What Can 1 and 2 Peter Tell Us About the Historical Peter?

A majority of modern New Testament (NT) scholars agree that the First and Second Epistles of Peter are pseudonymous. Whether or not those scholars are correct in their assessment of these epistles is debatable, but the question of authorship is not the one that this essay will seek to answer. Rather, it is the purpose of this essay, in light of the scholarly consensus, to ask what 1 and 2 Peter can tell us about the historical Peter. That is, for the sake of argument, assuming that the Apostle Peter did not write 1 and 2 Peter, what can these two epistles tell us about Peter’s traditions, theology and actions?

The answer to this question is undoubtedly related to proper identification of the motives operant within the author when he/she attributed authorship to Peter. Of course, very specific motives have been suggested, and these have their place. But for our purposes, it will suffice to mention a few generalities. Considering the practice of pseudepigraphy in the ancient world, Bruce Metzger lists the following possible motives:[1]

1. Desire for financial gain—Metzger refers to people selling forged writings (purportedly by famous authors) for profit.[2] Of course, we must assume that those who actually bought the forgeries frowned upon the practice.

2. Malice—In this case, false authorship was ascribed in order to injure the one to whom authorship was attributed.[3]

3. Respect for the supposed author—Metzger mentions only the Neo-Pythagoreans as an example of this motive.[4] It has traditionally been thought that they routinely attributed their works to Pythagoras himself in order to give him honour and respect. There are good reasons for questioning this received view of Neo-Pythagorean practice,[5] but whether or not it is true, one can conceive of respect as a possible motive for writing pseudonymously.

4. Modesty—Metzger adduces only the pseudepigraphal Acts of Paul written by Salvian (c. AD 440) as an example of this motive.[6] And we should note that Salvian himself mentions the motive of modesty as a part of his own defence. We cannot know whether this was truly among his motives, or was only a rationalisation employed in his defence. It does show us that modesty was a possible motive.

5. Metzger lumps together in one category the practice of writing speeches in the style of famous orators and the practice of inventing speeches for historical figures when what was spoken could not be remembered with accuracy.[7] It is, however, questionable whether these should be in the same category. The former was a didactic method of oratorical education; there was probably never any intention that these practice speeches should be widely distributed. The second, as Metzger admits, is blatant pseudepigraphy; the authors made it clear that they were inventing speeches for their characters.

6. Metzger lists three other ‘motives’, of which only one can truly be called a motive; the others have more to do with misattribution and genre than motive. That final motive mentioned by Metzger is not really a single motive, but a catchall category that can be broken down into four parts:[8] a) Various important figures attracted works to themselves. Treatises or poems might have been written in imitation of a prominent person. These could have been intentionally assigned to the person who was imitated; or, if the work was originally anonymous, they might have been conveniently assigned to someone. b) A work might be attributed to a prominent person in order to secure that person’s authority for a doctrine or claim. c) The oracular genre seems to have attracted interpolations and fabrications. d) Three figures in particular, Orpheus, the Sibyl, and Hermes Trismegistus, attracted “religio-philosophical treatises” to themselves. ‘A’ and ‘d’ include misattribution of works to authors already well known within a genre, and so are not necessarily pseudepigraphy. ‘C’ is a strange class—perhaps they were oracles written after the fact so as to demonstrate the foresight of the oracle. Maybe they are an instance of gathering support for a particular claim or belief, or for discrediting the oracle, or for some other reason. ‘B’, the motive of attributing a work to an author for the purpose of securing added authority for a claim, is the important one here.

Let us consider for a moment how these motives bear on our discussion of 1 and 2 Peter. It seems very unlikely that anyone stood to make financial gain from writing a letter and ascribing it to Peter. It also seems unlikely that any authentic letter of Peter’s was considered of such great literary value that students should imitate his style. Because 1 and 2 Peter are not reputed to be accounts of something Peter said on an identifiable historical occasion, we should probably not give further consideration to the motive of ‘pseudepigraphy’ employed for the sake of reconstruction of an historical speech. While modesty is a conceivable motive, it is one that cannot be separated from the motive of respect: A modest person who writes an inferior work should not trouble him/herself with pseudepigraphy, for in that case the most modest thing to do would be to acknowledge one’s own role as author. A modest person who writes a superior work may want to attribute authorship to another, but it can hardly be conceived that the author would attribute authorship to a person whom he/she did not respect. To do that would be, in the eyes of the author, to discredit the value of the composition.

