Suffering from a Critical Oversight: The Persecutions of 1 Peter within Modern Scholarship

Abstract

Throughout the history of research, the topic of persecution has been one of the more heavily debated issues within the study of 1 Peter. At the moment, however, a general agreement has been reached concerning the nature of the readers’ problems. According to the modern consensus, the persecutions were localized and sporadic hostility consisting of verbal abuse and discrimination (i.e., ‘unofficial’ persecution). The present article will survey exactly how this consensus was reached, focusing particular attention on a key oversight which took place very early in the discussion. Our review will explore some of the significant effects which this omission has produced in the subsequent debate, while examining how a few of the most recent treatments have worked towards rectifying the situation.

Keywords

1 Peter official persecution suffering unofficial

There is little debate that Christian suffering holds a place of prominence in the epistle of 1 Peter. ‘Running through the whole letter, sometimes overtly expressed but never far below the surface and giving point to the writer’s reiterated appeal to Christ’s sufferings as a precedent and a ground for confidence, is the assumption that the recipients are being, or at any moment are liable to be, subjected to trials and persecutions’ (Kelly 1969: 5). In fact, few would dispute that the readers found themselves in a difficult situation wherein outside hostility was being expressed against their Christian faith (one exception is Rousseau 1986: 258). ‘The question is thus not whether such persecutions were occurring when the letter was written, but rather what kind of persecutions are therein reflected, and what caused such rejection of the Christians by their contemporary society’ (Achtemeier 1996: 28; emphasis added). But anyone familiar with Petrine studies knows that this question, possibly more than any other, has served to divide commentators throughout the history of research.

For much of the past two centuries, critical scholarship has engaged in a long and arduous debate over the nature of persecution in 1 Peter. At issue for most commentators has been the question of whether the recipients were suffering from ‘official’ (i.e., originating from the organized efforts of the Roman State) or ‘unofficial’ (i.e., informal popular hostility) persecution. Now, after seemingly endless discussion on the matter, a consensus opinion has clearly emerged. In the judgment of most modern critics, ‘the persecution of 1 Peter is local, sporadic and unofficial, stemming from the antagonism and discrimination of the general populace’ (Dubis 2006: 203; cf. Webb 2004: 382-83; Cothenet 1988: 3703; Elliott 1976: 251-52).

What is more, it is not just the ‘unofficial’ view of persecution that has become established within scholarship. A comparison of other surveys of research will reveal how uniformly interpreters have understood the developmental process by which both positions have arrived at their current level of acceptance (note, e.g., Elliott 2000: 98; Dubis 2006: 202-203). Normally, when the topic is reviewed, a very clear chronological progression is presented: within early critical scholarship, many interpreters tended to adopt the ‘official’ persecution theory, which attempted to situate the persecutions in 1 Peter among one of the empire-wide pogroms carried out during the respective reigns of three notorious Roman emperors: Nero, Domitian, and Trajan. But as further clarity was reached concerning the nature and extent of these Roman pogroms, a noticeable shift took place within scholarship. With modern conceptions of persecution becoming more refined, the majority of interpreters were converted to the ‘unofficial’ position, wherein the modern consensus now lies. This clear progression, which appears to result from the natural enlightenment of critical research, thus makes the ‘unofficial’ persecution theory the most natural solution to the problem. At the same time, it allows the ‘official’ proposal to be easily dismissed as an outdated relic of the past.

Amidst such widespread agreement, one might naturally question the value in retracing the topic’s history of research. The problem, as we will show, is that such a portrayal of the interpretive landscape is somewhat misleading. As a result, it has created an unfortunate confusion in the way the topic has been addressed within Petrine scholarship, and it has significantly impeded further development within the discussion. The purpose of this article is to bring somewhat more clarity to the issue by briefly tracing the debate over the nature of persecution in 1 Peter, starting from the 1800s and moving to the present. In particular, we will draw attention to a significant omission that has been made in the historical record, and we will examine how its reintroduction is beginning to challenge the shape of Petrine studies. Thus, by employing insights from the past, we will seek to shed fresh light on possible developments for the future.

The Persecutions of 1 Peter: Then

To fully understand the state of the modern discussion, we must start from the beginning. Ordinarily when such a controversial issue is discussed, it is appropriate to proceed with an investigation into the historical development behind the various interpretive strands and the avenues through which each view arrived at its current level of acceptance. In this particular case, however, the most crucial point to grasp is not the rise or fall of certain theories or even the influence of those scholars who proposed them. Instead, the key to understanding the historical debate surrounding the nature of persecution in 1 Peter is the significant misunderstanding which took place within the earliest Petrine scholarship and the critical lacuna it has left in the overall discussion.

