The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (167 page)

⁶⁵
Moo,
James
, 8.

⁶⁶
Dibelius,
James
, 3.

⁶⁷
For a thorough discussion see Johnson,
James
, 17—20.

⁶⁸
Ibid., citing A. J. Malherbe, “Ancient Epistolary Theorists,”
Ohio Journal of Religious Studies
5 (1977): 71.

⁶⁹
Watson, “Rhetorical Analysis,” 109.

⁷⁰
Moo,
James
, 8, citing L. J. Perdue, “Paraenesis and the Epistle of James,”
ZNW72
(1981): 241-56.

⁷¹
For a thorough treatment see Hartin,
James
, 10—16.

⁷²
See Johnson,
James
, 20—21.

⁷³
Against Johnson,
James;
and Hartin,
James.

⁷⁴
Among these are Dibelius,
James
, 1—11 (see further below); and S. Stowers,
Letter Writing in Greek Antiquity
, LEC 5 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986),
97.
Preceding Dibelius and agreeing on the lack of structure are Mayor,
James
, cxxi; Ropes,
James
, 2—4; and A. Jülicher,
An Introduction to the New Testament
, trans. J. P. Ward (London: Smith-Elder, 1904), 215.

⁷⁵
Dibelius,
James, 2
, 11. In this Dibelius is similar to Luther, whose “epistle of straw” statement, among other things, alleged chaotic arrangement (M. Luther, “Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude,” in
Luther's Works
, vol. 35, trans. C. M. Jacobs [Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960], 397). But, in contrast to Luther, Dibelius viewed the lack of cohesion as a function of paraenesis rather than diminishing the value of the letter (
James
, 5, n. 21).

⁷⁶
Moo,
James
, 45.

⁷⁷
Bauckham,
James
, 61—63.

⁷⁸
F. O. Francis, “Form and Function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John,”
ZNW 61
(1970): 118.

⁷⁹
Davids,
James
, 25—26. The effect is a chiasm. But the notion of a double introduction of themes in chap. 1 is doubtful. Davids's unit 3:1—4:12 includes 4:11—12, which perhaps more likely belongs to the next unit, while the unit 4:13—5:6 unduly excludes 5:7—11.

⁸⁰
M. E. Taylor,
A Text-Linguistic Investigation into the Discourse Structure of James
, LNTS 311 (London: T&T Clark, 2006).

⁸¹
E.g., C. L. Blomberg (
From Pentecost to Patmos: An Introduction to Acts Through Revelation
[Nashville: B&H, 2006], 391), who followed Davids to a degree; and G. H. Guthrie, “James,” in
Expositor's Bible Commentary
, rev. ed., vol. 13:
Hebrews—Revelation
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 206.

⁸²
“Word” is the “hook word,” occurring in both 1:21 and 22, which connects 1:19—21 with 1:22—27.

⁸³
See also the comparison between faith and works in James and Paul under Theological Themes below.

⁸⁴
The section on righteous versus worldly wisdom in 3:13—18 is at the heart of the macro-chiasm proposed by Guthrie, “James,” 206.

⁸⁵
HCSB slightly altered. The rendering “submissive” (NIV) is preferable to “compliant” (HCSB).

⁸⁶
See the table on The Teachings of Jesus in James above.

⁸⁷
See Hengel,
Paulus undjakobus
, 526—29.

⁸⁸
See Ropes,
James
, 204-6.

⁸⁹
See Guthrie,
James
, 241.

⁹⁰
In another sense, of course, it was Abraham's faith that was credited to him as righteousness; see Gen 15:6, cited in Jas 2:23; Gal 3:6; and Rom 4:3, in likely chronological order of writing.

⁹¹
In 2:24 James did not say that a man is justified by works and not by faith—he added by faith
alone
(i.e., without works).

⁹²
See the chart on James and the Teachings of Jesus above.

⁹³
For a fuller discussion of James's ethical teaching, including aspects such as speech control, the rich and the poor, testing and suffering, and love, mercy, and humility, see Chester, “Theology of James,” 16—45.

⁹⁴
E.g., Ehrman,
Introduction
, 331—32.

⁹⁵
See Moo,
James
, 29.

CHAPTER 18

CORE KNOWLEDGE

Basic Knowledge:
Students should know the key facts of 1 and 2 Peter and Jude. With regard to history, students should be able to identify each book's author, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a basic outline of each book and identify core elements of the book's content found in the Unit-by-Unit Discussion. With regard to theology, students should be able to identify the major theological themes in the Petrine Epistles and the book of Jude.

Intermediate Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge above, students should be able to present the arguments for historical, literary, and theological conclusions. With regard to history, students should be able to discuss the evidence for Peter's and Jude's authorship, date, provenance, destination, and purpose. With regard to literature, they should be able to provide a detailed outline of each book. With regard to theology, students should be able to discuss the major theological themes in the Petrine Epistles and the book of Jude and the ways in which they uniquely contribute to the NT canon.

Advanced Knowledge:
In addition to mastery of the core content identified in Basic Knowledge and beyond the Intermediate Knowledge noted above, students should be able to engage critically modern scholarship concerning the supposed pseudonymity of 2 Peter and how this affects the dating of the letter. They should be able to discuss the different interpretations of 1 Pet 3:18—22 and to assess the genre of Jude. They should also be prepared to evaluate critically the relationship between the book of Jude and 2 Peter and be able to explain how this affects the dating of these letters.

