Scholarly Reading
6/16/26
Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 6: The Petrine Epistles and Jude." (pp. 140-199). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
Robinson considers chronology for the Petrine epistles and Jude to be a great challenge, especially as we have little information by which to ascertain relative dates for these writings (Robinson 1976, p. 140). In particular, with the end of Acts, we have little information with which to track Peter's movements (Robinson 1976, p. 141). 1 Clement 5 indicates a trip of Paul to the "extreme west," and claims that Peter and Paul were both killed in the same wave of persecution as one another (Robinson 1976, p. 142). Robinson takes this necessarily to be a persecution under Nero.
The persecution of Nero after the fire of Rome would be a likely time for Peter's death. As Tacitus' Annals 15.44 suggests, this would be in the year 64 (Robinson 1976, p. 143). However, Suetonius does not tie a persecution to the fire at Rome. Nor do any early Christian authors tie persecutions to the fire (Robinson 1976, p. 144). It is only connected in Tacitus or sources which quote him. A further problem is that, based on Tacitus, a significant period of time may have passed between the fire and Nero's persecution. The rebuilding of the city was well under way before the time of persecution (Robinson 1976, pp. 144-145). Robinson thus suggests the persecution began no earlier than spring of 65 (Robinson 1976, p. 146).
A second possibility is suggested by Sulpicius Severus (Chronic. 2.29.3), recorded for us by Eusebius. He places prohibitive edicts after the wave of Neronian persecution, followed by the death of Paul, then Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 147). Jerome's translation of Eusebius fills in dates, giving the fire of Rome in 64, with Peter and Paul dying in a first subsequent wave of persecution in 68.
After weighing the various claims, Robinson concludes it is more likely, based on Tacitus, who dealt with other chronology, and Clement, who was writing only a couple of decades after the fact, that Peter's death may well have been in 66 or 67 (Robinson 1976, p. 150).
1 Peter itself claims to have been written from Rome. It is addressed to members of a Christian diaspora, and likely to one in which a majority are Gentiles (Robinson 1976, p. 150). The references to suffering suggest a time of persecution, or an expectation of future persecution. This sets the letter aside from Paul's letters, as well as from Hebrews, which describes past persecutions (Robinson 1976, p. 152). There is an apparent hope, but with reservations, that the government will engage in fair treatment.
Robinson considers whether the setting in 1 Peter corresponds to the letters between Pliny and Trajan. The situation under Trajan is one in which Christianity is already considered illicit. This does not line up with Peter's cautious optimism (Robinson 1976, p. 154).
The time of Domitian has also been suggested for 1 Peter. That period has often been associated with Revelation (Robinson 1976, p. 155). However, Peter's situation does not seem as dire as what is described in Revelation.
The period of Nero fits 1 Peter well, though Robinson does concede relatively little evidence confirming its composition by the apostle exists. There is also little evidence that Peter could not have been the author (Robinson 1976, p. 156). The fears of persecution fit the time period. Particularly, Robinson notes the parallel between Tacitus' mention of persecution against those who confessed, compared to 1 Peter's urging in 4:16 that the only crime Christians should be convicted of is their confession of Christ (Robinson 1976, p. 157). Additionally, Robinson suggests that the paschal images and the expectation of coming persecution would be at home in Rome in April of 65, as the signs of persecution were arising at the time of Passover (Robinson 1976, p. 161).
Robinson finds numerous authors who observe that the theological and ecclesial language in 1 Peter point to an early time period. The Holy Spirit is only mentioned four times, and the eschatology is relatively immediate (Robinson 1976, pp. 162-163). There are also few indicators that could detract from a theory of apostolic authorship (Robinson 1976, pp. 163-164). The explicit statements of eyewitness testimony in 1:8 and 5:1, as well as 4:13 suggest an author who was present with Jesus (Robinson 1976, p. 165).
As a final argument about the authorship of 1 Peter, Robinson discusses the Greek style and the mention of Silas, who is otherwise known as an associate of Paul. It would not be reasonable to assume that Peter could have ministered as he apparently did in Antioch or in Rome without knowledge of Greek (Robinson 1976, p. 167). Silas, also, as a companion of Paul, would likely have been very capable in terms of Greek style (Robinson 1976, p. 168). The Greek usage is thus quite plausible in a letter from Peter.
