Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter 316145118X, 9783161451188

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament • 2. Reihe Begründet von Joachim Jeremias und Otto Michel Herausgegeben von Martin Hengel und Otfried Hofius

30

Hermeneutic and Composition in I Peter

von

William L. Schutter

J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tübingen

CIP-Titelaufitahme Schutter,

William

der Deutschen

Bibliothek

L.:

Hermeneutic and composition in I Peter / von William L. Schutter. - T ü b i n g e n : Mohr, 1989. (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament: Reihe 2; 30) Zugl.: Cambridge (Mass.), Univ., Diss., 1985 ISBN 3-16-145118-X 978-3-16-157142-8 Unveränderte eBook-Ausgabe 2019 ISSN 0340-9570 NE: Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament / 02

© 1989 b y j . C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) P . O . Box 2040, D-7400 Tübingen. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Typeset by Sam Boyd Enterprise in Singapore; printed by Guide-Druck G m b H in Tübingen; bound by Heinrich Koch KG in Tübingen. Printed in Germany.

Preface This study existed originally as a doctoral dissertation approved by the University of Cambridge in J u l y , 1985. Because of the confining wordlimit set by The University, many important issues and questions could be given n o more than passing mention, and very little in the way of comparative analysis could be performed. There has been opportunity since then only to make modest improvements in it in this regard. Hopefully, there will be occasion later to rectify such a regrettable situation. Quotations of the New Testament in Greek are f r o m Nestle -Aland (26th ed.). Those from the Old Testament in Greek are f r o m Rahlfs' edition of the Septuagint, and those in Hebrew are from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed.). Quotations from the Bible in English are from the Revised Standard Version, unless indicated otherwise. Quotations from Philo, Josephus, the Apostolic Fathers, and ancient Greek and Latin authors are from the respective editions in The Loeb Classical Library, unless otherwise indicated. All chapter and verse references to the Bible are according to the RSV, unless indicated otherwise. References have been abbreviated as much as possible, bearing the author's name, a key-word from the title, and the page. Commentaries to I Peter are cited by author and page only, and, when the context permits, other works may be cited similarly. The bibliography has been restricted to works mentioned in the course of the discussion, and it does n o t usually contain reference works. It is quite impossible here to thank adequately those \vho have helped in the course of this investigation. First of all, it has benefitted f r o m the criticisms of Profs. A.T. Hanson, E. Best, and O. Betz, and f r o m Drs. E. Bammel and W. Horbury. Then there has been the further support from my former Presidents, I.J. Hesselink and M.D. Hoff, from my former Deans, Drs. E.P. Heideman and R.A. Coughenour, and from my former colleagues, Drs. N.J. Kansfield and C.B. Kaiser, and Prof. Em. R.C. Oudersluys. Many others have also assisted in various ways: R u t h Hansen, Harriet Bobeldyk, Harlan Van Oort, J e f f Tyler, J a n e Zwiers, and Dave Stout. A special word of thanks is in order for Dr. V.A. Cruz and for Margot, his wife. Next I may thank Prof. E. Earle Ellis, who introduced me to the world of NT scholarship and has been so thoughtful and encouraging over the years. To my supervisor, Prof. Barnabas Lindars, SSF, goes my deepest thanks for his assistance in countless ways, for his sound criticism and advice, and for making our time at Cambridge so very pleasant. It gives me great pleasure as well to thank the editors of this series in

iv

Preface

Wissenschaftlich Untersuchungen zurn Neuen Testament, Profs. Martin Hengel and Otfried Hofius, for their gracious decision to publish it. None of those who have assisted in the course of this investigation are to be held responsible for any defects which may remain in it. Lastly, I may take the occasion to thank the Consistory and Congregation of the Second Reformed Church of New Brunswick, New Jersey, for their concern and generous support. To my friend in my hour of need, the late Dr. Michael B. Petrovich, goes my eternal gratitude. To my parents goes such thanks as words cannot express. To my little Yann I say thanks for helping me more than he will ever know. To my wife, Catherine, I dedicate this book as a tribute to her many sacrifices on its behalf. Noël, 1986

William L. Schutter Geneva, New York

Contents Preface

iii

Abbreviations

vi

Chapter One: Introduction

1

Chapter Two: The Setting of I Peter

4

Chapter Three: A Literary Analysis 1. Generic and Compositional Elements 2. The Non-Biblical Formal Sources of I Peter 3. The Biblical Sources of I Peter 4. I Peter and Psalm 34 5. Source-Integration in I Peter 6. Concluding Remarks

