Peter after the Apocalypse. If Ephesians be a genuine work of St. Paul then I. Peter may have been written at any time after St.
Paul's imprisonment. If James is dependent on I. Peter then we have an additional argument for the early date of I. Peter. The objection that Peter would not be likely to quote Paul is only forcible on the old Tiibingen theory of a life-long feud between them. (c) The theology of I. Peter is simple and bears marked resemblances to that which finds expression in the early speeches in Acts. Its "Paulinism" has been much exaggerated. Jesus is the promised Messiah, and "the Spirit of Christ" is the spirit which was in the prophets. His suffering for sin had rescued the elect, and his endurance was an example for Christians faced with per secution. After death Jesus preached to "the spirits in prison." The source of Christian life is to be found in belief in God and in baptism. Christians are a royal priesthood, a holy nation, destined at the end of the world, which is close at hand, to inherit the promises. Church organization as it appears in this epistle is very simple and primitive ; there are elders who shepherd the flock, but there is no trace of a developed organization. There is nothing in these facts to preclude a belief in the Petrine author ship of the epistle. If, in spite of tradition to the contrary, St. Peter survived the days of Nero and lived subsequently in Rome, he may well have been acquainted with some of St. Paul's let
ters, particularly with one written to the Romans and with an other written during the Apostle's imprisonment in the city. He may have lived to see the beginnings of that persecuting policy which wrought such havoc in the time of Domitian and which we find fully established in the days of Pliny. Nor is the language difficulty serious. St. Peter had lived for many years among Greek-speaking communities, and he would doubtless employ an amanuensis. I. Peter was the first of the Catholic epistles to secure a place in the canon of Scripture, and it seems to have been widely accepted by the end of the second century. It is, however, omitted from the Muratorian canon which probably represents the opinion of Rome about A.D. 20o. The omission may have been accidental, and Zahn would emend the text.