Admin
Main Admin Member is offline The Ten Commandments are Not Multiple Choice.
Posts: 822
|
Posted: Feb 10th, 2009 at 03:05 pm
|
|
|
First Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline
By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)
I. Introduction
A. The Author
The opening verse indicates that “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” is the author. Today, however, this is disputed by several scholars. Hence a discussion of the internal and external evidence is in order. We will begin with external evidence, as this is much easier to deal with for this epistle.
1. External Evidence
“So strong is the evidence for the use of this epistle in the early church that some scholars have regarded it as proved and maintained that it was considered to be canonical as early as this word had a meaning.”1 There are parallels in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians, Ignatius, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. These may indicate borrowing, but not necessarily. Polycarp definitely quotes from it, though he does not identify the quoted material as coming from Peter. Irenaeus, however, does quote from it, and regards it as a genuine work of Peter. From the last third of the second century on, this letter is frequently regarded as Petrine, and is cited by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, etc. The Muratorian Canon’s omission of either First or Second Peter can only be an argument from silence, especially in light of the great probability of there being a lacuna at this point in the fragment. Guthrie summarizes:
Although it may not have been used as freely in the West as in the East, there is no evidence that it was ever disputed.
…the primitive church, as far back as any evidence exists, regarded it as a genuine epistle of Peter, and thus any discussion of objections to Petrine authorship must sufficiently take account of this fact.2
2. Internal Evidence
In spite of the strong patristic evidence in favor of Petrine authorship, several scholars have noted internal difficulties which seem to override the early church’s testimony. In general, three types of objections have been put forth: linguistic, historical, and doctrinal.
a. Objections to Apostolic Authorship
1) Linguistic Objections. Put simply, the Greek of 1 Peter seems too good for Peter. It ranks, in terms of vocabulary and syntactical subtleties, just below Hebrews and Acts. Further, the author uses the LXX, rather than translating the Hebrew. More importantly, however, the author of this letter outshines Paul in his skill in Greek, yet Paul had decidedly better training in the ways of Hellas than Peter. It is the linguistic argument which has proved decisive for many scholars, and in my mind is the most significant objection against Petrine authorship.
2) Historical Objections. There are two main objections here:3 the historical situation presupposed in the letter, and the lack of any known connection between Peter and the churches of Asia to which it was sent.
First, the historical situation presupposed is that of open persecution (cf. 1:6-7; 4:12, 14-16). The implication that some scholars make of this is that Christianity has been outlawed by the state throughout the Roman Empire. This was not true during Nero’s day, who only persecuted the Christians in Rome (as far as history records), though it was true during Domitian’s and Trajan’s reigns.
Second, Peter has no known relationship with the churches of Asia Minor. Indeed, as these seem to be Gentile churches, one wonders what the “apostle to the circumcision” would be doing in writing to those under Paul’s care.
3) Doctrinal Objections. The primary doctrinal (or literary) objection is that this letter seems to be heavily dependent on Paul’s letters for its contents, and even its style. In particular, parallels with Romans and Ephesians are quite noticeable. One of the kingpins in this argument is the assumption of a late date for Ephesians. If Ephesians is not by Paul, but was written sometime after his death, then of course Peter could not have written 1 Peter, since the author apparently depends so much on Ephesians. But even if Ephesians is authentic, the reasons for an apostle the stature of Peter to borrow so heavily from Paul seem difficult to grasp. Further, the author seems to lack originality, and indeed, has nothing unPauline in his letter.
b. An Examination of the Objections to Apostolic Authorship.
1) Linguistic Objections. First, what must be examined is the use of the LXX in an epistle purportedly by Peter. Would this apostle use the LXX? Part of this issue revolves around the audience. If primarily Gentiles, then in fact we would expect the author to use the LXX, “for, naturally, if a man is writing to Greek-speaking readers he follows ‘their’ Bible.”4
The real problem is not the OT quotations, but the author’s own language, for the Greek is quite good.
[continued]
|
|
 Logged |
|
|
|
Admin
Main Admin Member is offlineThe Ten Commandments are Not Multiple Choice.
