STAIR-STEP PARALLELISM IN THE BIBLE

One thing that distinguishes biblical poetry from prose is called parallelism of thought. To explain, that is a literary composition in which subsequent lines echo the ideas in the previous lines. The most simple example is that of so-called identical parallelism, such as in the following verse which opens the Psalter:

    “Happy are those who walk not in the counsel of the wicked,

                                    or stand in the way of sinners,

                                    or sit in the seat of scoffers.” (Psalm 1:1)

Note how all the elements line up, even though there may be some progression of thought as one proceeds from one line to the next.

Variations on this basic organization include parallelisms which are incomplete, antithetic, introverted, symbolic, or synthetic. And to add interest to their writings, two or three of these techniques may even be combined within the same couplet by authors, But perhaps the least utilized form is that called stair-step parallelism. In this type of poem the last element in the first line has its counterpart in the first element of the next line. Some possible examples I could find are shown below:

“Samuel was among those who called on his name

                                        they cried to the LORD and he answered them

                                                                                     he spoke to them in the pillar of cloud.”

                                                                                                                                     (Psalm 99:6-7)

“An inheritance gotten hastily in the beginning

                                                in the end will not be blessed.”

                                                                                                                                    (Proverbs 20:21)

And even in this last example, it is a mixed type in that “end” is not parallel to “beginning” but antithetical to it.

For more examples and definitions of the various types of biblical poetry, see my post titled “Proverbs 20: Types of Biblical Poetry.”

I once had a college roommate who attempted to write a novel. He showed me his first draft for comment. A sample of the type of writing he had come up with went something like this: “Jim enjoyed walking in his neighborhood, a neighborhood populated with houses fronted by green lawns, lawns that were obviously well-kept, maintained by a team of hard-working immigrants, men who had escaped the violence in their home countries, lands in which it was no longer safe to raise a family, families which they dearly loved, etc., etc.” As you can see, this sort of writing style should only be used sparingly or it soon becomes very tiring to the reader.

But there are actually three New Testament authors who do use this technique on occasion, not in the context of poetic passages, but in what has been labeled as “exalted prose,” something half-way between prose and poetry.

John 1:4-5

        In him was life

             and the life was the light of men

                                       the light shines in the darkness

                                                             and the darkness has not overcome it.

You can see from this simple example why it is called stair-step parallelism. And actually, the whole of the prologue to John's Gospel (1:1-18) employs variations on this literary technique.

Turning next to Paul's writings, we see hints of this same style in passages such as below:

Galatians 3:5-6

Does God give you the Spirit and work miracles among you

                              by your doing works of the law or by believing?

                                                               Just as Abraham believed and it was reckoned as righteousness.

Philippians 2:6-8

who though being in the form of God

      did not regard equality with God to be exploited

                            emptied himself, taking the form of a slave

                                                     being found in human form, he humbled himself

                                                                                                  and became obedient to death

                                                                                                                               even death on a cross.

The final example I am going to show is far more complicated, and I have attempted to identify the various parallel words in it through a variety of devices, as you can see below.

I Peter 1:3-12

Blessed be God and Jesus Christ who has given us new birth through resurrection of Jesus Christ:

to an inheritance kept in HEAVEN FOR YOU

    those kept by faith to a salvation ready to be revealed

        in this (salvation) you REJOICE though you now have trials

            which (trials) are sent to PROVE your faith

                being PROVED will result in GLORY when Jesus Christ is revealed 

                     whom you have not seen but love Him

                            you do not see Him, but believe Him

        and are JOYFUL having obtaining the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls

                               the salvation the PROPHETS sought

                               who PROPHESIED of the coming grace

        when the SPIRIT of Christ PROPHESIED Christ's trials  

    and the following GLORY and it was revealed to THEM

THEY were SERVING YOU by the HOLY SPIRIT sent forth from HEAVEN

                                things the angels long to know

Notice how densely packed this passage is and how it seems to march in one direction, and then circle back upon itself to the beginning. As Keener observes, “In Greek, 1 Pet. 3-12 is one elaborate, 'periodic' sentence, a sophisticated literary form that undoubtedly required much labor on the part of whoever composed or arranged it in this form (possibly Silvanus).”

