Those who believe that Shakespeare was the author have no definitive proof but instead point to Hamlet’s declaration: "The play’s the thing(Satchell 71)." The true author, however, lies hidden behind he name of Shakespeare.
Peter says nothing in the salutation about the recipients of this letter. But according to 3:2, Peter was writing another epistle to the same people to whom he wrote 1 Peter. In his first letter, he spelled out that he was writing “to the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1). These provinces were located in an area of Asia Minor, which is modern Turkey. The Christians to whom Peter wrote were mostly Gentiles (see note on 1:1).
1 Peter: Authorship, Audience, and Purpose | Christian Unity
The description of the false teachers is somewhat generic. Peter does not identify some specific false religion, cult, or system of teaching. In a general characterization of false teachers, he informs that they teach destructive heresies. They deny Christ and twist the Scriptures. They bring true faith into disrepute. And they mock the second coming of Christ. But Peter was just as concerned to show the immoral character of these teachers as he was to expose their teaching. Thus, he describes them in more detail than he describes their doctrines. Wickedness is not the product of sound doctrine, but of “destructive heresies” (2:1).
First Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia
Since the time of the writing and sending his first letter, Peter had become increasingly concerned about false teachers who were infiltrating the churches in Asia Minor. Though these false teachers had already caused trouble, Peter expected that their heretical doctrines and immoral life-styles would result in more damage in the future. Thus Peter, in an almost last will and testament (1:13–15), wrote to warn the beloved believers in Christ about the doctrinal dangers they were facing.
Introduction to 2 Peter and Jude - JesusWalk
John H. Elliott writes: "The vast scope of the letter's address (four provinces comprising 129,000 sq. mi. and two provinces not reached by Paul [Bithynia-Pontus and Cappadocia]) requires the allowance of sufficient time for the spread of Christianity in this area subsequent to the mission of Paul. Moreover, the sequence of provinces given in 1:1 may reflect not only the intended route of the letter but also the alteration of these provincial boundaries undertaken by Vespasian in 72 c.e. (Elliott 1981: 60). Distance from the Pauline period and the early 60s is also indicated by the growth and coalescence of diverse traditions reflected in 1 Peter and the shift from an internal Jewish debate over the Mosaic law to a struggle of believers now labeled as 'Christians' with an alien and hostile society. An accompanying shift in political perspective from the positive view of Roman government expressed in Rom 13 to the neutral stance of 1 Peter (2:13-17) would be a consequence of Nero's pogrom against the Christians of Rome, including Peter (65-67 C.E.), as viewed from the distance of a decade or more. Though no longer under imperial attack, Christians had learned a sobering lesson about esteeming Roman officials as 'ministers of God' (Rom 13:6). . . . On the other hand, a date of composition no later than the early 90s is also likely. By the time of Revelation ( 95) the situation of Christianity in Asia, one of the provinces also addressed in 1 Peter, had worsened. In contrast to the conditions and political perspective reflected in 1 Peter, many believers had suffered martyrs' deaths (Rev 2:13; 6:9-10; 16:6; 18:24; 19:2) and the attitude toward Rome had changed to a thoroughly negative one (chaps. 12-18). Likewise, in Pontus, another province addressed in 1 Peter, Christian defections had begun by the mid 90s (Pliny, 10.96) and in Rome Domitian's 'reign of terror' (93-96) was underway. 1 Peter reflects none of these later developments; its situation rather presupposes an earlier Flavian period marked by a relative tranquility which encompassed imperial-Christian relations as well (Magie 1950: 566-92)." (, art. "First Epistle of Peter")
Web 2.0 Authorship: Issues of Referencing and Citation …
Kümmel comments on provenance and dating: "If by 'Babylon' (5:13) is meant Rome (see p. 422), then I Pet could well have been written in Rome, where presumably Peter died, and where early on appeal was made to his authority (I Clem 5:3 f). The fact that I Pet was known in the East as early as the time of Polycarp (Phil 1:3; 8:1; 10:2) and Papias, whereas in the West it is missing from the Muratorian Canon (though cited by Irenaeus and Tertullian), shows only that it was from the churches in the East that I Pet became known but proves nothing concerning its place of writing. The reign of Domitian should probably be taken as the time of writing, since the mention of the persecution 'as Christians' (4:16) is not sufficient ground for going down as late as the beginning of the second century or even to the time of the persecution under Trajan. 90-95 is therefore the most probable time of writing." (, p. 424)