I

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Herausgeber/Editor Jörg Frey (München)

Mitherausgeber/Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

244 II III Paul A. Holloway

Coping with Prejudice

1 Peter in Social-Psychological Perspective

Mohr Siebeck IV

Paul A. Holloway, born 1955; 1998 Ph.D. University of Chicago; 1998–2006 Assistant Professor and then Associate Professor of Religion, Samford University, Birmingham, Alabama; 2006–2009 Lecturer then Senior Lecturer in Christian Origins, University of Glasgow; since 2009 Associate Professor of , School of Theology, Sewanee: The University of the South, Sewanee, Tennessee.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151533-0 ISBN 978-3-16-149961-6 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament)

Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliogra- phie; detailed bibliographic data is available on the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de.

© 2009 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproduction, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was typeset by Computersatz Staiger in Rottenburg/N., printed by Gulde-Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany. V

For Melissa, and for Chapney, Abigail, Callie, and Lillian VI VII

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to recall the encouragement and help I have received in researching and writing this book. First of all, I wish to thank Jörg Frey and Hans-Josef Klauck, the editors of Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testa- ment, for expressing their interest in the topic and issuing a contract at an early stage of my research. Their continuing interest and support has been a great boon. My thanks also to Henning Ziebritzki, general editor for early Christian and Jewish Studies at Mohr Siebeck, whose gentle encouragement and great patience have been much appreciated. One of the greatest joys of the academy is the many conversations it allows. The ideas expressed in this book have been developed in conversation with a host of generous and intelligent friends and colleagues. I offer my hearty thanks to each of these individuals, who include: Eddie Adams, Jeff Asher, Liz Asmis, Harry Attridge, David Aune, David Bains, Matt Baldwin, John Barclay, Dieter Betz, Ward Blanton, Bill Brosend, Walter Brownridge, Chris Bryan, Adela Yarbro Collins, John Collins, Cindy Crysdale, Art Droge, Jim Dunkly, Garrett Fagan, Chris Faraone, Hugh Floyd, Jörg Frey, David Garland, Matt Goff, Jim Henges, Matthias Henze, Karina Hogan, David Horrell, Bob Hughes, Alastair Hunter, Larry Hurtado, Matt Jackson-McCabe, Werner Jean- rond, Werner Kelber, Jim Kelhoffer, Hans-Josef Klauck, Ed Krentz, Manfred Lang, Louise Lawrence, A.-J. Levine, Penny Long Marler, Dale Martin, Margy Mitchell, Chris Mount, Halvor Moxnes, Carol Newsom, George Nickelsburg, George Parsenios, Sarah Parvis, John Riches, Olivia Robinson, Clare Rothschild, Ken Roxburgh, Richard Saller, Joe Scrivner, Yvonne Sherwood, Bill Stafford, Todd Still, Jim Turrell, Mark Usher, Dale Walker, Heather Walton, and Becky Wright. I would like to acknowledge Brill Academic Publishers for permission to in- corporate material from my earlier articles: “Paul’s Pointed Prose: The Sen- tentia in Roman Rhetoric and Paul,” Novum Testamentum 40 (1998) 32–53, and “‘Beguile your soul’ (Sir xiv 16; xxx 23): An Epicurean Theme in Ben Sira,” Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008) 1–16; the president and fellows of Harvard Col- lege for permission to incorporate material from my article: “Bona Cogitare: An Epicurean Consolation in Phil 4:8–9,” Harvard Theological Review 91 (1998) 89–96; and Cambridge University Press for permission to incorporate material from my book: Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy (SNTSMS 112: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), and VIII Acknowledgements my article: “Nihil inopinati accidisse — ‘Nothing unexpected has happened’: A Cyrenaic Consolatory Topos in 1 Pet 4.12ff.” New Testament Studies 48 (2002) 433–48. I lovingly dedicate this book to my wife Melissa and to our four wonderful children: Chapney, Abigail, Callie, and Lillian. They have selflessly supported me throughout this project. I have on numerous occasions benefited from Melissa’s astute social and cultural critical sensibilities. Indeed, it was because of Melissa’s example that my first serious efforts at social analysis were awakened some twenty-five years ago. Readers will be especially happy to know that more than once a half-baked idea intended for the pages of this book has been sent scurrying by her disapproval. IX

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ...... VII Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, Series ...... XIII

List of Plates ...... XVI

Introduction ...... 1

Part 1: Encountering Prejudice

Chapter One: Locating 1 Peter: 1 Peter As an Early Christian Pseudepigraphal Letter ...... 8 Literary Integrity ...... 9 Authorship ...... 15 Date of Composition ...... 18 Original Readership ...... 19 Conclusion ...... 20