Contrary to the developmental theories that are posed in many modern commentaries, the popularity of the ‘unofficial’ view of persecution is not a recent development. As far back as the 1800s, this view has tended to be very popular within Petrine studies (so, e.g., Augusti 1801: I, 182-84; Hensler 1813: 15-16, 203-204; Steiger 1836: 33-36; Bloomfield 1855: II, 700; Wordsworth 1867: II, 41 n. 7, 65; Fronmüller 1867: 9; Barnes 1875: cviii, 117; Fausset 1875: 497; von Hofmann 1875: 175-77, 215; Alford 1878: IV, 126-28; Keil 1883: 33; Huther 1893: 30; Weidner 1897: 99, 162; Hort 1898: 1-5; Monnier 1900: 1, 112, 214, 220; Bigg 1902: 24-33, 80-88; Weiss 1902: 310; Zahn 1917: II, 178-94; Erdman 1918: 52). Due in large part to the fact that many older interpreters held to genuine Petrine authorship, the epistle was often dated sometime prior to the first state-initiated persecution, which took place under the Roman emperor Nero (64 ce). For this reason, proponents often stressed the localized, inter-personal nature of the conflict, which primarily included discrimination and verbal abuse. These persecutions, as J.E. Huther noted, ‘consisted more in contumelies (Schmähungen) and revilings (Lästerungen) than in actual ill-treatment’ (1893: 30; cf. Keil 1883: 33). But, despite the fact that this view was the favorite of many early commentators (as it still is today), it was not the only interpretive option.

A second view, which was just as popular in the earlier discussion, was what is commonly referred to as the ‘official’ persecution theory (advocated, e.g., by Jülicher 1904: 211-13; Ramsay 1893; 1907: 279-95; Gunkel 1917: 251-52; for more proponents, see below). As the name suggests, proponents of this view envisioned a more formal mode of persecution affecting the Anatolian readers, often referred to as ‘systematic persecution’ (Jülicher 1904: 212). According to this position, the animosity which the Christian congregations faced originated not from the local populace but from an organized initiative on the part of the Roman State. Due to the official proscription of the Christian faith, the Roman government was said to have actively pursued its members. Thus, as W.M. Ramsay described it, ‘[t]he Christians are not merely tried when a private accuser comes forward against them, but are sought out for trial by the Roman officials’ (1907: 280-81; emphasis added).

A curious fact about the early secondary literature on the subject is that, in many cases, the basic tenets often associated with the ‘official’ persecution theory (viz., the official proscription of Christianity resulting in the active, systematic pursuit of Christians by Roman authorities) are rarely spelled out in detail. A much more common indicator that one holds to this view is the attempt to situate the conflict during the time of Nero, Domitian, and Trajan. The adoption of this three-ruler approach to persecution suggests that one is working under the assumption that the universal and systematic persecutions of Christians, which were carried out under the initiative of Roman authorities, were limited to the respective reigns of these three ‘persecutors of the Church’. For if there were three distinct periods in which Christian persecution took place, then there must have been something different about the conflict then experienced which did not take place during the intervening periods. In this case, what seems to demarcate these three great persecutions is the initiative taken by the Roman government.

It has not been uncommon—whether in the earlier commentaries on 1 Peter or in some of the more recent treatments—for interpreters to set up the ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ views of persecution as diametrically opposed and exclusive interpretive options. This dichotomy, unfortunately, overlooks important modifications which had begun to be made to the traditional views during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was during this time that the foundations were laid for what would later materialize into a third persecution theory—what might be designated the ‘median’ view of persecution. Regrettably, the many qualifications that were being drawn and the significant distinctions that were made were never fully developed into a systematized model by which this perspective could be differentiated from the claims of traditional theories. As time passed, many of these distinctions were either confused with the tenets of other approaches, or they were simply overlooked altogether. Therefore, it is important that they be given a fresh hearing.

One of the key interpretive trends in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was the attempt to equate the persecutions of 1 Peter with the conflict which spilled over into the provinces shortly after the fire in Rome and the ensuing Neronian pogroms (so, e.g., Mayerhoff 1835: 131-35; Hug 1836: 632-34; Brown 1851: 29, 643-44; Schott 1861: 132-35, 346-60; Plumptre 1879: 62; Mason 1884: 386; Salmon 1894: 436-37; Masterman 1900: 20-25; Bennett 1901: 32-46; Hart 1910: 17-33; Moffatt 1918: 323-27). Two pieces of evidence seemed to lead interpreters in this direction. First, many pointed to the fact that ‘[t]he magnitude (Größe) and universality (Allgemeinheit) of the evil evince that it must have proceeded from the highest civic authority, which alone could occasion so wide spread (weit ausgebreiteter) and simultaneous (gleichzeitiger) a result’ (Hug 1836: 632). The persecution of Nero was thought to be the only event that could account for the far-reaching effects described in the epistle (cf. 1 Pet. 5.9). Second, interpreters regularly pointed out the legal culpability which seems to threaten the letter’s readers (cf. 1 Pet. 4.16, [πάσχϵιν] ὡς Xριστιανός, ‘[to suffer] as a Christian’). As G. Salmon notes, ‘when the Epistle was written Christians were liable to be punished as such’, a fact which ‘forbids us to date the letter earlier in Peter’s life than the year of the burning of Rome’ (1894: 437; cf. Brown 1851: 29, 643-44; Mason 1884: 386).

This close association with the Neronian persecution naturally led commentators who held to the ‘unofficial’ persecution theory to group proponents of this view very closely with the ‘official’ persecution approach. While in many cases this may have been an accurate assessment, there were some within this group who were beginning to depart from the ‘official’ view in significant ways. The distinctions that had begun to be drawn—although not always obvious on a casual reading—marked an important departure from the ‘official’ proposal and a considerable step towards a new and innovative approach.