WHAT DOES LUKE 7:35 MEAN?

Even translators of this verse into English do not seem to agree:

    “Nevertheless wisdom is vindicated by all her children.” (NRSV, ESV, AB)

    “But wisdom is justified of all her children.” (KJV)

    “And yet God's wisdom is proved right by all who are her children.” (NEB, NIV, JB)

    And the Jerusalem Bible appends the following explanatory footnote: “The children of Wisdom, i.e., of the all-wise God, cf. Pr 8:22+, appreciate and welcome God's works.”

    “Ah, well, wisdom's reputation is entirely in the hands of her children!” (J.B. Phillips)

    “But I am sure you can always justify your inconsistencies.” (The Living Bible)

    “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” (The Message)

    “God's wisdom, however, is shown to be true by all who accept it.” (TEV)

Confusing the matter even more is the fact that the parallel passage in Matthew 11:19b reads, “Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds,” although there are a number of ancient manuscripts which attempted to bring the wording more in line with that in Luke 7:35. Metzger expresses the opinion of most NT scholars that these harmonizing attempts came from a later date. Thus, we are left with “deeds” as another possible understanding of Jesus' words.

But there are two good reasons for feeling that Matthew has changed Luke's account here and that even “deeds” was not in Jesus' original words. For one, according to Burnett and Bennema, it is the opinion of a majority of scholars that Luke's account is the earlier one. Secondly, they add, “It appears that Matthew has framed this passage [Matt. 11:2-19] to equate the phrase 'the works [erga] of the Christ (Mt 11:2) with the phrase 'wisdom is vindicated by her works [erga]' (Mt 11:19b). This change virtually identifies Jesus...with God's divine Wisdom. If this is the case, then in Matthew Jesus is no longer just Wisdom's messenger; he is Wisdom incarnate.”

However, there is one more difference between the words of Matthew and Luke at this point. And in this case it is Luke's version is in doubt. Whereas Matthew says “her children,” Luke has “all her children.” Fitzmyer feels that Luke has added “all,” as he commonly does in several other passages. If so, then Luke is trying to clarify that the children do not primarily refer to John and Jesus, but to all who follow them.

Generally, the context of a given problem verse will give strong clues as to its meaning. But in this case, the only real context we have for this saying in Luke is found in verses 34-35: “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon'; the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Behold a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.” The connection between that brief context and the saying in question is not transparently obvious either. The best I can do at this point is to throw myself on the mercy of the scholars whom I quote below.

    I will start with the comments of Pao and Schnabel since they apparently had the same problem as I had in trying to understand these cryptic words: “The final saying of this pericope...[7:35] is difficult, especially when the identity of the teknon ('children') is unclear. D.P. Moessner...represents many by arguing for the connection between vv. 29 and 35, concluding therefore that those who accept John and Jesus in general...are the intended references behind teknon. In light of the flow of the narrative, however, an equally strong case can be made that the teknon refers primarily to Jesus and John the Baptist.”

    And in a note concerning the actual translation of v. 35, J.K. Brown states, “The verb dekaioo indicates proving oneself or others right – that is, vindication [also present in Lk. 7:29].”

So getting down to the heart of the actual message of Jesus, we have the following diverse opinions:

    “Amidst the socioreligious games of accusations and counter-accusations, Jesus and John will be vindicated as God's children because their respective messages, though in some ways diverse, are part of the one purpose of God that can be identified with divine wisdom.” (Bird)

    “Geldenhuys says that “whatever attitude and behavior may be adopted by the foolish Jewish leaders and others, wisdom is recognized and honored by all her children in whatever form she appears. He who loves God and believes in Him observes, accepts and honors His wisdom as revealed through John, the preacher of repentance; but especially as revealed supremely in Christ, the Son of Man.”

    Ellis: “Children of God's 'wisdom' probably are contrasted with children of 'this generation' (31f). They are not Jesus and the Baptist but rather those who 'justify God' (29) by accepting their message. On this interpretation 'wisdom' is the Holy Spirit's action in the work and words of Jesus.”