Chapter Two: Social Prejudice and Its Effects ...... 21 On the Nature of Prejudice ...... 21 An Emphasis on Group Membership ...... 22 A Social Attitude with Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Elements ...... 23 On the Causes of Prejudice ...... 29 Prejudice from the Target’s Perspective ...... 33 Conclusion ...... 38 X Table of Contents

Chapter Three: Social Prejudice and Persecution: On the Occasion of 1 Peter ...... 40 Anti-Christian Prejudice in the Early Roman Empire ...... 41 Official Correspondence on the Treatment of ...... 42 Early Christian Martyrdom Stories ...... 48 Early Christian Apologetic Writings ...... 54 Various Early Non- Christian Literary and Non-Literary Sources ...... 59 Summary ...... 65 Evidence of Anti- Christian Prejudice in 1 Peter ...... 66 Conclusion ...... 72

Part 2: Coping with Prejudice

Chapter Four: Ancient Theories and Practices of Consolation: Greco-Roman and Early Jewish Traditions ...... 76 Greco-Roman Consolation ...... 77 On the Nature of Greco-Roman Consolation ...... 77 Consolation and Philosophy ...... 82 Jewish Consolation ...... 86 Mourning and Consolation in Judaism ...... 87 Consolation in the Jewish Wisdom Tradition ...... 90 Consolation in the Jewish Prophetic Tradition ...... 97 Consolation in Jewish Apocalypticism ...... 105

Chapter Five: How People Cope with Prejudice: The Findings of Modern Social Psychology ...... 113 Strategies for Coping with Prejudice ...... 114 Problem-Focused Coping Strategies ...... 117 Emotion-Focused Coping Strategies ...... 122 Moderators for Choosing Coping Strategies ...... 127 The Costs and Consequences of Coping ...... 131 Conclusion: Coping and Consolation ...... 134 Table of Contents XI

Chapter Six: “ to a living hope” (1 Pet 1:1–12): Initial Words of Consolation ...... 137 “To the elect sojourners” (1 Pet 1:1–2) ...... 137 “Blessed be God” (1 Pet 1:3–12) ...... 140 “God has caused us to be born again” (1 Pet 1:3–5) ...... 142 “In this you rejoice” (1 Pet 1:6–9) ...... 148 “Concerning which salvation the prophets enquired” (1 Pet 1:10–12) ...... 152

Chapter Seven: “Set your hope fully” (1 Pet 1:13–2:10): Coping with Prejudice through Apocalyptic “Disidentification” ...... 156 Reorienting One’s Values (1 Pet 1:13) ...... 157 Restructuring One’s Identity (1 Pet 1:14–2:10) ...... 159 “As obedient children” (1 Peter 1:14–16) ...... 161 “If you call on a father who judges impartially” (1 Peter 1:17–21) ...... 163 “Having purified your souls for genuine sibling love” (1 Pet 1:22–25) ...... 166 “As newborn infants” (1 Peter 2:1–3) ...... 167 “As living stones … a spiritual house” (1 Pet 2:4–10) ...... 171 Conclusion ...... 172

Chapter Eight: “To silence the ignorance of the foolish” (1 Pet 2:11–3:12): Coping with Prejudice through “Behavioral Compensation” ...... 174 “Having good behavior among the gentiles” (1 Pet 2:11–12) ...... 175 “Submit to every human institution” (1 Pet 2:13–3:7) ...... 178 Christian Behavior toward the State (1 Pet 2:13–17) ...... 178 Christian Behavior in the oi\ko~ (1 Pet 2:18–3:7) ...... 183 “Finally, you should all strive to live in harmony” (1 Pet 3:8–12) ...... 191

Chapter Nine: “Keeping a good conscience” (1 Pet 3:13–4:11): Coping with Prejudice through “Attributional Ambiguity” . . . 192 Attributional Ambiguity and Attribution Theory ...... 194 “But even if you should suffer …” (1 Pet 3:13–14a) ...... 197 “With meekness and respect” (1 Pet 3:14b-16) ...... 199 XII Table of Contents

“It is better to suffer as one who does good” (1 Pet 3:17–22) ...... 206 “… and that is why they slander you” (1 Pet 4:1–6) ...... 210 “The end of all things is near” (1 Pet 4:7–11) ...... 212

Chapter Ten: “Do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal” (1 Pet 4:12–5:14): Concluding Words of Consolation ...... 214 Cyrenaic Consolation ...... 215 “Time has come for judgment to begin” (1 Pet 4:12–19) ...... 220 “Be examples to the flock” (1 Pet 5:1–5) ...... 229 “Humble yourselves under the hand of God” (1 Pet 5:6–11) ...... 231 “I have written to exhort and to testify” (1 Pet 5:12–14) ...... 231

Conclusion ...... 233

Plates ...... 237

Bibliography ...... 241 Reference Works ...... 241 Ancient Sources: Texts, Editions, and Translations ...... 242 Secondary Literature Cited ...... 249

