Petrus oder Paulus? Studien uber das Verhaltnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition

Abstract

Petrus oder Paulus? Studien fiber das Verhaltnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition, by Jens Herzer. WUNT 103. Tubingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1998. Pp. x + 337. DM 168.00. This 1997 Berlin Habilitationsschrift advances a trend in Petrine studies that distances I Peter from Pauline tradition. This trend counters studies that understand I Peter as a reflection of Pauline theology or as an elaboration of extracts from the Pauline and Deuteropauline epistles or even as a composition of a Schiller des Paulus. Herzer pushes this trend to its extreme in rejecting Pauline influence on I Peter such as literary dependence or conscious appropriation of Pauline formulas, themes, and expressions. Herzer investigates only the most significant formal and thematic parallels between 1 Peter and the Pauline tradition. He uses K. Shimada's four literary criteria for determining direct literary dependence. Shimada proposes literary dependence when a document contains an express citation of another work or when two documents share a similar viewpoint or contain identical expressions, word placement, and words, or present broad concepts that are the same. To these four criteria, Herzer adds three more. He proposes Pauline influence only if context analysis demonstrates that similar conceptions are found in similar contexts or if concept analysis demonstrates that similar concepts occur with similar meaning or if I Peter consciously references a particular Pauline tradition. Herzer contends, however, that literary analysis alone cannot adequately investigate the relationship between 1 Peter and Pauline tradition. Consequently, he places the results of his literary analyses in the broader context of early Christian Traditionsgeschichte, which he understands as various traditions arising from the same salvation event but transmitted through different authorities. Herzer argues that 1 Peter represents Petrine tradition since Peter, not Paul, is the pseudonym (pp. 14-18). For Herzer, an adequate understanding of the tradition requires recognizing that Peter influenced Paul and that the Petrine and Pauline missions agreed in many respects. Hence, distinguishing between these traditions is difficult, especially since the Petrine text basis is small and unoriginal. By placing the results of his literary analyses within the context of early Christian Traditionsgeschichte, Herzer demonstrates that 1 Peter is neither literarily dependent nor directly influenced by the Pauline tradition. In chapter 2, Herzer applies his literary and traditio-historical methods to the Petrine and Pauline letter formulas. His literary analysis identifies Petrine additions, omissions, and alterations in comparison with Pauline usage. In the prescript for example, Herzer observes that the description of the recipients as elect strangers of the Diaspora transcends Pauline usage, as do the phrases sprinkling of blood and multiplied. The trinitarian formula in 1 Pet 1:2 is also not found in Pauline prescripts. In contrast, 1 Peter lacks the Pauline expansion of the title and common Pauline terms such as saints, beloved, and church. Most important for Herzer are the Petrine alterations of Pauline usages. Herzer emphasizes that Peter, not Paul, is identified as the sender, and the Petrine apostle of Jesus Christ differs from the Pauline formulation. Furthermore, terms such as foreknowledge, sanctification, and obedience occur differently in 1 Peter than in the Pauline corpus. Herzer concludes that the Petrine prescript neither relies on Paul nor falls within the Pauline epistolary tradition. When literary analysis alone is incapable of distancing 1 Peter from Paul, Herzer relies upon his traditio-historical method. For example, the eulogy formula blessed be God, found in the NT only in 1 Pet 1:3; 2 Cor 1:3; and Eph 1:3 indicates that 1 Peter derives this formula from Paul. …