19 19 32 35 44 49 81

Chapter Four: The Hermeneutic of I Peter 1 . 1 Peter 1 . 1 3 - 2 . 1 0 and Homiletic Midrash 2. I Peter 1 . 1 0 - 2 : a Hermeneutical Key 3. The Historical Context of I Peter 1 . 1 0 - 2 4. The Case for I Peter 1 . 1 3 - 2 . 1 0 5. The Case f o r i Peter 2 . 1 1 - 4 . 1 1 6. The Case for I Peter 4 . 1 2 - 5 . 1 1 7. Concluding Remarks

85 85 100 109 123 138 153 166

Chapter Five: Conclusion

169

Appendix One

180

Appendix Two

183

Bibliography

192

Index To Biblical References

207

Abbreviations ANRW BAGD BDF CAH CHB DSSE DSS H.-R. IDBSupp JE K.-B. MM OCD PGL RAC RGG S.-B. TDNT TDOT TOTP

= Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt = Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Lexicon of the Frederick Danker, edd., A Greek-English New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (1979) = Friedrich Blass, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk, edd., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature = The Cambridge Ancient History = P.R. Ackroyd and C.F. Evans, edd., The Cambridge History Of The Bible, vol. I = G. Vermes, editor and translator, The Dead Sea Scrolls in English = G. Vermes, The Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran in Perspective = Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath,/! Concordance To The Septuagint = The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplement = The Jewish Encyclopedia = Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, edd., Lexikon In Veteris Testamenti Libros (1958) = James H. Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary Of The Greek Testament = N.G.L. Hammond and H.H. Scullard, edd., The Oxford Classical Dictionary = G.W.H. Lampe, ed., A Patristic Greek Lexicon = Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum = Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (3rd edition) = Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar Zum Neuen Testament Aus Talmud Und Midrash = Theological Dictionary of the New Testament = Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament = James H. Charlesworth, ed., The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, vols. I and II

Chapter One

Introduction Ten years have passed since J.H. Elliott lamented the fact that First Peter has been something of an exegetical 'stepchild' 1 . Not so much that it has suffered abuse at the wilful hands of any modern interpreters, but neglect, sometimes the greater violence. To press his point he attacked the third, largely unaltered edition of F.W. Beare's commentary. Elliott reviewed some of the literature from the intervening period to show that Beare had not kept his commentary up to date. Elliott argued that I Peter deserved better, and that such treatment was rather typical of the lack of sustained scholarly interest which has characterized its modern exegetical history 2 . Elliott did not miss the opportunity to make his desiderata known for the future direction of Petrine research. Judging from the small but steady stream of works that began to flow about that time, others share his concern. A very varied assortment of articles, essays, special works, and several major new commentaries have since been published 3 . Though such activity may not exactly herald a

1 See 'Step-Child', 2 4 3 - 5 4 . For surveys of the letter's research see J.W.C. Wand, 'Lessons', 3 8 7 99, R.P. Martin, 'Composition', 2 9 - 4 2 , F J . Schierse, 'Hirtenbrief', 8 6 - 8 , D. Sylva, 'Studies', 1 5 5 - 6 3 , and D. Senior, 'Peter', 5 - 1 2 . For a major recent bibliography see D. Sylva, 'Bibliography', 7 5 - 8 9 . 2 Another illustration pertains to the discussion of I Peter's relationship with the 'Mysteries'. The conversation, if that is what it may be termed, has been conducted in such an intermittent way as to remain in an unsatisfactory state to this day. It took twenty years after Perdelwitz proposed that religionsgeschichtliche context for the commentators to respond (Mysterienreligion, 1911). H. Windisch (1930) was favourably inclined, but engaged in little critical evaluation. Nearly the same length of time has to elapse again before English-speaking commentators replied (E.G. Selwyn, 1946, and a few months later in 1947, F.W. Beare). Selwyn was unfavourable by and large, and flatly rejected the notion of a genetic relationship between the Mysteries and I Peter. Beare took the opposite view, but neither had opportunity to answer the other, leaving the debate unresolved to the present. Various commentators assume the relationship at points, like Best, Kelly, and Goppelt, whereas Brox (19, n. 9) claims the theory has been discredited! It would be misleading to give the impression that progress has not been made on some questions, for example, there now seems to be a consensus that the letter is pseudonymous. However, Elliott's charges are in the main well-founded. 3 Of major interest from 1976 onwards, F. Mussner, Petrus, H. Millauer, Leiden, C. Perrot, ed., Études, D.L. Balch, Wives, J.H. Elliott, Home, and W. Munro, Authority. Two full-length critical commentaries have appeared by L. Goppelt and N. Brox, in addition to which are a number of shorter commentaries of varying quality by J.H. Elliott, G. Krodel, U. Holmer, R. Pesch,

