found, however, in 4 Καὶ 3*(Symm.) Jest. xi. Patra.
ud. 8), ἐγκομβοῦσθαι, περιέχει ἐν ypady, περίθεσις, προμαρτύρεσθαι, σθενοῦν, συνπρεσβύτερος, ὑπολιμπάνειν | (but in Dion. H. =‘ "ἴο fail’). ; ;
The vocabulary, then, of the writer is a fall one, including as it does words representing the several strata of the language. The proportion of classical words is large ; 80, too, is the list of words of which there is little or no independent attesta- tion. None, however, of those which come under the last head strikes the reader as affected or odd. Each is correctly formed. The meaning of all but a very few words (6.9. ἐπερώτημα, ἀλλοτριοεπίσκοπος) is at once clear. p
(iii.) The general style, like the vocabulary, shows that the writer within certain limits had a very considerable appreciation of, and power over, the characteristic usages of Greek.
The sentences are naturally linked to each other, and are impeded, as a rule, by no special difficulties of construction. They rise at times into a simple grandeur (6.0. 139-17-21 221-25 661 Passing to matters of detail, we note a keen sense of the al cance of order, rhythm, and balance in the arrangement of worda—¢.g. 117-21 gilt. 921 (ὑπὶρ ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν) 4219 δῦ, Again, the letter is marked by a fulness and deliberateness of expression shown in (1) the writer’s love of putting 8 fact or a duty first negatively and then positively, see 114 18.23 216 38. 9.21 42 52f.;
® the skilful use of epithets and adverbial expressions, ¢.g. 18.22 22; (3) the expansion of a single idea by means of on 14. 10f. 19 98. 11. 25 84. 8. 15.23 418 58.10. Passages where 6 use of allied but contrasted words adds force or delicacy to the language are 15 (πυαμίον νον φρουρουμένουε), 21 87 (euves- ποῦντις.... συνχληρονόμω), 4510 (ἑαυτοὺς... ἀλλήλους... ἑαυτούς), 87 (τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν, .. αὐτῷ μέλμ). The tensesare used with marked exactness, and their force is often brought out by Contrast, 15 {(τετηρημένην, φρουρουμένου;), 18 (ἰδόντες, ὁρῶντες), 111 δήλου, ἀπικαλύφθη), 118 (ἀναζωσά μενοι, νήφοντες), 210 (ἡλεημένοι, “ν»ϑίντες), 917 {τιμήσατε (the abstract rule), ἀγαπᾶτε, φοβῶσθε, τιμᾶτε (the detailed fulfilment)), so also 213 (ὑποτάγητι), 218 gl (ὑποτασσόμενοι), 410 (λαβον, διακονοῦντες), 413 (χαΐριτε, χαρῆτε). , the use of contrasted prepositions is often full of meaning, 13 (ava, iv, als), 15 (χατά, εἰς, dsc), 15 (ἐν, εἰς; ἐν, διά), 121 (διά, ais), 24 (ὑπό, ταρά), 818 (wipi, ὑσίρ). The meaning of the opening ee ar ¢ fulfilment of the Divine purpose in relation to essiah and the Gentiles—largely depen son the pregnant use of the preposition sis (‘ reserved for,’ ‘destined for’) in 15- 10.11, Again, it will be felt how much is involved in the double contrast between the plural and the singular in 42 ἀνθρώπων ἐπιθυμίαις, θιλήματι Gov (ct. Heracleon ap. Origen in Joan. tom. xx. 24, τὸν διά Serer μὴ ἴγεν ϑίλημα ἀλλ᾽ ἐπιθυμίας ; Ct. also 58 (τῶν «λήρων. .. τοῦ σεἰμνίου,
It is interesting to contrast this Epistle with the Pauline Epistles in regard to the imagery used. The figures are drawn from the associations of birth, childhood, and family life (1% 417-2. 92), nomadic life (1) 24), temple and worship (25 3"), building (24), the fields and pastoral life (1539 5-8), military life (1° 2" 41), painting (27), working of metals (17 4). The writer differs from St. Paul in the lack of originality which his imagery shows— it is almost entirely derived from the OT: in the narrowness of its range: in its simplicity and brevity; no metaphor is expanded or permitted to lead on to side issues.
To sum up: the writer of the Epistle must have been a diligent student of the LXy, and was satu- rated with its language. In particular, it may be noted that his mind is constantly recurring to the Bk. of Proverbs. There is also reason for think- ing that he was acquainted with some books of the apooryphe. The nature and range of his vocabu- lary shows that he had considerable knowledge of,
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
and power over, the resources of the Greek lan. guage ; and this conclusion is confirmed when we note the delicacy and accuracy of his perception in regard to the rhythmical arrangement of words, the use of synonyms, and the management of tenses prepositions, ete. At the same time, there is nc sign of any conscious effort after effect. We do not find here the trained rhetoric of the writer to the Hebrews, the impetuous, unstudied, eloquence of St. Paul, or the epigrammatic conciseness of St. James. Viewing the Epistle from a purely litera: standpoint, we find its merit in the exact correspond- ence between its spirit and its form. The simple impressive language is the spontaneous expression of the writer’s tender persuasiveness and calm logic. IV. THE READERS TO WHOM THE EPISTLE WAS PRIMARILY ADDRESSED, AND THEIR CIRCUM- STANCES.—The Epistle is addressed to the Chris- tians in the four Roman provinces which together coincided with the region which bears the modern name of Asia Minor. It has, indeed, been lately urged (Deissmann, Bibelstudien p. 244) that no letter, properly so called, could be addressed to communities scattered over so vast a district; the circulation of such an Epistle, it is said, would have taken up many years of the life of the messenger. Such a position, however, leaves out of sight the wonderful facilities for travel which Rome had created throughout the empire, as well as the fact that in St. Paul we have an instance of a Christian missionary who did plan and execute rapid tours of visitation over large districts (cf. e.g. Ac 15‘ 16° 18 (cf. 191) 197). Moreover, since the letter does not deal, as many of St. Paul’s Epistles do, with controversy or business, or with matters of pressing local or personal importance, there would no need for the messenger to deliver it immedi- ately to all those to whom it was addressed. It would be sufficient if he communicated it to the several Churches in the provinces, as in the course of time he reached them. See also below, § 6. From the question of their home we turn to the problem of their past. Is the letter addressed to those who had been converted to Christ from Judaism or from heathenism? The opinion that its readers were Jews by birth was held (as we infer from his aneEaee about St. Peter’s travels) by Origen (quoted us. HE it. i.), by Didymus of Alexandria, by Eusebius (HZ mt. iv. 2), and by the Greek Fathers generally. This consensus of ancient opinion was followed by many scholars between the Revival of Learning and the resent