Petrine Epistles and Jude

Petrine Epistles and Jude

1 Peter: Group “General Epistles”

Author:

As concerns who wrote this epistles, as per usual you will be flabbergasted to hear that it was Peter (the one whose name is on the letter). As your textbook notes: “The early church universally acknowledged the authenticity and authority of First Peter” (470). Carson and Moo note that the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians in 135 includes references to 1 Peter. “Irenaeus, toward the end of the second century, is the first patristic writer to mention 1 Peter by name. Of all the General Epistles, it is only 1 Peter that Eusebius classifies among the ‘undisputed’ NT book…Michaels concludes, ‘Aside from the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, the external attestation for 1 Peter is as strong, or stronger, than that for any other NT book’” (641).

Now, this has not prevented scholars from the nineteenth century forward from disputing Petrine authorship, and in fact this may be the majority (as Carson and Moo note). Carson provides four arguments that are asserted by these dissenters: “(1) The quality of the Greek is too good for a Galilean fisherman to have written. (2) The hierarchy of church leadership is developed beyond that of Peter’s lifetime. (3) The letter depends on Paul’s letters to the Romans and Ephesians. (4) Christianity, and the subsequent persecution of Christians, did not spread to the areas where the addressees resided until decades after Peter’s death” (ZSB 2535). We’ll even throw in a fifth argument. Scholars suggest that the persecution described in the letter likely took place during the time of Domitian (A.D. 81-96) and Trajan (A.D. 98-117), since they argue that what is depicted is something akin to state sponsored persecution.

None of these arguments are entirely convincing and each of them is readily answered. First, Peter was living during a period in which Greek was the trade language, thus even though he was a Galilean fisherman, he was no doubt well-acquainted with koine Greek. We should also not discount the idea that he likely utilized an amanuensis who would have “polished up” the Greek should he need to. Carson also notes that: “The Greek of 1 Peter shows signs that the author’s native language was Semitic” (ZSB 2535).

Second, as again Carson points out: “The only church leadership position mentioned in 1 Peter is that of elder (5:1,5)” are we to think that this is such a later development in the church as to render Petrine authorship improbable? I think not. Elders were appointed in the churches from essentially the outset, as is evident in Acts.

Third, the similarities between 1 Peter and Ephesians and Romans could just as easily be attributed to the use a shared “early Christian tradition” as it could be literary dependence. In fact, Carson and Moo argue that “most modern scholars insist…that the similarities are due not to literary dependence but to common use of early Christian tradition” (640).

Fourth, Carson notes: “Christianity may have spread more quickly to the geographic regions mentioned in this letter than scholars have previously suggested. Rather than evangelists bringing the gospel to these places, people who had become Christians elsewhere may have moved to these regions through colonization, or perhaps migrating people brought the faith with them” (ZSB 2535). Two things in my mind point to the likelihood of this being the case. First, we find in Acts that there are several occasions in which the Gospel was brought to new territory as the direct result of unnamed evangelists leaving Judea because of the persecution taking place. Second, this period was marked by increased mobility for people. It is not as if one lived in one place all of his/her life, but a family could move about with more ease due to the Roman road system.

Fifth, Carson and Moo note: “the evidence from 1 Peter itself does not point to an official persecution. What is implied, rather, is the hostility Christians were known to have faced from the general Roman population. By refusing to engage in the quasi-religious customs surrounding the official Roman governmental structures, by resolutely setting themselves against some of the immoral practices prevalent at the time, and by meeting so often on their own to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, Christians were regarded with suspicion and hostility” (639).

I would say with great confidence that Peter wrote 1 Peter.

Recipients:

Now let’s talk about who the recipients of this letter were. Peter writes: “To God’s elect, exiles scattered throughout the province of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1). Your textbooks assessment concerning the ethnic makeup of the churches to which Peter is writing is in line with the predominant scholarly view. Although initially it looks like it is written to a Hebrew audience, there are many indications throughout the text that there was at least a large Gentile majority.

Let’s take a look at 1 Peter 2:9-10. The phrase “once you were not a people” is highly unlikely to be used by a Jew concerning the Jews. Let’s also look at 4:3-4. The description of their former life is far more in line with what one would expect from the pagan world and certainly not the Jewish world. Note also that the reason for their social ostracization was because they no longer engage in these things, whereas in the Jewish world to engage in things like idolatry would have you on the outs of your community. So there is a strong case to be made that really the audience addressed here is predominantly Gentile.

