Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T22:36:40.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Teaching of Good Works in I Peter

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

W. C. Van Unnik
W. C. Van Unnik
Affiliation:
Bilthoven, Holland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Is it unfair to say that the ethical teaching of the N.T. is a step-child of scholarship? Over against ten books on N.T. theology one can hardly find one work on N.T. ethics. This holds good both for genera; surveys and for monographs. It goes without waying that the moral implications and consequences of the new faith are not absolutely neglected, but on the whole the doctrinal aspect has been stressed far more than th4e ethical. It is not my task at the present moment to explain this fact, but it did not seem out of place to call special attention to this ‘under-developed country’. Work in this part of the field is not at all superfluous. Therefore the discussion of a particular point in a paper for this general meeting will be fully justified.

Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 1954 , pp. 92 - 110
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Paper read at the General Meeting of the S.N.T.S. in Cambridge, 9 September 1953. It is printed here in its original form. In the meantime two other publications touching upon the same subject came to my notice: Brandt, W., ‘Wandel als Zeugnis nach dem I. Petrusbrief’, in Verbum Dei manet in aeternum, eine Festschrifi für Prof. D. Otto Schmitz (Witten-Ruhr, 1953), pp. 10–25,Google Scholar and Lohse, E., ‘Paränese und Kerygma im I. Petrusbrief’, in Zeitschrifi f.d. neutest. Wissenschaft, XLV (1954), pp. 68–90. After some consideration it seemed advisable to leave my text unaltered.Google Scholar

1 van Unnik, W. C., ‘De verlossing I Petrus i. 18–19 en het probleem van de eersten Petrusbrief’, in Mededelingen der Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, deel 5, no. I (Amsterdam, 1942).Google Scholar

2 As may, for example, be seen from the ways in which the later apologists handle such traditional schemes; the borrowing is not the only important fact, but also the application.Google Scholar

3 Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St Peter (London, 1946), p. 89.Google Scholar

4 Grundmann, W., in Kittel, G., Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, 1938), Bd. III, pp. 547ff., cf. also Bd. I, p. 17.Google Scholar

1 Selwyn, loc. cit. p. 89.Google Scholar

2 Selwyn, loc. cit. p. 178.Google Scholar

3 Reicke, B., The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism (Koebenhavn, 1946), pp. 211–13.Google Scholar

4 Reicke, B., loc. cit. p. 212, n. 2.Google Scholar

1 Bolkestein, H., Wohltätigkeit und Armenpflege im vorchristlichen Altertum (Utrecht, 1939).Google Scholar

1 A wealth of illustrative material from the sources will be found in Bolkestein, loc. cit. pp. 95ff. and 297ff.Google Scholar

2 Strack, H. L.-Billerbeck, P., Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München, 1922–8), Bd. III, pp. 505 and 161.Google Scholar

1 Billerbeck, loc. cit. Bd. IV, pp. 559ff.Google Scholar An interesting testimony is also found in the Apology of Aristides, XIV, 3, ed. Goodspeed, E. J., Die aeltesten Apobogeten (Göttingen, 1914), p. 18:Google Scholar et amore hominum quem habent (sc. Iudaei) deum imitantur, cum pauperum misereantur et captivos redimant et mortuos sepeliant et his similia faciant, quae deo accepta et hominibus grata sunt, quae a maioribus suis acceperunt.

2 Billerbeck, loc. cit. Bd. I, pp. 429ff. gives a good many examples for this idea of a ‘treasury in heaven’.Google Scholar

3 Bonsirven, J., Le Judaïsme palestinien au termps de Jésus-Christ (Paris, 1935), vol. II, p. 265.Google Scholar

1 See my ‘Dc Verlossing’ (quoted on p. 93, n. 1), pp. 90ff.Google Scholar

1 In the next paragraphs I give the upshot of the exegesis of the various passages after having consulted the commentaries of Bigg, Windisch, Schlatter, Greydanus, Knopf, Vrede, Wohlenberg, Gunkel, Hauck, Selwyn as far as our subject is concerned. It would have taken us too far, if I had tried to give a discussion of details and divergent opinions of commentators.Google Scholar