2

Introduction

renaissance in Petrine scholarship, it does indicate that one of the treasures of the New Testament has not been entirely forgotten. These works have occasioned the welcome renewal of perenially controversial issues. The letter's date, provenance, authenticity, integrity, use of sources, ecclesiology, destination, intended recipients, and the nature of the problems they were facing, are just some of the questions which have been vigorously revived. Moreover, at least one fresh item has been added, regarding the relationship between the ethic the author espoused and the context to which it was addressed 4 . Many of these studies answer to the needs Elliott identified in his article, and it is a fact they often mention his plea. In view of the response it is the more lamentable his article scarcely referred to the use of the OT in the letter. This over-sight is to be expected least of all from Elliott, since OT usage was precisely the area of his earliest interest 5 . The subject has hardly been touched upon except in conjunction with issues narrowly restricted to a few passages, such as the nature of the priesthood described in 2.4ff., or the Descensus in 3.18ff 6 .

D. Senior, and R.H. Mounce. Among the articles to have appeared, these are the more significant: L. Goppelt, 'Verantwortung'; 4 9 0 - 5 0 8 , D. Hill, 'Suffering', 1 8 1 - 9 ; F. Schróger, 'Verfassung', 2 3 9 - 5 2 ; J.B. Bauer, 'Verfolgung', 5 1 3 - 2 7 ; N. Brox, 'Situation*, 1 - 1 3 ; J.B. Bauer, 'Maleficus', 1 0 9 - 1 5 ; F. Bovon, 'Foi', 2 5 - 4 1 ; N. Brox, 'Tendenz', 1 1 0 - 2 0 , idem, 'Tradition', 1 8 2 - 9 2 ; C J . Hemer, 'Address*, 2 3 9 - 4 3 ; D. Cook, 'Problem', 7 2 - 8 ; E. Cothenet, 'Liturgie', 9 7 - 1 1 3 ; W J . Dalton, 'Light', 5 4 7 - 5 5 ; F. Neugebauer, 'Deutung', 6 1 - 8 6 ; R. Refoulé, 'Pierre', 4 5 7 - 8 2 ; R. Pietrantonio, 'Sacerdocio', 1 9 5 - 2 0 8 ; A.P. Tarrech, 'Milieu', 9 5 - 1 2 9 ; E . Cothenet, 'Réalisme', 5 6 4 - 7 2 ; P.R. Rodgers, 'Reading', 9 3 - 5 ; K. Shimada, 'Note', 1 4 6 - 5 0 ; D.H. Tripp, 'Note*, 2 6 7 - 7 0 ; J.L. Blevins, 'Introduction', 4 0 1 - 1 3 ; J.H. Elliott, 'Salutation', 4 1 5 - 2 5 ; A.T. Hanson, 'Salvation', 1 0 0 - 5 ; D. Hill, 'Spiritual', 4 5 - 6 3 ; J . Schlosser, 'Pierre', 4 0 9 - 1 0 . 4 See the review and comparison of Elliott's Home and Batch's Wives by A. Wire, 209 — 16, with special reference to the significance of sociological dynamics for NT interpretation. 5 See his Elect, 1966. 6 Fifty years intervene between W. Bornemann's study of Ps. 34 in I Peter, 'Taufrede*, 143—65 (1919), and E. Best's, 'Reconsideration', 270—93 (1969). Best was concerned largely to answer Elliott, and gave some preliminary observations on the author's method of OT usage to do so. Since then several more articles have appeared, J . Barr, 'MOAIE', 149—64; K.R. Snodgrass, 'Affinities', 9 7 - 1 0 6 ; J . Piper, 'Hope', 2 1 2 - 3 1 ; T.P. Osborne, 'Citations', 6 4 - 7 7 ; and, idem, 'Guide', 381—408. Passing mention of I Peter's use of Scripture has also been made, for example, in L. Goppelt, Typos, 152ff.; J. Daniélou, Sacramentum, esp. 140f.; S. Amsler, Testament, 28ff.; H.M. Shires, Finding, 248f.; R. Longenecker, Exegesiss esp. 200f.;as well as more significant discussion in J. Schlosser, 'Christologie', 65—96; and A.T. Hanson, Utterances, 140—6. Otherwise, the study of I Peter's use of the OT nearly always has ulterior motives, as in the 'testimony-book' hypothesis, the presence of Exodus typology in the NT, and the like, and receives little more attention than these issues require. References in the present work to the 'Old Testament' or the 'Scriptures* is without prejudice to the historical question regarding the Canon. To be sure, the author clearly held the Law, Prophets, and at least some of the Writings, to be sacred, but there is no internal evidence to suggest he might have denied that status to other so-called apocryphal and pseudepigraphical works. For a concise assessment of the evidence about the formation of the Hebrew Bible, etc., see G.W. Anderson, 'Canonical*, in' CHB, 1, 1 1 3 - 5 9 .