Index ...... 279 Primary Sources ...... 279 Modern Authors ...... 311 XIII

Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, Series

The following table contains abbreviations not found in P. H. Alexander, et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999). References to ancient Greek and Latin sources follow the abbreviations used in H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon (9th ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1940), G. W. J. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1969), and P. G. W. Glare, The Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), though in a few instances I have expanded an abbreviation for clarity. References to papyri should be decipherable on the basis of F. Preisigke and E. Kiessling, Wörterbuch der griechischen Papyrusurkunden (4 vols.; Berlin; Göttingen: Selbstverlag, 1925–44) vol. 1:x-xii. and vol. 4:vii–x, and Supple- ment 1 (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1971) vii–xii, and Supplement 2 (Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz, 1991) vii–xi. Abbreviations for the titles of social scientific journals used in this study are not given in this table, since I have spelled out these titles in full in the notes and in the bib- liography.

AAntHung Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae AE L’année épigraphique AFLA Annales de la Faculté des Lettres et Humaines d’Aix AFLD Annales de la Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines de Dakar AIRF Acta Instituti romani Finlandiae ALCP Annali del Liceo classico G. Garibaldi di Palermo AnSt Antolian Studies APAW Abhandlungen. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften ASNSP Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa ASNU Acta seminarii neotestamentici upsaliensis AuC Antike und Christentum BAK Beiträge zur Altertumskunde BDAG A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early , ed. W. Bauer, F. W. Danker, et al., 4th ed., Chicago, 2000 BET Beiträge zur evangelischen Theologie BGU Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Königlichen Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin: Griechische Urkunden BKAW Bibliothek der klassischen Altertumswissenschaften BKP Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie BO Bibiotheca orientalis BT Bibliotheca Teubneriana CCh Continuity and Change XIV Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, Series

CeS Civilizations et sociétés CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, ed. T. Mommsen, et al. Berlin, 1863 – CIMRM Corpus Inscriptionm et Monumentorum Religionis Mithraicae, ed. Vermaseren, The Hague, 1956–60 ClAnt Classical Antiquity CLE Carmina Latina Epigraphica, ed. F. Bücheler and E. Lommatzsch, Leipzig, 1895–1926 CNRS Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique CollLatomus Collection Latomus CPJ Corpus Papyrorum Judicarum, ed. V. A. Tcherikover and A. Fuks, Cambridge, MA, 1957–64 CTA Corpus des tablettes en cunéiformes alphabétiques, ed. A. Herder, Paris, 1963 DELG Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque, ed. P. Chantraine, Paris, 1968–80 DK Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, ed. H. Diels and W. Kranz, 6th ed., Berlin, 1974–5 ECC Early in Context EvTh Evangelische Theologie HBS Herders Biblische Studien IGR Inscriptiones Graecae Urbis Romae ILCV Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae veteres ILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JRS Journal of Roman Studies JSJSup Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series KAV Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern KP Der kleine Pauly LCL Loeb Classical Library LD Lection divina LSJ A Greek-English Lexicon, ed. H. G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H. S. Jones, 9th ed., Oxford, 1940 MBPF Münchener Beiträge zur Paprusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte MGWJ Monatschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums NHS Nag Hammadi Studies NTG New Testament Guides NTApoc New Testament Apocrypha, 2 vols., ed. E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, trans. R. McL. Wilson, Philadelphia, 1992 OCD Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth, 3rd ed., Oxford, 1996 OCT Bibliotheca Oxoniensis (Oxford Classical Texts) OECT Oxford Early Christian Texts OSAP Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. OTP Pseudepigrapha, ed. Charlesworth, 2 vols., New York, 1983–5 P&P Past and Present PGL A Patristic Greek Lexicon, ed. G. W. H. Lampe, Oxford, 1961 PGM Papyri Graecae Magicae, ed. K. Preisendanz, Leipzig, 1928–31 Abbreviations of Periodicals, Reference Works, Series XV