Date and Provenance:

Now the questions, when and from where was it written? Peter likely wrote this work from Rome. In 5:13 he refers to his location as “Babylon.” Now, although the Babylon in Mesopotamia was in existence in the first century, it was only just. When Trajan visited the area in A.D. 115 it was all but deserted, so most scholars conclude that this is unlikely to be the actual location for Peter’s writing (Carson and Moo 646).

On the other hand, Peter demonstrates that he has no compunctions with using OT imagery to describe the situation of either himself or the church, and this appears to be another example of that. Carson and Moo write: “Contemporary scholars are virtually unanimous in viewing ‘Babylon’ as a symbol for worldly power drawn from Babylon’s role vis-à-vis Israel in the OT….most agree that, in keeping with the application of Babylon in Revelation, Peter refers to Rome, the center of worldly influence in his day” (646).

Church history unanimously places Peter in Rome at some point in his ministry. He probably arrived in Rome in the 60s; however, Carson and Moo suggest that it is unlikely that Peter wrote while Paul was in Rome (60-62) and that he had to have written prior to the height of the Neronian persecution that began in 64 and lasted through 68 (at some point in this time Peter himself was crucified upside down, according to Church tradition). Thus he likely wrote the letter at some point in 62-63 A.D. We must also bear in mind that some time needs to be left in-between Peter’s writing of this first letter and his martyrdom since he also wrote another writing between these two events.

Purpose:

The reason for Peter’s writing is very much tied up in the situation of the original audience. They were (apparently) former pagans who had abandoned their former way of life when they were persuaded by the truth of the Gospel and accepted Christ. This sharp change in conduct led to an unorganized, yet sustained social-ostracism that included slanderous accusations, being discriminated against, mocked, and perhaps even dragged to court on false charges.

Peter’s approach to addressing this is to focus on who and whose they are. Carson writes: “He writes further to explain why, as Christians, they have become the target of slander and social ostracism. Their suffering does not mean they were wrong to follow Christ. Rather, suffering for their faith confirms their identity in Christ. As they conform their lives to the example of Jesus, they should not be surprised to receive the same hostile reaction that he did” (ZSB 2537).

Theme: “The Proper Response to Christian Suffering”

(Boa and Wilkinson 471).

2 Peter: Group “General Epistles”

Author:

As concerns the authorship of 2 Peter we are in the most contested letter that we have seen so far (and perhaps it is the most contested). Perhaps, unlike other letters that were only contested in the 19th century, those who doubt that Peter wrote it have a little stronger footing to stand on; however, I would still hold that Peter did write it.

The trouble lies in the supposedly scant external evidence for Petrine authorship and the prevalence of those pseudonymous writings that were in Peter’s name (such as the “revelation of Peter”). Your textbook notes: “The external evidence for the Petrine authorship of Second Peter is weaker than that for any other NT book, but by the fourth century it became generally recognized as an authentic work of the apostle Peter” (477). Thus it had a much slower road into general acceptance.

Eusebius places it among the disputed works that are “known to most.” He writes: “Those that are disputed yet known to most are the epistles called James, Jude, 2 Peter, and the so-named 2 and 3 John, the work of the Evangelist or of someone with the same name.” He does not place it among the “spurious” books like “The Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Revelation of Peter.”

Your textbook lists four reasons why this work was slow to find acceptance: 1. Slow circulation kept it from being widely known. 2. Its brevity and contents greatly limited the number of quotations from it in the writings of early church leaders. 3. The delay in recognition meant that Second Peter had to compete with several later works which falsely claimed to be Petrine. 4. Stylistic differences between First and Second Peter also raised doubts. (477). So it gained general acceptance, but only slowly and in the midst of spurious works.

Aside from this, scholars who doubt that Peter wrote it generally have six arguments that they stand on: (These are noted and rebutted by Carson and Moo)

1. The Greek of the letter could not have been written by the apostle Peter. The vocabulary and style are quite distinct from that of 1 Peter…(However) While certainly distinctive, the Greek of 2 Peter is not as distinctive as many scholars have suggested. Several scholars note that the author may be consciously imitating the so-called ‘Asiatic’ style, a form of rhetorical speech that was becoming popular at the time. (660-61).

