face ; (δ) δι᾿ ὀλίγων ἔγραψα implies that the apostle’s written words were few, because he knew
t they would be enforced and supplemented by the living voice of Silvanus.
For διά of the bearer of a lett διὰ βιβλιαφόρων, E: 818 Ql; the subscriptions added in t many MBS to the Pauline Epistles, ¢.9. Romans—iypégn ἀπὸ Κορίνθον διὰ Φοίβης, cursPl: ; ἐσεμφθ δὲ διὼ Φοίβης, 183; the ‘verso’ of a letter in the Berlin Papyr. 885—dwedes Σωκράτη Luga ἀπὸ Σιρηνίλλα θυγατρὸς διὰ Σιραπαμμῶνος ἀδιλφοῦ αὐτῆς. Further, γράφειν (γράψαι) διά τινος is in reference to the bearer. In Ac 15% the deter- mination of the Ohurch at Jerusalem to send delegates to Antioch is mentioned, in v.% the additional fact that the dele- gates conveyed a letter. To the phrase in v.3 (γράψαντες διὰ χωρὸς αὐτῶν) there corresponds the phrase in v.90 ἐπσέδωχαν τὴν ἐπιστολήν. Polyc. ad Phil. xiv. “το uobis scripst per Orescentem, quem in presenti commendaui uobis et nunc com- mendo.’ Three passages in the Ignatian Epistles are, at first sight, ambiguous, and may refer either to the scribes or to the bearers of the letters. (a) From Smyrna Ignatius wrote to three Churches near at hand (Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles) and to the distant Church of Rome. In ch. 10 of the Epistle to the last Church he says, γράφω δὶ ὑμῖν ταῦτα ἀπὸ Σμύρννς δι᾽ ᾿Εφισίων τῶν ἀξιομακαρίστων. Several reasons make it probable that the Ephesians were the bearers and not the amanuenses of the letter—(1) The plural : it would be natural to dictate a short letter to one person ; (2) the context: after a parenthetical
PETER, FIRST EPISTLE
= sentence Ign. continues: περὶ τῶν προιλβόντων μὲ ἀπὸ Συρίας ole Ῥώμην, the probability being that the mention of those who had gone before him from Syria to Rome is suggested by the mention of those who are even now going before him from Smyrna to Rome; (8) the sequel: at the next stage of the ΗΝ (Troas) only one of the Ephesians was still with gnatius, viz. Burrhus. (ὁ) From Troas Ignatius writes to the Philadelphians, the Smyrnwane, and to Polycarp. In the closing salutations of the two former Fpistles the words occur— ix Τρωάδι" ὅθιν καὶ γράφω ὑμῖν διὰ Bovppov. Here the context gives no help towards the interpretation of διά, But other considerations seem decisive. If διά points to the scribe, then there seems to be no reason why the amanuensis should be mentioned in three letters (Rom., Philad., Smyr.), but passed over in silence in the remaining four letters. If, however, in each case διά designates the bearer, then the facts t of an easy explanation. There would be no need to mention the messenger in the case of the letter to Polycarp; for the same rson would be in charge of it who was entrusted with
etter to the Smyrnmans. Again, the distance from Smyrna to Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles was small, and there must have been constant means of communication, of which Ignatius would naturally avail himself. In the case of all the letters which had to travel far, the name of the bearer (or bearers) is atta given. Further, the elaborate care bestowed Ὁ Ignatius ae xi., Polyc. vii.f.) and by Polycarp (ad Phil. xiii.) on the appointment of delegates to the Church of Syria, and the conveyance of letters by their means, is important as confirming the interpretation of the Ignatian phrase γράφων διά vives given above, and also as illustrating the employment in apostolic and sub-apostolic times of men of recogn position in communications between Churches.
VI. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF COMPOSITION.— The restoration of a history must be conjectural. The test of probability in such a case is the extent to which the scheme as a whole offers a natural explanation of the details which have a claim to be taken into account. In the preceding art. it was pointed out that a good deal of indirect evidence points to the supposition that St. Paul during his imprisonment himself summoned St. Peter to Rome, chiefly in order that the sight of the two apostles—the one commonly regarded as the Apostle of the Gentiles, the other as the Apostle of the Cireumcision—planning and working to- gether might bring home to the Roman Christians the great lesson of unity. St. Peter, we ma suppose, arrived in Rome shortly before St. Paul’s release. St. Paul had not very long before written the Epistle to the Ephesians, setting forth in it his mature views on fundamental questions, many of which could not but engage St. Peter’s attention in Rome. It would therefore be almost inevitable that St. Peter should study, or, if he had read it before, should study afresh, that Epistle. More- over—what is of more importance—he would be brought into close and unrestrained intercourse with the mind of the writer. Such intercourse might well recall to his memory the thoughts and words of the Epistle to the Romans, and perhaps suggest its re-perusal. It makes no great demand on the imagination to see how an Epistle written by St. Peter under such circumstances would be full of Pauline thought and Pauline language, and, in particular, would be likely not seldom to echo the words of the Epistles to the Nomans and to the Ephesians.
Is it possible to arrive at any probable conclusion as to the point of time when the Epistle was written? (i.) The language of that important section of the Epistle which deals with obedience to the civil power (2*1”), gains greatly in point and reality if it was used in view of St. Paul’s appeal to the emperor having recently issued in his ac- quittal. It would be natural for one writing at such a time to recall what St. Paul had himself said on this subject (Ro 13), and, while using his expressions, to sharpen them and give them greater definiteness. Then it might well seem that ‘the praise of them that do well’ was an end of the magistrate’s functions. If the decision of the