Those who view the letter as pseudonymous tend to restrict these limits to the late first century:

(70–100 CE) ( E.g., Brox 39–41 (70–100 CE); Achtemeier 43–50 (80–100 CE); Boring 33–34 (late 80s–early 90s CE); Elliott 134–38 (73–92 CE); Senior 7–8 (late first century CE); Feldmeier 39–40 (81–90 CE); Donelson 14–15 (85–95 CE); Schlosser 33–35 (70–90 CE); Heckel 80 (80–100 CE); Ostmeyer 17 (81–96 CE). Others who have adopted this view include: Brown, Introduction, 721–22 (70–90 CE); Schnelle, Einleitung, 481 (90 CE); Martin, ‘Dating First Peter’, 298–318 (79–81 CE).

Though there are still a number of scholars who extend the terminus ad quem into the early to mid-second century:

(110–140 CE) (E.g., Frankemölle 13–17; Vinson 13–20; Vahrenhorst 37–51 (70–110 CE). Others who have adopted this view include: Sturdy, Redrawing the Boundaries, 73 (after 115 CE); Guttenberger, Passio Christiana, 65–68 (70–120 CE); Gielen, ‘Kaiser Hadrian’, 161–83 (130 CE); Broer and Weidemann, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, 639–41; Doering, ‘You are a Chosen Stock…’, 244–45 (70–110 CE); Le Roux, Ethics in 1 Peter, 21–26 (second century CE); Wypadlo, ‘Jesus Christus als Urbild’, 136 with n. 7 (late first or early second century CE).

Earlier we argued that the earliest evidence of 1 Peter’s influence is likely found in 1 Clement (Introduction: Early Citations, Canonicity, and the Catholic Epistles) which many would date around 95/96 CE, or at least in the late first or early second century. While a late first-century date for 1 Clement has been challenged (for a recent discussion, see Batovici, ‘Was 1 Clement Written’, 297–312), with some favouring a broader date-range (e.g., Welborn, ‘Date of First Clement’, 35–54 [80–140 CE]), a majority of scholars support a date in the mid-90s CE (see Horrell, Social Ethos, 239–41; Lona, Der erste Clemensbrief, 75–78). A late first-century date is also consistent with the eschatology of the epistle. Common among first-century Christians was the belief that the end of the present age was imminent (Rom 13.11–12; Heb 10.25; cf. Jas 5.8). After predictions about Jesus’ return failed to materialise, the issue arose concerning how to explain this. By the second century, sceptics had begun to raise questions about the delay of the parousia, as indicated by the defence given in 2 Pet 3.4–5. A similar concern might be reflected in the additional ending of John. In 21.23, clarification is offered concerning the death of the apostles. While 1 Peter closely connects future salvation with the past, the encouragement that it offers to suffering believers lies in the hope that ‘the end is near’ (1 Pet 4.7). Salvation was thought to lie on the horizon, and soon Christ would be revealed to complete the process of their redemption. When this occurred, judgment would also take place. The recipients are reminded that they live at the ‘end of the ages’ (1.20) and that they must be ready for God’s impending judgment to arrive (4.5, 17–18). In this way, eschatology drives the ethics of the epistle (Pace Le Roux, Ethics in 1 Peter, 65). ‘[T]he eschatology of 1 Peter is indeed not a delayed or imminent eschatology, but a realised eschatology’.

One such historical consideration is the existence of Christian communities in the northern and eastern portions of Asia Minor. Some contend that this could not have occurred until after the mid-60s or even sometime later (See the case set forth by Ramsay, Church in the Roman Empire, 284–86. Cf. also Gunkel 27; Beare 30; Brox 27; Feldmeier 33). This is not simply due to the difficulty in evangelising certain portions of the vast region prior to the death of Peter, for it is hard to deny that individual missionaries could have reached the area by this time. The issue lies in the organisation assumed by the epistle in combination with the fact that the audience’s situation could be addressed collectively by an apostolic representative. These considerations, it is thought, would require some period of time beyond the initial introduction of Christianity in the area.