1 Cf. my discussion of this word in ‘I Clement 34 and the “Sanctus”’, in Vigiliae Christianae, V (1951), pp.321–34.Google Scholar

2 Geurts, N., Het Huwelijk bij de Griekse en Romeinse Moralisten (Amsterdam, 1928; diss. Utrecht), pp. 91ff.Google Scholar

3 Daube, Cf. D., ‘κερδαíνω as a missionary term’, in Harvard Theol. Rev. XL (1947), pp. 109ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 As was shown in the well-known ‘Appended Note, participle and imperative in I Peter’ by Daube, D., ap. Selwyn, Commentary, pp. 467ff.Google Scholar

1 Schlatter, A., Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des Josephus (Gütersloh, 1932), p. 37Google Scholar and Kittel, loc. cit. pp. 195–6.Google Scholar

2 For the ‘technical’ meaning of προσάγει‘De Verlossing’, pp. 69–70.Google Scholar

3 The word άπειθεīν is also a key-word of the Epistle, being used in ii. 7–8; iii I, 20 and iv. 17.Google Scholar

1 Selwyn, E. G., ‘The persecutions in I Peter’, in Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, Bulletin, 1950 (Oxford, pp. 39–50).Google Scholar

2 Cf. my ‘De Verlossing’, pp. 84–5.Google Scholar

3 Cf. Rom. viii. 17 II Tim. ii. 12.Google Scholar

4 Schlier, Cf. H., in Kittel, loc. cit. Bd. III, pp. 142ff.Google Scholar

5 Κακοποιός must have here a more specialized meaning than in ii. 12 and 14, since it stands in the same line with κλέπτης and φονεύς thus ‘sorcerer’Google Scholar, as is given by Liddell, H. C. and Scott, R., A Greek-English Lexicon 9 (Oxford, 1940), vol. I, p. 862 b.Google Scholar

1 The hapax legomenon in the N.T. κτíοτης here is somewhat peculiar. With due hesitation and with reference to ii. 23 I would suggest the conjecture .Google Scholar

2 Holtzmann, H. J., Lehrbuch der neutestamentliehen Theologie 2 (Tübingen, 1911), Bd. II, p. 358.Google Scholar

3 While the fact of later insertion has never been explained so far except by the wrong assumption that v.6 is influenced by ii. 12, thewaning of the eschatological feeling—on the eschatological content of έθισκοπή see below—dulyaccounts for the omission ofthe word, a clear case of ‘dogmatical’ correction.Google Scholar

1 Beyer, Cf. H. W., in Kittel, loc. cit. Bd. II, p. 602.Google Scholar

2 Volz, P., Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 2 (Tübingen, 1934), pp. 164–5;Google Scholar see also Manual of Discipline, ed. Brownlee, W. H., iii. 18, iv. 19.Google Scholar

3 Schoonheim, P. L., Een semasiologisch onderzoek van Parousia (Aalten, 1953; diss. Utrecht), pp. 35ff.Google Scholar

1 Cf. Billerbeck, loc. cit. Bd. III, p. 118 ad Rom. ii. 24.Google Scholar

2 Text of Montefiore, C. G., Rabbinic Literature and Gospel Teachings (London, 1930), p. 131. The Pseudepigrapha are quoted from Charles' translation.Google Scholar

1 Reicke, B., loc. cit. pp. 110f.Google Scholar

1 Dodd, C. H., The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, new edit. (London, 1944), pp. 27 f.Google Scholar

1 Grundmann, W., in Kittel, loc. cit. Bd. III, pp. 551–3.Google Scholar

2 Dibelius, M., Die Pastoralbriefe 2 (Tübingen, 1931), pp. 3, 29, cf. pp. 24–5;Google Scholar see also Preisker, H., Das Ethos des Urchristentums (Gütersloh, 1949), pp. 195ff.Google Scholar