It is nearly universally agreed that the First Letter of Peter was written by someone who excelled at Greek grammar, and who most probably was a highly educated mother-tongue Greek writer. The letter was written in superb Greek style unlike anything one would expect from a so-called unschooled fisherman such as Peter, the apostle. So, what gives? How did an easily recognizable uneducated, common man (Acts 4:13), a mother-tongue Hebrew speaking fisherman produce such a stylistically excellent Greek text?
Most people would conclude that this discrepancy would eliminate Peter as the author of the letter and thus invalidate the legitimacy of an apostolic letter. Some would question the inerrancy of scripture as the text clearly states Peter as the author. So what does give?
Well, Peter himself may explicitly give us the answer to this question in his letter. In 1 Peter 5:12, Peter says,
“through Silvanus, I have written briefly to you…
Peter wrote his letter THROUGH Silvanus. This translation comes directly and literally from the Greek text. The word translated “through” is the Greek word, δια, and is described in Strong’s Greek dictionary as, “a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act.” In this case, the “act” is “writing the letter,” and the “channel” is “the help of Silvanus”. A more simplistic but direct translation may be, “I have written this brief letter through the help of Silvanus” (1Peter 5:12).
Scholars agree that there are three options for understanding this preposition. The first option is that it can mean that Silvanus, who is often referred to in other places in the New Testament as Silas, a former companion of the Apostle Paul, sent the letter with Silvanus to deliver it to the “elect exiles of the Dispersion” (1:1). In this sense, Silvanus was the postman, or mail carrier, through whom his letter was delivered.
A second option for understanding this preposition is that Peter used Silvanus as his amanuensis. That is, Peter dictated the letter to Silvanus while Silvanus transcribed what Peter spoke. In this way, the letter came from Peter to the “elect exiles of the Dispersion” through the dictation of Peter and written style and Greek expertise of Silvanus.
A third option for understanding this preposition is that Peter both dictated the letter while Silvanus transcribed Peter’s words and also hand delivered it to the “elect exiles of the Dispersion.”
Of the three options listed above, the second, and most probably the third also, is the only option that could explain the excellent Greek found in the text from such an “unschooled ordinary man.”
Although Peter’s name is unambiguously attached to this letter (1:1), he might not actually be the one who penned the letter. It is no secret that Peter was most likely illiterate.
In Luke’s description of Peter’s defense of the resurrection in Acts 4:12, Luke writes as if there was unequivocal, unanimous agreement among his audience that Peter did not have any formal education. This is no small statement since his audience was from the Jewish academic elite, the “rulers and elders and scribes, with Annas the high priest and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of the high-priestly family” (Act 4:6).
That is no slouch of an audience. And they all were in agreement that Peter was obviously uneducated. The text describes Peter as “unschooled,” and “illiterate”. The transliteration of the two Greek words used to describe Peter here are “ungrammared” and “idiot.”
To call someone “ungrammared”, indicates a view that someone does not possess the ability to articulate (spoken or written) using proper grammatical structures of a spoken language. To call someone an “idiot” seems a bit harsh, but that is exactly the English transliteration of the Greek word used to describe the assessment of Peter’s lack of knowledge, obvious to all as he spoke. One might even be tempted to translate the text as, “Peter appeared to be an idiot because of his ungrammared speech.” In any case, the unanimous assessment of his audience was that Peter was an illiterate, uneducated man.
So, to ask, “Is it possible that Silvanus may have done the writing at Peter’s dictations?” should not be a threatening question, since there is an obvious disparity between Peter’s education level and the level of educated Greek style and grammar found in his letter. It is completely feasible that Silvanus may have transcribed Paul’s dictated words using the stylistic Greek of a mother-tongue Greek speaker.
Silvanus would not be the first amanuensis mentioned in the New Testament. Tertius in fact, admits in Romans 16:22 to being the amanuensis at Paul’s dictation for Paul’s letter to the Romans.
“I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.”
Just as Tertius’ transcription of Paul’s words does not take away from Paul’s authoritative authorship of Romans, so Silvanus’ transcription of Peter’s words does not take away any portion to Peter’s authoritative authorship.
The only difference in the two admissions of the use of an amanuensis in the New Testament is that it appears, first, in regards to Paul’s letters, Tertius transcribe Paul's dictation from beginning to end, whereas in Peter’s letter, Silvanus appears to have given the pen over to Peter at the end of his first letter for Peter to make the admission himself on Silvanus’s behalf.
“through Silvanus, I have written briefly to you… (Acts 4:6)
“I Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.” (Romans 16:22)
In both cases, especially in the case of Peter’s writings, the use of an amanuensis should not threaten one’s conviction of authoritative authorship and further, should firmly maintain an untarnished and unquestionably reliable view of inspiration.
We have made the case for Petrine authorship in lieu of the disparity between Peter’s “idiocy” displayed in front of the Jewish Council, and the level of Greek grammatical acuity displayed in Peter’s first letter. We have resolved the issue and maintained Peter's authority.
In my next blog, we will cite examples of high level stylistic Greek in 1st Peter, and then attempt to interpret and apply them to daily Christian living.
Comments