Two of the forgeries discussed in this chapter are contentious among scholars today, the first because many scholars doubt if it has anything to do with Paul, his message, and his authority (1 Peter), and the second because, in the opinion of most scholars, it makes no evident authorial claim and hence cannot be considered forged (the Acts of the Apostles).

Introduction, It was another twenty years before the Petrine authorship of the book was first challenged by H. H. Cludius, who maintained that the attribution of the letter to Peter was the result of a textual corruption in 1:1. (edited)

Arguments for Peter 1 as a forgery, First, there is almost nothing to suggest that Christianity had spread in Peter’s day throughout the provinces of Asia Minor named in 1:1, making it highly unlikely that he, the historical Peter, would have written to churches there; moreover other traditions notably do not associate Peter with Christians in the general region. Next, if Peter himself had written the letter, it is very hard indeed to explain that in his references to “Christ” he gives no indication that he was his companion throughout his ministry; in fact, he gives no indication whatsoever that he had any personal knowledge of Jesus or his teachings (not even in 5:1, as we will see). Moreover, rather than identifying himself as a companion of Jesus, the author indicates that he is a “presbyter” (5:1), an office otherwise not associated with Peter, who appears rather to have been a missionary-apostle. Relatedly, the book shows that at the time of its composition “presbyters” were running the church as episkopoi (5:1–5; , v. 2). There is no evidence of this kind of structured leadership of the churches during the lifetime of Peter, although obviously it became the model of Pauline churches by the time of the Pastorals, some decades after Peter’s death. Furthermore, the author uses the term Christian (4:16) as if it were in established usage, even though it is otherwise not attested, for example in the writings of Paul, until closer to the end of the first century, in the book of Acts.

Final point relates to a much stronger argument against Petrine authorship, Introduction: “By the time this letter was written, it had become commonplace for followers of Jesus to suffer persecution “as a Christian, ”simply “for the name” (4:12–17). There is nothing to suggest that the mere name “Christian” was ground for persecution in apostolic times. Even in the later accounts of the book of Acts, there is no instance in which followers of Jesus suffered persecution “for the name.” On the contrary, Christians are punished for what is recognized, correctly or incorrectly, as wrongdoing. The same can be said about the earliest instance we have of imperial opposition to the Christians under Nero, the persecution that, traditionally, is thought to have led to Peter’s own martyrdom. As Tacitus makes abundantly clear, Nero rounded up the Christians of Rome and subjected them to brutal treatment and execution not because they were Christians per se, but because of arson (a false charge, according to Tacitus; Annals 15.44).”

Supporting evidence: a bigger/supporting evidence that comes in the argument that is most convincingly further is by C. Hunzinger, that the veiled reference and deliberate evidence to Rome in the epithet “Babylon,” named as the place from which the author wrote (5:13), makes sense only after 70 CE, years after Peter’s death. 6 That “Babylon” must refer to Rome is shown by the facts that (1) elsewhere in both Jewish and Christian texts (Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21) “Babylon” is a codeword for Rome, and (2) Peter is never associated in any of our traditions with either Mesopotamia or Egypt (where there was another Babylon), whereas he is frequently connected with Rome, indeed as its first bishop.

1. There is an even more compelling reason for thinking that Peter did not write this letter. In all likelihood, Peter could not write. CREDS: The argument is most recently embraced by Lutz Doering, “Apostle, Co-Elder, and Witness of Suffering: Author Construction and Peter Image in First Peter,” in Jörg Frey et al., eds., Pseudepigraphie und Verfasserfiktion, pp. 645–81, who also points out that since the claim to authorship is false, there is no reason to think the book was actually written from Rome, any more than that it had to be written to the churches of Asia Minor. It was instead written by a later Christian who “knows” that Peter was closely associated with the Roman church.

Let’s start off with William Harris giving compelling reasons for thinking that at the best of times in antiquity only 10 percent or so of the population was able to read.

Moreover, far fewer people in antiquity could compose a writing than could read, as shown by the investigations of Raffaella Cribiore, who stresses that reading and composition were taught as two distinct skills and at different points of the ancient curriculum. Learning even the basics of reading was a slow and arduous process, typically taking some three years and involving repeating “endless drills” over “long hours”: “In sum, a student became accustomed to an incessant gymnastics of the mind.” These kinds of “gymnastics” obviously required extensive leisure and money, neither of which could be afforded by any but the wealthy classes. Summary of this: is that these linguistic and language classes were expensive, and took required extensive leisure and money, not for a exceedingly poor person.