Can we therefore plausibly establish when the gospel entered and became established in the northern and eastern portions of Asia Minor? It is clear that churches existed in Galatia and Asia by the middle of the first century CE due to the missionary efforts of Paul. Other missionaries not associated with Paul also covered the same area (cf. Gal 1.6–9; 5.10; Acts 18.24). The question is whether the provinces of Pontus-Bithynia and Cappadocia could have been similarly reached at this time. According to Acts, Paul was prevented from entering into Bithynia, and instead made his way across the Aegean Sea to Macedonia (Acts 16.6–10); if this records historical information, the message would have been taken into the area by someone other than Paul (Selwyn 46; Hillyer 29; Elliott, Conflict, Community, and Honor, 17–18; cf. also Bernier, Rethinking the Dates, 217–18). The latest point at which this could have occurred is established by the letters of Pliny (ca. 111/112 CE). During his examination of a group of Christians in Bithynia-Pontus, he discovers that some had renounced their faith some twenty years earlier (ca. 85 CE), perhaps due to some form of persecution (Ep. 10.96.6). This evidence would allow us to push back the arrival of the gospel sometime into the late 70s or early 80s. But whether it arrived earlier than that, we can neither affirm nor deny with any degree of certainty. On the basis of what is known, however, a late first-century date for the letter’s composition remains most plausible.

The ecclesial structure referenced in 1 Peter may also be used in assigning a relative date. Some claim that the organisational scheme is relatively primitive, as indicated by the apparent lack of developed leadership structures (e.g., bishop, elders, deacons) and the presumed exercise of ‘charismatic’ forms of service (1 Pet 4.7–11) (see Elliott, ‘Elders as Leaders’, 549–50). While we should be careful not to press this evidence too far, the mention of ‘elders’ (πρεσβύτεροι) in 5.1–5 is significant. As a term for those in positions of leadership, this designation only appears in later NT writings (Acts 11.30; 14.23; 15.2 etc., dated probably to around 80–90 CE; 1 Tim 4.14; 5.17, 19; Titus 1.5, letters generally reckoned to have been written some time after Paul’s death). Further, the warnings directed toward these leaders reflect an establish system that does not seem to have arisen until sometime after the first generation of Christian communities (e.g., compulsory service and monetary gain [1 Pet 5.2]). It would seem, then, that 1 Peter reflects a time towards the end of the first century, when structures of leadership are developing in the church (Cf. Goppelt 46–47; Senior 4; Feldmeier 35–36).

The letter’s use of the ‘household code’ form of instruction (1 Pet 2.18–3.7) might also indicate a later date. Instruction on the roles and responsibilities within the household were a common topos within early Christian paraenesis (cf. Col 3.18–4.1; Eph 5.22–6.9; Titus 2.1–10) (See von Lips, ‘Die Haustafel’, 261–80. For the Petrine Haustafel in particular, see Manns, ‘La morale domestique’, 3–27). However, such directives are found only in NT letters widely thought to be pseudonymous and thus placed in the latter half of the first century. By association then the Haustafel in 1 Peter might suggest a similar date, especially if the Petrine author borrowed from Ephesians. Also relevant is the lack of evidence in 1 Peter that relations between Jewish and Gentile believers in Christ pose any theological problem.

The final and perhaps most important clue for determining a terminus a quo is the letter’s reference to Rome as ‘Babylon’ (1 Pet 5.13). After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the use of the term Babylon as a coded designation for Rome appears frequently in Jewish and Christian literature (Cf. 2 Bar. 11.1; 67.7; 77.12, 17, 19; 79.1; 80.4; 4 Ezra 3.1–5.20; 10.19–48; 11.1–12.51; 15.43–63; 16.1–34; Sib. Or. 3.63–74, 303–13; 5.137–78; Rev 14.8; 16.19; 18.2, 10, 21. See further Hunzinger, ‘Babylon als Deckname’, 67–77, and Durst, ‘Babylon gleich Rom’, 422–43). Many view the present reference therefore as an indication that 1 Peter was written after the fall of Jerusalem (e.g., Best 179; Michaels lxiii; Brox 41; Elliott 137; Feldmeier 33; Schlosser 34. The fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Jerusalem temple may also provide another type of temporal demarcation, as argued by Ostmeyer: ‘Dass der Brief keine Spuren einer Konkurrenzsituation von Tempelopfer und Opfer Christi erkennen lässt, ist Indiz für eine Abfassung des Schreibens nach der Tempelzerstörung).