The first of these important qualifications relates to the subsidiary cause of the persecutions. Rather than viewing the conflict described in 1 Peter as the result of laws passed down by the Roman government which proscribed the Christian faith, proponents of this new approach stressed the important influence of the Neronian pogroms, both on the local populace as well as on governing officials (cf. Plumptre 1879: 62; Bennett 1901: 45; Wand 1934: 17). This event was said to have set a precedent for the treatment of Christians. This distinction between the persecutions of Nero and the hostility that spilled over into the provinces is clearly delineated by J.H.B. Masterman: ‘Now though the Neronian persecution was confined to Rome, a step of this kind, taken by Imperial authority, would be certain to form a precedent for Provincial Governors, and there was therefore good reason to fear that the persecution would extend to other parts of the Empire’ (1900: 22). Therefore, as J. Moffatt noted, ‘[a]fter the Neronic wave had passed over the capital, the wash of it was felt on the far shores of the provinces’. That is, ‘the provincials would soon hear of it, and, when they desired a similar outburst at the expense of local Christians, all that was needed was a proconsul to gratify their wishes, and some outstanding disciple like Antipas or Polykarp to serve as a victim’ (1918: 326-27).

A second point of distinction that could be drawn between the emerging approach and the ‘official’ view of persecution was the inevitability of the conflict. Proponents of the ‘official’ theory tended to portray the hostility with designations such as ‘allgemeinere Verfolgungen’ (general persecution) (Gunkel 1917: 251) or ‘systematic persecution’ (Jülicher 1904: 212), meaning that it stretched across the Empire and affected all of those with whom it came into contact. With its stress on influence rather than laws, however, this new approach acknowledged the wide-ranging extent of the conflict, while also recognizing that the persecutions were often sporadic and episodic rather than constant and decisive (Moffatt 1918: 326)—a point which was further undergirded by the third and final distinction.

Probably the most important difference between proponents of the emerging approach and the traditional ‘official’ position was the role of the Roman authorities in the persecution of Christians. According to the situational reconstruction of the ‘official’ persecution theory, Roman authorities actively pursued Christians in an organized effort to achieve total elimination. The Roman government, as Ramsay described it, was ‘absolutely hostile, raging against them, seeking them out for destruction’ (1907: 281). Many within this ‘median’ view, however, recognized that Christians could only reach the local and provincial courts through the official accusations of a private delator (‘accuser’). One attempt to clearly delineate this distinction is found in the commentary of R. Knopf (1912), whose treatment marks an additional step, which implements many of these important qualifications into a timeframe somewhat later than the Neronian persecution. While Knopf clearly admits that ‘the hand of the State occasionally takes hold of the Christian communities’, he recognizes that these words could very well be misinterpreted. For this reason, he quickly qualifies this statement, noting,

This assumption in no way rules out the observation made above, that the State did not organize the persecution. The point is much more that from the hatred and suspicion of the populace itself accusations arise, which are brought before the authority. This authority is consequently forced to act against the Christians, and it seems certain too that punitive actions would be taken against the Christians (1912: 23; cf. Moffatt 1918: 326).

By thus clarifying how he understands the initiative behind the hostility, Knopf clearly separates his view from that of the ‘official’ position.

Unfortunately, these distinctions went relatively unnoticed in the larger debate on the nature of persecution in 1 Peter. Despite the fact that these qualifications were categorically distinct from the ‘official’ view of persecution, the two were commonly equated. In some cases, the responsibility for this confusion lies with proponents of the ‘unofficial’ theory, who made no attempt to differentiate the peculiarities of opposing positions. This was due, in large part, to the fact that ‘some earlier proponents of [the ‘unofficial’] position did not always distinguish clearly among actions giving expression to imperial policy and actions of a wholly independent nature by local or regional officials’ (Schutter 1989: 13 n. 56).

A particular example of this type of confusion is evident in the more recent discussion of D.E. Hiebert (1992). Drawing attention to one of the critical pieces of evidence adduced by this emerging approach (viz., the reference to suffering ὡς Xριστιανός, ‘as a Christian’ [1 Pet. 4.16]), he notes how some interpreters have used this reference to situate the persecutions shortly after (ca. 65–67 ce) the Neronian pogroms. Then, although he correctly acknowledges that the view ‘assumes that Roman officials in the Asian provinces would readily have followed the action of the emperor in the capital’, for some reason, Hiebert attempts to summarily rule out this proposal because, according to him, ‘there is no firm evidence that the Neronian edict [sic] resulted in systematic persecution of Christians outside of Rome’ (1992: 27; emphasis added). Such a conclusion reveals the failure to consider that there may be a ‘median’ position which allows for the persecution of Christians as Christians following the Neronian pogroms, but which would not be equated with ‘official’, systematic persecution resulting from a governmental edict.