All of these points bear closely on the question of whether an Aramaic-speaking fisherman from rural Galilee could produce a refined Greek composition such as 1 Peter.

Turning to hard historical evidence for ancient Israel, Bar-Ilan notes that the Talmud allows for towns where only one person could read in the synagogue (Soferim 11:2). Since all synagogues that have been discovered can accommodate more than fifty people, we are probably looking at literacy rates, in these places, at about 1 percent. When this figure is tied to the fact that the land of Israel was 70 percent rural, and only 10 percent was “highly” urban, one can take into account all the sundry factors and crunch the numbers: “it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel … was probably less than 3%.” Most of this 3 percent would have been wealthy Jews living in the major cities.

An even greater measure, Hezser has devoted the only full-length study to this question in her monograph Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine. She agrees with Bar-Ilan on his statistical claims: total literacy in Palestine was probably around 3 percent; those who were literate were largely located in urban areas; some villages and towns had a literacy rate of lower than 1 percent.

In this connection Hezser makes the striking historical observation that “the only literary works which can with certainty be attributed to Palestinian Jews of the first century C.E. are the writings of Josephus and the no longer extant works of his opponent Justus of Tiberias” (both of whom “received a Greek education and were influenced by Graeco-Roman writing”). Moreover, Hezser argues that “writing seems to have mostly—and perhaps almost exclusively—been used by the political, economic, and religious-intellectual elites in late Roman Palestine.” Was the fisherman Simon-Peter in this august group? CREDS: See also her earlier study, Raffaella Cribiore, Writing, Teachers, and Students in GraecoRoman Egypt (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Among the other significant studies of ancient education in reading and writing, see esp. Teresa Morgan, Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Josephus is the only Jew of Roman Palestine to indicate that he learned Greek, and she notes that Josephus himself indicates that he could not write literary Greek without assistance from Greek speakers (Contra Apionem 1.9). Moreover, Hezser admits that we do not know whether Josephus studied Greek before coming to Rome. Hezser later acknowledges that most Jews in Palestine would have had only “a rudimentary knowledge of Greek,” which involved knowing “a few phrases to lead to a simple conversation.”

To add to that, The most persuasive studies of the use of Greek in Galilee in particular have been produced by Mark Chancey, who shows that scholars who maintain that Greek was widely spoken in the first century have based their views on very slim evidence, in which Palestinian data from over a number of centuries have been generalized into claims about the use of Greek in Galilee in the first half of the first century. There is, in fact, scant evidence that Greek was widely used outside of the major urban areas. People living in rural areas spoke almost exclusively Aramaic.

1. “In the Gospels it is portrayed as a fishing village on the “sea” of Galilee (Matt. 4:13; 8:5; 11:23; 17:24; Mark 1:21; 2:1; 9:33; Luke 4:23, 31; 7:1; 10:15; John 2:12; 4:46; 6:17, 24, 59). It is sometimes called a ,although, as we will see, that designation is certainly wrong. Josephus mentions it only because he fell off his horse nearby and was taken there (Life 72); he calls it, more accurately, a “village” The rabbinic literature mentions it as a place of the minim (Midr. Qoh. 1.8.4; 7.26.3). There is no other literary evidence about the first-century town. Most archaeologists associate it with Tel Hum, the ruins of which were discovered in 1838 by the American biblical archaeologist Edward Robbins, and identified as Capernaum in 1866 by the British engineer Charles Wilson. Based on the archaeological evidence, the best estimates place the population at around a thousand in the first century. There is no suggestion from the material remains that it was a center of high intellectual activity. In fact, there is no evidence of intellectual life at all.”
2. In short, Capernaum was a rather isolated and relatively unknown Jewish village in the backwaters of rural Galilee, with no evidence of any gentile presence. Its inhabitants were very poor. It was certainly not a polis, just an impoverished village.
3. Reed concludes that the population was “predominantly illiterate.” CREDS: James Strange in IDBSup., p. 140. Jonathan Reed estimates six hundred to fifteen hundred inhabitants in the time of Jesus (Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence, Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2000, p. 152). The wildly inaccurate claims of Bellarmino Bagatti (“Caphernaum” MB [1983] 9) that Capernaum was a city of two thousand to fifteen thousand inhabitants, “as urbanized and urbane as anywhere else in the empire,” were based, as Jonathan Reed has pointed out, on the erroneous estimates of Eric Meyers and James Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis and Early Christianity (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1981), p. 58 (which Strange later modified as noted above), themselves based on the size of the town as described by Charles Wilson’s report in 1871 [!] that the area of the ruins covered 30 hectares. In fact, the area is no more than 6 hectares, and is not as densely populated as Meyers and Strange originally thought (four hundred to five hundred persons per hectare).