Against the objections of Babylon used before 70 CE:

Recently, Martin has added a new piece of evidence that may contribute to our ability to date the letter. Focusing specifically on the reference to the ‘braiding of hair’ (ἐμπλοκή τριχῶν, 1 Pet 3.3), he argues that this phrasing refers to an elaborate hairdo that requires time and effort to style, and may have been used competitively among women of the Roman Empire (Martin, ‘Dating First Peter’, 300–304). This hairdo is identified with the orbis comarum style that began to be popular in the Flavian period, and specifically from the time of Titus (i.e., after 79 CE, which thus becomes a terminus a quo for 1 Peter). Martin argues that the reign of Titus (79–81 CE) is the most probable timeframe for the letter’s composition, based on the likelihood that Christians were made scapegoats for the major disasters (earthquake, fire, and plague) recorded during Titus’ reign. Nevertheless, he acknowledges that any subsequent time during the Flavian–Trajanic age (79–117 CE), when this hairstyle remained popular, is a possible time of composition (Martin, ‘Dating First Peter’, 312–18). Whether or not the letter’s concise reference to hairstyle provides a watertight proof of the letter’s date—Martin himself acknowledges that it cannot be absolutely certain—it does add further evidence to the various considerations that point towards the late first century as the time of composition. Together they suggest that the earliest possible date at which 1 Peter could have been written is 70 CE. While the available information does not indicate a precise or incontestable date, the weight of evidence seems to favour the period between 70 and 95 CE as the approximate period within which 1 Peter was composed.

Historically, problems with Peter as the author have long been noted:

Reasons for Peter not being the Author

The first reason relates to the date of the epistle. Evidence has already been adduced to show that 1 Peter was most likely composed sometime between 70 CE and 95 CE. This would place the composition beyond the traditional date assigned to the death of Peter (mid-60s CE), thus establishing the letter’s pseudepigraphic character.

Many scholars have sought to date Peter’s martyrdom even more precisely, placing it in connection with the Neronian persecution that followed the fire of 64 CE (E.g., Lietzmann, ‘Petrus römischer Märtyrer’, 392–410; Aland, Kirchengeschichtliche Entwürfe, 35–104; Böttrich, Petrus, 211–34; Barnes, Early Christian Hagiography, 5). Given that Nero ended his life by committing suicide with the help of his private secretary on 9 June 68 CE (Suetonius, Nero 49, 57; although cf. Sulpicius Severus, Chron. 2.29), we can safely assign the terminus ad quem of Peter’s death to sometime around mid-68 CE, although in all likelihood it probably occurred a few years earlier. Thus, we must reject the suggestion that Peter outlived Nero and was able to write the letter sometime after 70 CE. Given the indications that suggest the composition of the letter after this date, we must assume that someone other than the apostle Peter actually wrote it.

A second piece of evidence that seems to point in the direction of pseudonymity is the style in which the letter is written. As many have pointed out, the Greek of 1 Peter is among the most polished in the NT. For examples of the polished style, see:

MHT 4:124–30; Thomas and Thomas, Structure and Orality, 71–119. In light of this fact (and assuming that 1 Peter is pseudepigraphic), it would be an interesting exercise in understanding ancient pseudonymity to consider why the Petrine author did not attempt to simplify his language (cf. Ostmeyer 19).