    “Just as Luke said earlier that God was justified by those who accepted God's purpose as expressed in John's baptism (vv. 29-30), so here wisdom is justified by those who accept John and Jesus. Wisdom or truth cannot be confirmed at a distance except by those who embrace wisdom. There is a kind of knowing which does not precede a decision or an act but which comes in the deciding, in the acting.” (Craddock)

    Fitzmyer comments, “God's wise salvific plan has become madness or foolishness for some of Jesus' contemporaries; his wisdom is manifested as a mother whose children are not only John and Jesus, but 'all' the prople who, like toll-collectors and sinners, are willing to listen to John or Jesus...Both John and Jesus arrive as such on the Palestinian scene with a critical, eschatological message, and what they announce, heard at first as insane and offensive, turns out to be the mark of Wisdom. The 'people of this generation' turn out to be not the children of Wisdom, but sulking spoil- sports who fail to recognize her.”

Marshall feels that “behind the saying lies rather the Jewish tradition concerning wisdom as a quasi-personal hypostasis in heaven, a divine agent expressing the mind of God, who preaches to men and longs to dwell among them but is rejected by them...In the present passage, however, there is little to suggest that wisdom is thought of as a personal being, and the thought is rather that the rightness of God's plan (boule, 7:30) is demonstrated by those who accept it...But the construction is uncertain...”

Thus, we can see that there is a great deal of uncertainty regarding the meaning of this pronouncement of Jesus. In conclusion, you are free to adopt any of the above comments as a reasonable explanation of v. 35. Or perhaps we should just include it among what are called his “dark sayings,” those expressed in such concise terms that the actual intended meaning is somewhat shrouded in darkness.

 

HAGGAI 1:6

Literary Considerations

First let us consider how this verse fits in with the overall literary arrangement of the book.

Figure 1: The Structure of Haggai

Cycle I (1:1-2:9)            

                        A. This people is not ready to build (1:1-2)

                                        B. “Consider your ways” (1:3-15a)

                                                1. up to the present (1:3-6)

                                                            2. the future if you build (building begins) (1:7-15a)

C. Shaking of the heavens and the earth (1:15b-2:9)

Cycle II (2:10-23)

                        A'. This people offers unclean work (2:10-14)

                                        B'. “Consider from this day onward” (2:15-19)

                                                 1. up to the present (2:15-17)

                                                            2. the future since building began (2:18-19)

                                                                        C'. Shaking of the heavens and the earth (2:20-23)

From the above, one would expect some sort of correspondence in thought or wording between Haggai 1:6 and 2:15-17. In fact, it is in these two passages that the prophet speaks of repeated famine and drought at the time period.

Below is how NRSV renders 1:6, with my indentations:

        a. “You have sown much,

                and harvested little;

        b. you eat,

                but you never have enough;

        c. you drink,

                but you never have your fill;

        d. you clothe yourselves,

                but no one is warm;

        e. and you that earn wages

                put them into a bag with holes.”

There is some discussion among scholars as to whether this is poetry or prose. The Anchor Bible translates this verse as poetry while most others treat it as prose. Bullock says, “Although Haggai's style frequently follows the patterns of Hebrew parallelism, we need not, however, look for a poetic form behind the prose. It was likely the original style of writing rather than prose that was based upon a poetic original.”

Then there is the comment in The Dictionary of Biblical Imagery stating that “despite the prose style of Haggai, there is the use of parallelism. Haggai utilizes antithetical parallelism (i.e., the juxtaposition of opposites) as a means to intensify his message.”

Further, Van Leeuwen notes, “Sin undoes the separations and bonds of God's created order, especially in the Flood-Re-creation story. The theme of sin and the undoing of creation's beneficent order will continue throughout the OT, especially in the prophetic books and in 'World-Upside-Down' imagery (Hag 1:6, 10-11, etc).”

Specific Notes

Here are some comments regarding the five clauses above:

    a. Carroll R. states that “judgment on this people is in accord with covenant curses for disobedience. They are to suffer a lower crop yield (Deut 28:38).”