In the end, Robinson concludes that 1 Peter is quite reasonably taken to be composed by Peter, and likely from around April of AD 65 (Robinson 1976, p. 169).
Robinson considers the chronology of 2 Peter and Jude, which bear striking interrelationships, to be "a good deal murkier" (Robinson 1976, p. 169). He begins his evaluation here with Jude, who claims a relationship to James, presumably the author of the letter of James, discussed previously (Robinson 1976, p. 170). Jude's letter shows an urgency to warn Christians about deceivers in their midst. This scenario suggests to Robinson that sufficient time has passed to allow heresy to creep into the Christian community (Robinson 1976, p. 171). This, in Robinson's analysis, is comparable to the situation of 2 Corinthians, but more developed in the sophistication of the deceit.
Despite the sophistication of the opponents described in Jude, Robinson finds no trace of second century gnosticism (Robinson 1976, p. 172). The conflict is more similar to the moral issues described in Revelation 2-3.
Robinson turns (rather abruptly) to evaluate 2 Peter, which refers to the author as "Simeon Peter" and makes no indication of a place of authorship or destination of the letter (Robinson 1976, p. 173). The style of address and the terms used to describe Christians suggests an early period rather than any later development of gnosticism (Robinson 1976, p. 174). The passage in 1:12-18 suggests impending death, as well as an identity as an eyewitness of the work of Jesus (Robinson 1976, p. 176).
Robinson discusses a second passage, 2 Peter 3:1-4, which has been used to allege a late date for 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 179). He notes that the passage, which is more obscure than we would expect of a later, pseudepigraphical author, also uses language which is consistent with numerous of Paul's letters. The passage refers to the death of "the fathers," which Robinson (reasonably) takes to refer to the death of many of the first generation of Christians (Robinson 1976, p. 180). This is consistent with the writing of an apostle in the 60s.
2 Peter 3:15f is considered by Robinson as the greatest challenge in dating 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 181). The reference to Paul's writing "in all letters," presented without an article suggests knowledge of letters, but not of a grouping that would indicate a canonical set of letters (Robinson 1976, p. 182). The suggestion is that Paul is still alive and writing letters.
A remaining difficulty is the significant difference in style between 1 and 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 184). Robinson considers it unlikely that "the two epistles can in any immediate sense be the product of the same mind, let alone of the same pen" (Robinson 1976, p. 186). However, Robinson observes that those who argue for pseudonymity feed their arguments by an assumption of pseudonymity itself. The widespread practice was not clearly evident until the middle of the second century(Robinson 1976, p. 187). The practice was condemned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and 3:17. It was also roundly condemned by orthodox Chrsitian writers in the second century and beyond (Robinson 1976, pp. 187-188). Further, 2 Peter makes none of the attempts to grind theological axes which we find in known pseudepigraphy (Robinson 1976, p. 189).
At this point Robinson returns to the literary relationship between 2 Peter and Jude (Robinson 1976, p. 192). Robinson's theory is that Jude came before 2 Peter, chiefly because it contains virtually no material not common to the two letters. Had 2 Peter existed first, it would likely simply have been recirculated.
Robinson's suggested solution to this problem is that Jude had been engaged in writing 2 Peter, then was interrupted to write a brief letter on his own authority, warning Christians against deceivers. He then returned to composition of 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 193). Rather than attempting to impersonate Peter, it is possible that Jude is writing 2 Peter as a representative of Peter, the apostle and bishop of Rome (Robinson 1976, p. 194).
Robinson suggests that 2 Peter may have been rather early, possibly with the reference to "departure" simply indicating a physical departure from Rome, rather than immediately impending death (Robinson 1976, p. 196). This can be seen also in Paul's language in 2 Timothy 4:6-8 and Acts 20:24ff, which were written some years before Paul's death.
Both 2 Peter and Jude may well have been sent to Corinth, where the philosophical climate could give rise to the opponents described, and where Paul and Silas were known (Robinson 1976, pp. 196-197). This, however, is not entirely clear to Robinson. The climate further suggests a date in the late 50s or early 60s. If this is the case, the reference to departure could well be Peter's departure to Rome, likely in 62 (Robinson 1976, p. 197).