Posts: 822
|
|
Posted: Feb 10th, 2009 at 03:07 pm
|
|
|
The real problem is not the OT quotations, but the author’s own language, for the Greek is quite good. Many conservative scholars (e.g., Guthrie, Grudem) suggest that Peter may have had a decent knowledge of Greek, in spite of his Galilean and occupational background, and that the sophisticated Greek of this epistle therefore poses no problem for Petrine authorship. Indeed, we have also argued at length that a Galilean peasant (James, the brother of the Lord) may well have had decent Greek skills.5 But there is a significant problem with Peter: the Greek of 1 Peter and 2 Peter is so different that it seems quite improbable that the same man, within a short span of time, could have written both. Even if Petrine authorship for 2 Peter were denied, on the basis of what we know of Peter the Greek of 1 Peter seems too good for him. On the premise of Petrine authorship of both epistles, the expedient that Peter used two different amanuenses, of course, is available; however, not only is no amanuensis mentioned for 2 Peter (while Silvanus is mentioned in 1 Peter 5:12)6, but the Greek of 2 Peter is of a distinctly poorer quality than that of 1 Peter. If an amanuensis was used for 2 Peter, it is probably a good thing that his name is not mentioned! In other words, it is extremely tenuous to affirm direct7 Petrine authorship for both First and Second Peter. One simply cannot have his cake and eat it, too.8
Another solution presents itself: Peter used an amanuensis for 1 Peter and wrote 2 Peter himself. This seems quite likely in light of the fact that (1) the Greek is quite different between 1 Peter and 2 Peter;9 and (2) 1 Peter does seem to name an amanuensis (Silvanus), while 2 Peter does not.10
But there is a problem with this view as well. Many scholars do not believe that “I have written to you through Silvanus” in 5:12 indicates that Silvanus was an amanuensis. J. Ramsey Michaels11 has an excellent discussion on the evidence against the amanuensis hypothesis. He points out that there are no true parallels in which gravfw diav tinov" indicates an amanuensis. Indeed, it would seem quite improbable in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans: written “through the blessed Ephesians” (10.1). Within the NT, Acts 15:23 yields the only linguistic comparison: gravfante" diaV ceiroV" aujtw'n, “having written [i.e., sent, v. 22] through their hand.” BAGD mention only one reference of this expression in early Christian literature which could bear the force of amanuensis. In Eusebius, H.E. 4.23.11, Eusebius mentions the letter from Dionysius of Corinth written to the church at Rome in which Dionysius refers back to 1 Clement as a letter “written through Clement.” BAGD merely cite this reference as though it were proof; they extrapolate from it the meaning “of pers[ons] who had a greater or smaller part in drawing up the document in question.”12 Michaels correctly points out that since 1 Clement was authored by Clement, the idiom still does not imply an amanuensis. Robinson adds a second parallel on the side of the “Silvanus hypothesis,” though pointing out its fallacy:
Similarly in the Martyrdom of Polycarp 20 the church in Smyrna writes to the church in Philomelium and elsewhere “through our brother Marcianus,” and he is distinguished from Euarestus who “wrote the letter” and, like Tertius in this capacity, sends his own greeting. Marcianus again is evidently the spokesman of the church and thus corresponds to Peter rather than Silvanus: he is no one’s secretary. So Kümmel seems to be right in saying that “no one has yet proved that gravfw diav tino" can mean to authorize someone else to compose a piece of writing.”13
Michaels summarizes the meaning of the idiom: “although the characteristic verb is gravfw, ‘to write,’ … the expression refers not to the composition of the letter but to its delivery.”14
In our judgment, although those espousing the Silvanus hypothesis generally ignore the hard data against their view, there is something to be said for an amanuensis hypothesis (whether Silvanus is the scribe or not). First, the reference in Eusebius does prove that gravfw diav tino" can refer to the writer of a document. In this case, he is more—he is the author, too. This at least proves wrong Michaels’ statement that “it is doubtful that the simple diav, ‘through,’ can bear so much weight”15 for in one instance at least it bears even more! Second, one curious omission from the discussion is whether the bearer of a letter could also be the amanuensis at times. Many of the instances used to adduce that the phrase indicates bearer do not negate the latter while proving the former. What is to say that this could not be the case in 1 Peter 5:12?
[continued]
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Admin
Main Admin Member is offlineThe Ten Commandments are Not Multiple Choice.