PIBA Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association PIR2 Prosopographia imperii romani Saeculi I. II. III., Berlin, 1933 – PMG Poetae Melici Graeci, ed. D. L. Page, Oxford, 1962 PMS Patristic Monograph Series PTS Patristische Texte und Studien PW(PWSup) Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, ed. G. Wissowa, W. Kroll, et al. 24 vols., 19 vols., and supplement (15 vols.), Stuttgart, 1893–1980 RecAug Recherches augustiniennes RhM Rheinisches Museum für Philologie RIDA Revue Internationale des Droits de l’Antiquité RVV Religionsversuche und Vorarbeiten SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SCHNT Studia ad corpus hellenisticum Novi Testamenti SCI Scripta Classica Israelica SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, ed. J. Hondius, et al. Alphen aan den Rijn and Amsterdam, 1923 – STA Studia et Testimonia Antiqua STAC Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum SVF Stoicorum veterum fragmenta, ed. H. von Arnim, Leipzig, 1904–24 SVTP Studia in Vetus Testamenti pseudepigraphca ThLZ Theologische Literaturzeitung TRG/RHD Tijdschrift voor Rechtsgeschiedenis/Revue d‘Histoire du Droit TrGF Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. B. Snell et al., Göttingen, 1971 – TU Text und Untersuchungen TUGAL Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur TWAT Wörtenbuch zum Alten Testament. ed. H.-J. Fabry, et al., Stuttgart. 1973–2000 TWNT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G. Kittel. Stuttgart, 1935–79 VCSup Supplements to Vigiliae christianae YCS Yale Classical Studies ZThG Zeitschrift für Theologie und Gemeinde ZKG Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik XVI

List of Plates

1. Alexamenos Graffito (Palatine Museum; with permission of the Soprinten- denza Speciale per i Beni Archeologici di Roma).

2. Detail of the Alexamenos Graffito showing the head and a possible titulus. 1

Introduction

Modern social psychology has devoted a significant share of its resources to the study of human prejudice. Most research to date has focused on those groups that exhibit prejudice, the objective being to uncover the different cognitive and motivational processes that give rise to prejudiced attitudes and behaviors. However, a number of recent studies have begun to investigate prejudice from the perspective of its “targets.”1 These studies have shown prejudice to be a powerful stressor that places unique and often costly demands on its targets. They have also identified a number of strategies that targets of prejudice use to cope with their predicaments. These findings hold real promise for scholars of early Christianity, for not only were early Christians frequently the targets of religious prejudice – they were to become its perpetrators soon enough!2 – but

1 Because the members of socially stigmatized groups actively seek to cope with their pre- dicaments, social psychologists studying these groups avoid the term “victim” with its con- notations of passive suffering and speak instead of the “targets” of prejudice, a term that leaves room for a degree of agency and self-determination. Social psychology’s early neglect of the targets of prejudice was noted already in 1974 by G. Harrison, “A Bias in the Social Psychology of Prejudice,” in Nigel G. Armistead, ed., Reconstructing Social Psychology (Bal- timore, MD: Penguin Education, 1974) 189–204; see more recently, Gary Collier, Henry L. Minton, and Graham Reynolds, Currents of Thought in American Social Psychology (Ox- ford: Oxford University Press, 1991); Sandra Graham, “‘Most of the Subjects Were White and Middle Class’: Trends in Published Research on African Americans and Selected APA Jour- nals, 1970–1989,” American Psychologist 47 (1992) 629–39. Two notable exceptions to this general neglect of the target’s perspective are Erving Goffman, Stigma: Notes on the Manage- ment of a Spoiled Identity (Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963), and Morris Rosenberg and Roberta G. Simmons, Black and White Self-Esteem: The Urban School Child (Washing- ton, D.C.: American Sociological Association, 1972). 2 E.g., G. E. M. de Ste. Croix, “Heresy, Schism, and Persecution in the Later Roman Em- pire,” in idem (Michael Whitby and Joseph Streeter, eds.), Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 201–29: “the Christian – or rather churches – became during the fourth and following centuries, and remained for more than a millennium and a half, the greatest organized persecuting force in human history” (201); cf. Timothy D. Barnes, “From Toleration to Suppression: The Evolution of Constan- tine’s Religious Policies,” Scripta Classica Israelica 21 (2002) 189–207; and now, Michael Gad- dis, There Is No Crime for Those Who Have (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005). That triumphant Christians were quick to persecute was already pointed out by late antique “pagan” historians such Eunapius and Zozimus, and to a lesser degree by Ammianus Marcellinus, later to be taken up with a passion by Montesquieu and Gibbon, and with a more philosophical bent (regarding the nature of polytheism and theism) by Hume, for which see 2 Introduction much of what they wrote sought either directly or indirectly to address this problem. In this study I apply these recent findings from social psychology to the early Christian pseudepigraphon known as 1 Peter. My thesis is that 1 Peter marks one of the earliest attempts, perhaps the earliest attempt, by a Christian author to craft a more or less comprehensive response to anti- Christian prejudice and its outcomes. Unlike later Apologists, however, who also wrote in response to anti-Christian prejudice,3 the author of 1 Peter does not seek to influence di- rectly the thoughts and actions of those hostile to Christianity, but writes in- stead for his beleaguered coreligionists, consoling them in their suffering and advising them on how to cope with popular prejudice and the persecution it en- gendered. As we shall see, the coping strategies he recommends are strikingly similar to strategies currently being described by modern social psychologists studying the targets of prejudice. I have divided the study into two parts. Part 1 is entitled “Encountering Pre- judice: On the Occasion of 1 Peter” and consists of three chapters. Virtually all New Testament scholars today agree that the occasion of 1 Peter lies with the conflict between its Christian readers and their non- Christian neighbors.4 In these early chapters I argue that this conflict may be further specified as deriv- ing from a rapidly developing anti-Christian prejudice, which prejudice has been rendered particularly salient by the fact that it is finding a ready ear in the provincial courts where Christians are being accused and successfully prose- cuted by their neighbors. I begin in chapter 1 with a brief discussion of the standard topics of historical and literary introduction – the literary integrity of 1 Peter, its authorship, date, and original readership – leaving aside for the mo- ment the letter’s occasion. There is presently a general consensus on these topics, and since I have only a few additional points to make, my discussion of them is brief. I then review in chapter 2 the findings of modern social psychology on the nature and causes of prejudice, including how targets of prejudice experience their plight. Lastly in chapter 3 I apply these findings to a description of anti- Christian prejudice as the occasion of 1 Peter. I conclude: (1) that social pre- judice played a determinative role in the persecution of early Christians, includ- ing the readers of 1 Peter; (2) that this prejudice constituted an ever-present source of stress and anxiety – actual persecutions may have been “local and sporadic” but anti-Christian prejudice and the very real threat it posed was for the most part ubiquitous and constant – and (3) that a careful comparison with