Thus, in the case of 1 and 2 Peter, we are really only left with three possible motives: malice towards Peter, respect for Peter, or desire to secure the authority of Peter. Each is a viable motive in this case, and should be considered. Our purpose here is not to determine the motive(s) of the author(s) of 1 and 2 Peter, but to determine what 1 and 2 Peter can tell us about Peter himself. In the case of malicious attribution, the information we can derive will come negatively—that is, through a so-called ‘mirror reading’ of the epistles (dangerous though it is). In the case of respect, we can assume that the real author thought that what he/she had written would have reflected well upon Peter. In both of these cases, it is not a necessary corollary that Peter would actually have agreed or disagreed with what was written. We can only know that the real author (and the real recipients) thought Peter would have agreed or disagreed. Pseudepigraphy for the sake of securing Peter’s authority can only tell us that Peter himself was recognised as an authority by the real recipients of the letter. It is very important, then, that we understand the nature of the relationship of the real author and the real recipients to the Apostle Peter.

It has become clear through the forgoing discussion of motives that the answer to our initial question is connected to the question of how the real author and the real recipients were attached (or not attached) to Peter. In any case, Peter has to have been known to both author and recipients; otherwise none of the above motives make any sense. What, then, are the possible connections of author and audience to Peter? Currently, the most widely accepted possibility is that Peter had collected a group of followers who may have chosen to write in his name—a so-called ‘Petrine circle/group/community’ or ‘Petrine school’. Conversely, if we see malicious intent in the letter, Peter would have had enemies who wrote to defame him.

Marion Soards is an advocate of the Petrine school theory.[9] He begins by hypothesising the existence of a Petrine community. He examines four aspects of 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude, and determines that these three letters should be seen together as the product of that community. He then seeks to show that the Petrine community should actually be understood as a Petrine school on the basis of an analysis of 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude in light of the nine characteristics of ancient schools identified by Culpepper in his work on the Johannine school.[10]

John Elliott proposes that 1 Peter was written from Rome by a Petrine group that preserved the theology and traditions of Peter.[11] Elliott gives three reasons for his conclusion:[12] 1. It is in the nature of a religious movement to be a group; thus, it is not unlikely for a group to have gathered around Peter. 2. The NT frequently mentions Peter and various companions. 3. Silvanus, Mark and the unnamed sister in 1 Peter itself suggest a group. In addition to these arguments, Soards gives another four:[13] 1. Scholarly consensus about the existence of a Johannine community admits the possibility of a Petrine community. 2. Reading John 20:1-10 and 21:1-25 in light of the Beloved Disciple’s role as a symbol of the “Johannine experience of Christianity” who serves “a paradigmatic function related to the Johannine Community” suggests that the character of Peter might be understood in a similar way; “i.e., as a symbol for ‘those who may have been pressing claims of authority derived from Peter.’”[14] 3. Evidence from 1 Cor 1.12 and 3.22 shows “the tendency among early Christians to identify with prominent figures, one of whom was Peter.”[15] 4. Eusebius’ comments on Mark being Peter’s interpreter (Eccl. Hist. III.39.15) present the idea “that Peter had a follower who wrote as a result of their association.”[16]

Soards tries to show that the Petrine community can be identified as a Petrine school, which he chooses to define by means of the nine characteristics of ancient schools identified by Culpepper:[17]

1) they were groups of disciples which usually emphasized fili,a and koinwni,a;

2) they gathered around, and traced their origins to a founder whom they regarded as an exemplary wise, or good man;

3) they valued the teachings of their founder and traditions about him;

4) members of the school were disciples or students of the founder;

5) teaching, learning, studying and writing were common activities;

6) most schools observed communal meals, often in memory of their founders;

7) they had rules or practices regarding admission, retention of membership, and advancement within the membership;

8) they often maintained some degree of distance or withdrawal from the rest of society;

9) they developed organizational means of insuring their perpetuity.

Some of these characteristics are more important to the present study than others, especially numbers two, three and four. Soards supports number two by citing authorial ascription to Peter in 1 and 2 Peter, and, along with a few other minor points, ascription of authority to Peter (2 Peter 3.15-17).[18] He thinks that the emphasis on knowledge in 1 Peter and especially 2 Peter, and the ascription of authority to Peter in 2 Peter 3.15-17 show that the authors are ‘students’ of Peter.[19] Most important for us, however, is what Soards says about characteristic three:

The canonical documents which claim Petrine authorship preserve stories about Peter: Peter’s friends are mentioned in 1 Pet 5:12-13; his earthly sojourn is remembered in 2 Pet 1:13-14; his presence at the Transfiguration is recounted in 2 Pet 1:16-18; and his labors as a writer are recalled in 2 Pet 3:1-2: On the whole, 1 & 2 Peter purport to be the teachings of Peter and probably should be understood to preserve a level of thought attributed by the community to the Apostle.[20]

Soards concludes that 1 and 2 Peter and Jude should be viewed in the context of a Petrine school (i.e., not just a Petrine community).[21]

Generally speaking, Soards’ arguments for a Petrine school are weak. He stretches the evidence so as to identify the Petrine group as a school. However, if one is persuaded by Soards’ arguments, then 1 and 2 Peter (and Jude!) can tell us something about the historical Peter insofar as the authors of those documents valued Peter, his teachings, and traditions about him. If, however, one does not fully accept Soard’s identification of a Petrine school, the existence of a Petrine community may lead us to the same conclusions. Recalling our discussion of possible motivations for pseudonymous authorship, we may suggest that any of the three possible motives (malice, respect, or the desire to secure Peter’s authority) can include the (direct or indirect) perpetuation of authentic Petrine traditions, especially if we have reason to suppose that those traditions were perpetuated by a Petrine circle/community. Whereas Soard’s argument for a Petrine school would give us good reason to see authentic Petrine traditions in 1 and 2 Peter, it is not absolutely necessary. We need to keep that in mind as we consider David Horrell’s arguments against the existence not only of a Petrine school, but of a Petrine circle.

Horrell disputes the now commonly held view that 1 Peter is the product of Petrine tradition from a Petrine circle. He acknowledges that 1 Peter has been seen as a part of Pauline tradition (especially by German scholars)—meaning that it shows dependence on Pauline epistles (Horrell mentions Romans and Ephesians) and general Pauline theology.[22] But other work, championed by Elliott, has asserted 1 Peter’s nature as the product of a distinctively Petrine circle, and has even gone so far as to see 1 Peter as independent of Pauline tradition.[23] Horrell says the view that 1 Peter originated form a Petrine circle based in Rome is “gaining ground,” but he himself believes that 1 Peter is not the product of a distinctively Petrine circle or school, but of a “consolidating Roman Christianity.”[24]

Horrell begins with a discussion of the connections between 1 Peter and Pauline tradition. He finds several similarities about which he says, “Taken together, the … observations lead to the conclusion that 1 Peter shows clear signs of awareness of and dependence upon Pauline language and tradition.”[25] But Horrell cautions that he is not concluding that 1 Peter is Pauline; there is evidence of Pauline tradition, but there is also a lot that is not Pauline.[26] On the basis of the presence of several non-Pauline traditions in 1 Peter, Horrell concludes that 1 Peter is not simply reproducing Pauline tradition, but demonstrates familiarity with a range of early Christian tradition, so we cannot simply call 1 Peter ‘Pauline’.[27]

Horrell also asks: “Is there anything other than the name Pe,troj (1.1) that marks it [1 Peter] out as specifically Petrine?”[28] If 1 Peter was the product of a Petrine community, we would expect to see something characteristically Petrine about it. But perhaps a necessarily preliminary question to ask (which Horrell does not) is, What is characteristically Petrine? If 1 and 2 Peter are not Petrine, then we really have no evidential basis upon which to answer Horrell’s question. And for that matter, we may ask what marks any of Paul’s letters as Pauline without the ascription of his name to them? For without the ascription of authorship to Paul, we would not know what was specifically Pauline and what was not. Horrell admits this:

In view of all this it must be acknowledged that we have very little evidence revealing any distinctive or particular way in which Peter formulated the Christian gospel, and even the little evidence there is give us no firm reasons to conclude that 1 Peter has a distinctively Petrine character.[29]

Horrell argues that ‘rock’ language in 1 Peter 2.4-8 and shepherding language in 1 Peter 5.1-2 do not provide evidence of uniquely Petrine tradition—these themes appear elsewhere as well.[30] Furthermore, he says that what we do know about Peter does not play a major role in 1 Peter:

Moreover, what we do know—his role as apostle to the Jews (Gal. 2.7), his siding with the people from James at Antioch (Gal. 2.11-14) and so on—has no significant bearing on the content of 1 Peter, which simply applies to Gentile Christians exclusively Jewish identity descriptions (2.9 etc.) without giving any indication that the extent of obedience to Jewish law or relations between Jewish and Gentile Christians are contentious issues.[31]

The obstacle here for Horrell is his need to assert that 1 Peter does not display uniquely Petrine thought. Horrell is looking for things that have traditionally been identified as Petrine. But the obvious problem is that apart from 1 and 2 Peter, we have no evidence for what might have constituted a distinctively Petrine tradition.