Posts: 822
|
|
Posted: Feb 10th, 2009 at 03:10 pm
|
|
|
Third, assuming that 2 Peter is authentic, extreme doubt remains that both letters were penned by the same author without the use of an amanuensis for at least one of them. And since the Greek of 1 Peter is better by far than the Greek of 2 Peter, it is far more reasonable to assume that an amanuensis helped in the writing of 1 Peter rather than 2 Peter. Fourth, if these points are valid, then there is the possibility either that Peter used a different, unnamed amanuensis for the writing of 1 Peter or Silvanus did double duty. Interestingly, Michaels argues strongly for the former position:
… if, as appears likely, 1 Peter was a semi-official communication from the Christian community at Rome (similar in this respect to 1 Clement), addressed as a diaspora letter to a wide circle of congregations on the far frontiers of the Roman Empire, then it need not be assumed that Peter composed it personally. The elegant Greek style could well be the work of a professional to whom Peter made known his ideas and whose finished work Peter approved (the testimony of Papias, after all, is that Peter, for a different purpose, made use of Mark as his “interpreter”: Eusebius, HE 3.39.15). The theory of a professional scribe, or amanuensis, has customarily been linked with the reference to Silvanus in 5:12, but the phrase “through Silvanus” more likely identifies the bearer of the letter. . . . The assumption that Peter had professional help in the composition of this letter by no means requires that the name of his amanuensis be known.16
In our judgment, an amanuensis of some sort is virtually demanded by the evidence (especially assuming Petrine authorship for the second letter). But one problem remains for Michaels’ view: if Silvanus, a well-known companion of Paul’s, was not the amanuensis, why are there so many Pauline-like phrases and ideas in this epistle? Did Peter employ another of Paul’s associates for the writing, and Silvanus for the sending of the letter? This is an intriguing possibility. One could conjecture that Luke was the unnamed amanuensis because (1) he was in Rome in 63-64 CE (when we date 1 Peter);17 and (2) the Greek of 1 Peter stands as close to the quality found in Luke-Acts or Hebrews as virtually any other book in the New Testament. As intriguing as this possibility is, with the limited data we can only regard it as a conjecture. Nevertheless, what does seem certain is that some amanuensis, either Luke or Silvanus, or some other associate of Paul, was the scribe of 1 Peter—and that he exercised a certain measure of freedom in the wording and composition of this letter. Under “doctrinal objections” we will explore why such an associate of Paul’s would have been employed in this task.
2) Historical Objections. First, the historical situation presupposed in the letter (viz., open and official persecution of Christians in the provinces) has several difficulties with it. (1) The extra-canonical data for a Domitianic persecution of Christians in the provinces is quite weak; (2) the very kinds of official persecution occurring in Trajan’s day do not seem to find parallels in this letter—e.g., in Trajan’s reign “a state of affairs is reflected which is a continuation of a past policy, whereas in the latter [1 Peter] a fiery trial seems to be regarded as a new experience (1 Pet. 4:12)”18; (3) there is nothing in 1 Peter which at all demands official government persecution. Indeed, “there is little distinctive about the ‘persecutions’ in 1 Peter which would not apply to the opposition that Christians had to endure from the inception of the church”19; (4) the fact that Peter was in Rome when Nero was blaming the Christians for its burning lends strong support to the view that Peter wrote this letter, in part, as a warning that great persecution may be headed their way. Although there is no historical evidence that Nero’s persecutions ever got beyond Rome, the fact is that Peter would hardly be in a position to know that this would be the case. Further, even if Peter could know that no official persecution would take place in the provinces, would it be safe to assume that no persecution of any sort would take place?20
[continued]
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Admin
Main Admin Member is offlineThe Ten Commandments are Not Multiple Choice.
Posts: 822
|
|
Posted: Feb 10th, 2009 at 03:11 pm
|
|
|
Secondly, the historical problem of Peter’s lack of association with the churches in Asia Minor really argues in favor of Petrine authorship. Guthrie comes close to the truth when he writes, “if Paul were now dead (as is most generally supposed) there would be no question of a clash of territories. It would not be unnatural, in fact, for the surviving senior apostle to send a message of encouragement to Gentile churches if the apostle to the Gentiles was no longer alive.”21 There is still a double problem for this view however: (1) Peter was sent to the Jews (Gal 2:7-8); and (2) although the audience is certainly largely Gentile in make-up, the salutation seems to indicate that they were outside of Paul’s direct contact. This double problem, in our view, is one of the keys to the purpose of this entire epistle. That Peter was commissioned as an apostle to the Jews was true in 49 CE. But such a divine commission (as Gal 2:7-8 strongly implies) is not necessarily set in concrete. In other words, there is such a thing as the temporary will of God for one’s life (otherwise, what was Peter doing in Rome?). As we will argue later, it was the death of Paul which prompted Peter to write in the first place. Suffice it to say here that there would be every reason for Peter to write to Paul’s churches after Paul died. The second problem, viz., that the addressees were not strictly Paul’s converts (a point we will address later) also is significant. Again, as Guthrie points out, “no doubt these areas had been evangelized by converts of Paul, but had probably not known him personally.”22 It would be most natural for Peter to write first to Gentile Christians on the fringes of Paul’s ministry because they would be most in danger of defecting when persecution came. Further, if they had indeed come to faith via Paul’s converts, Silvanus, the bearer of the letter, could well have been one of those who evangelized them initially. And even if not, he was an important link between Paul and now Peter, and it is certain that some of the addressees would know him by face.23
In sum, not only are the historical objections without real foundation, but in fact the twin occasion of this epistle, the coming persecutions and the passing of Paul, argue very strongly for authenticity.