Joseph Streeter, “Religious Toleration in Classical Antiquity and Early Christianity,” in Ste. Croix, et al., Christian Persecution, Martyrdom, and Orthodoxy, 229–251. 3 See chapter 3 below. 4 This is in contrast to earlier studies which saw in 1 Peter a early Christian baptismal ser- mon or baptismal liturgy. Even these studies, however, understood 1 Pet 4:12ff. as an ap- pended “letter” addressing a conflict situation. See chapter 1 below. Introduction 3

modern prejudice studies casts significant light on this important but generally overlooked aspect of early Christian experience.5 Part 2 is entitled “Coping with Prejudice: On the Argument of 1 Peter” and consists seven chapters. Here I apply the findings from Part 1 to a reading of 1 Peter as a response to anti- Christian prejudice and it outcomes. I begin with two prefatory chapters in which I consider the various strategies the author of 1 Peter might have employed as he sought first toconsole his readers in their suf- fering and then to advise them in how best to cope with anti- Christian prejudice (chapters 4 and 5 respectively).6 In the remaining chapters (chapters 6–10) I apply the findings from these two chapters, alongside the conclusions from Part 1, to a reading of 1 Peter as a response to anti- Christian prejudice. Since the con- tours of this reading can be readily discerned from the table of contents, I will not repeat them here, except to call attention to the fact that the author of 1 Pe- ter’s coping advice comes mostly in the central portion of the letter (1:13–4:11), and that his efforts at consolation are concentrated at the letter’s beginning and end (1:1–12; 4:12–5:14). In describing the hostility felt toward Christians in the early Roman Empire as “prejudice” I do not mean to imply that this hostility was unfounded. On the contrary, Christians obviously did pose a threat to the Roman Empire, as sub- sequent history was quick to show, and it was reasonable for the Romans to fear them, especially as the movement began to grow in numbers and in influence.7 The fact that these fears quickly (and predictably) expressed themselves in social prejudice with all of its characteristic distortions and excesses says nothing about the legitimacy of Roman anxieties, and a full history of the relationship between Christian and non-Christian in the early Roman Empire would have to take this into account.8 My objective here is only to describe as accurately as possible the nature of the troubled relationships early Christians had with their neighbors (and through them with the Roman government) and to examine the role these troubled relationships played in the daily lives of these Christians,