6/16/26
Robinson, John A.T. (1976). "Chapter 6: The Petrine Epistles and Jude." (pp. 140-199). In Redating the New Testament. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock. (Personal Library)
Robinson considers chronology for the Petrine epistles and Jude to be a great challenge, especially as we have little information by which to ascertain relative dates for these writings (Robinson 1976, p. 140). In particular, with the end of Acts, we have little information with which to track Peter's movements (Robinson 1976, p. 141). 1 Clement 5 indicates a trip of Paul to the "extreme west," and claims that Peter and Paul were both killed in the same wave of persecution as one another (Robinson 1976, p. 142). Robinson takes this necessarily to be a persecution under Nero.
The persecution of Nero after the fire of Rome would be a likely time for Peter's death. As Tacitus' Annals 15.44 suggests, this would be in the year 64 (Robinson 1976, p. 143). However, Suetonius does not tie a persecution to the fire at Rome. Nor do any early Christian authors tie persecutions to the fire (Robinson 1976, p. 144). It is only connected in Tacitus or sources which quote him. A further problem is that, based on Tacitus, a significant period of time may have passed between the fire and Nero's persecution. The rebuilding of the city was well under way before the time of persecution (Robinson 1976, pp. 144-145). Robinson thus suggests the persecution began no earlier than spring of 65 (Robinson 1976, p. 146).
A second possibility is suggested by Sulpicius Severus (Chronic. 2.29.3), recorded for us by Eusebius. He places prohibitive edicts after the wave of Neronian persecution, followed by the death of Paul, then Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 147). Jerome's translation of Eusebius fills in dates, giving the fire of Rome in 64, with Peter and Paul dying in a first subsequent wave of persecution in 68.
After weighing the various claims, Robinson concludes it is more likely, based on Tacitus, who dealt with other chronology, and Clement, who was writing only a couple of decades after the fact, that Peter's death may well have been in 66 or 67 (Robinson 1976, p. 150).
1 Peter itself claims to have been written from Rome. It is addressed to members of a Christian diaspora, and likely to one in which a majority are Gentiles (Robinson 1976, p. 150). The references to suffering suggest a time of persecution, or an expectation of future persecution. This sets the letter aside from Paul's letters, as well as from Hebrews, which describes past persecutions (Robinson 1976, p. 152). There is an apparent hope, but with reservations, that the government will engage in fair treatment.
Robinson considers whether the setting in 1 Peter corresponds to the letters between Pliny and Trajan. The situation under Trajan is one in which Christianity is already considered illicit. This does not line up with Peter's cautious optimism (Robinson 1976, p. 154).
The time of Domitian has also been suggested for 1 Peter. That period has often been associated with Revelation (Robinson 1976, p. 155). However, Peter's situation does not seem as dire as what is described in Revelation.
The period of Nero fits 1 Peter well, though Robinson does concede relatively little evidence confirming its composition by the apostle exists. There is also little evidence that Peter could not have been the author (Robinson 1976, p. 156). The fears of persecution fit the time period. Particularly, Robinson notes the parallel between Tacitus' mention of persecution against those who confessed, compared to 1 Peter's urging in 4:16 that the only crime Christians should be convicted of is their confession of Christ (Robinson 1976, p. 157). Additionally, Robinson suggests that the paschal images and the expectation of coming persecution would be at home in Rome in April of 65, as the signs of persecution were arising at the time of Passover (Robinson 1976, p. 161).
Robinson finds numerous authors who observe that the theological and ecclesial language in 1 Peter point to an early time period. The Holy Spirit is only mentioned four times, and the eschatology is relatively immediate (Robinson 1976, pp. 162-163). There are also few indicators that could detract from a theory of apostolic authorship (Robinson 1976, pp. 163-164). The explicit statements of eyewitness testimony in 1:8 and 5:1, as well as 4:13 suggest an author who was present with Jesus (Robinson 1976, p. 165).
As a final argument about the authorship of 1 Peter, Robinson discusses the Greek style and the mention of Silas, who is otherwise known as an associate of Paul. It would not be reasonable to assume that Peter could have ministered as he apparently did in Antioch or in Rome without knowledge of Greek (Robinson 1976, p. 167). Silas, also, as a companion of Paul, would likely have been very capable in terms of Greek style (Robinson 1976, p. 168). The Greek usage is thus quite plausible in a letter from Peter.