Introduction

3

Thus it is fair to say that the present state of affairs respecting the question of I Peter's relationship to the Scriptures is far from a desirable one. Perhaps this lack would be felt less keenly were it not for the letter's extraordinary dependence on the OT. Few early Christian documents incorporate as much of its material in proportion with their size. Revelation has more but lacks a single explicit quotation. Hebrews and I Clement compare favourably, according to Goppelt (55), but the list is probably exhausted with them. Hence the significance of the OT for the letter's interpretation seems guaranteed. The way therefore seems open for efforts designed t o bring Petrine research into line with the progress in the subject which has been made elsewhere in New Testament studies. The present undertaking is intended to make such a contribution. However, the constraints of an inflexible word-limit preclude anything like the kind of comprehensive study the topic truly warrants. The following investigation must restrict itself to a clarification of the hermeneutical presuppositions, methods, and techniques reflected in the author's use of the OT. The approach which has been adopted is inductive in nature because of its distinct advantages. By such a m e t h o d it may be possible to avoid circular reasoning on the one hand, and to respect the criterion of falsifiability essential to scientific procedure on the other. Still there is a price to be paid for such a rigorous methodology. A great quantity of detail must be accumulated before it is proper to frame hypotheses for testing. Hence some issues may not receive all the consideration they merit, if sufficient room is to remain for the analysis t o go into the required depth. The discussion has three phases. The first tackles certain questions necessitated either b y a literary-critical approach or new scholarly initiatives. The second identifies the letter's genre, design, source-materials, the compositional m e t h o d used to integrate t h e m , and the nature and extent of dependence on the OT in comparison. The third studies those places in the letter that the literary analysis showed were most formatively influenced by the use of the OT, drawing on several hermeneutical traditions for comparative materials which illuminate the hermeneutic evidenced there. Thus the investigation is conducted with as little prejudice to the hermeneutical question as is practically feasible, coming to the task of comparison only after a rather thorough literary description has been accomplished.

Chapter Two

The Setting of I Peter Because the author's hermeneutic is in service to pastoral motives, an effort must be made to clarify the problems which induced him to write. To do so requires some attention, however brief, to matters of authorship, provenance, destination, intended recipients, envisaged situation, and date. And the hardships facing his addressees assume special significance, accordingly, as do other questions bearing on their social status and cultural heritage. Moreover, the resurgent interest just noted in certain of these means that the present study could not be situated in the context of Petrine research apart from such a sketch. With each decade the number of objections against the letter's authenticity grows 1 . External testimony has always supported the traditional view 2 . But this no more establishes the authenticity of I Peter than it does for any other disputed NT documents, so that internal evidence is crucial3. Both sides agree that an earlier date favours genuineness, or vice versa, and that the dividing line is roughly A.D. 68, since there is no good reason to suppose Peter outlived Nero 4 . Speaking for an early date is the absence of the developed Christology or church-order of the deuteroPaulines and Pastorals5. Yet this is hardly decisive whereas possible evid-

1 A representative case on behalf of authenticity may be found in D. Guthrie, Introduction, 773—90, and against, W.G. Kümmel, Introduction, 421—4, and nn. 34 and 38 for lists of scholars who support or attack it, respectively. More recent defenses of authenticity may be found in J.A.T. Robinson, Redating, esp., 150—69, and, F. Neugebauer, 'Deutung'. But those who register scepticism far outnumber them, for instance, P. Vielhauer, Literatur, N. Perrin, Introduction, H. Koester, Introduction, D. Sylva, 'Studies', J.H. Elliott, Home, W. Munro, Authority, and R.E. Brown, Antioch. The fullest recent criticism of authenticity is t o be found in the commentary and articles by Brox. That the tide has turned against authenticity is apparent from the most recent commentators who tend either to be non-commital, like Goppelt, or simply assume pseudonymity with little argument, like Krodel and Senior. 2 See esp. the presentation of the external evidence by J . Roloff in Goppelt, 70—2, and the deflation of its importance by Best, 43—5. After U Peter the next mention of the Apostle in association with I Peter is made by Irenaeus. 3 For example, James, Ephesians, and Jude enjoy comparable external testimony, but the challenges to their authenticity on internal grounds are legion. Regarding the phenomenon of pseudonymity, see the discussions by K. Aland, 'Problem', D. Guthrie, 'Pseudepigrapha', M. Rist, 'Pseudepigraphy', D.S. Russell, Method, 127- 39, and N. Brox, Falsche, passim. 4 Against W.M. Ramsay, who proposed that Peter lived into the reign of Vespasian (see the discussion and lit. in Walls-Stibbs, 19f.). 5 See the useful collection of these and other observations by F.L. Cross, Peter, and J . Moffatt,