Map 18.1 Destination of 1-2 Peter

1-2 Peter

INTRODUCTION

F
IRST PETER HAS long been recognized as one of the high points of NT literature and theology. Martin Luther recognized 1 Peter (along with the Gospel of John and Paul's letters) as “the true kernel and marrow of all the NT Books. For in them you…find depicted in masterly fashion how faith in Christ overcomes sin, death, and hell, and gives life, righteousness, and salvation.”
¹
This view changed as commentators in the nineteenth century and twentieth century saw the author as a Paulinist. Thanks to the work of J. H. Elliott, more modern scholars are rejecting this idea, and 1 Peter has been rehabilitated in recent years as a dependable source of Christian theology.

Second Peter is not so fortunate. In modern circles, the book's theological contribution is often diminished. J. D. G. Dunn complained that 2 Peter contains “a somewhat hollow ‘orthodoxy’” by a man “who has lost all hope of an immediate parousia.”
²
The most extreme example may be E. Käsemann, who considered the letter to be of “a stiff and stereotyped character” and alleged that its parts had been assembled by “embarrassment rather than force,” representing an early Catholicism in the second century
³
However, much of this low esteem for 2 Peter comes from a misapprehension of the style of the letter and from the assumption of a late and pseudonymous origin, according to which the book was written by someone other than Peter and attributed to him for some reason.
⁴
Understood properly, however, the contents of 2 Peter indicate that the book is worthy of the canonical status it achieved by the force of its arguments, in spite of initial doubts regarding its authenticity.

1 PETER

HISTORY

Author

External Evidence
The early tradition of the church was thoroughly acquainted with 1 Peter and attributed authorship of the book to the apostle Peter in an impressive way. The first clear evidence for the knowledge of the letter comes from 2 Peter; the author there said that “this is now the second letter I've written you” (2 Pet 3:1). Few would claim that he is not referring to the first letter.
⁵
There have been attempts to show dependence on 1 Peter in other first-century documents such as 1
Clement
(c. 96) and the
Didache
(second half of first or early second century), but the evidence is inconclusive.
⁶
Polycarp—a resident of Asia Minor, which was the destination of 1 Peter—showed knowledge of 1 Peter in his letter to the Philippians (c. 108).7 According to Eusebius (c. 260-340), both Papias (c. 60-130) and Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) affirmed that Peter wrote this book.
⁸

The first extant citation naming Peter as the author comes from Irenaeus (c. 130—200). He not only named Peter as the author but also referred to 1 Peter often.
⁹
Both Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian (c. 160—225) cited 1 Peter and attributed the verses to the apostle.
¹⁰
Eusebius listed 1 Peter as the only “undisputed” book of all the General Epistles.
¹¹
The letter is not listed in the Muratorian Canon (later second century?); however, the manuscript is fragmentary and incomplete for all the General Epistles.
¹²
Thus Peter's authorship of the letter is well attested in the early church tradition. Bigg stated regarding 1 Peter, “There is no book in the
New Testament which has earlier, better, or stronger attestation.”
¹³

Beginning in 1784, some schools of thought deemed 1 Peter to be a forgery.
¹⁴
This view has become the majority position today, in spite of vigorous protests.
¹⁵
Four general matters of contention have been raised against Peter's authorship of 1 Peter. First, the Greek is better than expected for a Galilean fisherman.
¹⁶
Second, the contents of the book suggest a milieu more suited to a time later than Peter's lifetime.
¹⁷
Third, critics see a dependence on the “Deutero-Pauline” letters, requiring a date in the early second century. Fourth, geographical regions addressed (including remote regions of Asia Minor) were not part of Peter's apostolic jurisdiction and could not have been evangelized or suffered persecution in Peter's lifetime.
¹⁸

These objections, however, are unconvincing. That the letter is written too well to be from Peter raises questions in three areas. First, how well written is it? Recent studies have shown that 1 Peter is certainly not beyond the skills of someone writing in a second language and that the book displays Semitic influence.
¹⁹
Second, how deeply had Greek penetrated into Palestine? Again, recent studies have shown that Palestine had experienced considerable Hellenization. The Greek language was common, and Peter could be expected to be familiar with it.
²⁰
Moreover, Peter's own brother has a decidedly Greek name,
Andreas
(Andrew), showing at least some degree of Hellenization of Peter's family.
²¹
Third, did Peter employ an amanuensis? The book mentions Silvanus (Silas) as the one “through” whom the author had written to his readers (1 Pet 5:12). It is debatable whether that means he used Silvanus as an amanuensis or simply as the letter carrier to deliver the letter.
²²
However, even if Silvanus were not an amanuensis, it would not preclude the
possibility that he could have used someone else to fill that role. If Peter did use an amanuensis, it could explain the polished Greek of the letters.

The other objections to Peter's authorship fare no better. The view that the letter appears to address a later situation was originally based on the notion that the persecution mentioned (e.g., 1:6) was sanctioned by the state.
²³
Virtually no one holds this position today.
²⁴
The only injunctions in 1 Peter regarding the state do not mention any persecution. In fact, believers are told to “submit to every human institution,” including “the Emperor as the supreme authority” and his governors (2:13—14).
²⁵
Schreiner correctly noted that Christians, even in the midst of state-sanctioned persecution, have always been urged to be good, obedient citizens. Thus Peter's injunctions by themselves do not rule out persecution by the state.
²⁶
But the injunction comes with no mention of persecution and little of the urgency one would expect from a church leader writing to Christians under persecution by the state. J. N. D. Kelly summarized that the persecution apparently was not from the state, “but of an atmosphere of suspicion, hostility and brutality on the part of the local population which may easily land Christians in trouble with the police.”
²⁷