Myers and Myers say, “Hebrew zr', 'to sow,' usually refers specifically to the planting of seeds for field crops.” But they believe that it “must have a more extended meaning, with the basic agrarian chore of seeding a field representing all tasks undertaken to secure a food supply.” It is also the opinion of these authors that “this clause introduces an oracle of five units, the overall poetic structure of which suggests an affinity with proverbial or gnomic [i.e. wisdom] material.”

    b. Verhoef: “Some of the features in this picture of disaster [in Micah 6:9-16] are similar to that in Haggai: 'You shall eat, but not be satisfied' (Mic. 6:14)...”

    c. “Many OT passages that negate the vb. [sb', drink] depict people in want of something desirable, often when under Yahweh's judgment.” (O'Connell)

Several commentators point out that the reference to excess drinking was not as negative as we treat it today. The point is that the wine fails to bring on a happy frame of mind, as intended. As Verhoef says, “The Hebrew word need not imply being drunk, but may indicate abundance...”

    d. Verhoef says, “Various reasons are suggested for this particular experience: because of the drought the sheep could not provide the necessary wool for the fabrication of clothes (Cyrillus); because they could not earn enough, they did not have the required money to buy the necessary clothes (Hitzig); the lack of nutrition caused them to feel cold despite their clothes (Driver, et al,). Whatever the reason(s), their clothes did not have the desired effect.”

    e. “Haggai's words reveal an impoverished and dispirited state among the Jews who had remained in Judah and those who joined them from Babylon...These brought economic hardships, resulting in inflation, of which Haggai gives one of the classic definitions of all time. (Mason)

“Because of her rebellion and sin Israel's money bags (seror) had become tattered with holes.” (Carpenter)

“To work for wages without putting God first is like putting the earnings...into a purse with holes (Hag 1:6). In the futility of work, God's covenant curse is experienced (cf. Deut 28:38-39).” (Van Dam)

Some scholars do not believe Haggai was written until a much later date than the events being portrayed. They cite the opinion that coinage had not yet been introduced into the Middle East at the time of the return from exile. But other scholars more accurately point out that it was actually the Persians who were the first to utilize a crude form of coins slightly before the return. I actually have one such coin in my possession, a small lump of silver into which a simple design has been impressed.

Historical Context

“The drought mentioned in the Persian period by Haggai (Hag 1:10,11) was local so far as known, but the lack of supplies (Hag 1:6; 2:16) was probably partly due to social misorganization (Hag 1:1-5).” (Way) As to the underlying reason the returnees were suffering such hardships in the first place, the prophet explains it clearly in Haggai 1:4, which reads, “Is it time for you yourselves to dwell in your paneled houses, while this house [i.e. the Jerusalem temple] lies in ruins?”

Schnittjer expresses the opinion that “the description ['paneled houses,' etc.] seems especially incongruent with the severe economic depression throughout the rest of the context (1:6,10)...Haggai's use of the rare term 'paneled' seems to be an intentional allusion to the materials used to build Solomon's temple (1 Kgs 6:15; cf. 6:9). Elsewhere the term only appears to describe the cedar paneling for two of Solomon's other lavish building projects (7:3,7) and one unrelated context (Jer 22:14).”

Coad: “For nearly twenty years the people had withdrawn into themselves in the face of overwhelming discouragement; accepting their subject rule, they had resigned themselves to making themselves as comfortable (v. 4: the word rendered paneled might mean no more than 'roofed'), and as unnoticeable, as possible. Haggai suddenly sees their passivity as a cause, rather than the result, of their demoralized condition.”

Then there is the opinion of Mason, who states, “Small wonder that at such a time it was all that people could do to get a roof over their own heads (1:4; the Heb. [seponim] probably suggests something a good deal more makeshift than the 'paneled' of most Eng. Versions).”

Kessler comments: “In Haggai's vision...restoration would be incomplete without the Jerusalem temple, and he views neglect of it as evidence of distain for Yahweh...To underscore the great importance of this task, Haggai creatively applies terminology associated with extreme covenant violation in the Deuteronomistic and priestly traditions to the community's neglect of the temple (compare Hag 1:6a with Deut 28:38a; Hag 1:66 with Lev 26:26).”

Verhoef similarly connects 1:5-6 with verses 2-4 “both by logic and by their content...They have acted in the normal way...but the net result was a bitter disappointment...According to Haggai the onus rests with them to consider the real issue in connection with their experiences.” Verse 5 is thus “a description of the barrenness of life and ineffectual work as a pointer to spiritual need.” (Wiseman)

DBI notes that “allusions to other texts and quotations abound as well. Haggai has striking connections with Deuteronomy 28:38-40, and 2:17 with verse 22 of Deuteronomy 28. Indeed, the whole context of blessings and curses undergirds the tone of these oracles.”