3) Doctrinal Objections. F. W. Beare makes much of the doctrinal objection, and its full force should be felt:
… it seems incredible that Peter should show such clear dependence upon the Epistles of St. Paul, with whom he never had any close relations.… It is true that he does not expound the distinctive Pauline doctrines of freedom from the law, justification by faith and the mystical union of the Christian with Christ; but this is in part at least a matter of emphasis, and due in large degree to the character of the writing and of the people addressed. Much of what is generally regarded as most distinctive in the theology of St. Paul is worked out in opposition to a peculiarly Jewish religious legalism, which was of no concern to the Gentiles for whom First Peter is written. Even so, the book is strongly marked by the impress of Pauline theological ideas, and in language the dependence upon St. Paul is undeniably great. All through the Epistle, we have the impression that we are reading the work of a man who is steeped in the Pauline letters, who is so imbued with them that he uses St. Paul’s words and phrases without conscious search, as his own thoroughly-assimilated vocabulary of religion. Entire passages are little more than an expansion or restatement of Pauline texts, and whole verses are a kind of mosaic of Pauline words and forms of expression. As a theologian, the writer has a mind of his own and is no mere echo of Paul, but it is abundantly evident that he has formed himself on Paul’s writings.24
Guthrie is representative of conservative scholars in that he only partially hits the target when he responds to this evidence:
… no serious student of Paul and Peter would deny that there is much common ground between them, which cannot wholly be explained by their common Christian background. Some Pauline influence on Peter’s mind is generally supposed to be required by the content of the epistle, but this would be damaging to Petrine authorship only if two presuppositions can be established. First, it must be shown that the New Testament presentation of Peter makes it psychologically inconceivable that he was susceptible to outside influence, particularly from so powerful a personality as Paul. But the data do not depict Peter as a man of fertile ideas, but as a man of action. . . . Secondly, it must be shown that Peter and Paul represent divergent tendencies which are unlikely to have permitted close liaison between them. But this is a view of history which is a legacy from the Tübingen school of criticism, with no basis in the New Testament.25
[cont]
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
Admin
Main Admin Member is offlineThe Ten Commandments are Not Multiple Choice.
Posts: 822
|
|
Posted: Feb 10th, 2009 at 03:12 pm
|
|
|
As helpful as this response is, it fails at two points: (1) Why would Peter use (virtually) only Paul’s writings, as opposed to other writings, to shape his ideas in this epistle? (2) First Peter does not just use Paul’s letters—Paul’s writings are part of the very fabric of this epistle—“all through the Epistle, we have the impression that we are reading the work of a man who is steeped in the Pauline letters. . . ”26 This second objection is not really answered by Guthrie. To have passing acquaintance with someone’s writings, or to employ them in block quotations is one thing;27 to be a student of the other is another matter entirely.
The solution to this problem seems evident, once the occasion for the letter is taken into account. As we have suggested, Peter wrote this letter partially because Paul had recently died, and wrote to people who were secondary converts of Paul. Further, he wrote it to encourage them in the faith in light of persecutions. Certainly one of the nagging doubts that all of Paul’s converts would have would be the genuineness of their faith. Paul, after all, was not one of the original Twelve. After he died, this doubt would increase, and it is quite probable that false teachers would exploit it. But if a letter from Peter—the very man Paul had rebuked at Antioch, and had written the Galatians about—confirmed their faith and told them not to give up, this would indeed be great encouragement. Peter would tacitly be affirming both Paul’s doctrine and the Gentile mission. He would be saying, in effect, “Paul was a true apostle and you are true children of God. Don’t give up the boat.” Further, by couching so much of his letter in Pauline jargon he would be creating a positive deja vu effect on the audience.28 After all, although the audience would be subject to doubts about their faith, they would also be suspect of Peter, for Paul virtually recorded no positive statement about him in any of his epistles. But how could Peter himself have become thoroughly acquainted with Paul’s letters within a brief time after Paul’s death? Since, in our view, it was Paul’s death which served as the initial catalyst for this letter, there would be some urgency in getting it out. Hence, there would be no reason for Peter to become a disciple of Paul until Paul’s death, and this very death meant that he had no time for training. The tension is solved once we remember, again, that an amanuensis was used and that he was an associate of Paul’s. It is our contention that this was all by design. Peter intentionally chose to write to Paul’s (secondary) churches and to use one of his associates in composing the letter, and another (or the same one) in bringing it to those churches.29
To sum up our counter-arguments to the objections, not only are these not truly substantive in nature, but every one of them fits in remarkably well with the occasion we have suggested for this letter, viz., the death of Paul. Furthermore, if Peter actually did intentionally use Paul’s associates for the composing and sending of this letter, although Peter might be charged with not being a particularly original thinker, he must be seen as a brilliant strategist.
More later.
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
First Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline: bible.org - (Read 116 Times)
