century—Erasmus, Calvin, Grotius, and Bengel. Among critics of the last half century it has won the constant and earnest support of B. Weiss (e.g.
Der petrinische Lehrbegriff, 1855, p. 99 ff. ; Introd. to NT, 1888, vol. ii. p. 137 ff., Eng. tr.), and recently of Kihl in his commentary in the Weiss-Meyer series. The two last mentioned scholars, it should be added, maintain their view as to the readers of the Epistle in close connexion with their conclusion as to the early date of the Epistle (see below). On the other hand, in ancient times Augustine (c. Faust. xxii. 89; Enarr. in Ps. 146 (147) 9) and Jerome (adv. Jovinian. 1%) held that the Epistle was addressed to Gentile Christians, though in da Virr. Illust. 1 the latter follows Origen in speak- ing of the apostle’s ‘predicationem dispersionis eorum qui de circumcisione crediderant in Ponto’; and for this view recent critics of all schools have given ἃ practically unanimous vote.
A brief examination of Kiihl’s arguments will serve to bring into prominence some important points. (1) The word δια- σπορᾶς in the salutation, it is said, is decisive ; it must point to “Jewish settlements’ (cf. Ja 11)—an argument which convinced ancient opinion. As against this interpretation no stress can be laid on the absence of the article before διασαορᾶς ; for in such a formula as a salutation prefixed to a letter the article is frequently omitted. The following considerations, however,
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
seem to have decisive force on the other side. (a) In the clause itself the words rapiridnues and διασπτορά are kindred to each other, both dealing primarily with the manner of man’s life on earth. Since the former is here used in a metaphorical sense ay 117 211), it would be harsh to take the latter literally. δ) The opening and the close of the Epistle cannot be inter-
preted independently of each other. There is an intentional
Correspondence between them. The phrase ixAtxreis παρ- ripe 3iaewopasin lianswers toy iv Βα βυλῶν, συνεκλικτή agi
6 word διασασορά and the name Βαβυλών (= Rome, see
Basyton in NT and, both published since that art. was written, Hort, 1 Peter pp. 6, 167 ff., and Zahn, Fini. ii. p. 19 ff.) are both expressions taken from the vocabulary created by Jewish history and afterwards transferred to the Christian Church. 6) Elsewhere in the Epistle language primarily apr to 86] is used of the Obristian Church, see especially 2%. (d) The ee itself supplies a comment on διαστορά used metaphori- in 69 τῇ iy τῷ χόσμω ὑμῶν ἀδιλφότητι ; Compare Jn 1152, Didache éx.6. These considerations further exclude Salmon’s suggestion (Introd.6 p. 442), that ‘the Epistle was written to members of the Roman Church whom Nero’s persecution had reed to seek safety in the provinces’—a suggestion which
is also ee to the objection that, while it is natural and intelligible to use a re ized term in a'metaphorical sense, it cannot be said to be either natural or intelligible to give it a special application unless that application is explained or in some way indicated by the context. (2) The use of the OT without note of quotation in cases where the force of the words as proof depends on their recognition as derived from the OT, phar Lisi a familiarity with the OT which converte from eathenism would not possess. To this it may be replied— (a) that the Epistle contains no mentative passage, and that & writer might well enforce an exhortation by an appeal to OT language which his readers would not fully appreciate ; more- over, it is not denied that in the Churches of Asia Minor there was an element of Jewish converts; (Ὁ) that the force of Kiihl’s argument depends almost entirely on his further supposition that the Epistle is addressed to recent converts (see below). ®) Kiihl adduces certain passages as proving the Jewish desceat of those addressed. The words of Hosea quoted in 210 were originally apoxen to Jews; it is natural, therefore, it is said, that St. Peter should re-apply them to the Jews. In 2% Kihl pends that the correlative terms ὅτε πλανώμενοι and ἐπιστράφητε ly that those addressed had /apsed—an assertion not true
of Gentiles. But Kihl’s interpretation of both these passages assumes a general apostasy on the part of the Jews of the Dispersion, for which, in fact, we have not the slightest evi- dence. In regard to 2%, even if the idea of a return is pressed it see Ac 1415 163. 19, 1 Th 19), the original relation of man to may well have been in the apostle’s mind here as in 419 a χτίστῃ ; οἵ. ¢.g. Ac 1726M., Col 120 dar dxararrdctas). Again reference to 86, Kihl argues that Gentile women would become Sarah’s children by conversion to Christ, and that there- fore of none but Jewish women could it be said that they became 80 ‘ by well-doing.’ But, even if the common punctua- tion of the is adopted, the words may very well mean, * whose children you hia § women proved yourselves by well- doing’ (see Hort on 115, p. 71). There is, however, much to be said for making the clause ὡς Σάρρα... τίχνα 8 nthesis, and taking &yalowosieas κιτιλ. a8 co-ordinate with iweraers-
Oh on the other hand, there are a of two kinds which only by β haga acta of exegetical violence can be construed as applicable to Jews. (1) Passages scattered throughout the oo) 8 dealing with the past moral condition of those addressed, 114 (cf. Ac 1799, Gal 48, Eph 415), 118 <= Ro 12, Eph 417; on πατροπαραδότου see Hort’s note), 424 (for τὰ ἔθνη in an ethical sense see 1 Th 45, Eph 211 417; note also fsGerrms—heathen δε ‘hbours Eolas onan, Jews ὩΣ ποῖ Join in ἰὐὶν