Futility Curse

One way that scholars sometimes group together different types of texts within the Bible is by their general forms, such as miracle story, legal pronouncement, theophany, etc. Thus, some commentators label Haggai 1:6 as an example of a “futility curse.”

“The prophet implies: 'You build houses and yet you have not enjoyed security.' Hillers has identified the language used in v. 6 as that found elsewhere in so-called futility curses...As these examples suggest, such curses regularly appear within a treaty context. Haggai is using well-known language from a well-known context. However, his use of this material is unusual. The curses are written in the past tense.” (Petersen)

“The futility curse is employed as a situation analysis to highlight the correlation between their ways and their experiences of adversity. Futility curses typically depict the discontinuity between the anticipated outcome of one's efforts and the actual outcome. This pattern is established in the other futility curses found in the old Testament (e.g. Lev 26; Deut 28; Mic 6:13-16; Amos 5:11-13; Hos 4:7-10 [esp. 10], cf. Isa 17:10-11...In Hag 1:6, the futility of the effort is not predicted but is identified as a past event with present consequences... Yahweh's expectation was that they would build Yahweh's house; but they did not...In essence, Yahweh's message to them is that their frustrating Yahweh's expectations has resulted in Yahweh's frustrating their expectations...The overarching idea is that the connection between behavior patterns and the futility of one's efforts is more than coincidental.” (Jacobs)

Writing on Micah 6:9-16, McConville writes, “A renewed accusation of injustice leads to a threat of 'desolation' (Mic 6:13,16; cf. Jer 19:8). Other threatened punishments have an ironic ring about them (like Hag 1:6) that remind of the 'futility curses' of Deuteronomy (Mic 6:14-15; cf. Deut 28:38-44).”

In closing, I want to quote from a New Testament passage which may also be considered as a form of the futility curse given in the past tense instead of the future tense:

“You desire

        and do not have; so you kill.

And you covet

        and cannot obtain; so you fight and wage way.

You do not have,

        because you do not ask.

You ask

        and do not receive because you ask wrongly.” (James 4:2-3)

"DESIRES" IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

The Greek word hedonon is where we get our English word “hedonism,” meaning the pursuit of pleasure. It only appears in three passages in the NT (all by different authors) and has been rendered as: cravings (NRSV), desires (AB, JB, NIV), passions (RSV, Phillips), bodily desires (NEB), lusts (KJV, The Message), pleasures (NASB), desires for pleasure (TEV), and evil desires (Living Bible).

There is a definite negative connotation to the term in each of these passages.

Beyreuther provides a brief summary of how the meaning of the word changed with time: “Hedone is from the same root as hedys, sweet, pleasant, pleasing. Originally it meant something pleasant to the taste, and then pleasant generally...It occurs in an extended sense as feelings of pleasure, enjoyment (already in Homer in the form hedos). Finally, just as with epithymia, it came to mean desire for pleasure...In Hellenism a distinction was made between higher and lower hedonai, between those of the mind and soul and those of the body. Then the concept was confined to ethically bad elements...The growing pessimism of the late classical period caused the concept to mean man's involvement in his material surroundings, which held down the soul trying to mount up to God. It was considered that the one who let himself be ruled by hedone had missed the purpose of life.”

Luke 8:14

This verse is part of Jesus' explanation of his parable of the soils. It regards “what fell among the thorns, they are whose who hear, but as they go on their way they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life, and their fruit does not mature.” Note the company that “the pleasures of life” keeps: care and riches. These are three factors that hinter human beings from reaching their intended goal here on earth and forever in eternity – fullness of life lived in fellowship with God and in accord with His plan.

A close comparison of Luke's explanation with those in the parallel verses in Mark and Matthew reveals that Matthew has entirely left out Mark's difficult phrase literally rendered “and the about other things desires (epithymiai)” (Mark 4:19) while Luke has substituted “the pleasures (hedonon) of life” instead. See below for the close correspondence between those two Greek terms.

