Whether Peter wrote his so-called "second Letter" is extremely doubtful as this letter was not published until 50 years after Peter's death. Furthermore, it purports to be a general letter, so why would every single one of the many people to whom it was sent keep it a secret for 50 years? Also, this second letter refers to the first (3:1), stating that both letters were sent to the same people. But they were not the same people. The first letter "is addressed to all those whom God, the Father, has deliberately chosen and who are now living as exiles, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." The so-called "second Letter" is simply addressed to "all those who are equally precious with us to God because they have obtained faith in God through the righteousness of our Savior, Jesus Christ." This implies that the "second Letter" had a much wider circulation, which makes the fact that it was kept secret for 50 years even more startling. Furthermore why would Peter talk about a "second Letter" to people who had never received the first? And why does the author call himself "Simon Peter" (or even "Symeon Peter") in the "second Letter", while in the first he is referred to simply as "Peter"? Even more damaging is the clear implication in Chapter 3 that some reasonable period of time has elapsed since the writer's first letter. Are we then to believe that in all the years of Peter's ministry he wrote or authorized only two letters? While the evidence against Peter's authorship of the "second Letter" is overwhelming, there is no doubt that the "first Letter" was issued in Peter's name and under his authority, but beyond adding a postscript (in which he commends the trusted Silvanus), I believe he actually had very little, if anything, to do with it.
Consider these points: Peter was unable to read Aramaic, let alone write Greek. And although Peter was undoubtedly made conversant with a number of the quotations from Scripture (proof texts-in Greek, of course-were probably available as early as 55 or 60), he most certainly did not have the skills or the expertise to use them in the sophisticated manner employed here [Acts 4:13].
In fact it's doubtful if Silvanus even ran the letter past Peter for his approval. At one stage, Silvanus gets carried away in his argument and makes an honest, perfectly understandable mistake which meticulous Peter would certainly have corrected. Although Silvanus had the best of intentions, it was simply an assumption on his part that Jesus did not return insult for insult (2:33). Jesus had an ongoing verbal battle with the Pharisees, chief priests and Scripture teachers in which far more insults were freely exchanged than the many recorded in the Gospels. What's more, the writer of this letter is even unaware of Peter's own gospel account as recorded by his adopted son, Mark (also mentioned by Peter in his postscript to this letter). True, Mark's account was probably not published until 64 at the earliest, 69 at the latest. Peter was martyred in 64 or 67, although it's quite possible that Silvanus continued to work on his letter after Peter's death.
So who is this trusted Silvanus who writes so fluently in Peter's name and with his authority?
The Silas of "Acts" is generally (and accurately, in my opinion) identified as the same man as the Silvanus of the "Epistles". Like Paul, he was a Roman citizen. He partnered Paul during the greater part of his second missionary journey (as recorded in "Acts" 15 through 18).
At the important meeting of the Christian community called by James at Jerusalem, it was decided that circumcision should not be imposed on non-Jewish believers. Accordingly, Silas and Judas Barsabas were appointed to join Paul and Barnabas in conveying the official letter to the churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. As "leaders among the brothers" at Jerusalem, Silas and Judas were further commissioned to confirm the contents of the letter by "word of mouth." On arrival at Antioch, when the letter was delivered, Silas and Judas, "who were themselves prophets, spoke at great length, encouraging and strengthening the brothers."
When Paul and Barnabas had their famous falling-out in Antioch, Silas was chosen by Paul to take Barnabas' place. At Philippi, the exorcism of an evil spirit from a sorceress brought upon Silas and Paul the enmity of her masters, whose source of income was thus destroyed. On being charged before the magistrates with causing a breach of the peace and preaching false doctrine, their garments were torn off them and they were scourged and imprisoned. In no way dismayed, they prayed and sang hymns to God, and an earthquake in the middle of the night secured them a miraculous release. The magistrates, on learning that the two prisoners whom they had so maltreated were Roman citizens (and thus entitled to sue them for false arrest), came in person and pleaded with them to leave the city.
So Silvanus was a highly trusted disciple of both Paul and Peter. Like Paul, he was highly educated, well versed in Scripture and able to speak and write fluently in both Aramaic and Greek. In fact, if you turn to what are billed as Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians, you'll find that both are actually credited to "Paul, Silvanus and Timothy."
The letter known as 1 Peter, newly translated by John Howard Reid, is included in his book on John's Gospel, entitled "Essential Bible Wisdom: GOOD NEWS by John, the Beloved Disciple, and John, the Elder."
|