The Setting of I Peter

5

ence incompatible with an early date can be adduced, such as dependence on Romans, or especially Ephesians 6 . Then again the envisaged persecution seems too widespread to be reconciled with what may be known from other sources about church life before A.D. 6 8 7 . Also, the use of 'Babylon' as a cryptogram for Rome seems not to have entered apocalyptic discourse until after the sack of Jerusalem 8 . But there is more evidence 9 : 1) a Greek rivalling Paul's is unexpected in someone whose native tongue was Aramaic 2) skill in the rhetoric of the schools is equally improbable in someone who was perhaps only marginally literate

6

7

8

9

Introduction, in Robinson, Redating, 162—3, which include the absence of problems involving heresy, the emphasis on charismatic gifts, a lack of differentiation in eschatological expectations along with the anticipation of an imminent End, and an ethics consonant with that expectation. Kelly, 30, adds the presence of a Servant Christology, and the absence of signs of any secondgeneration Christians. Because of the pluriform nature of early Christianity, it would be precarious to draw any sweeping conclusions from such data, much of which is questionable in its own right. It is arguable, for example, whether any reference of a quasi-Trinitarian type (1.2), however primitive it may be relatively speaking, does not already presuppose considerable development, or, whether the early Church did not experience perennial outbreaks of apocalyptic enthusiasm with attendant renewal of ethical zeal and charismatic activity, etc. Literary dependence has been argued strenuously by Beare, 44, and C.L. Mitton, 'Relationship', a position restated recently in detail by Best, 32—6, distinguishing between literary affinities arising from common liturgical sources and various forms of literary influence and relationships. Some, like Elliottt, 'Step-Child', 247, conceive of that relationship in indirect terms, supposing I Peter to reflect the impact of such letters upon its author's community well in advance of his writing. Either way, a sizable lapse of time is a prerequisite. It would seem highly problematic to suppose Christianity might have been despised so widely on the scale envisaged in I Pet. 5.9 before Peter's death. The evidence from Acts suggests otherwise, though the prevailing peace it portrays may be tendentious to some extent (cp. I Thess. 2.14f., II Thess. 1.4, II Cor. 8.1—2). Acts 28.22 merely intimates a change was in the offing, but gives not the slightest hint it should be attributed to anything other than a gradual deterioration in the relationship of Christians with society. Once again, the passing of more than a few years is likely before I Pet. 5.9 might possibly have represented accurately the circumstances of the Church at large. See C.-H. Hunziger, 'Deckname' for his discussion of the evidence from Rev. 14.8, etc., IV Erza 3.1, etc., II Bar. 11.1, 67.7, and Sib. Or. V, 143 and 159. See also S.-B., Ill, 816. Goppelt prefers an origin in Christianity independent from that in Judaism (352). He claims that Nero's persecution precipitated the use of Babylon as a cipher for Rome in Christian circles. The difficulty with his view is that Nero's act was too isolated, arbitrary, and idiosyncratic to warrant an interpretation more likely to have arisen in response to an emerging trend or policy. Such a trend did manifest itself in Rome's handling of the First Jewish Revolt. Once thus established in Jewish apocalyptic thinking the conventional designation would have been available to JewishChristians to adopt when the Empire began to show along a broad front its true social and political colours in respect to Christianity as well. It is possible, however, that apocalyptic thinking had already identified Rome with the 'Babylon' of the Scriptures, witness the equation of the 'Kittim' with the 'Chaldeans' at Qumran, so that Christians might have been thinking along similar lines before the Revolt. Arguments that have been met more successfully than these have not been cited. Those listed have been culled from numerous sources. See esp. Beare, 43—50, Best, 49—63, and Brox, 43—7. Attempts to mitigate many of them may be found, for example, in Walls-Stibbs, 18—48, Guthrie, Introduction, 773—90, Robinson, Redating, 150—69, and Neugebauer, 'Deutung', 66ff. Since these nearly always involve further conjecture, they are not very persuasive.