Marshall's judgment is that “Brown's view that Luke has altered Mark's meaning by substituting a word referring to external events (feasting and drinking...) for one referring to inward passions is over-subtle.”

Titus 3:3

“For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another.” In writing this letter of advice, Paul actually includes himself with the ignorant gentiles who behaved in this way. As Nute says, “The description is general and Paul does not hold himself aloof from it. In listing seven vices he shows man at his worst...But man's depravity proves no obstacle to God...The consequence, as Paul exultantly declares it, was that he saved us.”

“F. Buchsel notes that hedone and epithymia ['desire'] are closely related and offers as an explanation for that here that 'when epithymia is satisfied we have hedone, and when hedone is sought we have epithumia.'” (Knight)

James 4:1-3 utilizes this word twice, and this passage can be seen to take the form of exalted prose (i.e. writings falling somewhere between poetry and prose).

    1. (a) Wars and (b) fightings among (c) you

        2. pleasures that battle within you

            3. you desire

                4. and have not

            3'. you murder and are jealous

                4'. and cannot obtain

    1'. (c) You (b) fight and (a) war

                4''. you do not have

                    5. because you do not ask

                    5'. when you ask

                4'''. you do not receive

                    5''. you ask with wrong motives

        2'. to indulge your pleasures

Note the reversals of word order going from 1 to 1' and from 2 to 2'. Also compare this passage with Titus 3:3, both of which associate the pursuit of pleasure with hatred of others with whom we are either (a) competing in the battle for the same pleasurable prize or (b) who already possess what we want.

There is one point in this passage which requires some additional explanation, namely, the statement that pleasures “war in your members (or 'within you').”

Tasker points out, “He does not say specifically, as Peter says of lusts (I Pet. ii. 11), that they 'war against the soul', though that is implied...nor does James say that these pleasures are at war with each other...What he asserts is that the human personality has, as it were, been invaded by an alien army which is always campaigning within it. The verb strateuomenon implies that these pleasures are permanently on active service; and the expression in your members means that there is no part of the human frame which does not afford them a battleground.”

And Adamson adds that “there is no reference here to doctrinal disputes, political or literal warfare between rival religious Jewish factions in Samaria and Galilee...These battles arise from the lusts within your body which fight against righteousness.”

And then, concerning members and body, Scott feels that this is “not so much in their physical connotation as in their function of giving expression to the personality.” From this, Adamson concludes, “James traced all sin neither to pleasure nor desire, but ultimately to the core of disordered personality.”

II Peter 2:13

This verse appears in the middle of an extended diatribe against those who purposely rebel against God, the angels, and all of God's commands in their overwhelming pursuit of earthly pleasures, which they carry out openly, even at gatherings of the church congregations, while despising any sort of authority over them, earthly or heavenly. The result of their activities is that they are rightly cursed and destined to be destroyed eternally.

One lesson can be learned from this passage in addition to it being is the strongest warning in the whole Bible to wrongdoers as to the eternal consequences of their actions. That is the fact that these people not only destroy themselves in the process, but also lead others astray with them.

The whole of II Peter 2:10-16 finds its close parallel in the scorching accusations found in Jude 8-12, except that the word hedonon is not found in this latter passage.

As a possible background to this usage of hedonon, Neyrey explains: “In the popular discussions of morality in the ancient world we read of a tradition of four cardinal vices: pleasure (hedone), desire (epithymia), fear (phobia), and grief (lype)...'Pleasure' is said to bring rivalry, boastfulness, and thirst for honor in the soul as well as gluttony and gormandizing in the body...As one of the four cardinal vices, 'pleasure' is a 'passion' (pathos), which the Stoic Zeno defined as an 'irrational [alogos] and unnatural movement of the soul.'”

“We must beware of confounding hedone with the desire for true joy (chara) which is never rejected by the NT. Joy is satisfied rather by communion with God, often even in the midst of suffering and persecution. If G. Stahlin is correct in seeing the contrast to 2 Pet 2:13...in Jas. 1:2 'Count it all joy (charan)...when you meet various trials', then it is clear how paradoxically the Christian's longing for joy finds its fulfillment and goal.” (Beyreuther)

I am reminded of C.S. Lewis' famous formulation – “Aim at Heaven and you will get the Earth thrown it; aim at Earth and you will get neither.”