5 I do not mean to imply by this that ancient and modern prejudice are wholly identical, or that the findings of modern empirical social psychology can be mapped directly onto the an- cient evidence. But neither do I imagine that modern and ancient prejudice are radically dif- ferent species of human social interaction such that a familiarity with modern prejudice studies can be of no help in interpreting the ancient materials. Not the least of these benefits is that modern studies encourage conceptual clarity and descriptive precision in our analysis. 6 The latter of second chapters (chapter 5) is especially central to my argument, since it surveys the work currently underway by social psychologists on the various coping strategies deployed by targets of prejudice. For the relationship between consolation and coping, see my comments at the end of chapter 5 below. 7 For inter-group threat as one of the principal causes of prejudice, see chapter 2 below. 8 I speak to the legitimacy of these fears in passing in my discussion of the causes of pre- judice below in chapter 2. This topic also surfaces from time to time in part 2. 4 Introduction including how these Christians sought to cope as the targets of social pre- judice. My reading of 1 Peter as a response to anti- Christian prejudice and its out- comes obviously hinges on my understanding of the type of conflict – conflict expressive of social prejudice – evidenced in the letter. I discuss this conflict in detail in chapters 2 and 3 below. But so as not to miss the forest for the trees, let me briefly summarize my understanding of it here. Scholars have imagined the conflict underlying 1 Peter in essentially two ways: (1) as government-spon- sored persecution – a view popular in the past but now largely abandoned9 – or (2) as popular hostility that stops short of state action – presently the majority opinion.10 As different as these views are, they both rest upon a common as- sumption, which in my view is also their fundamental flaw. They both assume that a hard and fast separation should be made between popular animosity and official persecution: either the state is acting alone, as in view 1, or local resi- dents are acting alone, as in view 2. But as David Horrell has very recently ob- served, “to pose as alternatives informal public hostility and official Roman persecution [is] to misconstrue the situation that pertained, broadly speaking, from the time of Nero until the third-century persecution under Decius.”11 Horrell’s own view is a kind of via media between these two extremes. After duly noting the accusatorial nature of the Roman provincial courts – which is to say that these courts did not prosecute offenders so much as hear accusations against them brought by private citizens – Horrell goes on to say:12 precisely the kind of public hostility and antagonism that most [interpreters] rightly see lying behind 1 Peter can lead to Christians being accused and brought to court. And when this happens, if they acknowledge the name ‘Christian’, they are liable to punishment and

9 This appears to be the view of Leonhard Goppelt, Der erste Petrusbrief (KEKNT 12/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978) 61–2, who imagines provincial authorities (alle Behörden des Imperiums) proceeding against Christians based on the general unpopularity of C hristians and on Nero’s police action (Polizeiaktion) in Rome; cf. Norbert Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief (EKKNT 21; Zurich: Neukirchener, 1979) 27. For a more general discussion along these lines, see Paul Keresztes, “The Imperial Roman Government and the Christian Church I: From Nero to the Severi,” ANRW 2.23.1.247–315, esp. 279–87. 10 E.g., John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 794: “there is no basis for claiming that at the time of 1 Peter Christianity had been officially proscribed by Rome and that being labeled a Christian implied being charged as a criminal.” On the topic of Christians as criminals, see my discussion of kakopoiov~ (“criminal”; 2:12) below in chapters 3 and 8 below; correctly, Brox, Der erste Petrusbrief, 113: “als Kriminelle diffamiert.” 11 David G. Horrell, 1 Peter (NTG; London: T & T Clark, 2008) 56–8. 12 Horrell, 1 Peter, 57 (emphasis original). I am slightly uncomfortable (only slightly) with Horrell’s reference to “imperial” hostility. I would rather speak of gubernatorial hostility, in as much as it was the provincial governor’s stance toward Christians that made the biggest difference for Christians. This point has been made by Timothy D. Barnes, “Legislation Against the Christians,” JRS 58 (1968) 49–50. Of course, Roman governors served at the pleasure of the emperor, as the author of 1 Peter himself makes plain (2:13–14). Introduction 5 execution. In other words it was a combination of public and imperial hostility that re- sulted in formal action against Christians. I think this is exactly right.13 The only thing I would wish to add is that the anti- Christian “hostility and antagonism” Horrell envisages may be helpfully described as social prejudice with all that that means. It will be the burden of this study to demonstrate the advantages of this description.14

13 This is essentially the view now taken by Reinhard Feldmeier, Der erste Brief des Petrus (THKNT 15/1; Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2005). 14 Three of these advantages may be briefly listed here. First, by describing anti- Christian hostility during this period as the result of social prejudice we invite comparison with modern prejudice studies (chapters 2 and 5 below). Second, we gain a better sense of the lived experi- ence of early Christians, which has I think largely been lost sight of today. To take but one obvious example: the persecution of Christians is almost universally described in the com- mentary tradition as “local and sporadic.” This is, of course, technically true. But it is also technically true that the lynching of Blacks in pre-Civil Rights America was “local and spo- radic.” Needless to say, such language does little to capture the constant physical and emo- tional stress of such an experience, which is better appreciated, I think, if we speak instead of intense social prejudice. Finally, and continuing with the above analogy, just as intense and wide-spread social prejudice influenced both public opinion and the courts in pre-Civil Rights America, so anti- Christian prejudice influenced the courts in the early Roman Em- pire. This is a key observation and greatly strengthens Horrell’s insight that popular outcry led easily to judicial persecution. Christians were hauled to court by their prejudiced neigh- bors where they faced judges who like their accusers were similarly prejudiced against them, and where there was little if any procedural justice to protect them. 6 7

Part 1: Encountering Prejudice 8

Chapter One Locating 1 Peter: 1 Peter As an Early Christian Pseudepigraphal Letter

… in Asia presbyterum qui eam scripturam construxit, quasi titulo Pauli de suo cumulans, convictum atque confessum id se amore Pauli fecisse loco decessisse.*