This is evident, first, in the author’s employment of a wide range of unique vocabulary: a total of 61 terms in the letter are hapax legomena in the NT. A list can be found in Adinolfi, La prima lettera di Pietro, 199–215 (although he does not mark ἐξαγγέλλω [2.9] or ἐπιμαρτυρέω [5.12]); cf. also Elliott 42–59 (although he does not mark ἐπίλοιπος [4.2] or σθενόω [5.10]). For further discussion on these, see Holzmeister 84–93. A little over half of these appear in the LXX, but for some there are no earlier or contemporary parallels. The author displays syntactical refinement as well. Among other things, the letter includes uses of the rare optative in a conditional sentence (3.14, 17); it employs the epexegetical infinitive in connection with an adjective (4.3); and in terms of word order, it frequently employs (simple forms of) hyperbaton, i.e., the separation of words that are inter-connected syntactically (See Elliott 64–67; Wendland, ‘ “Stand Fast” ’, 42–45. The most common form of hyperbaton in 1 Peter is the placement of genitive and prepositional modifiers in attributive position between an article and its substantive (e.g., 1.5, 10; 2.9). For more on hyperbaton, see Devine and Stephens, Hyperbaton in Greek, and Markovic, ‘Hyperbaton’, 127–46).

1. Moreover, the arrangement of the letter is shaped by the elements of Hellenistic rhetorical discourse. On the rhetoric of 1 Peter, see: Ellul, ‘Un exemple de cheminement rhéto-U rique’, 17–34; Campbell, Rhetoric of 1 Peter; Martin, ‘Classical Rhetorical Criticism’, 41–71; Watson, ‘Epistolary Rhetoric of 1 Peter’, 51–55; cf. also Thurén, Argument and Theology; idem, ‘Peter and Paul as Persuaders’, 353–71; Slaughter, ‘Literary Argument’, 72–91; Wendland, ‘ “Stand Fast” ’, 25–102. It exhibits an ornamented style (although not heavily so) that was composed for rhetorical effect, including features such as alliteration and assonance (1.4, 5.10), paronomasia (3.9, 17), and structural triads (1.3–5) among others. By most assessments, these skills are thought to require a considerable amount of educational training.544 Such an elevated style is difficult to reconcile with what is known about the education and literary abilities of the apostle Peter from other sources (see above).

Where the difficulty arises is in explaining why the Greek of 1 Peter—including not just syntax but also other stylistic features (e.g., vocabulary, rhetoric, etc.)—exceeds the quality of other NT writings. On stylistic grounds, for instance, most would place the quality of Greek represented in 1 Peter at or above that of the Pauline epistles, yet Paul’s educational level almost certainly surpassed that of the historical Peter—at least given what the NT says about each individual. While a few have questioned the literate abilities and training of the apostle (e.g., Botha, ‘Letter Writing’, 17–34; Schellenberg, Paul’s Rhetorical Education), most find evidence of at least an elementary level of formal education (see Vegge, Paulus und das antike Schulwesen; Porter and Pitts, ‘Paul’s Bible’, 9–41), and Paul’s letters seem to have been regarded as ‘weighty’ (2 Cor 10.10). Similarly, if John the son of Zebedee were responsible for either the gospel or the letters to which his name is attached, why are those documents of such an inferior quality in Greek compared to 1 Peter? This is an especially pertinent question given that the two purported authors lived in the same area and performed the same occupation (cf. Mark 1.16–20) and thus would have (presumably) had similar educational opportunities and exposure to Greek culture.

Related to this point is a third reason to favour pseudonymity: the author’s preferred source for scriptural citations. In 1 Peter, the quotations from the Jewish scriptures generally follow the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (See Osborne, ‘L’utilisation des citations’, 73). One clear example is found in 1 Pet 5.5, where the author cites Prov 3.34. The quotation is identical to the LXX (κύριος ὑπερηφάνοις ἀντιτάσσεται, ταπεινοῖς δὲ δίδωσιν χάριν), apart from the fact that the Petrine author substitutes θεός for κύριος. The citation indicates the author’s familiarity specifically with the Greek Bible (cf. 1 Pet 4.18). This preference for the Greek scriptures is striking given that the historical Peter would more likely have known the Aramaic (or the Hebrew) version (see below). Thus, ‘[t]he absence of influence of the language of the Hebrew Bible or the Targumim on the one hand, and the clear influence of the LXX on the other, show that the author was at home in Greek rather than Semitic culture, and such is likely not to have been the case with Simon Peter’ (Achtemeier 7).

