7. Literary structure and integrity. — Is this document a 'homily,' an 'epistle,' or a 'letter' in the proper sense of the term ? That is, was it originally simply a hortatory discourse intended for general edification, or was it such a discourse thrown into epistolary form mainly for literary effect ; or was it a specific message from a writer wliose heart went out in sympathy to particular persons in the hour of their great affliction ?t The tir.st of these views is held by Harnack, who, as previously observed, thinks the epistolary intro- duction and conclusion are later additions. The second view, which is essentially the same so far as literary considerations are concerned, is more generally adopted. In its favour one may note that the document is addressed to a wide circle of readers with whom the writer does not appear to be in immediate personal contact, items of personal intimacy are conspicuously lacking, and the moral and religious exhortations of the document are capable of very general application. On the other hand, there is much to suggest that the writer has a very strong personal interest in the welfare of his readers. He knows the specific trials and tempta- tions which beset them, and he is strongly moved with compassion for them in their affliction. In this respect we have a real ' letter,' notwithstanding the wide circle of readers addressed — if one allows that a circular letter can be a real ' letter,' as would seem unquestionably true of Galatians, for example. The writer of 1 Peter, whether the Apostle or not, had much the same personal interest in the problem which the persecution had raised among his readers as Paul had in the problems which the legalistic controversy had aroused in the churches of Galatia.
As for literary analyses of the letter, there have been a few proposals which are more thorough-
* E.g. Ignatius, od Rom. x. 1, ad Phil. xi. 2, ad Smym. xii. 1, ad Polyc. viii. 1 (6ia twc vn-d <tov irefiTrojueVdji') ; Polycarp, ad Phil. 14 {'per'). See also 6ta similarly used in a papyrus letter of the year a.d. 41 in G. Milligan, Selectimis from the Greek Papyri. Cambridge, 1910, p. 39.
t On these formal distinctions as applied to NT writings, see A. Deissraann, Bibelstudien. Marbur[.r, 1895. pp. 189-251 (Eng. tr., Bible Studies. Edinburi,'h, 1901, pp. 1-59), Licht vom Oate-n. Tubinnen, 1908, p. 157 iT. rEnjr. tr., Lir/ht from the Ancient East, New York, 1910, p. 217 ff.); Heinrioi, op. cit. p. 56£f. ; J. Moffatt, op. cit. pp. 47-50.
going than Ilarnack's. D. Volter {Der erste Pet. riisbricf, seine Entstekung unci Stcltung in der Geschichte des Urckristentums, Strasshurg, 190G) works out in detail an original document, written by Peter or one of his pupils, which is wholly free from Pauline colouring — so free, in fact, that the mention of the name ' Jesus Christ ' was studiously avoided. This original document, composed some time before the persecution of Domitian, was freely interpolated by a Paulinist in the time of Trajan. Still another hy[)otliesis is advanced by W. Soltau, ' Pie Einheitlichkeit des ersteu Petrusbriefes,' in SK Ixxviii. [1905] 302-315, Ixxix. [1906] 456-460. By excising a series of supposed interpolations he recovers tlie original document which contained 13-22» Qo-ii 2'3-3'« 4'-^ '-'» 5«-". This was a hortatory homily written during the reign of Domitian. More recently a third theory has been proposed by R. Perdelwitz, Die Mysterienreligion unddas Problem des ersten Petrusbriefes : Ein literarischer und re- ligionsgeschichtlicher Versuch, Giessen, 1911. He distinguishes two originally independent and self- consistent parts, (1) IM" and (2) I"- 4'-'-5>*. The former was a discourse to candidates on the occasion of their baptism, and the latter was a letter written later by the same person and probably addressed to the same community. It aimed at encouraging and admonishing the readers. The two documents, after lying for some time in the archives of the community, were either intentionally or acciden- tall}' copied together and henceforth circulated as one letter.
None of these several partition hypotheses has proved at all convincing.
8. Text and interpretation. — For a full discus- sion of textual and interpretative questions re- course must be had to the standard commentaries cited below. The text presents comparatively few difficulties, and only one or two points of interpre- tation, which have been the subject of more recent or more especial discussion, interest us at present.
Perhaps the most difficult passage in the letter is 3"'™, relating to the preaching to ' the spirits in prison.' Four main questions have to be answered, viz. (1) Who did the preaching ? (2) To whom was it addressed ? (3) When was this mission performed ? (4) What was its purpose? Each of these queries lias been answered in different ways, and the answers have been blended variously in the final interpreta- tion of the passage.* As for the first question, the usual text makes Jesus Himself the preacher to these imprisoned spirits. But this reading is re- jected by a fi V interpreters, who think the present Greek is corrupt. The clause which reads : ' In which he [Jesus] went and preached also to the spirits in prison,' has been treated as a marginal gloss which originally referred to Enoch, reading 'Ei-iix for 'Ej- iJ Kal. Others would make this substitu- tion in the text itself, or else add the word ' Enoch ' to the present text, on the assumption that the four letters ENOX might easily have dropped out after the similar ENSiKAI. In that case we should read : ' In which [spirit] Enoch also went and