My objective in these first three chapters is to reassess the evidence for the occa- sion of 1 Peter and to propose what I believe will be a more fruitful way of imag- ining that occasion. I agree with the majority of scholars who have worked on 1 Peter over the past half century or so1 that the occasion of 1 Peter lies with the conflict between its original readers and their non- Christian neighbors.2 How- ever, I believe that it is possible to be more specific about the nature of this con- flict, and over the course of the next three chapters I will argue that the readers of 1 Peter have become the targets of social prejudice and that this prejudice and its various outcomes – which include an ever-present threat of prosecution in the provincial courts – along with the easy-to-imagine fears and anxieties that these outcomes produced, constitute the proper occasion of 1 Peter. I will approach the question of the occasion of 1 Peter through the traditional topics of historical introduction: literary integrity, authorship, date, original readership, and of course the letter’s specific occasion, in so far as that can be ascertained. Since there is now a general consensus among scholars regarding the first four of these (integrity, authorship, date, and readership), and since I will not depart significantly from this consensus I will discuss these topics to-

* Tertullian, De baptismo 17. 1 A turning point in the modern study of 1 Peter was Eduard Lohse’s programmatic essay, “Paränese und Kerygma im 1. Petrusbrief,” ZNW 45 (1954) 68–89, which was in part pre- pared for by Edward Gordon Sewlyn’s important The First Epistle of St. Peter (London: Mac- millan, 1946; 2nd ed., 1955). Prior to Lohse, the tendency among critical interpreters was to see in 1 Peter something other than a “letter” written for a concrete social situation (see be- low). 2 E.g., Udo Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (Minne- apolis: Fortress, 1998) 404: “A decisive factor for determining the circumstances of the ad- dressees of 1 Peter is the interpretation of the conflict situation presupposed in the parenetic sections dealing with suffering” (emphasis original). Chapter One: Locating 1 Peter 9 gether in this first chapter. I will consider the fifth topic (occasion) separately and in more detail in chapters 2 and 3 below.

Literary Integrity

The integrity of the 1 Peter has been challenged on both literary-critical and form-critical grounds.3 The literary-critical case was first made by Richard Per- delwitz in his influential monograph,Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des 1. Petrusbriefes.4 Building on the work of Adolf von Harnack,5 Perdelwitz proposed that 1 Peter was an early baptismal sermon that had been fitted into an epistolary framework. But whereas Harnack had preserved the general integ- rity of 1 Peter by proposing that the original sermon extended from 1:3 to 5:11, Perdelwitz argued that a major redactional seam was discernible between 4:11 and 4:12, and that 4:12–5:11 constituted an appended consolatory note.6 Perdel- witz offered two arguments for his division of the letter: first, that the doxology of 4:11 would provide a natural ending for a sermon, while the fresh start at 4:12 could mark the beginning of the main portion of a separate letter; and second, and closer to issues that still exercise interpreters, that 4:12–5:11 reflects a differ- ent set of circumstances (physical persecution versus public verbal abuse) than those reflected in 1:3–4:11 and thus signals a later addition. To be sure, it is possible to imagine a redactional seam after the doxology of 4:11, just as it is possible if one is so inclined to imagine redactional seams with virtually every major sectional division in an ancient document.7 But there is no compelling reason to do so. It was common practice among Greco-Roman speakers and writers to signal the end of a section of discourse with a well- turned phrase or sententia that served as a concluding sentence or clausula.8

3 Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, 407. 4 E. Richard Perdelwitz, Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des 1. Petrusbriefes (RVV 11/3; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911); cf. Hans Windisch, Die katholischen Briefe (2nd ed.; HNT 15; Tübingen: Mohr, 1930); Francis W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter (3rd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1947); most recently, Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975). 5 Adolf von Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (2 vols.; Leip- zig: Hinrichs, 1897) 2:451–65; followed earlier by W. Soltau, “Die Einheitlichkeit des ersten Petrusbriefes,” TSK 78 (1905) 302–15, and somewhat later by Wilhelm Bornemann, “Der er- ste Petrusbrief: Eine Taufrede des Silvanus?” ZNW 19 (1919–20) 143–65. 6 Though this partitioning of the letter is now generally rejected, Perdelwitz’s characteri- zation of 4:12ff as a “consolatory note” is to my mind a lasting insight. 7 To be fair, Perdelwitz and the other scholars surveyed here wrote at a time in which Quellenforschung was very much the vogue in German-speaking and to a lesser degree Eng- lish-speaking scholarship. This was an important period of research, and many ancient authors otherwise lost have been recovered. 8 Quint., Inst. 8.5.13. These took many forms. Two popular forms were the summary 10 Part 1: Encountering Prejudice