A final reason for positing pseudonymity is the portrait of the apostle reflected in 1 Peter. At issue is the discontinuity between the image of Peter that comes across in the epistle and the representation of the apostle in other early Christian writings (Dibelius, Fresh Approach, 188). Even the use of the name Πέτρος (‘Peter’) in 1.1, rather than Σίμων (‘Simon’), or Συμεών (‘Simeon’), has been suggested to point to pseudonymity.

See, e.g., Perkins 10. At birth (or, more precisely, eight days after his birth), the name that was conferred upon the apostle by his parents was שמעון’) Simeon’), transliterated in Greek as Σίμων (‘Simon’), or Συμεών (‘Simeon’), which appears to have been one of the most popular male names from the late Second Temple period (see Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:56, 218–35). Yet the author refers to himself here by the nickname Πέτρος (‘Peter’). Πέτρος was the common designation for the apostle in the post-apostolic period (e.g., 1 Clem. 5.4; 2 Clem. 5.3–4; Ign. Rom. 4.3; Smyrn. 3.2; Gr. Apoc. Ezra 5.22; Gos. Eb. 4; Gos. Mary 10.7), especially in the Clementine Homilies and the Pseudo-Clementines. It is also the name used in later pseudepigrapha attributed to Peter: Acts of Peter, Revelation of Peter, Letter of Peter to Philip, Acts of Peter and Andrew, Acts of Peter and Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter and Paul, etc. This signum (or supernomen) had not replaced the apostle’s given name within his lifetime, however. Our earliest records indicate that there was some variation in the way that Peter’s contemporaries referred to him. Paul commonly employed the name Κηφᾶς (1 Cor 1.12; 3.22; 9.5; 15.5; Gal 1.18; 2.9, 11, 14; elsewhere only John 1.42), although he does, on occasion, use the name Πέτρος (Gal 2.7–8). The name Συμεών (= Σίμων) is also represented (Luke 24.34; Acts 15.14; 2 Pet 1.1; see further Doering, ‘Author Construction’, 650–52).

According to the Gospels, even Jesus himself still referred to him as Σίμων on occasions (cf. Matt 16.17; 17.25; Mark 14.37; Luke 7.40; 22.31; John 21.15–17). If the apostle were writing the letter, then it seems appropriate to ask why he would not have employed his given name, Σίμων, or Σίμων Πέτρος (see Matt 16.16; Luke 5.8; and 15× in John; cf. 2 Pet 1.1), or at least the Aramaic equivalent of Πέτρος, which was Κηφᾶς. But while the use of the name Πέτρος is consistent with pseudonymity, it is not quite proof of pseudonymity.

Another anomaly is the fact that it is difficult to see any distinctively ‘Petrine’ theology in the letter, again insofar as we are able to make connections with information derived from elsewhere (e.g., the Gal 2 incident, Peter’s identity as apostle to the Jews, etc.). If 1 Peter were written by Peter himself, it is surprising that there is no trace of these earlier debates or specifically Petrine perspectives. All of this leads us to conclude that 1 Peter was most likely not composed or commissioned by the apostle Peter (Cf. Bockmuehl, Simon Peter, 130). Bockmuehl states: ‘it seems clear that 1 Peter cannot be seen as a repository of historical Petrine memory or theology’. Instead, the epistle appears to be a pseudonymous work written sometime after the death of the apostle, which someone attempted to pass off as an actual letter from Peter.

Content, theology argues that Peter didn’t write it.