6

The Setting

of I Peter

3) a mind permeated in the Greek Bible, and masterful in its use, is unlikely for someone raised on the Hebrew and the targumim 4) to use an honorific surname in self-reference is suspect 5) the author's terminology is often reminiscent of Paul's 6) it would be tactless to write so many communities with Pauline contacts without a word about his co-worker (5.12) 7) the letter possesses not a single certain autobiographical allusion (5.1?).

A larger role by an amanuensis is often postulated to meet most of these objections, or at least a reliance upon a scribe with whom Peter could have worked closely, enabled by his bilingual experience in Galilee and his later ministry 1 0 . But sceptics are quick to point out that a secretaryhypothesis still tends to complicate the problem, because one can no longer say what is from Peter 1 1 . The claim that whatever was written would thus have borne his imprimatur offers no more than a little help here 1 2 . The severity of such criticism is mitigated to some extent, however, by the realization that a very great deal of the contents of the letter comes from the mainstream of early Christian tradition anyway (see the next chapter), making it highly problematic to know how to use the material to evaluate the question of authorship one way or the other. By way of a challenge to pseudonymity, it is often noted that I Peter lacks the kind of polemical or apologetic motive typically found in pseudepigraphic literature 13 . N o w few would question that the phenomenon of eairly Christian pseudepigraphy is closely tied to the need to combat heresy in the sub-apostolic period, but that is scarcely sufficient reason to rule out other possible motives. The case of I Enoch may be cited. Like Enoch, 'Peter' might have been chosen as a deliberate attempt to exploit a venerable figure of righteousness who would be known wherever the Gospel stories were told. More to the point, as far as the addressees were concerned, Peter had stumbled once, but in the end stood firm (I Clem.

10 So, for example, Kelly, 31, who is nevertheless compelled to concede that the secretary would have had to have composed it, not merely had it dictated to him. See also G.H. Bahr, 'Paul', 465ff. 11 So, esp., Best, 57, who concludes that 'all the subtler nuances of thought belong to him and not to Peter'. The hypothesis that Sylvanus was the secretary has proved to be more of a red herring than anything else in this regard. It was roundly rejected by Beare, 212—6, who observed 'there is not the slightest resemblance in style between the Thessalonian epistles and 1 Peter' (213). Robinson, Redating, 168f., has made a convincing case that I Pet. 5.12, Svd ZiXovavov . . . eypatpa . . ., can only mean Silvanus was the letter's bearer, comparing Acts 15.23, ypa\pavTe bfiiv hKniSo'r, finding it difficult to imagine it might relate to 'a magistrate's interest and procedure'. However, provincial governors in Acts clearly demonstrate such an interest, and so did Pliny, it being perfectly understandable in terms of procedure cognitio that they would find such information valuable for their approach to accusations before them. Anyway, in I Peter 'hope' is virtually a synonym for what it means to be a Christian (so Goppelt, 237).

16

The Setting of I Peter

However, the author did include 2.13—7 and 4.15 as well, the first prominently at the head of his household code, and the second at the heart of his summation. The first specifically refers to the imperium vested in governors that qualified them alone to try cases of a potentially capital nature, though it has been formulated in a sterotyped w a y 7 2 . The immediate context shows the author's main concern is to encourage welldoing combined with avoidance of those activities (777? Kaiiiaq, 2.16) governors were sent specifically to punish. And, once again, those who fail to make their charges stand up in court are certainly 'foolish' (aypovwv, 2.15), as just observed 7 3 . On this view 4.14—6 is merely amplifying for the sake of complete clarity one of the author's highest priorities, and it seems highly unlikely he should have felt constrained to do so unless some Christians had been tried and sentenced for 'murder, theft,' and various transgressions against the public welfare 7 4 . As many of them already