Another issue, is the author’s use of the Septuagint. Jews in rural Palestine familiar with Scripture would have heard it read in Hebrew. The vast majority of them would not have the opportunity or ability to study it on the page. The author of 1 Peter, on the other hand, is intimately familiar with the Jewish Scriptures. Apart from the quotation in 4:8, which is sometimes recognized as a direct translation of Proverbs 10:12 from the Hebrew, the author invariably cites Scripture according to the Septuagint. This too is barely conceivable in a Galilean fisherman raised to speak Aramaic.

The indication of Luke 7:1–10 that a centurion, with his century, was stationed in town is completely fictitious. Sometimes it is thought that since Zebedee had “hired servants” fishing must have been a relatively lucrative profession in Capernaum (Mark 1:16–20). But the reference is thoroughly literary. There is no reason to suspect that Mark ever visited the place on a tour of the holy land to note its affluence. Moreover, these “hired servants” may just as well have been very low-level peasants eking out a hand-to-mouth existence.

It is commonly argued that since Peter became a missionary to foreign lands after Jesus’ death (Gal. 2:7; 1 Cor. 9:5), he must have picked up a knowledge of Greek in his travels. “The reality, however, is that we simply have no way of knowing how Peter engaged in his missionary work. Did he use an interpreter? Did he learn enough Greek to communicate more easily? Even if he did so, that would scarcely qualify him to write a highly literary composition. Everyone in the Greek-speaking world could speak Greek. But only those with extensive training could learn to read. And only those who went past the first few years of training could learn how to compose a writing. Training in composition came only after everything else was mastered at the end of one’s time with a grammatikos: alphabet, syllables, writing one’s name, copying, reading scriptio continua, studying the poets, and so forth. It took years, plus a good deal of native talent, to become proficient. When exactly would Peter have found the time and resources to go back to school? And what evidence is there from the ancient world that anyone received a primary and secondary education precisely as an adult? To my knowledge there is no evidence at all.” None of the earlier Church Fathers wrote that Peter was the author of either of the epistles now attributed to him.

Objection to the Silvanus/commission theory

More commonly scholars have provided a toned-down version of the “commission” theory and suggested that the style, and possibly to some degree the substance, of the letter was provided by a secretary. More often than not, the secretary is named as Silvanus, in light of the conclusion of 5:12: Brox notes several of the problems with this identification of the Greek stylist behind the letter. For one thing, transferring responsibility for the wording of the letter to Silvanus does not actually solve the problem of the Greek, since he too was an Aramaic-speaking Jew from Palestine (Acts 15:22). Moreover, if he did compose the letter, then, once again, it is he, rather than Peter, who was its real author. But even more, it is implausible to think that Silvanus wrote the letter, given his self-praise, then, in 5:12, and his reference, to himself, as having written the letter “through” himself. But even more important, as is now widely recognized, to write a letter someone is not to use that person as a secretary but as the letter carrier. 5:12 is not indicating that Silvanus composed the letter but that he took it to its destination.

The ultimate problem with this view, however, is the one I dealt with at length in the preceding chapter. There is virtually nothing to support the so-called secretary hypothesis, which instead of ancient evidence rests on scholarly speculation. And one should always try to think through how, exactly, the hypothesis is supposed to have worked in a specific instance. In the case of 1 Peter, Peter himself could not have dictated this letter in Greek to a secretary any more than he could have written it in Greek. To do so would have required him to be perfectly fluent in Greek, to have mastered rhetorical techniques in Greek, and to have had an intimate familiarity with the Jewish Scriptures in Greek. None of that is plausible. Nor can one easily think that he dictated the letter in Aramaic and the secretary (Silvanus or anyone else) translated it into Greek. The letter does not read like a Greek translation of an Aramaic original, but as an original Greek composition with Greek rhetorical flourishes. Moreover the letter presupposes the knowledge of the Greek Old Testament, so the person who composed the letter (whether orally or in writing) must have known the Scriptures in Greek. Given the lack of evidence for the use of secretaries in the ways needed for Peter to stand as the ultimate authority behind the letter, one is left having to make a choice. Which view is more probable, historically? A scenario that does not have any known analogy (Peter asking someone else to write the treatise in his name in a different language) or a scenario that has a very large number of analogies, since it happened all the time? Forgeries happened all the time. Surely that is the best explanation for the letter.