In all fairness, however, much of the blame for this confusion rests on the shoulders of those who advocated a slightly alternative approach to the question of persecution. Few members of this camp actually sought to clarify their views against false characterizations or to distinguish them from those of the ‘official’ position. Therefore, it is admittedly quite difficult to separate the two views in some cases. One particular area where more clarity would have been greatly beneficial concerns the role of local and provincial officials. Even though many stressed that it was the ‘example’ or ‘precedent’ (rather than ‘laws’) of Nero that was most influential among provincial officials, very few commentators actually specified whether the pattern which governors followed included seeking out Christians or whether this influence was merely limited to the way in which Christians were perceived (see, e.g., Mayerhoff 1835: 133-34; Masterman 1900: 20-25; Bennett 1901: 45).

Regardless of who was ultimately responsible for this interpretive misunderstanding, the confusion has had an enormous impact on how the topic has been addressed within Petrine scholarship. Due to the lack of systematization and in the absence of strong clarification, the distinctions which were beginning to be made in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were never fully integrated into the discussion. Instead, they were regularly subsumed under the traditional ‘official’ persecution proposal without any differentiation. Therefore, when the ‘official’ view of persecution began to lose favour within Petrine studies, these important qualifications were also ruled out by association.

This important shift away from the ‘official’ persecution approach was caused by two imposing factors. First, the work of E.G. Selwyn (1947: 52-56; 1950) offered a thorough historical refutation of the ‘official’ position and introduced interpreters to a way of reading the text which concentrated on the informal character of suffering. At the same time, great strides were being made to establish the unity of 1 Peter (see Williams 2010). Therefore, interpreters were being forced to reconcile the more sombre and far-reaching references to persecution in the second half of the epistle (1 Pet. 4.12–5.14) with those in the first half which (seemingly) depicted the persecution as a less pressing event (1.1–4.11). It was the combination of these two major influences that marked the great watershed in the persecution debate. With these key factors in place, the popularity of the ‘official’ position began to subside (later proponents include: Beare 1970 [1947]; Hauck 1957: 36-37; Leaney 1967: 8-10; McCaughey 1969: 37-40; Bauer 1978; Downing 1988), while the already formidable constituency of the ‘unofficial’ approach began to ascend to a place of prominence (note those who followed Selwyn’s lead: Leconte 1953: 66; Cranfield 1960: 14-15, 17-18; Spicq 1966: 18-21; Kelly 1969: 5-11; Best 1971: 36-42; Brox 1977; Neugebauer 1979: 61-66; Lepelley 1980). In fact, by the time the field was surveyed during the mid-1970s, a growing consensus had already emerged (see Elliott 1976: 251-52; cf. Cothenet 1988: 3701-3704). This trend would continue during the latter half of the twentieth century and on into the twenty-first century, as the ‘unofficial’ position was adopted in the overwhelming majority of scholarly literature on 1 Peter (e.g., Holmer and de Boor 1986: 17-18; Grudem 1988: 31-32; Michaels 1988: lxiii-lxvi; Knoch 1990: 20-21; Davids 1990: 9-10; Bénétreau 1992: 27-30; Brox 1993: 24-34; Achtemeier 1996: 28-36; Bechtler 1998: 83-94; Boring 1999: 43-44; Elliott 2000: 97-103; Richard 2000: 16-18; Schreiner 2003: 28-31; Senior 2003: 7-8; Bony 2004: 12-13; Jobes 2005: 8-10; Prigent 2006: 9, 96, 131-32; Green 2007: 8-10; et al.).

The Persecutions of 1 Peter: Now

Regrettably, the uneventful reign of the ‘unofficial’ position has only served to compound a problem that has been hampered by significant confusion. At the heart of the issue lies the fact that proponents of the ‘unofficial’ view—as well as those of the ‘official’ proposal, for that matter—have read 1 Peter against the backdrop of a number of undemonstrated historical contentions for which they have never been forced to account. Even though the primary matter of contention has been the historical context in which the readers found themselves and out of which the various forms of persecution emanated, few background issues have been adequately addressed within the secondary literature. This stems, in large part, from the fact that the voices of many earlier interpreters have been silenced by the ascension and subsequent reign of the ‘unofficial’ position. Along with this, many of the distinctions which had begun to be raised in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries have slowly faded into the periphery. It is, nevertheless, these issues that hold out the greatest promise for ascertaining the nature of suffering in 1 Peter.

Fortunately, over the last few years, a noticeable interest has been taken in these issues. What is interesting is that the conclusions which have been reached mark a considerable departure from the modern consensus. Rather than going back to the ‘official’ view of persecution, however, this trend appears to have picked up where the emerging position of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries left off. In this way, it marks a ‘median’ position between the two traditional approaches (recent proponents include: Goppelt 1993: 38-39, 41-45; Schutter 1989: 11-17; Feldmeier 1992: 105-32; 2008: 2-13, 225; Molthagen 1995; Horrell 2007: 370-76; 2008: 53-59; Holloway 2009: 4-5, 40-73; Williams 2010). There are two areas, in particular, which seem to set the views of this group apart: (a) the legal culpability of Christians following the Neronian persecution; and (b) the nature and possibility of legal actions against Christians.