Horrell considers the various appearances of Silvanus and Mark in the NT (assuming that they are the same people as the two mentioned in 1 Peter), and concludes that we have just as much reason to connected them to Paul and Pauline circles as to Peter.[32] Horrell does not give much weight to the words of Papias regarding Mark as Peter’s interpreter.[33] Thus, the presence of Silvanus and Mark is not evidence of a Petrine circle.[34] Though we should surely ask what a Petrine ‘circle’ might be if not companions of Peter.

Neither the content of 1 Peter nor the names mentioned in it (except that of Peter himself) can provide sufficient evidence to support the idea that 1 Peter represents Petrine tradition preserved and recorded by a Petrine circle or school. On the contrary, both the content of the epistle and the names within it combine to support the view that 1 Peter reflects both Jewish-Christian (Jerusalem) and Pauline traditions—both Silvanus and Mark have Jerusalem connections, as well as being Pauline co-workers. As such, 1 Peter does not appear to be the product of a Petrine circle, nor indeed of a Pauline circle, but rather of a Roman Christianity in which diverse and sometimes opposing Christian traditions were drawn together.[35]

Thus, Horrell sees 1 Peter as part of a synthesising movement in Roman Christianity that also produces 2 Peter and 1 Clement. This movement synthesised Pauline and non-Pauline forms of Christianity.[36]

But the big question is still, “Why ascribe the book to Peter?” In essence, Horrell’s answer is twofold:[37] First, Peter had come to be revered as a central leader throughout the early church, and, given Peter’s historical connection with Rome, he was the obvious choice for a letter originating from Rome. Second, Peter’s name would probably have served better in Asia Minor, given that Paul seems to have had some trouble there (2 Tim 1.15; cf. also Acts 16.7) and was not universally regarded in a positive light (Acts 21.17-28; Rom 3.8). This argument might possibly hold for 1 Peter, but it surely does not for 2 Peter, which claims to be written to people who have already received a letter from Paul (2 Peter 3.15). If Horrell were correct, then the author of 2 Peter would undermine his entire argument by appealing to ‘our dear brother Paul’!

Furthermore, Horrell’s answer to this big question relies on the assumption that 1 Peter was written from Rome and that the addressees were in Asia Minor. But Bauckham has observed that the real recipients of a pseudepigraphal letter could not very easily be the same as the named recipients.[38] If 1 Peter is pseudepigraphal, we must conclude, on the basis of Bauckham’s arguments, that the real recipients were not necessarily Christians in Asia Minor. There must have been some other motivation for naming Peter as author than those proposed by Horrell. Also, if ‘Peter’ is a pseudonym, there is no necessary connection with Rome, and the epistle could have been written from anywhere. ‘Babylon’ would be part of the ruse, which creates serious problems for Horrell’s thesis, since he sees 1 Peter as part of a synthesising trend in Roman Christianity.[39]

In conclusion, Horrell rejects the tendency to view 1 Peter as an embodiment of Petrine tradition from a Petrine school, and prefers instead to see it as a part of the synthesising approach of the Roman church, making use of various early Christian traditions, and viewing Peter as an authority. But what Horrell actually shows is not that there was no Petrine group, or even that the letter was not written by Peter, but that the author of the epistle has combined Pauline and non-Pauline (including Petrine?) traditions. Horrell points out that 1 Peter does not present theology that we have come to expect from Peter. But that is really of no consequence, because what we have come to expect is a construct build from very little evidence (certainly not from anything written by Peter himself!). Until we have more evidence of distinctly Petrine thought, this kind of argument carries little weight against the hypothesis of a Petrine circle.

Thus, Soards’ arguments for a Petrine school are not convincing, and Horrell’s arguments against a Petrine circle/community are not entirely persuasive either. Arguments by Elliott and Soards for the existence of a Petrine community appear cogent and should probably be accepted. However, if we grant pseudonymous authorship of 1 and 2 Peter, we must still consider motive, for we do not know that 1 or 2 Peter were in fact composed by a Petrine community (even if there was one). Why ascribe these letters to Peter? Peter does not appear to have been known for his letter-writing—Acts does call him illiterate (avgra,mmatoj, Acts 4:13).[40] For ‘Peter’ to be a significant name to the real recipients—whether in Asia Minor or somewhere else—those recipients must have known something about Peter. Whether pseudonymous ascription was made through malice, through respect for Peter, or through a desire to secure Peter’s authority for a particular doctrinal position, it really only makes sense that the recipients must have respected some kind of tradition about Peter. ‘School’ may be taking the relationship between author/recipients and Peter too far, and so may ‘circle’, but that does not mean that the recipients did not respect and revere Peter and his memory. The attribution to Peter would be meaningless if they did not respect Peter and some kind of tradition about him, a tradition with which 1 Peter (and 2 Peter) must have been consonant.