Apart from the name “Peter” at the outset of the letter and the reference to Rome (“Babylon”) at the end, there is nothing in the book of 1 Peter to tie it specifically to the Petrine tradition. This makes the book decidedly different from all the other canonical books we have looked at so far, the DeuteroPauline epistles that are clearly in trajectories that could trace themselves back to Paul, and 2 Peter, which goes out of its way to claim Petrine origins. In the case of 1 Peter, the authorial name is attached simply to provide apostolic credentials. There is nothing about the book itself that would make anyone think that it is Peter’s in particular.

According to Galatians, Peter was the apostle-missionary to Jews (Gal. 2:8–9). But this book is not addressed to Jews, Peter’s concern, but to gentiles. Thus 1:14 speaks of the “passions of your former ignorance” (a phrase hard to ascribe to Jews, but standard polemic against pagans); 1:18 refers to the readers as ransomed from the “futile manner of conduct passed down by their ancestors” (difficult to ascribe to Jews from a writer who sees Scripture as given by God); and most decisively, the author applies to his readers the words of Hosea 1:6, 9: “formerly you were not the people but now you are the people of God” (2:10). The author is speaking to converted pagans. 39 This is not the apostle to the Jews. And so, when he speaks of their “dispersion” in 1:1 he is not referring to the Jewish diaspora; these are Christians who are living away from their “true home” in heaven, temporarily. 40 Moreover, there is nothing distinctive to Peter’s views here, at least as these are known from the scant references to them in Paul, the only surviving author to mention Peter during his lifetime (e.g., Galatians 2). Nothing indicates that this author held to the ongoing importance and validity of the prescriptions of the Law: circumcision, kosher food regulations, Sabbath observance, Jewish festivals, for example. The significance of Scripture, for this author, is not that it provides guidelines for cultic activities in the community’s life together. The “word of the Lord” is the gospel of Christ, not the Jewish Scriptures (1:25); the prophets looked forward to Christ and are fulfilled in him and in his new people the Christians (1:12; 2:6, 10); Scripture is important chiefly for its high ethical demands (3:8–12).

“One can absolutely insist that if the first word ‘Peter’ were missing from our ‘letter,’ nobody would have guessed it might have been authored by Peter.” 43 In fact, as already suggested above, everything in this letter instead sounds like Paul. This was recognized long ago by F. C. Baur and the “school” that he established. In every instance he is simply one of the apostolic band who bear testimony to Jesus and the salvation he has brought. There is nothing about 1 Peter 5:1, then, that would make a reader think of Peter in particular from among the faithful band that bore witness to Christ. And this band includes not just the twelve apostles in Acts: Stephen too is called a (22:20) as, notably, is Paul himself (22:15; 26:16).

It has nonetheless become virtually de rigueur to discount the Paulinisms of 1 Peter, as evidenced in such major commentaries as those of Goppelt, Achtemeier, and Elliott, and especially in such a full-length study as that of Jens Herzer. 45 Still, it should be pointed out that a book like Herzer’s Petrus oder Paulus was perceived to be necessary precisely because 1 Peter does bear so many resemblances to a (deutero)Pauline letter, as we will see. Herzer’s lengthy analysis shows that the structure of the letter and the individual terms and phrases that it uses may sound like Paul, but they are not really like Paul. This is a fair enough observation, but it leads to a false conclusion, since the incongruity is precisely the point. If an author has his own point of view and wants to advance his own message, but at the same time wants to “sound” like someone else, he will use the characteristic words and phrases of the other, although obviously in his own sense. The result will be a book that on the surface sounds like that of the other author, but that underneath is quite different. That is why Ephesians and 2 Timothy seem both like and unlike Paul himself. On the surface there are numerous parallels to Paul’s writings; dig deeper and they look odd by comparison. So too 1 Peter.