One of the first commentators in recent studies to adopt a ‘median’ approach to the topic of persecution was L. Goppelt (1993 [1978]). Although his work displays no conscious interest in challenging the consensus opinion, Goppelt set the groundwork from which others have built. Therefore, his words will be used to capture the essence of the ‘median’ position. First, Goppelt clearly recognized that the hostility described in 1 Peter was initiated by the local populace: ‘these appearances in court were occasioned by police action initiated not by public officials, but by the verbal hostility of the general population’. What is more, he also shared the view of many of the emerging proponents that the Neronian persecution marked a turning point in the legal culpability of Christians. He notes, ‘the destiny of Christians apparently no longer depended only on such progressive circumstances conditioned by local and personal factors; for the public officials the Christian religion as such was already considered criminal, but the judgment was not yet followed out in a systematic plan’. This, according to Goppelt, could naturally materialize into court proceedings and thus negative rulings against Christians: ‘Whenever Christians were “slandered” as “wrongdoers” the courts had to concern themselves with them, if these accusations were brought before the official agencies. Whenever official agencies and the courts were willing to take up these accusations, the instances of such accusations would increase and the situation would become more volatile’ (Goppelt 1993: 39; see also 41-45).

In the decades since Goppelt’s commentary was first published, his efforts have failed to generate a large following. Much of the reason, of course, has been the fact that his views were confused with the ‘official’ persecution theory (see, e.g., Holloway 2009: 4 n. 9). Another important factor was that Goppelt never made a concentrated effort to distinguish his position from the two traditional approaches. For this reason, the ‘median’ view has since lain almost dormant within Petrine scholarship.

The first recognizable engagement with and critique of the modern consensus did not take place until very recently. In two works published in consecutive years, D.G. Horrell initiated a formidable challenge to the popular notion of suffering in 1 Peter (2007: 370-76; 2008: 53-59). Horrell began by raising questions about the legitimacy of the dichotomy between ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ persecution. He argues, ‘to pose as alternatives informal public hostility and official Roman persecution . . . is somewhat to misconstrue the situation that pertained, broadly speaking, from the time of Nero until the third-century persecution under Decius (c. 250 ce)’ (2008: 56). Instead, Horrell focuses on the accusatorial nature of Roman court procedures and the legal culpability of Christians following the Neronian pogroms (for which he offers the designation ‘effectively illegal’; see Horrell 2008: 57). He notes that the ‘profession of Christianity was indeed treated, albeit sporadically, as a crime punishable by death, but one in which trial and punishment depended first and foremost on persons being brought to Roman attention by an accuser and then on the disposition of particular governors’ (2007: 374). As others before him, Horrell offers Pliny’s account of accusations and trials as a point of comparison (2007: 370-76). However, working outside of the common three-ruler view of persecution (see above), he suggests the following reconstruction for 1 Peter: ‘Christians are experiencing hostility from the populace among whom they live, suffering verbal slander and accusation. This hostility can reach the level where it takes the form of legal accusation, which results in Christians being brought before the governor for trial.’ Ultimately, ‘the crucial accusation’, according to Horrell, ‘would be that of being Christianus . . . This, if proven in the manner Pliny describes, would most likely lead to suffering like Christ, suffering to death’ (2007: 376).

Shortly after Horrell had set forth his position, P.A. Holloway (2009) contributed another significant challenge to the popular opinion—only this time from a completely new angle. Holloway examines the problem through the lens of social-psychology, focusing on social prejudice from the perspective of its ‘targets’. He argues that ‘1 Peter marks one of the earliest attempts, perhaps the earliest attempt, by a Christian author to craft a more or less comprehensive response to anti-Christian prejudice and its outcomes’ (2009: 2). The type of conflict which Holloway envisions is the same as that delineated earlier by Horrell: the Christian faith at this time was a punishable offence in a Roman court, but rather than being actively sought out by government officials, Christians were only punished as such if a member of the local populace brought official charges against them (Holloway 2009: 4-5, 40-73). Holloway’s primary contribution to the present discussion is the further light he sheds on the underlying, negative current which threatened Christians of the first three centuries. What he points out is that ‘[a]ctual persecutions may have been local and sporadic . . . but the social prejudice underlying them was constant’ (2009: 233). ‘[S]tigmatized persons’, Holloway points out, ‘are faced with “the ever-present possibility” that they may become the target of overt prejudice and discrimination and thus the object of suspicion, insult, rejection, hostility, or even violence’ (2009: 35). Therefore, according to Holloway, language such as ‘local and sporadic’, which is quite common within Petrine scholarship, ‘does little to capture the constant physical and emotional stress of such an experience’ (2009: 5 n. 14). It fails to communicate the fact that ‘popular prejudice constituted a lethal threat for early Christians’ (2009: 65; original emphasis).

My own work has also been an attempt to contribute to this ongoing discussion. In a recent doctoral dissertation on the nature of persecution in 1 Peter (see Williams 2010), I ventured to explore some of the key features of this ‘median’ position in much greater detail than has previously been attempted. The goal of this study was twofold. First, I sought to contextualize the conflict situation by locating the problem and its subsequent resolution(s) within the world of first-century ce Asia Minor. This included a comprehensive discussion on the nature of the Anatolian legal system and a detailed chronological assessment of the legal culpability of Christians during the first three centuries ce. Second, the study was also an attempt to differentiate the readers’ troubling experiences. In the past, commentators have focused primarily on the verbal aspect of the conflict and have thus emerged with a very uniform, albeit inadequate, picture of suffering for the first-century audience. For this reason, I began by providing a detailed ‘social profile’ of the letter’s recipients, which enabled me to better account for the assortment of social, political and economic backgrounds represented in the Anatolian congregations. With this more precise social portrait in mind, I then ventured to explore how various social groups would have been affected by the conflict. Through each of these aims, I sought to point out the inadequacy of the traditional ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ positions and to substantiate the case for the ‘median’ view.

