passionately argued for traditional Petrine authorship; Werner Kummel equally contended for a work outside of Petrine tradition, thus, opting for the case of pseudonymity; and Raymond Brown maintained the possibility that 1 Peter very well could have been authored by the historical Peter, this in spite of his leaning towards pseudonymity.
Regarding the dating of 1 Peter and the position of scholars, the most significant of weight is placed on the subject of persecution. Because of this, 1 Peter’s presupposed occasion of persecution as addressed in the text classically makes for three historically possible periods of dating. The earliest time frame would fall into the reign of Nero in approximately AD 62-65 with an explanation for this hypothetical period being found within Paul’s letter to Rome in 58 AD. If Peter is the author, his lack of mention in Paul’s letter denotes that the text could not have been written before the early 60s (Brown, 721). This, once again, would appear problematic, especially in regards to the cryptic language employed in describing Rome as Babylon.
The second possible dating would correlate to the reign of Domitian within the years of AD 70-100. This is unlikely though because the imperial persecution under Domitian does not make sense with 1 Peter’s approach to “persecution.” If anything, the author is most likely addressing suffering as a result of slander and misunderstanding. Moreover, keeping in line with church tradition regarding Peter’s martyrdom in Rome around AD 64-68, a proponent of this time enclosure would have to conclude 1 Peter to be a pseudonymous work (Brown, 707). The only possibility of maintaining Peter’s authorship in this time period would call for an implausible survival of Peter beyond the Neronian persecution.
Lastly, the third dating for the authoring of 1 Peter would fall during the reign of Trajan, that is, beyond and in the early 100s. This dating along the chronological scale is argued by some to be the least plausible because 1 Peter is cited by or known to a number of 2nd century sources, e.g., 2 Peter 3:1, Polycarp’s Philippians, Papias, and possibly 1 Clement (Brown, 721). On the other hand, the historical correspondences between Pliny, governor of Bithynia, and Emperor Trajan would seem to support this dating when seen in concurrence with 3:13-15. Here, the author’s language and approach to suffering indicates that there is no imperial edict. In addition, his call to preparedness in terms of providing a defense (apologia) neatly coincides with the trials Pliny was recommended to issue. Subsequently, this dating is also regarded by some scholars to be extremely plausible.
Regardless of 1 Peter’s authorial hand or the dating of the letter’s distribution, the fact remains: 1 Peter would have been extremely encouraging to Christians in the face of suffering or persecution. Nonetheless, debates over authorship and dating remain significant issues concerning the whole of the document. The historical occasion and context of 1 Peter strongly hinge on the text either being written by Peter or not. Due to class lectures and readings, it is this author’s opinion that 1 Peter was most plausibly a pseudonymous work and thus written in the 90s or early 100s. Nonetheless, this opinion does not seek to discredit the legitimacy of 1 Peter as a New Testament canonical work, one inspired by God and fully capable of accomplishing the desire of God in a manner that essentially transcends authorship or dating.
Works Cited
Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997.