List of all the odd parallels between Pauline tradition and the Petrine letters

A person who wrote the New Testament book of 1 Peter is thought to have used the name of the apostle Peter and is thought to have done so in the first century AD. The letter is addressed to Christian communities throughout the Roman Empire and is designed to provide counsel and support to believers enduring persecution and opposition. One component of 1 Peter that has gotten a lot of attention is its emphasis on apologia, or defending and justifying the Christian faith. The letter exhorts Christians to always be ready to give an apologia, or defense, to anybody who inquires about their hope in Jesus Christ. Since the author is particularly anxious that Christians suffer only for doing what is good, not what is wrong, this emphasis on apologia is related to the book’s focus on suffering and persecution. The letter urges Christians to live moral and upright lives in the hopes that their good deeds will draw admiration and inspire others to embrace the faith.
Aside from emphasizing apologia, 1 Peter also instructs Christians on how to behave in various social circumstances, such as relationships with civic authorities, masters, and spouses. The letter exhorts believers to be good citizens, servants, and wives by abstaining from breaking the law or violating acceptable moral rules. However, the letter makes the case that if they do endure suffering “as a Christian,” this may ultimately be advantageous for both the oppressor and the oppressed.

It is believed that the apostle Peter wrote a letter to a group of Christians living in what is now Turkey in the book of 1 Peter. These Christians, whom Peter refers to as “exiles,” are the recipients of the letter, and it is likely that they were experiencing some form of persecution or suffering as a result of their faith. In the letter, Peter exhorts these Christians to persist in their faith even in the face of suffering. He also reminds them that their trials and difficulties are a necessary part of the process of refining their faith, just as fire purifies gold. Scholars have disagreed about the precise nature of the suffering that the Christians in the letter were going through. The letter may have been written in response to official state persecution, such as the first-century CE persecution of Christians by Nero, the Roman Emperor. Others, on the other hand, have suggested that the pain described in the letter may have been more specific to the area. It could have been caused by the hostility of former friends and neighbors who did not understand or approve of the Christians’ new way of life, which involved separating themselves from the pagan celebrations and festivals that were common in the area. Peter offers his readers a number of useful tips in the letter on how to deal with their suffering and persecution. To avoid giving their adversaries a reason to accuse them, he advises them to obey the authorities and conduct themselves in an unquestionable manner. He also encourages them to accept their roles as slaves, wives, and husbands and to carry out their responsibilities with diligence even in difficult circumstances. Peter encourages his readers from the Bible throughout the letter by quoting passages from the Old Testament to strengthen their faith and assist them in enduring their trials.

The author of 1 Peter’s letter concludes by stating that he wrote it through Silvanus, a man who is referred to as a “faithful brother,” and by wishing him well from “she who is in Babylon, who is also chosen.” In light of the fact that Babylon was the city that defeated Judah and destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple in the sixth century BCE, Jews considered Babylon to be God’s ultimate foe. By the end of the first century, Christians and Jews were using the term “Babylon” as a code word to refer to the city, which many scholars believe to have been Rome, that was the enemy of God in their time. References to Babylon in the book of Revelation, which are also thought to be a coded reference to Rome, lend credence to this interpretation. Because of this, it seems likely that the author of 1 Peter is claiming to be writing from Rome. This would be in line with later customs that link Peter to Rome and his position as pope. However, there are additional reasons to believe that Peter did not actually write this letter. Some scholars, for instance, have pointed out that the letter’s style of writing and language differ from those in other texts that are thought to have been written by Peter. This suggests that the letter may have been written by someone else who claimed to be Peter. Also, the reference to the obliteration of Jerusalem, which happened in the year 70, could never have appeared to be legit in the event that the letter was really composed by Peter, as he is accepted to have been martyred in Rome in 64 CE, before the annihilation of Jerusalem. Some scholars have come to the conclusion that the book of 1 Peter was not actually written by Peter but rather by someone claiming to be him because of these and other factors.