Conclusion

From this survey, it is evident that persecution in 1 Peter is one topic that has yet to find complete resolution. Although many advances have been made and considerable agreement has been reached, a number of issues related to Christian persecution have either been inadequately addressed or simply misunderstood by those who have treated them. As we have shown, much of the problem stems from the fact that certain distinctions that were made during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries failed to be recognized by scholarship and thus faded away without having any impact on the larger debate. But with the rise of the ‘median’ position, many of these questions are being given fresh consideration. Recently, considerable attention has been devoted to disentangling notions of ‘official’ versus ‘unofficial’ persecution, clarifying the role of local and provincial authorities in the judicial process, explicating the legal culpability of Christians during the first three centuries ce, and exploring the various social issues involved in this conflict. Only time will tell whether this growing trend will force a reassessment of the modern consensus.

If a movement is made in this direction, it could have an important effect on how certain questions within Petrine studies are resolved. The problem of the letter’s date is one such issue. If 1 Peter does represent a time when the Christian faith had become ‘effectively illegal’ (cf. 1 Pet. 4.16), then its time of composition would have to be subsequent to the Neronian persecution. Such a conclusion could hold out promise for those who hold to Petrine authorship, for it would account for the escalated hostility reflected in the epistle without necessarily extending the date beyond the lifetime of the apostle Peter. Another area on which this alternative understanding could have an impact is the letter’s social strategy. For nearly three decades now, the Balch-Elliott debate (see Balch 1981; 1986; Elliott 1986; 1990) has been a topic that has divided scholarship. But if the ‘either/or’ dichotomy of persecution were finally taken out of the equation, it would require commentators to adequately account for the involvement of both the general populace and the Roman government in the conflict situation and to reconstruct the letter’s social strategy accordingly. These and many other related issues await the future deliberations of Petrine scholarship.

References

Achtemeier

P.J.

1996 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress).

Alford

1878 ‘ΠETPOY A’, in The Greek Testament (rev. edn; 4 vols.; Boston: Lee and Shepard).

Augusti

J.C.W.

1801 Die Katholischen Briefe, neu übersetzt und erklärt und mit Excursen und einleitenden Abhandlungen (2 vols.; Lemgo: Meyer).

Balch

D.L.

1981 Let Wives Be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter (SBLMS, 26; Atlanta: Scholars Press).

Balch

D.L.

1986 ‘Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter’, in Talbert

C.H.

(ed.), Perspectives on First Peter (NABPRSSS, 9; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press): 79-101.

Barnes

1875 Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude (rev. edn; New York: Harper & Brothers).

Bauer

J.B.

1978 ‘Der erste Petrusbrief und die Verfolgung unter Domitian’, in Schnackenburg

. (eds.), Die Kirche des Anfangs: Für Heinz Schürmann (Freiburg: Herder): 513-27.

Beare

F.W.

1970 The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (3rd edn; Oxford: Blackwell [1947]).

Bechtler

S.R.

1998 Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter (SBLDS, 162; Atlanta: Scholars Press).

10.

Bénétreau

1992 La Première Épître de Pierre (2nd edn; Commentaire évangélique de la Bible; Vaux-sur-Seine: Edifac).

11.

Bennett

W.H.

1901 The General Epistles: James, Peter, John, and Jude (The Century Bible; Edinburgh: T.C. & E.C. Jack).

12.

Best

1971 1 Peter (New Century Bible Commentary; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott).

13.

Bigg

1902 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (2nd edn; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

14.

Bloomfield

S.T.

1855 ‘ΠETPOY TOY AΠOΣTOΛOY: EΠIΣTOΛH KAΘOΛIKH ΠPΩTH’, in The Greek Testament with English Notes, Critical, Philological, and Exegetical (2 vols.; London: Longman, Brown, Green & Longmans).

15.

Bony

2004 La Première épître de Pierre: Chrétiens en diaspora (Lire la Bible, 137; Paris: Cerf).

16.

Boring

M.E.

1999 1 Peter (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon).

17.

Brown

1851 Expository Discourses on the First Epistle of the Apostle Peter (2nd edn; New York: Robert Carter & Brothers).

18.

Brox

1977 ‘Situation und Sprache der Minderheit im ersten Petrusbrief’, Kairos 19: 1-13.

19.

Brox

1993 Der erste Petrusbrief (4th edn; EKKNT, 21; Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener).

20.

Clowney

E.P.

1994 The Message of 1 Peter: The Way of the Cross (2nd edn; The Bible Speaks Today; Leicester: InterVarsity Press).

21.

Cothenet

É.