72 But Schneider (64) notes that the reference is 'konkreter und präziser als Paulus in Rom. 13.' All provincial governors are intended, including proconsuls who were technically appointed by the Senate (see Beare, 142, Best, 114, and Goppelt, 185, n. 31). For the imperium see Sherwin-White, Law, 4, the OCD, s.v., and, 589, 'Law and Procedure, Roman', III. 8. For the stereotype see esp. W.C. van Unnik, 'Parallel', 1 9 8 - 2 0 2 , and idem, 'Lob', 3 3 4 - 4 3 . The most concrete referent of the formula is nevertheless that of criminal procedure where the governor either passed sentence on the accused, or 'praised' him ('eimtvov) in the sense of the laudatio he pronounced to clear the name of the accused (see Mommsen, Strafrecht, esp. 440ff.). This is the way Knopf (107) and Schelkle (74) construe 2.14, and Best (114) accepts it as a possibility. Other concrete referents would include the honours governors bestowed on philanthropic gestures, a practice especially well-documented for Asia Minor (Spicq, 103, and Goppelt, 185). Yet Kelly (109) realizes that the economic status of most of the addressees could not support such action. For the relationship with Rom. 13.Iff. see A. Strobel, 'Verständnis', 81f., G. Delling, 'Römer, esp. 49—56, and H. Goldstein, 'Paränesen', 88ff. 73 Cp. the Vulgate to Prv. 26.10 iudicium determinat causas et qui imponit stulto silentium iras mitigat. 74 There has been much dispute as to the nature and composition of the list of offences in 4.15f. No one contests that the first two denote criminals. The third, natcoiroioc, may denote 'sorcerer' (see MM, 317, and Goppelt's discussion of additional evidence on p. 308, n. 36), or as in 2.12, the performer of socially unacceptable conduct generally, including specific criminal acts (so, Best, 164). But if the author's usage of this rare term is to be given priority, then when it occurs in a forensic context as it does in 2.14, denoting the kind of major crime for which provincial governors had the imperium to punish, it probably denotes a perpetrator of criminal acts, and not simply a sorcerer (but see J.B. Bauer, 'Maleficus', 109ff.). Since KaKorrotoc (4.15) is third in a succession of criminally culpable offenders, it is more likely to bear a similar denotation, than a limited one. Fourth on the list is ä\XorpieirLoK0-n0 80 . If the first member of the antithesis is thus more likely to derive from a saying than the psalm, then it is difficult to see how the antithesis as a whole might have been influenced decisively by the psalm. The most that can be said confidently is that the antithesis has been correlated with the psalm as things presently stand in I Peter, and certain aspects of the antithesis, particularly its second member, have been elaborated in terms of the psalm. In sum, none of Bornemann's purported allusions to Ps. 34 are sufficiently convincing so as to qualify more easily as evidence of dependence than of biblically-patterned discourse, with the exception of several iterative allusions that could hardly have been traced to the psalm unless its relevant portion had been quoted in extenso (3.7, 13, 17bis, 4.19). The investigation added several more to these, 3.9, 13bis, and 4.1, and gave reasons for curtailing considerably the psalm's possible influence on other instances of the antithesis' use in I Peter. It therefore cannot be satisfactorily demonstrated that Ps. 34 was anywhere nearly as formative in the writing of I Peter as Bornemann supposed, and to the degree it may have been, this would seem to be almost entirely restricted to the verses immediately adjacent the major citation. Consequently, exception may be taken with the opinion ventured by K.R. Snodgrass: Ps. xxxiv does play a formative role in the compositon of I Peter and especially of ii. 1 —10. I would go so far as to say that the author of I Peter attempted to convey the consolation and exhortation of the righteous sufferer in Ps. xxxiv to his readers and that he used explicit quotations, allusions, and themes from Ps. xxxiv to do so ('Affinities', 102).

When the same stringent criteria are imposed on purported references to Ps. 34 in I Peter as were imposed on other alleged OT allusions in the letter, exactly one explicit quotation, one explicit allusion, one very weak implicit allusion, and a handful of iterative allusions could be confidently identified. The most formative effect was upon 3.7—17. In 2.3f. the two allusions are utterly dominated by the block of OT materials in 2.4—10. They serve more of an incidental function than anything else, helping with the transition from 2.1—3 to 2.4—10.

stereotyped language of conventional descriptions of the two-fold magisterial role. Cp. Rom. 13.3f. 80 See above n. 54. This is easily one of the clearest cases of a dominical logion influencing I Peter.

Source-Integration in I Peter

49

In fairness to Snodgrass it may be agreed the author had f o u n d in Ps. 34 a classic expression of an OT theme well-suited to his purpose, but that is n o t the same thing as to demonstrate that the form his message took depended heavily u p o n materials taken f r o m it. To guide and reinforce a train of thought must n o t be confused with literary dependence in the strict sense. Hence Ps. 34 appears t o have been an important OT source for the author of I Peter, but there is reason to warn against exaggerating that importance.