Dating of 1 Peter

Internal evidence from the epistle most closely corresponds to the 80s, particularly around 85 CE. First of all, the letter probably dates after 70 CE because, like other works from the same era, it compares the current situation to the Babylonian exile following the destruction of the First Temple and refers to Rome as Babylon. 2 Baruch 11:1, 33:2, 67:7-8, 85:7, and Sibylline Oracle 5.138-160; Revelation 14:8, 16:19; 17:5, 18, 18:10; 21). Second, it was addressed to Christians in Asia Minor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia—a list that appears to reflect Vespasian’s provincial reorganization in 72 CE—who were going through a fiery ordeal at the time (1:7, 4:12), specifically, some of them were going through it as “Christians” (as 4:15-16 states). According to David Horrell (JBL, 2007), the term “is a Latinism with an -i-nus suffix” and probably originated in Roman administrative circles and was first used in Antioch (cf. Suetonius, Nero 16.2; Tacitus, Annals 15.44). Didache 12:4, Ignatius, Philadelphians 6:1, Magnesians 8:1-10:3), but it was probably not used by Christians themselves until the 40s (Acts 11:26 implies, though it does not specify when), as Paul demonstrates the straightforward use of the genitive “those of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:23, and 2 Corinthians 10:7; cf. Mark 9:41) or the expression “ἄνθρωπον ἐν Χριστῷ” in 2 Corinthians 12:2, while “Χριστιανός” as a reclaimed exonym used as a self-designation appears in later sources such as the secondary redaction to the Didache, Ignatius, and Luke-Acts.”

1. When considering the date of the letter, the nature of the “fiery ordeal” that is discussed is of the utmost importance. Comparisons to Pliny the Younger’s persecution of Christians living in his province of Bithynia-Pontus in 112 CE during Trajan’s reign have been drawn due to the epistle’s destination and reference to suffering “as Christians” (4:15-16). This is especially true in light of Pliny’s use of tests to confirm that the accused were Christians because officially Christianity was a religio illicita (distinguishing it from Judaism, which was However, according to Marius Heemstra in The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways (Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 1 Peter probably refers to an earlier persecution in the same region that occurred as a result of Domitian’s harsh enforcement of the fiscus Judiacus, the punitive tax that took the place of the Temple tax and funded a Rome temple to Jupiter. Indeed, Pliny’s letters (Epistulae 10.96) reveal that some of the Christians he questioned had abandoned their faith 25 years earlier, implying a prior persecution in the late 80s.
2. According to Suetonius and Cassius Dio, the main victims of the Fiscus Judaicus were Gentiles accused of slipping into Jewish ways (such as rejecting idolatry, also known as atheism), as well as Jewish tax evaders. Gentile Christians who failed both the circumcision and idolatry tests made up the first group, which included Jewish Christians who were kicked out of synagogues—the places where Jews were enrolled for the tax and where the tax was collected and sent to the authorities. The first group would have their property taken away because they didn’t pay the tax, which was considered theft, and they would also be imprisoned or banished—like John of Patmos, whose exile was probably caused by the fiscus Judaicus—while the second group would be put to death. Nerva changed the tax policy in 96 CE and no longer recognized Christians as Jews. This freed prisoners like John, but Nerva now officially recognizes Christianity as an illegal superstition.

According to Heemstra, the situation that is discussed in 1 Peter does not correspond to the persecution that occurred under Trajan or even the time when Revelation was written (when the harsh enforcement of the fiscus Judaicus was at its height), but rather to the beginning of the trouble (see especially 4:17), which occurred around the year 85. The author begins by telling his Gentile readers to pay in full the same sufferings (see 1 Peter 1:18, 4:3–4) that their brothers are going through all over the world (5:9). In relation to paying taxes, this uses the expression (τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων ἐπιτελεῖσθαι). With the idiom of “ἐπιτελέω” with respect to paying taxes (LSJ 665 III), completely pay; see Bigg’s ICC commentary on 1 Peter, page 194), possibly indicating that the suffering was brought on by the fiscus Judaicus. However, the suffering does not appear to be nearly as severe as it was in the 1990s, when being a Gentile Christian and failing the tests that indicated one’s drift into Gentile ways could result in one’s death. The author encourages his brothers to “conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds” (v. 12), so “let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, a criminal, or even as a mischief maker” (4:15),” because they are tasked by God “to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (1 Peter 2:1 This is in contrast to Revelation’s view that the Roman authorities are satanic Christians killers.

The author of 1 Peter holds out hope that his brothers would be vindicated for their good deeds, so long as they were not actually guilty of any crimes, and that the Roman authorities would punish wrongdoers fairly. This does not accurately reflect the circumstances during Pliny’s time, when being a Christian was punishable by death, or in the 1990s, when those who strayed into Jewish practices were executed. Instead, it appears that Gentile Christians were beginning to face legal issues just like their Jewish counterparts did. However, the accusations focused on rumored debauchery and criminality—similar to what Tacitus and Pliny said about Nero and Pliny about Pliny’s later persecution—for which their righteous behavior could serve as a defense rather than their unauthorized adoption of Jewish practices. Therefore, at this point, they were subjected to difficulties like property confiscation and imprisonment, but they were not yet required to give up their Christian faith in order to avoid being executed (cf. Revelation 2:13, 3:8, 1 John 2:22–23, 4:2, 2 John 7. However, this probably happened shortly after, as some of Pliny’s former Christians gave up their faith in the late 80s.

