When was 1 Peter written?

Here is an idea that is not backed up by tradition, but may match the clues in the New Testament.

1 Peter was written to the Jews who were in modern-day Turkey, likely including those who were present at Pentecost (Acts 2:9-10). He had help from Silvanus (aka Silas) (1 Peter 5:12). Peter and Silas are only mentioned together in Acts 15.

So here's my imaginary backstory for 1 Peter. Let me know if it sounds plausible:

Paul and Barnabas tell the Jerusalem council about miracles among the Gentiles from Paul's First missionary journey (Acts 15:12). They may have mentioned persecution, which would explain why Peter talks about persecution. Peter asks Silas to send greetings to these far away people, after Silas goes to Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Acts 15:23, 27). Paul did not mention sending the letter to anyone in Greece because Paul didn't preach the gospel there yet. Silas therefore plans to travel to Pontus, Galatia, Cappadiocia, Asia, and Bithniya (1 Peter 1:1). So when Paul and Silas go on Paul's second missionary journey, they are travelling in the direction of Galatia, Asia, Mysia, Bithynia, but is redirected to Macedonia (Acts 16:6-10).

Peter was writing to the dispersion, but noted that he too was a pilgrim and a stranger on earth (1 Peter 1:1; 2:11). Peter emphasizes this by saying the Jerusalem church (at "home") was in Babylon (away from home) (1 Peter 5:13).

Did you also factor in the presence of Mark with Peter? (1PT 5:13, 2TM 4:11, ACTS 15:37-38)

Your post prompts me to contemplate leading a study of the similarities between the writings of Peter and Paul on the hermeneutics thread, now that I am winding up my study of the teachings of Paul.
(Stay tuned :^)

what I see is:
Peter had much to learn as I know I still do too, and others as well, yet I am not accountable for anyone else, gut to love all as called, to me at least
Paul in Galatia, rebuked Peter for excusing himself from eating with Gentiles, when he knew his brethren were cpm g to spy out their liberty given them. He his himself because of fear
As we see he did that also, when Jesus was arrested and he feared and denied Jesus three times as Jesus said he would deny him and Peter was like no way, yet he did do that, because of fear
He had to learn to be over fear
1 John 4:18 tells us about fear and Peter needed to get perfected in God's Love and Peter did get that truth in him too.

Peter was writing what he had learned, Remember what Jesus said to Peter
Satan wishes to sift you like wheat, yet I prayed for thy Faith, When you return (After getting sifted) you will strengthen the brethren. So, see the progression of Peter in the writings of Peter after the acts of Peter, thanks as Father leads not me and reveals this or not yet.
We, too us in belief he is risen for us to be new and made new by Father to us too
Learn from mistakes made as well. I know I have and am still in process. God continuing to love me, you and all others too, whether believe God or not yet.
Jesus went to that cross one time willingly once for us all (Hebrews 10:10) yet read all of Ten please
God just loves us all y'all

oh, somewhere between AD 80's

Acts 13:13 says that Mark returned to Jerusalem. Mark could have travelled to Antioch with Barnabas after the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:37-38).

Okay. I have begun comparing Peter and Paul, and here is the start:

TOP #286: Remember those in prison wrongfully. [HB 13:3] Jesus mentioned this desire in MT 25:36&43.

The closing reference to Timothy and the epistle being sent from Italy (probably Rome) confirms Paul’s authorship. At this point we begin comparing the TOP with the teachings of Peter, who was aware of Paul’s epistles (per 2PT 3:15-16) and apparently included some of Paul’s teachings in his own epistle. Thus, it is appropriate to append the teachings of Peter to this enumeration of the TOP using the same acronym. The main problem will be discerning new teachings of Peter from previous TOP. When the teachings are the same, the number assigned to Paul is repeated and the equivalent verses in Peter’s epistles are listed first, as in the teaching that follows.

TOP #41: Christians are God’s elect, chosen according to divine foreknowledge. [1PT 1:1-2 = RM 8:28-30] Jesus (in MT 24:22-31) also referred to his disciples as elect (cf. RM 11:7, 11:28 & 2TM 2:10), and Jesus’s crucifixion is connected with God’s foreknowledge by Peter (in ACTS 2:23). Paul told Titus that God promised eternal life before the beginning (TIT 1:2).

Divine foreknowledge is part of omniscience. When affirming this doctrine it must be maintained that God’s foreknowledge does not predetermine a person’s spiritual choice regarding the satisfaction of God’s requirement for salvation or else moral responsibility would be abrogated (cf. 1TM 2:3-4 & MT 23:37). While God’s love is unconditional (JN 3:16, MT 5:44&48), His salvation is conditional upon a souls’ repentance, which many refuse to do (MT 22:14, ACTS 28:26-27). Although it is easier to understand how God could know future human behavior by viewing people as robots than as free moral agents, it is more difficult to explain how God could force people to return His love without abrogating their humanity. If God were to zap the elect in order to force their conversions, then He would need to prevent people from behaving hatefully and thinking evilly, which would make the biblical plan of salvation from sinfulness a farce.