1988 . ‘La Premiére de Pierre: Bilan de 35 ans de recherches’, in Temporini

Haase

(eds.), Aufstief und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Part II, Principat 25.5; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter): 3685-712.

22.

Cranfield

C.E.B.

1960 I & II Peter and Jude (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM).

23.

Davids

P.H.

1990 The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

24.

Downing

F.G.

1988 ‘Pliny’s Prosecution of Christians: Revelation and 1 Peter’, JSNT 34: 105-23.

25.

Dubis

2006 ‘Research on 1 Peter: A Survey of Scholarly Literature Since 1985’, CBR 4: 199-239.

26.

Elliott

J.H.

1976 ‘The Rehabilitation of an Exegetical Step-Child: 1 Peter in Recent Research’, JBL 95: 243-54.

27.

Elliott

J.H.

1986 ‘1 Peter, its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch’, in Talbert

C.H.

(ed.), Perspectives on First Peter (NABPRSSS, 9; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press): 61-78.

28.

Elliott

J.H.

1990 A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter, its Situation and Strategy, with a New Introduction (Minneapolis: Fortress).

29.

Elliott

J.H.

2000 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 37B; New York: Doubleday).

30.

Erdman

C.R.

1918 The General Epistles: An Exposition (Philadelphia: Westminster).

31.

Fausset

A.R.

1875 ‘The First Epistle General of Peter’, in Jamieson

Fausset

A.R.

Brown

, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Hartford: S. S. Scranton).

32.

Feldmeier

1992 Die Christen als Fremde: Die Metapher der Fremde in der antiken Welt, im Urchristentum und im 1. Petrusbrief (WUNT, 64; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]).

33.

Feldmeier

2008 The First Epistle of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text (trans. Davids

P.H.

; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press). German original: Der erste Brief des Petrus (THKNT, 15/1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005).

34.

Fronmüller

G.F.C.

1867 The Epistles General of Peter and the Epistle General of Jude (trans. Mombert

J.I.

; A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, 9; New York: Charles Scribner). German original: Die Briefe Petri und der Brief Judä (4th edn; J.P. Lange’s Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk, 14; Bielfeld: Velhagen & Klasing, 1890).

35.

Goppelt

1993 A Commentary on I Peter (ed. Hahn

; trans. and aug. Alsup

J.E.

; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans). German original: Der erste Petrusbrief (KEK, 12/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978).

36.

Green

J.B.

2007 1 Peter (Two Horizons New Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

37.

Grudem

1988 1 Peter (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, 17; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

38.

Gunkel

1917 ‘Der erste Brief des Petrus’, in Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

39.

Hart

J.H.A.

1910 ‘The First Epistle General of Peter’, in The Expositor’s Greek Testament, V (London: Hodder & Stoughton).

40.

Hauck

1957 Die Briefe des Jakobus, Petrus, Judas und Johannes (Das Neue Testament Deutsch, 10; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

41.

Hensler

C.G.

1813 Der erste Brief des Apostels Petrus übersetzt und mit einem Kommentar versehen (Sulzbach: Seidel).

42.

Hiebert

D.E.

1992 First Peter (2nd edn; Chicago: Moody).

43.

Hillyer

1992 1 and 2 Peter, Jude (New International Biblical Commentary; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

44.

von Hofmann

J.C.K.

1875 Der erste Brief Petri (Die heilige Schrift neuen Testaments, 7/1; Nördlingen: Nördlingen Beck).

45.

Holloway

P.A.

2009 Coping with Prejudice: 1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective (WUNT, 244; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).

46.

Holmer

de Boor

1986 Die Briefe des Petrus und der Brief des Judas (5th edn; Wuppertaler Studienbibel; Wuppertal: Brockhaus).

47.

Horrell

D.G.

2007 ‘The Label Xριστιανός: 1 Pet 4.16 and the Formation of Christian Identity’, JBL 126: 361-81.

48.

Horrell

D.G.

2008 1 Peter (NTG; London: T&T Clark).

49.

Hort

F.J.A.

1898 The First Epistle of St. Peter I.1-II.17: The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes (London: Macmillan).

50.

Hug

J.L.

1836 Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Fosdick

Jr ; Andover: Gould and Newman). German original: Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (4th edn; Stuttgart: J.G. Cotta, 1847).

51.

Huther

J.E.

1893 Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the General Epistles of Peter and Jude (trans. Croom

D.B.

Gloag

P.J.

; Edinburgh: T&T Clark). German original: Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über den 1. Brief des Petrus, den Brief des Judas und den 2. Brief des Petrus (4th edn; KEK, 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1877).

52.

Jobes

K.H.

2005 1 Peter (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids: Baker).

53.

Jülicher

1904 An Introduction to the New Testament (trans. Ward

J.P.

; London: Smith, Elder, & Co.). German original: Einleitung in das Neue Testament (7th edn; rev. E. Fascher; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1931).

54.

Keil

C.F.

1883 Commentar über die Briefe des Petrus und Judas (Leipzig: Dörffling & Franke).

55.

Kelly

J.N.D.

1969 A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (HNTC; New York: Harper & Row).

56.

Knoch

1990 Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief. Der Judasbrief (RNT; Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet).

57.

Knopf

1912 Die Briefe Petri und Judä (KEK, 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

58.