Dating

Internal evidence from the epistle that has a best fit with the 80s, especially around 85 CE. First of all the letter probably dates after 70 CE because it compares present circumstances with the Babylonian exile after the destruction of the First Temple, referring to Rome as Babylon like other works from the same period (1 Peter 5:13; Revelation 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18, 18:10, 21, 2 Baruch 11:1, 33:2, 67:7-8, 85:7, Sibylline Oracle 5.138-160). Second, it was addressed to Christians in Asia Minor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia (a list that seems to reflect the provincial reorganization of Vespasian in 72 CE), who were undergoing a fiery ordeal (1:7, 4:12) at the time, namely, some were suffering as “Christians” (πασχέτω ὡς Χριστιανός) as 4:15-16 states. As David Horrell (JBL, 2007) shows, the term Χριστιανός is a Latinism with an -iānus suffix that probably originated in Roman administrative circles (first attested in references to the Nero’s persecution of Christians in Suetonius, Nero 16.2 and Tacitus, Annals 15.44), with an early usage in Antioch (cf. Didache 12:4, Igantius, Philadelphians 6:1, Magnesians 8:1-10:3), but probably not used by Christians themselves as early as the 40s (as implied by Acts 11:26, although it does not specify the time), as Paul shows the simple use of the genitive Χριστοῦ (“[those] of Christ” in 1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:23, 2 Corinthians 10:7; cf. Mark 9:41) or the phrase ἄνθρωπον ἐν Χριστῷ (2 Corinthians 12:2), while Χριστιανός as a reclaimed exonym used as a self-designation appears in later sources like the secondary redaction to the Didache, Ignatius, and Luke-Acts.

The nature of the “fiery ordeal” discussed in the letter is central to the consideration of the letter’s date. The destination of the epistle and the reference to suffering “as Christians” (4:15-16) has invited comparisons to Pliny the Younger’s persecution of Christians living in his province of Bithynia-Pontus in 112 CE during Trajan’s reign, particularly in light of Pliny’s use of tests to confirm that the accused were Christians, as officially Christianity was a religio illicita (distinguishing it from Judaism which was an allowed religion). But Marius Heemstra in The Fiscus Judaicus and the Parting of the Ways (Mohr Siebeck, 2010) suggests that 1 Peter probably refers to an earlier persecution in the same region that resulted from Domitian’s harsh enforcement of the fiscus Judiacus, the punative tax that replaced the Temple tax that funded a temple to Jupiter in Rome. Indeed Pliny’s letters show that some of the Christians he questioned had renounced their faith some 25 years earlier (Epistulae 10.96), suggesting an earlier persecution in the late 80s. As Suetonius and Cassius Dio show, the main victims of fiscus Judaicus were Jewish tax evaders and Gentiles accused of drifting into Jewish ways (e.g. rejecting idolatry, aka atheism). The first group included Jewish Christians who were expelled from synagogues (where Jews were enrolled for the tax and where the tax was collected and sent to the authorities) and the second included Gentile Christians who failed the circumcision test as well as the idolatry test. The first group would face confiscation of property (as their failure to pay the tax was viewed as theft) and imprisonment or banishment (as was the case with John of Patmos whose exile was probably a consequence of the fiscus Judaicus), while the second group faced execution.

In 96 CE, Nerva reformed the tax policy and no longer recognized Christians as Jews which led to the release of prisoners like John, but now formally recognized Christianity as a superstitio illicita, an illegal superstition.

