riod prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, that ἘΡΕΙ͂Ν we assume that ideas and doctrines emphasized in these Epistles must be of Pauline origin. That St. Paul had a predominant share in the moulding of Christian theology, there can be no doubt. But a body of Christian doctrine was
owing up apart from the immediate sphere of is influence. St. Paul must have been a re- civient as well as a source of spiritual intuitions.
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE 783
Estimating early writings by our imperfect criteria, we are probably in danger of exaggerating the Pauline element. Thus, to take as an example the crucial phrase ἐν Χριστῷ, which Jiilicher regards as borrowed by St. Peter (3% 54) from the Pauline Epistles, there is no question that St. Paul dwelt upon the phrase and placed it in many different lights. But did he create it? The evidence points to a negative answer. For (a) the phrase is in fact the echo of OT phrases—‘in God,’ ¢.9., Ps 564 601? 627, ‘in Jehovah,’ e.g., Is 4517. *, the Christian adaptation of these OT expressions being natural as the bearing of the Incarnation upon the doctrine of God was fully realized ; (b) the idea is implied in Mt 18*, and less distinctly in such references to ‘the name’ of Christ as Mk 9"; (6) the con- ception finds repeated and emphatic expression in St. John’s record of our Lord’s sayings (e.g. 6% 15*); and if we accept these reports, which are clearly independent of Pauline influence, as in any degree historical, we can hardly doubt that the use of the phrase ἐν Χριστῷ must ie traced back to Christ’s own teaching. At any rate, an argument can hardly be founded on the assumption that the plzme was originated by St. Paul. On the other
and, the ideas expressed in 1 P 2% 4% may reper er be considered to bear the stamp of an individual mind, and to have been learned from St. Paul’s writings or from his spoken words. Further, when the doctrine of the Epistle comes to be ex- amined, it will appear that it differs both nega- tively and positively from that of St. Paul’s Epistles (cf. Bost p- 4).
Ὁ sum up: all that we learn of St. Peter from the NT gives us the picture of a man prompt and enthusiastic in action rather than fertile in ideas, His borrowing from St. James’ Epistle shows that his mind was receptive and retentive of the thoughts of others. The Epistle undoubtedly owes much toSt. Paul. But it is only when the Pauline element is isolated and exaggerated that it be- comes a serious argument against the Petrine authorship of the Epistle.
Jiilicher (p. 132) implies that, had not the name Peter been prefixed to the Epistle, no one would have supposed that St. Peter was the author. This position is so far true that, had the Epistle been anonymous, to assign the Epistle to St. Peter would have been an unverifiable hypothesis, We do not possess any document sufliciently authenticated as the work of St. Peter to be a standard by which the Petrine claims of such an Epistle mete have been judged. The evidence of the speeches in the Acts, though worth consideration as confirmatory, is too indirect, and their date (assuming that they are substantially historical) too far removed from any date which can with any probability be given to the Epistle, for a reliable criterion to be supplied by them. But these considerations have a Saabs application. If, on the one hand, they forbid the rash assertion that an anonymous document is Petrine, so, on the other hand, they are a warning against the hasty rejection of a document which bears St. Peter’s name on the ground of its alleged un-Petrine character. The arguments urged to prove that 1 P is un-Petrine have been examined, and they have been shown to be unsubstantial,
resting largely on unsupported presumptions, On the other hand, the serious difficulties involved in the hypothesis that the name Peter is a later addition have been pointed out, and it has been
shown that the acceptance by the Church of the Epistle as the work of St. Peter was early in date,
wide in extent, and unvarying.
But is the Petrine authorship to be accepted indeed, but accepted with certain qualifications? Zahn, following out the suggestions of earlier
writers (Ewald, Grimm, Spitta), maintains (Hind,
190 PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
ii. pp. 10, 16) that, while the Epistle originally bore the name of Peter, the apostle entrusted the actual composition of it to Silvanus, as one peculiarly fitted, certainly more fitted than him- self, to put his thoughts into such a form as would appeal to the Gentile Christians of Asia Minor, —one, moreover, who was known to many of the readers of the letter, and whom they would there- fore credit with accurately reproducing for them St. Peter’s ideas. The question turns on the interpretation of 5% διὰ Σιλουανοῦ ὑμῖν τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδελφοῦ, ὡς λογίζομαι, δι᾽ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα. The words τοῦ πιστοῦ ἀδ., Zahn argues, imply that the part taken by Silvanus was a responsible one, and therefore cannot have been that of a mere amanu- ensis. He must therefore have been either a messen- ger who conveyed the letter, or a friend who put
t. Peter’s thoughts into the form of a letter. The former alternative, it is argued, is excluded, because in that case the commendation would have been meaningless—painfully useless, if Silvanus proved untrue and the Epistle never came into the hands of its intended recipients; superfluous, if he de- livered the letter to them. Against this theory the following considerations together seem decisive :— (1) If Silvanus were the real writer of the Epistle, especially if he is to be identified (see below) with the Silas of the Acts and the Silvanus of St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thessalonians and Corin- thians (2 Co), we should expect some salutation from him to his readers. In Ro 16™ Tertius, who was simply the scribe, sends a greeting in the first person (ἀσπάζομαι ὑμᾶς ἐγὼ Téprios ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολὴν ἐν κυρίῳ). (2) Such a divided authorship —the main ideas being supplied by one man, their manipulation and expression being the work of another—could not result in a letter so natural and ΒΟ easy in its passage from thought to thought, the transition to a fresh and important idea (e.g. 110) being sometimes due to an incidental phrase. (3) The tone of authority in δ᾽, where the address is ΘΕΟΥ͂ pesan is explicable only on a theory either of deliberate personation or of real a tolic authorship. (4) The language of 5" is abso- lutely natural if Silvanus was, what his position in the early Church (see below) fitted him to be, an apostolic delegate, who could, out of his own knowledge, speak of all personal matters and of the progress of the Church in Rome, and whose experi- ence and special gifts (Ac 15") qualified him to give direction and instruction in questions of faith and of conduct. Compare especially Ac 15”, Col 415... Eph 6", The language in the context con- firms this view: (a) the order of the words διὰ 5. ὑμῖν τοῦ π. dd. is remarkable, and seems designed to re St. Peter’s messenger and his friends face