TOP #111: Christians are given new birth into a living hope because of Christ’s resurrection. [1PT 1:3 = 1CR 15:12-20] Being born again is TOJ #168.

Authorized (King James) Version

Acts 15:37-40

37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40 and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

Acts 13, yes about John, Mark left. Yet the acts reported continue forward in what happened
Not sure why you are separating this out about Mark

Can you expound this, please

People hear, and either do or not do, do you not do that too? This is the Acts of the Apostles, written by Luke from the End of Luke continued, yet separated by the people.
See Oh Theopolis at the end of luke
AI Overview
Learn more


Theophilus is the name of the person to whom Luke wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles in the Bible. The name appears in Luke 1:3 and Acts 1:1.

The political climate was becoming more unstable in and around Jerusalem. The Jews were becoming more belligerent towards the Romans. Pilate was disgusted and exhausted with the Jews constant whining and complaining. (Nothing new)
Rome needed gold as silver mining had made silver almost worthless. Silver was being mined in both Britain and Spain. The Temple had a lot of gold.

Peter was killed somewhere around 55AD. (Before Paul died) His two letters were written while he was alive, albeit by a stenographer. And he overworked his words, each one was carefully chosen to reflect passages in the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew....but he personally knew both translations.
His second letter was more of a collaboration than his first according to internal evidence and tradition. (But the evidence somewhat shakey)

The Temple in Jerusalem was besieged for 3½years before it was finally destroyed in 70AD.
So the siege and riots beforehand were in 64-66 AD. (My thoughts as to the timing of the writing of John's Apocalypse were during the 3½year siege)
And all the Apostles except for Luke and John were dead at this time.

Meaning that Paul had already written his many letters and Matthew and Luke were written as well. The Gospel of John was written afterwards and Mark's Gospel was the last one....written after Peter died and shortly before Mark, his cousin, died but was a faithful retelling of all the gospel stories Peter used to tell and Mark heard numerous times. Mark's Gospel likely was written after the destruction of the Temple or close to the time it was falling.

For Christians, the timing of when the New Testament books were written is not as crucial as one might think. Here's why:

1. *Authority and accuracy*: The authority and accuracy of the New Testament books come from being "the divinely inspired Word of God" (2 Timothy 3:16), not from when they were written.
2. *The message remains the same*: Regardless of when the books were written, the message of salvation through Jesus Christ remains the same.
3. *Faith is not based on historical timelines*: Christians' faith is not solely based on historical timelines or the exact dates of when the books were written. Their faith is based on the teachings, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

While scholars may debate the exact dates of the New Testament books, Christians believe that the authority and accuracy of these books come from their divine inspiration, not from when they were written.

Generally true, but for the book of Revelation. If it is written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD or after can shape one's understanding of eschatology.

I care more about whether the writings are true than when they wrote it.

Do you suspect anything in the Canon of scripture not to be true?

That's due to their applied understanding of the 7 letters to the 7 churches as if it is a foretelling of future events. And their desired timelines for predicting the future.

That's what I see a lot of....proof-texting for a desired theological position....IOW making the scriptures say what you want it to say instead of what they naturally say...because YOUR desired theology is more important than what God says.

Since the Bible is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16) and since it is impossible for God to lie (Heb. 6:18), then I believe what is recorded in the scriptures concerning events and what they recorded people saying as true, in the sense that it is true that they did or said that, even though what an individual may have said isn’t correct. Example, not everything that an individual stated is true (such as the Pharisees accusing Jesus of working miracles by the power of Satan, Mt. 12:24), but it is true that they did say that.

Sometimes the Bible quotes someone saying something that is not necessarily correct, but what the Bible says is true because it’s true that they said that.

Example, if I tell you the sky is green and you write that down, what I said is incorrect, but it is true that I said that.

This is to some degree true of us all.

I think the biggest misunderstanding of Revelation is it is taken out of its biblical place. It is a corollary to Deuteronomy. In Deuteronomy, God begins with a preamble, followed by a historical prologue, followed by terms setting forth a covenant with Israel and God, followed by a list of sanctions for failure to abide by the terms of the covenant, and followed, lastly, by a plan to move forward.
In Revelation, God begins with a preamble, gives a historical prologue, reiterates the terms of the covenant, pronounces the impending judgment upon Israel for their failure to satisfy the terms of the covenant, and introduces His plans for moving forward.

In my estimation 1Peter was written before 2Peter.

And 3Peter was unwritten after both
:^)