5. Source-Integration in I Peter The preceding discussion of generic elements, compositional features, formal traditions, and OT references has opened a path along which the investigation may proceed to explore the disposition of source-materials throughout the letter, and above all the way the use of OT sources compares with the use of others. Yet the going will not be easy because of the letter's intricately woven texture, a nearly continuous synthesis of source-materials of one sort of another. In fact Spicq goes so far as to call I Peter 'une "Epitre de la T r a d i t i o n " ' (15). As a result, the best that can be hoped for under the circumstances is to distinguish particular patterns associated with the use of particular kinds of sources in an e f f o r t to assess how relatively formative the OT seems to have been in the letter's compsition. To this end it is understood that repeated consultation of earlier results may well be desirable, because these are everywhere presupposed 8 1 . It but remains to pull them together in order to clarify the author's compositional method as a whole. Attention is to be focused as squarely as possible on purely literary-critical details to avoid any prejudice to the hermeneutical issues which may be involved. Thus the O T has to compete successfully with other sources to merit any special consideration here. The analysis may therefore begin with the letter's parts as previously ascertained. The opening and closing need n o further examination, having been treated adequately already. The discussion may pass on instead to consider the letter's five remaining major sections: blessing period (1.3— 12), body-opening ( 1 . 1 3 - 2 . 1 0 ) , body-middle ( 2 . 1 1 - 4 . 1 1 ) , body-closing (4.12—9), and parting paraenesis (5.1 — 11), in that order. Regarding the blessing period, the leading issue concerns its literary integrity 8 2 . At least two of the transitions between its strophes are problem enough. The uncertain antecedent of ev qj in 1.6 makes for some

81 It would be cumbersome in the extreme to note each instance in passing, so the number of such references is to be kept at a minimum, in the assumption that earlier findings of a pertinent nature are to be recalled, and perhaps consulted, as needed. 82 See above n. 25 for its design, but see also D. Hill, 'Spiritual', 4 5 - 6 3 , esp. 5 6 - 5 3 , for the period as comprising 1.3—9.

50

A Literary

Analysis

awkwardness that is only intensified by the accompanying ei . . . i'va . . . which interrupts the predominantly paratactic order of the p e r i o d 8 3 . Then again, there is the sudden change at 1.1 Of. in the form of a digression away f r o m the recital that characterized 1.3—9. What keeps these and the rest of the transitions from getting o u t of hand, however, is the use of compositional techniques. A string of relative pronouns lends a degree of uniformity to the way each successive strophe is introduced, creating a refrain-like effect. A link-word appears at 1.9/10 in support of one of these pronouns (acoriiptat'/acoTTjptac). Several of the later strophes pick u p key-words from the first, such as 'Christ' (1.3bis, 7, 1 Ibis), 'heaven' (1.4, 12), and 'faith' (1.5, 7, 8, 9). Moreover, a tissue of allusions to the revelation of salvation stretches across every strophe as a leitmotif (1.4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12). Lastly, another refrain appears with the praise-language which begins openly (1.3, 6f.), then swells to an avowal of the poverty of all such language (1.8), and climaxes by extolling the paradox and mystery of salvation (1.10—2). The effect of this device is to unify the period by propelling it forward to its conclusion. But the transitions between the blessing period's strophes are merely part of the problem involving its literary integrity. That the author struggles without complete success t o connect them suggests he was working under the kind of constraint source-materials are notorious for posing. So there is little cause for surprise to find that sources have been detected behind every strophe, though n o t always formal in nature. Hence all, or a significant portion, of 1.3—5 may have been a pre-existing liturgical fragment adapted by the a u t h o r 8 4 . It clearly does share an opening formula with Eph. 1.3, anyway. The next strophe draws u p o n the formal topos, 'joy in suffering', which the author has amplified by attaching

83 Concerning the pronoun's antecedent, see C.F.D. Moule, Idiom, 131 f. He suggests the possibilities of a vague resumptive, 'and so . . .', or a genuine relative, 'in which circumstances . . • 84 So, M.-E. Boismard, 'Liturgie', 1 8 3 - 9 1 , and Quatre, 1 5 - 5 6 , citing the affinities with Tit. 3 . 4 7 and proposing a common Vorlage. Spicq rejects the theory, observing too much internal consistency within 1.3 — 12 to imagine it might be a 'pastiche', 43. E. Cothenet, 'Liturgie', 97ff., agrees, and Deichgraber, Gotteshymnus, 77, presumably thinks so little of the idea he does not mention it. But, as V.P. Furnish, 'Elect', 6, understands, I Pet. 1.3—5 displays the kind of balance, rhythm, and polish entirely compatible with the idea of independent circulation. It satisfies Stauffer's criteria because of the contextual and syntactical dislocation after 1.5, a monumental stylistic construction (see the privatives), a preference for apposition and participles, and an absence of particles. On this view the awkward shift from fiud