2. The false teaching combated in the letter is second-century Gnosticism (660). However, “This is not clear. Nothing the false teacher were propagating was unknown in the first-century church” (ZSB 2549).

3. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, the author implies that the letters of Paul belong to the category ‘the Scriptures.’ Some scholars think that the text implies a full collection of the Pauline epistles…(However) We do know that the apostles considered their own words to carry an authority tantamount to Scripture (2 Thess 2:15). They thought of themselves as inspired by the same Spirit who inspired the prophets (1 Pet 1:10-12).

4. References to the death of “our fathers” (interpreted as the earliest Christian generation), the importance of apostolic tradition (cf. 3:2, 16), and the teaching that the parousia might be delayed for a long time (3:8) betray a late date, when the hope for an imminent parousia had faded and a fixed ecclesiastical authority had arisen…(However) The more important question is whether the specific elements of the letter often singled out as indicative of a late date must in fact be so taken. “Our fathers” in 3:4 (NIV) could refer to an earlier Christian generation; but it could equally well refer—as it often does in the New Testament—to the “ancestors” of the Jewish nation, and especially the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For, as vv. 5–7 make clear, the “scoffers” were apparently citing the unchangeableness of the world since creation as evidence for their skepticism about the parousia. Peter’s appeal to the “command” of Jesus Christ (3:2) and to the letters of Paul (3:15–16) does not imply the existence of a fixed tradition. And Peter’s teaching about the parousia is quite in keeping with the thrust of the New Testament in general.

5. (My own words now) The fifth deals with the lack of early attestation, which we have already dealt with.

6. The reference to Peter’s imminent death and the focus on remembrance of Peter’s teaching (1:12–15) reveal that the letter takes the form of a “testament.” This form, modeled on Jacob’s final words of advice to his twelve sons in Genesis 49, became popular in the period of Second Temple Judaism (the best-known book is The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs). But these “testaments” were invariably pseudonymous…(However) Similarities between 2 Peter and the Jewish “testament” form are clear. But we must not forget that the overarching genre category to which 2 Peter belongs is the letter. And all the evidence we possess suggests that pseudepigraphical letters were not common in the first or second centuries and that the few we know about were rejected as forgeries. Carson and Moo 659-662.

In the end we are left with the decision of accepting the letter’s claims or rejecting it as a forgery. With the arguments against having reasonable (and in my estimation, likely) explanations, I am inclined to accept that the author truly is Peter.

Recipients:

Now let’s talk about where Peter is sending this letter. The introduction to the letter itself presents us with a very vague audience: “To those who have received a faith as precious as ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). Well that could include the entire church, and thus it was dubbed a “general epistle.” However, as you read through it you’ll notice that Peter is addressing specific circumstances and false teachings that the readers are facing. He also notes in 3:1 “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you; in them I am trying to arouse your sincere intention by reminding you.” If this is a reference to 1 Peter (as most scholars suggest, and seems reasonable), then the audience would be the same as 1 Peter. These are primarily Gentiles living in the province of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.

Date and Provenance:

Now as to the questions “when and where was it written?” 2 Peter 1:13-14 make reference to Christ’s prophetic statement to Peter concerning his martyrdom. The text reads: “I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.” It seems quite evident then that Peter is writing towards the end of his life and the signs of his impending martyrdom are clear. Thus, we should deduce that he is writing at the beginning of the Neronian persecution, at which point reliable early tradition says Peter died for the sake of Christ. This would put the work in about 64-66 A.D.

Since Peter had recently written from Rome, and he was martyred in Rome, it is probably not that far left of field to suggest that he also wrote this letter from Rome as well.

Purpose:

Peter’s focus throughout this epistle is the Churches growth and maturity in the knowledge of God and to put what they know about God and the grace given to them in Christ into practice, especially in the face of false teachings. Carson and Moo write: “Peter’s main reason for writing is the appearance of false teachers in the community (2:13)” (657). 2 Peter 2:1-3 states “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there are false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive opinions. They will even deny the Master who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Even so, many will follow their licentious ways, and because of these teachers the way of truth will be maligned. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words. Their condemnation, pronounced against them long ago, has not been idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”

Theme: “the contrast between the knowledge and practice of truth versus falsehood”

(478).