Introduction. 379 



of the Johannine literature, who wrote from Ephesus, knew I Peter. 



So also Ignatius, writing from the same region. We are confident 

 that Polycarp, of Smyrna, was acquainted with our Epistle. It 

 will be noticed in the Table that there are none of those marked 

 " A* " earlier than Polycarp which do not show a direct connection 

 with Rome, e. g. Romans, Ephesians, and Clement of Rome. James 

 may also be added to this list, inasmuch as the first echoes which we 

 have of it are in Rome. All the Uterature marked " B " or " C " earlier 

 than 160 also shows direct connection with Rome or Asia Minor or 

 both, unless it be Titus, which will hardly be counted an exception. 

 The silence of the Hterature of other places, as well as that of 

 these localities in the period assigned to I Peter is quite as signifi- 

 cant as the direct references ; for manifestly some time must be 

 allowed for acquaintance with the Epistle to extend, and more as 

 the remoteness increases. Both lines of evidence converge, therefore 

 upon the conclusion that I Peter was written in Rome cir. 87—90. 

 In addition to the conclusion just reached regarding the date and 

 place of authorship of I Peter, this study has other important results. 

 The bearing that it has on the problem of dating the Synoptic Gospels 

 should not be overlooked. If, as Harnack claims, the Gospels are 

 so early one is surprised not to find them reflected more in I Peter. 

 It may be claimed that the author was acquainted with the Synoptic 

 tradition in some form, but there is very little, if indeed anything, 

 to indicate that he knew our Gospels. There is no real evidence 

 that he knew the " Q " source. The real evidence for literary 

 connection between I Peter and the Markan source is reduced to 

 I Peter 2 ; 7 = Mark 12 ; 10. (See discussion on Mk. Ex. 5.) Were 

 we to grant that these passages show a direct hterary connection, 

 there is nothing to prove the priority of Mark. There seems to be 

 nothing peculiar to Matthew or Luke which would justify the claim 

 of literary connection. It seems strange that our author, susceptible 

 as he was to literary influences, did not make more use of the Synoptic 

 Gospels, if they were written as early as Harnack contends. This 

 silence is against Harnack's position. It would seem therefore, if 

 for example, Mk. 12 ; 10 is directly connected with I Peter, that 

 the priority must be given to the latter and not to the former. 



The Johannine Literature is also involved in the dating of I Peter. 

 If the conclusions reached here are correct, namely that the Johannine 

 Literature presupposes I Peter as a necesssary connecting link between 

 it and Paul, they have a very important bearing, not only on the 

 development of doctrine in Asia Minor, but also on the vexed problem 

 of the Johannine authorship. Many ideas merely suggested by 



Trans. Conn. Acad., Vol. XVII. 26 January, 1913. 