WHO WROTE I PETER?

For centuries this has been a vexing question for scholars to ponder. The answer comes from a close look at several factors that bear on the subject.

Stylistic Considerations

The major sticking point in the way of simply agreeing that the apostle Peter was its author has been the style of writing. Commentators of a range of theological stances agree that I Peter, unlike II Peter, is written in excellent, polished Greek. It is felt doubtful that a Jewish fisherman would have been capable of producing such a sophistication of writing. This is even though almost all of the actual ideas expressed in the epistle have close correspondences with the speeches and life of Peter found in the Gospels and Acts (see my post titled “I and 2 Peter: a Study Outline” for a list of such correspondences]. So if Peter did not write this letter, then whoever did must have been very familiar with this apostle and his thoughts.

    “It is unthinkable that Peter as a fisherman from Galilee had command of the Greek language to the degree reflected in the letter, according to our stylistic analysis.” L. Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter

    “The person responsible for the poor Greek of 2 Peter could not have written 1 Peter and vice versa.” P. H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter

    “Such a letter could not have been written by him, the illiterate fisherman, if he had lived to be over a hundred.” F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter

Note that the above objections are based on the assumption that ancient writers always wrote their own compositions by hand with no extra help. This is a patently false assumption as any historian familiar with those times will attest. It was quite often the practice to employ a professional amanuensis, or secretary, to brush up the actual author's grammar and present his words using the correct rhetorical techniques of the day. Several of Paul's letters were obviously produced in this manner, as we can see in their final greetings. Such an amanuensis would have been especially necessary for someone like Peter whose command of the Greek language would probably not have been the greatest (as we see in the relatively unpolished II Peter).

I had pretty much finished analyzing the overall organization of the individual NT books years ago when I decided to compare their structures with one another. I noticed that three of the books stood apart from the rest in having a unique type of organization. They were I Peter and I and II Thessalonians, and they all took this form:

                        Introduction

                            A

                                     B

                            A'

                        -----------

                            A                                         

                                     B

                            A'

                        Conclusion

I wondered if there were any significance to this similarity, and then read the opening words of I and II Thessalonians: “Paul, Silvanus and Timothy to the church of the Thessalonians.” Turning to I Peter 5:12, we read, “Through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, I have written this short letter...” Some scholars have taken this last comment to mean that Silvanus (also called Silas) was just the carrier of Peter's letter, but the similarities in organization of the three letters make it clear that he served as a trained amanuensis to polish Peter's grammar and style. That effectively explains away this first objection to the traditional authorship of I Peter and makes it quite likely that Silvanus was a co-author of the letters to the Thessalonians.

As Michaels states, “If 1 Peter is, as it appears to be, an encyclical on behalf of the church at Rome ('Babylon') to a wide circle of churches on the frontiers of the Roman Empire in five provinces of Asia Minor..., then the author would likely have had scribal help with vocabuary and style, and his helpers would likely have remained anonymous. The burden of proof is still on those who reject the letter's claim to come from Peter the apostle.”

Historical Considerations

Then we come to what evidence we can gather from the letter itself regarding the historical setting in which it was written. Michaels explains that this sort of enterprise actually involves two different but interrelated enterprises – determination of the likely date of writing based on specific historical events alluded to in the letter as well as cultural factors in play at the time. Unfortunately, the latter consideration rarely leads to pinpointing any actual date of composition, even in general terms. Thus we turn next to specific events happening in the Roman world for comparison with the teachings in I Peter as well as what we know about Peter's life at the time.

The one overwhelming characteristic of this epistle is the emphasis on suffering for the faith, whether referring to tribulations present at the time or those predicted for the near future. Such passages include: 2:19-20; 3:9,14,17; 4:1,13,15,19; 5:9-10. But even with this broad hint, scholars come up with different conclusions.

The problems involved are many. For one thing, if the persecution had not begun to happen yet, then we need to know how far forward in the future was Peter predicting that to happen. Secondly, as we know from the Book of Acts, persecution of believers in the Roman world could come from a number of quarters: hostile Jews, local Roman magistrates, an infuriated populace, or the seat of power in Rome itself. And such contrary forces might take a form varying from social ostracizing to banishment to imprisonment to beatings to actual death by official execution or mob violence. So without knowing precisely the nature and scope of the persecution Peter is talking about, it is really impossible to say for sure when the author penned this epistle.