In the end, Robinson concludes that 1 Peter is quite reasonably taken to be composed by Peter, and likely from around April of AD 65 (Robinson 1976, p. 169).
Robinson considers the chronology of 2 Peter and Jude, which bear striking interrelationships, to be "a good deal murkier" (Robinson 1976, p. 169). He begins his evaluation here with Jude, who claims a relationship to James, presumably the author of the letter of James, discussed previously (Robinson 1976, p. 170). Jude's letter shows an urgency to warn Christians about deceivers in their midst. This scenario suggests to Robinson that sufficient time has passed to allow heresy to creep into the Christian community (Robinson 1976, p. 171). This, in Robinson's analysis, is comparable to the situation of 2 Corinthians, but more developed in the sophistication of the deceit.
Despite the sophistication of the opponents described in Jude, Robinson finds no trace of second century gnosticism (Robinson 1976, p. 172). The conflict is more similar to the moral issues described in Revelation 2-3.
Robinson turns (rather abruptly) to evaluate 2 Peter, which refers to the author as "Simeon Peter" and makes no indication of a place of authorship or destination of the letter (Robinson 1976, p. 173). The style of address and the terms used to describe Christians suggests an early period rather than any later development of gnosticism (Robinson 1976, p. 174). The passage in 1:12-18 suggests impending death, as well as an identity as an eyewitness of the work of Jesus (Robinson 1976, p. 176).
Robinson discusses a second passage, 2 Peter 3:1-4, which has been used to allege a late date for 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 179). He notes that the passage, which is more obscure than we would expect of a later, pseudepigraphical author, also uses language which is consistent with numerous of Paul's letters. The passage refers to the death of "the fathers," which Robinson (reasonably) takes to refer to the death of many of the first generation of Christians (Robinson 1976, p. 180). This is consistent with the writing of an apostle in the 60s.
2 Peter 3:15f is considered by Robinson as the greatest challenge in dating 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 181). The reference to Paul's writing "in all letters," presented without an article suggests knowledge of letters, but not of a grouping that would indicate a canonical set of letters (Robinson 1976, p. 182). The suggestion is that Paul is still alive and writing letters.
A remaining difficulty is the significant difference in style between 1 and 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 184). Robinson considers it unlikely that "the two epistles can in any immediate sense be the product of the same mind, let alone of the same pen" (Robinson 1976, p. 186). However, Robinson observes that those who argue for pseudonymity feed their arguments by an assumption of pseudonymity itself. The widespread practice was not clearly evident until the middle of the second century(Robinson 1976, p. 187). The practice was condemned by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and 3:17. It was also roundly condemned by orthodox Chrsitian writers in the second century and beyond (Robinson 1976, pp. 187-188). Further, 2 Peter makes none of the attempts to grind theological axes which we find in known pseudepigraphy (Robinson 1976, p. 189).
At this point Robinson returns to the literary relationship between 2 Peter and Jude (Robinson 1976, p. 192). Robinson's theory is that Jude came before 2 Peter, chiefly because it contains virtually no material not common to the two letters. Had 2 Peter existed first, it would likely simply have been recirculated.
Robinson's suggested solution to this problem is that Jude had been engaged in writing 2 Peter, then was interrupted to write a brief letter on his own authority, warning Christians against deceivers. He then returned to composition of 2 Peter (Robinson 1976, p. 193). Rather than attempting to impersonate Peter, it is possible that Jude is writing 2 Peter as a representative of Peter, the apostle and bishop of Rome (Robinson 1976, p. 194).
Robinson suggests that 2 Peter may have been rather early, possibly with the reference to "departure" simply indicating a physical departure from Rome, rather than immediately impending death (Robinson 1976, p. 196). This can be seen also in Paul's language in 2 Timothy 4:6-8 and Acts 20:24ff, which were written some years before Paul's death.
Both 2 Peter and Jude may well have been sent to Corinth, where the philosophical climate could give rise to the opponents described, and where Paul and Silas were known (Robinson 1976, pp. 196-197). This, however, is not entirely clear to Robinson. The climate further suggests a date in the late 50s or early 60s. If this is the case, the reference to departure could well be Peter's departure to Rome, likely in 62 (Robinson 1976, p. 197).
RSS Feed