PETER
753
PETER
of the Apostles, had such close relations with Peter,
is called by the author "my son" (v, 13); the author
is represented as the immediate disciple of Jesus
Christ (i, 1; v, 9, 11-14); he exercises from Rome a
universal jurisdiction over the whole Church (v, 1).
The numerous places in which he would appear to be
the immediate witness of the life of Christ (i, 8; ii,
21-24; V, 1), as well as the similarity between his
ideas and the teaching of the Gospels, are eloquently
in favour of the Apostolic author (cf. Jacquier, 251).
Finally, some authors consider that the Epistle and
the sermons of St. Peter related in the Acts show an
analogy in basis and form which proves a common
origin. However, it is probable if not certain that the
Apostle made use of an interpreter, especially of Sylva-
nus; St. Jerome says: "The two Epistles attributed to
St. Peter differ in style, character, and the construction
of the words, which proves that according to the exi-
gencies of the moment St. Peter made use of differ-
ent interpreters" (Ep. cxx ad Hedib.). Peter himself
seems to insinuate this: Aia 'SiXovavoO vnTv . . . eypa^a
(v, 12), and the final verses (12-14) seem to have been
added by the Apostle himself. Without denying that
Peter was able to use and speak Greek, some authors
consider that he could not write it in the almost
classic manner of this Epistle. Nevertheless it is im-
possible to determine exactly the share of Sylvanus;
it is not improbable that he wrote it according to the
directions of the Apostle, inserting the ideas and
exhortations suggested by him.
Objections: (a) The relation between the First Epistle of Peter and the Epistles of Paul, especially Romans and Ephesians, does not prove, as has been claimed (Jiihcher), that the Epistle was written by a disciple of Paul. This relation, which has been much exaggerated by some critics, does not prove a literary dependence nor prevent this Epistle from possessing a characteristic originality in ideas and form. The resemblance is readily explained if we admit that Peter employed Sylvanus as interpreter, for the latter had been a companion of Paul, and would conse- quently have felt the influence of his doctrine and manner of speaking. Moreover, Peter and Sylvanus were at Rome, where the letter wa,s written, and they would naturally have become acquainted with the Epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians, written some months before and intended, at least in part, for the same readers, (b) It has been claimed that the Epistle presupposes an official and general persecution in the Roman Empire and betokens a state of things corresponding to the reign of Vespasian, or even that of Domitian or Trajan, but the data it gives are too indefinite to conclude that it refers to one of these per- secutions rather than to that of Nero; besides, some authors consider that the Epistle docs not at all sup- pose an official persecution, the allusions being readily explained by the countless difficulties and annoyances to which Jews and pagans subjected the Christians.
B. Recipients of the Epistle; Occasion and Object. — ■ It was written to the faithful of "Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia" (i, 1). Were these Christians converted Jews, dispersed among the Gen- tiles (i, 1), as was held by Origen, Didymus of Alex- andria, etc., and is still maintained by Weiss and Kuhl, or were they in great part of pagan origin? The latter is by far the more common and the better opinion (i, 14; ii, 9-10; iii, 6; iv, 3). The argument based on i, 7, proves nothing, while the words "to the strangers dispersed through Pontus" should not be taken in the literal sense of Jews in exile, but in the metaphorical sense of the people of God, Christians, living in exile on earth, far from their truc^ country. The opinions of authors admitting the authenticity are divided with regard to the historical circumstances which occa- sioned the Epistle, some believing tluit it w!is written immediately after Nero's decree iiroscribing the Chris- tian religion, in which case the difficulties to which XI.— 48
Peter alludes do not consist merely of the calumnies
and vexations of the people, but also include the
judicial pursuit and condemnation of Christians (iv,
14-16; V, 12; ii, 23; iii, IS), while iv, 12, may be an
allusion to the burning of Rome which was the occa-
sion of Nero's decree. This is the opinion of Hug,
Gloire, Batiffol, Neander, Grimm, Ewald, Allard,
Weiss, Callewaert, etc., while others date the Epistle
from the eve of that decree (Jacquier, Brassac, Fillion,
etc.). The Epistle, they say, having been written
from Rome, where the persecution must have raged
in all its horror, we naturally look for clear and indis-
putable indications of it, but the general theme of the
Epistle is that the Christians should give no occasion
to the charges of the infidels, but that by their exem-
plary life they should induce them to glorify God (ii,
12, 15; iii, 9, 16; iv, 4); besides, the way of speaking
is generally hypothetical (i, 6; iii, 13-14; iv, 14),
there being no question of judges, tribunals, prison,
tortures, or confiscation. The Christians have to
suffer, not from authority, but from the people among
whom they lived.
The Apostle Peter wrote to the Christians of Asia to confirm them in the Faith, to console them amid their tribulations, and to indicate to them the line of conduct to follow in suffering (v, 2). Except for the more dogmatic introduction (i, 3-12) and a few short instructions strewn throughout the letter and intended to support moral exliortations, the Epistle is hortatory and practical. Only an absurd a priori argument could permit the Tiibingen critics to assert that it had a dogmatic object and was WTitten by a second-century forger with the intention of attribut- ing to Peter the doctrines of Paul.
C. Place and Date of Composition. — The critics who have denied Peter's sojourn at Rome must necessarily deny that the letter was written from there, but the great majority of critics, with all Christian antiquity, agree that it was written at Rome itself, designated by the metaphorical name Babylon (v, 13). This in- terpretation has been accepted from the most remote times, and indeed no other metaphor could so well describe the city of Rome, rich and luxurious as it was, and given over to the worship of false gods and every species of immorality. Both cities had caused trouble to the people of God, Babylon to the Jews, anil Rome to the Christians. Moreover this metaphor was in use among the early Christians (cf. Apoc, xiv, 8; xvi, 19; xvii, .5; xviii, 2, 10, 21). Finally, tradition has not brought us the faintest memory of any sojourn of Peter at Babylon. The opinions of critics who deny the authenticity of the Epistle range from A. D. 80 to A. D. 160 as the date, but as there is not the slightest doubt of its authenticity they have no basis for their argument. Equally diverse opinions are found among the authors who admit the authenticity, ranging from the year A. D. 45 to that accepted as that of the death of Peter. The most probable opinion is that which places it about the end of the year 63 or the beginning of 64; and St. Peter having suffered martyrdom at Rome in 64 (67?) the Epistle could not be subsequent to that date; besides, it assumes that the persecution of Nero, which began about the end of 64, had not yet broken out (see above) . On the other hand the author frequently alludes to the Epistle to the Ephesians, making use of its very words and expressions; con- sequently the Epistle could not be prior to 63, since the Epistle to the Ephesians was written at the end of Paul's first captivity at Rome (61-63).
D. Analysis. — The Epistle as a whole being but a succession of general ideas without close connexion, there can be no strict plan of analysis. It is divided as follows: the introduction contains, besides the ad- dress (.superscription and salutation, i, 7), thanksgiving to God for the excellence of the salvation and regen- eration to which He has deigned to call the Christians (3-12). This part is dogmatic and serves as a basis