Keener cites a number of notable Bible scholars such as Moule, Best, Davids, Green and Donelson who all agree with him that “1 Peter does not speak of widespread or outright state persecution in Asia Minor in Peter's day. While Peter speaks of others facing testing..., he is not very explicit about its present character.”

Because of the above uncertainties, the various attempts found in current commentaries to make “definitive” statements based on the known actions of various Roman emperor at the general time (whether Nero, Domitian or Trajan) are somewhat misguided and should be taken with a grain of salt. The goal, of course, is to compare the dates of those rulers with the traditional date of AD 63-64 for the death of Peter at the hand of Nero. But even that date is based on extrabiblical sources, however reliable they may prove to be.

External Evidence

All of the above concerns various types of internal evidence relating to the author whereas we can now turn to later sources which actually quote from I Peter or make allusions to that epistle. The following comes from Keener, who notes that such evidence from early church leaders is often ignored by scholars in making their pronouncements. He starts his discussion of this subject by saying, “Writing in the early second century, Polycarp clearly reflects language from 1 Peter, as might Clement of Rome. It is highly unlikely that early authors would quote from 1 Peter if they believed the letter to be spurious. One cannot suppose, as some do with early allusions to the Gospels, that those who used the work were ignorant of its authorship claim; the claim is explicit in 1 Pet. 1:1...Polycarp was already a bishop during Ignatius's lifetime (ca. 50 to probably 108), so that Polycarp (ca. 69-155) surely reached adulthood and Christian maturity well before the end of the first century. His confidence in 1 Peter, therefore, is telling.”

Within Polycarp's Letter to the Philippians, Keener detects language which is quite close with that in I Peter 1:2,8,13,21; 2:11,12,1721-24; and 3:9. Such an extensive amount of borrowing is certainly not a mere accident.

Keener concludes, “Clearly Polycarp accepted 1 Peter (or at least its first two chapters, where the authorship claim explicitly appears) as authoritative, combining allusions to the letter with allusions to other apostolic sources. Not surprisingly, Eusebius [Christian historian writing ca. AD 312-324] explicitly notes Polycarp's use of 1 Peter.”

Other putative sources attesting to the widespread acceptance of I Peter as a genuine composition of that apostle include the following:

    Polycarp's Letter to Diognetus in which v. 9:2 echoes I Peter 3:18 with its phrase: “the just for the unjust.”

    Eusebius points out that Papias (early 2^nd century) quoted from both I John and I Peter.

    Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians 9:2 (ca. 105-180) mentions the prophets awaiting the coming of Jesus by the Spirit (see I Peter 1:10-11).

    The Epistle of Barnabas (ca 107-132) seems to allude to that same passage in I Peter.

    There are a number of possible borrowings found in the writings of Clement (ca. AD 95). However, Keener cautions that “it could simply reflect language and ideas popular to the church in Rome at the time.” The sheer number of such parallels is indicative, however, and includes echoes from the following passages in I Peter: 1:1-2,18; 2:9; 3:1-4,10-12; 4:8; 5:5, as well as other cited by additional scholars.

    The widely distributed church document called Didache (early 2^nd century) contains an allusion to I Peter 2:11.

    And then there is the specific reference to 1 Peter in 2 Peter 3:1, “taking for granted the acceptance of its authenticity among 2 Peter's audience at the time of 2 Peter's writing. This attestation is extremely valuable on any date for 2 Peter earlier than Polycarp.”

Keener concludes from all this that, “The external attestation for 1 Peter is thus stronger than for most ancient works accepted by classicists...If external attestation counts for anything at all, then, it is strong enough in this case to outweigh arguments from silence regarding internal evidence. It should weight the case in favor of acceptance rather than suspicion...Not surprisingly, therefore, Petrine authorship was virtually undisputed until nineteenth-century criticism and was still widely defended afterward. It remains a respectable and vigorous minority opinion today and, as I have argued, merits far more attention than it has received in some quarters.”