Leaney

A.R.C.

1967 The Letters of Peter and Jude: A Commentary on the First Letter of Peter, a Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter (Cambridge Bible Commentary; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

59.

Leconte

1953 Les épitres catholiques (Sainte Bible de Jérusalem; Paris: Cerf).

60.

Lepelley

1980 ‘Le Contexte historique de la première lettre de Pierre: Essai d’interprétation’, in Perrot

(ed.), Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979 (Lectio divina, 102; Paris: Cerf): 43-64.

61.

Mason

A.J.

1884 ‘The First Epistle General of Peter’, in Ellicott

C.J.

(ed.), A New Testament Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers, III (London: Cassell).

62.

Masterman

J.H.B.

1900 The First Epistle of S. Peter (Greek Text), with Introduction and Notes (London: Macmillan & Co.).

63.

Mayerhoff

E.T.

1835 Historisch-critische Einleitung in die petrinischen Schriften. Nebst einer Abhandlung über den Verfasser der Apostelgeschichte (Hamburg: Perthes).

64.

McCaughey

J.D.

1969 ‘Three “Persecution Documents” of the New Testament’, Australian Biblical Review 17: 27-40.

65.

Michaels

J.R.

1988 1 Peter (WBC, 49; Waco, TX: Word).

66.

Moffatt

1918 An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament (3rd edn; International Theological Library; Edinburgh: T&T Clark).

67.

Molthagen

1995 ‘Die Lage der Christen im römischen Reich nach dem 1. Petrusbrief: Zum Problem einer Domitianischen Verfolgung’, Historia 44: 422-58.

68.

Monnier

1900 La Première Èpître de L’Apôtre Pierre (Macon: Protat Frères).

69.

Neugebauer

1979 ‘Zur Deutung und Bedeutung des 1. Petrusbriefes’, NTS 26: 61-86.

70.

Plumptre

E.H.

1879 The General Epistles of St. Peter & St. Jude, with Notes and Introduction (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

71.

Prigent

2006 Suivre le Christ: Commentaire de la première épître de Pierre (Lyon: Olivétan).

72.

Ramsay

W.M.

1893 ‘The Church and the Empire in the First Century, III: The First Epistle attributed to St. Peter’, Expositor 4.8: 282-96.

73.

Ramsay

W.M.

1907 The Church in the Roman Empire before A.D. 170 (9th edn; London: Hodder & Stoughton).

74.

Richard

E.J.

2000 Reading 1 Peter, Jude, and 2 Peter: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys).

75.

Rousseau

1986 ‘A Multidimensional Approach towards the Communication of an Ancient Canonized Text: Towards Determining the Thrust, Perspective and Strategy of 1 Peter’ (PhD dissertation, University of Pretoria).

76.

Salmon

1894 A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament, Being an Expansion of Lectures Delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin (7th edn; London: J. Murray).

77.

Schott

1861 Der erste Brief Petri (Erlangen: Andreas Deichert).

78.

Schreiner

T.R.

2003 1, 2, Peter, Jude (New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman).

79.

Schutter

W.L.

1989 Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter (WUNT, 2/30; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]).

80.

Selwyn

E.G.

1947 The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays (2nd edn; London: Macmillan).

81.

Selwyn

E.G.

1950 ‘The Persecutions in I Peter’, Bulletin of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas 1: 39-50.

82.

Senior

D.P.

2003 1 Peter (Sacra Pagina, 15; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical).

83.

von Soden

1899 Hebräerbrief, Briefe des Petrus, Jakobus, Judas (3rd edn; HKNT, 3/2; Leipzig and Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]).

84.

Spicq

1966 Les Épîtres de Saint Pierre (SB, 4; Paris: Gabalda).

85.

Steiger

1836 Exposition of the First Epistle of Peter, Considered in Reference to the Whole System of Divine Truth (trans. Fairbairn

; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: Thomas Clark). German original: Der erste Brief Petri, mit Berücksichtigung des ganzen biblischen Lehrbegriffs ausgelegt (Berlin: Ludwig Oehmigke, 1832).

86.

Wand

J.W.C.

1934 The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (Westminster Commentaries; London: Methuen & Co.).

87.

Webb

R.L.

2004 ‘The Petrine Epistles: Recent Developments and Trends’, in McKnight

Osborne

G.R.

(eds.), The Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research (Grand Rapids: Baker): 373-90.

88.

Weidner

R.F.

1897 Annotations on the General Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude (New York: Christian Literature).

89.

Weiss

1902 Das Neue Testament Handausgabe. III. Apostelgeschichte – Katholische Briefe, Apokalypse (2nd edn; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs).

90.

Williams

T.B.

2010 ‘Contextualizing Conflict: The Persecutions of 1 Peter in their Anatolian Setting’ (PhD dissertation, University of Exeter).

91.

Wordsworth

1867 ‘ΠETPOY A’, in idem, The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the Original Greek, with Introduction and Notes (2 vols.; London: Rivingtons).

92.

Zahn

1917 Introduction to the New Testament (2nd edn; 3 vols.; trans. Trout

J. M.

.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons). German original: Einleitung in das Neue Testament (3rd edn; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1906).