Given the scholarly consensus of the pseudonymous origins of 1 and 2 Peter, what can those epistles tell us about the Apostle? The question is very important. If these two epistles tell us nothing about Peter himself, then we may still value the letters for their witness to the development of early Christian theology. But if, on the other hand, 1 and 2 Peter give us insight into the life and thought of the disciple, then scholarship really ought to reconsider its currently accepted reconstructions of early Christian history, taking greater account of these two epistles. If 1 and 2 Peter represent genuine Petrine tradition, that has important ramifications for how we understand the role of Peter as Apostle to the Jews vis-à-vis the Apostle to the Gentiles. Our conclusions here are that even if 1 and 2 Peter are pseudonymous, there are good reasons for thinking that they preserve authentic Petrine theology and traditions.

---

[1] See Bruce M. Metzger, “Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 91 (1972): 5-12.

[2] Metzger, 5-6.

[3] Metzger, 6-7.

[4] Metzger, 7.

[5] See Jeremy N. Duff, A Reconsideration of Pseudepigraphy in Early Christianity, D.Phil. Thesis, University of Oxford, 1998, 134-135.

[6] Metzger, 7-8.

[7] Metzger, 8-9.

[8] See Metzger, 10-12.

[9] See Marion L. Soards, “1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude as Evidence for a Petrine School,” in Aufsteig und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, Teil II: Principat, 25.5. Heraus. Wolfgang Haase. P. 3827-3849 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988).

[10] See Culpepper, The Johannine School: An Evaluation of the Johannine-School Hypothesis Based on an Investigation of Ancient Schools (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975).

[11] See John H. Elliott, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (London: SCM Press, 1982), 272.

[12] See Elliott, 272-273.

[13] See Soards, 3830-3831.

[14] Soards, 3830; Soards is quoting Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 122.

[15] Soards, 3831.

[16] Soards, 3831.

[17] Soards, 3841; I quote Soards’ list of Culpepper’s nine traits. Soards, of course, tries to defend it that each of these has a parallel somewhere in 1 Peter, 2 Peter or Jude (see Soards, 3842-3844), and his level of success varies. He has already examined the interrelationship of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude in light of the hypothesis of a Petrine community and concluded that they should all be read together as evidence for his hypothesis.

[18] Soards, 3842.

[19] See Soards, 3843.

[20] Soards, 3842-3843. One might ask what ‘labors as a writer’ the community is remembering!

[21] See Soards, 3844. Soards’ arguments support a connection of authorship between 1 and 2 Peter, but they do not really demonstrate that Jude should be included in a group of documents attributable to a Petrine community. All he can really say of Jude is that 2 Peter used it. He can no more say of Jude that it was the product of a Petrine community than we can say of Q that it was the product of a Matthean/Lukan community

[22] See David G. Horrell, “The Product of a Petrine Circle? A Reassessment of the Origin and Character of 1 Peter,” in JSNT 86 (2002): 30.

[23] See Horrell, 30-31.

[24] Horrell, 32.

[25] Horrell, 37.

[26] See Horrell, 38.

[27] See Horrell, 42.

[28] Horrell, 43.

[29] Horrell, 45-46.

[30] See Horrell, 43-44.

[31] Horrell, 45.

[32] See Horrell, 46-50.

[33] See Horrell, 49.

[34] See Horrell, 50.

[35] Horrell, 50-51.

[36] See Horrell, 50-52.

[37] See Horrell, 52-54.

[38] See Richard Bauckham, “Pseudo-Apostolic Letters,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 107/3 (1988): 469-494.

[39] Good arguments for the Roman origin of 1 Peter are the points of similarity with Romans and 1 Clement: If 1 Peter originated in Rome, the author would be familiar with Romans for obvious reasons, but the author of 1 Clement would be familiar with 1 Peter only if a copy had been retained in Rome, or had been considered valuable enough in Asia Minor to be copied and so widely distributed that it made its way back again to Rome! At any rate, 1 and/or 2 Peter must carry some weight in Rome itself if the author of 1 Clement refers to them.

[40] Though see 2 Peter 3:1, which most likely refers to 1 Peter.