Heemstra finds that the situation discussed in 1 Peter does not fit with the persecution under Trajan, or even the period in the 90s when Revelation was written (when the harsh enforcement of the fiscus Judaicus was at its peak), but the beginning of the trouble (see especially 4:17) around c. 85. First the author tells his Gentile readers (cf. 1 Peter 1:18, 4:3-4) to pay in full the same sufferings (τὰ αὐτὰ τῶν παθημάτων ἐπιτελεῖσθαι) that their brethren are paying throughout the world (5:9). This draws on the idiom of ἐπιτελέω with respect to paying taxes (LSJ 665 III. pay in full; see Bigg’s ICC commentary on 1 Peter, p. 194), possibly reflecting the fiscus Judaicus as the occasion for the suffering. But the suffering does not seem as severe as it was in the 90s when being a Gentile Christian (failing the tests confirming one’s drifting into Gentile ways) could be a death sentence. The author tells the recipients in Asia Minor to accept the authority of the emperor and the governors (even to honor the emperor), for they are tasked by God “to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right” (1 Peter 2:13-15), and so he urges his brothers to “conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds” (v. 12), so “let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, a criminal, or even as a mischief maker” (4:15). This contrasts with the attitude in Revelation that the Roman authorities are satanic slaughterers of Christians. The author of 1 Peter views the Roman authorities as justly punishing wrongdoers and holds out hope that his brothers would receive vindication on account of their good deeds, so long as they are not guilty of actual crimes.

This cannot reflect the situation under Pliny when being Christian was a death sentence, or in the 90s when those who drifted into Jewish ways were executed. Rather the situation seems to be that Gentile Christians were beginning to face legal problems like their Jewish brethren already were, but the accusations centered on rumored debauchery and criminality (similar to the accusations found in Tacitus with respect to Nero and in Pliny with respect to his later persecution), for which their righteous conduct could offer a defense, not their unauthorized adoption of Jewish ways. So at this point they faced hardships like confiscation of property and imprisonment, but not yet required to renounce their Christian faith in order to avoid execution (cf. 1 John 2:22-23, 4:2, 2 John 7, Revelation 2:13, 3:8). This however probably followed soon after, with some of Pliny’s ex-Christians renouncing their faith in the late 80s.

Sources for Peter’s death

The earliest sources (c. 90-120 CE) on Peter’s death are John 21:18-19, 1 Clement 5:1-4, 2 Peter 1:13-14, which can be supplemented with later allusions in Ascension of Isaiah 4:2-3 and Tertullian, De Praescriptione 36, 1 Apology 5.3, Scorpiace 15.1–3. The gospel of John claims that Peter had already died via crucifixion or in a similar pose and 1 Clement refers to Peter and Paul being martyred just prior to a local reminiscence in ch. 5-6 of the Neronian persecution (most clearly salient in the allusion to women persecuted as Danaids and Dircae in theatrical reenactments); the description of the persecution in Tacitus also mentions the use of crucifixion. Both these sources probably date to the 90s, so Peter was dead for some time by then having perished in the same general period as Paul and the Christians executed by Nero (who serve as examples for present-day Christians experiencing trouble in the 90s resulting from the fiscus Judaicus, cf. 1:1). We also have Revelation 17:6 as another reference to the Neronian persecution, which was published in the 90s but which likely was originally written in the early 70s (on account of the historical references in this chapter); the victims here are only named generally as ἅγιοι and μάρτυροι Ἰησοῦ. Also Papias indicated that Peter was already dead by the time he undertook his research in the 90s, using the aorist εἶπεν instead of the present tense λέγουσιν which he used of the elders Aristion and John who were still alive (who have a living and abiding voice). The Ascension of Isaiah in the second century makes the claim that Peter died in Nero’s persecution, with Tertullian making similar claims (which found legendary expression in the Acts of Peter).

For recent assessments on the evidence from John and 1 Clement, see Timothy Barnes’ “Another Shall Gird Thee” (in Peter in Early Christianity; Eerdmans, 2015) and John Granger Cook’s “The Tradition of Peter’s Crucifixion” (in Talking God in Society: Multidisciplinary (Re)constructions of Ancient (Con)texts; Vandenhoeck & Ruprech, 2020).

Oxford Annotated Bible: The high level of its Greek prose, the letter’s rhetorical sophistication, and familiarity with Hellenistic religious thought seem inappropriate for a Galilean fisherman and missionary to Jews (Gal 2.9). The lack of references to the life and teaching of the earthly Jesus, the christological emphasis on the cosmic Christ, and the address to Gentile Christians who had previously lived a sinful idolatrous life (1.14,18,21; 2.1,9–11,25; 4.3) all point to a later disciple of Peter writing in the name of the revered apostle. Thus most scholars interpret the document as a letter from the last decade of the first century ce, written in Peter’s name to support the claim that its teaching represented the apostolic faith.