This was especially true in the early Principate, as evidenced by Quintilian’s complaint at Inst. 8.5.13–14:9 But now they want every separate topic … every sentence at the end of a development to strike the ear. Indeed, they think it shameful, even criminal, to take a breath at a place that does not draw applause. The result is that our discourses today are strewn with tiny, af- fected, and far-fetched ditties. For there simply cannot be as many good sententiae as there must be clausulae. In religious texts, theological sentences and doxologies were often employed for similar purposes.10 Paul, whose letters at least indirectly informed 1 Peter,11 was particularly fond of this, as Johannes Weiss noted more than a century ago when he spoke of “die Clauseln, mit denen der Apostel grössere oder kleinere Ab- schnitte zu Ende führt.”12 Paul’s letter to the Romans, which like 1 Peter affects

(conclusio; discussed at: Rh. Her. 4.30.41; Cic., Top. 13.54; 14.56–57; Quint., Inst. 5.10.2; 5.14.1, 20) and the exclamation (epiphonema; discussed at: Quint., Inst. 8.5.11; Demetr., Eloc. 2.106), both of which probably apply mutatis mutandis to 1 Pet 4:11. 9 For a general discussion of this phenomenon, the so-called ardens style, see Janet Fair- weather, Seneca the Elder (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1981); cf. A. D. Leeman, Ora- tionis Ratio: The Stylistic Theories and Practice of the Roman Orators Historians and Philoso- phers (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1963) 219–242, 260–283. The younger Seneca was famous for this (Quint., Inst. 10.1.125–31; Fronto, Ep. ad Marc. de orat. 4 = Haines 2.104), though he stopped short of the excesses of which Quintilian here complains; see Aldo Setaioli, “Seneca e lo stile,” ANRW 2.32.2: 815: “un mo dernista moderato”; cf. J. Oroz-Reta, “Séneca y el estilo ‘nuevo’,” Helmantica 16 (1965) 319–365. 10 I discuss the phenomenon at length in “Paul’s Pointed Prose: The Sententia in Roman Rhetoric and Paul,” NovT 40 (1998) 32–53. On doxologies in particular, see Feldmeier, Der erste Brief des Petrus, 21 n. 99, who lists Rom 1:25; 11:36; Eph 3:20–21; 1 Clem. 20:12; 32:4; 38:4; 45:7; 50:7; 58:2; 61:3; 64; 65:2; cf. Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Pe- ter (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996) 292: “such a doxology is used far more frequently within the body of a letter than as its conclusion.” 11 Goppelt, Der Erste Petrusbrief, 48–51; see the recent discussion by David G. Horrell, “The Product of Petrine Circle? A Reassessment of the Origin and Character of 1 Peter,” JSNT 24 (2002) 29–60, who corrects both Jens Herzer, Petrus oder Paulus? Studien über das Verhältnis des Ersten Petrusbriefes zur paulinischen Tradition (WUNT 103; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), and Elliott, 1 Peter, 37–40. 12 Johannes Weiss, “Beiträge zur Paulinischen Rhetorik,” in Theologische Studien, Bern- hard Weiss zu seinem 70. Geburtstag dargebracht (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1897) 189 n. 1; cf. idem, Die Aufgaben der neutestamentlichen Wissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1908) 17, 20. Also: C. F. Georg Heinrici, “Zum Hellenismus des Paulus,” in idem, Der zweite Brief an die Korinther (MeyerK 6/8; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900) 454: “absichtsvolle Abrundung der einzelnen Gedankengruppen…in schwerwiegenden, bisweilen rhythmisch ausklingenden Schlussentenzen”; idem, Der littera- rische Charakter der neutestamentlichen Schriften (Leipzig: Durr, 1908) 66–69, an assess- ment that holds true even if Heinrici’s more general contentions about Paul’s abilities are overstated (so Eduard Norden, Die antike Kuntsprosa, 2 vols. [Leipzig: Teubner, 1898] 492–510); cf. Rudolf Bultmann, Der Stil der paulinishen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische Dia- tribe, (FRLANT 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1910) 94: “Paulus liebt es, in seine Erörterung scharf formulierte Sentenzen einzuflechten.” Chapter One: Locating 1 Peter 11 a more elevated prose style, provides a number examples.13 To the attuned ear, the presence of this device signaled that a section of discourse had come to a close, but it did not indicate that the discourse itself was over, since more often than not a fresh topic was introduced and the discourse continued. The quest- ion, then, is not whether 4:11 might in theory mark the end of a sermon, but whether 4:12ff. continues the discourse with the introduction of a new topic.14 This brings us to Perdelwitz’s second argument that the physical persecution implied in 4:12–5:11 reflects a changed situation from the mere public verbal abuse implied in 1:3–4:11, and that therefore 4:12–5:11 does not in fact continue that earlier unit of discourse. At first glance there appears to be good textual evidence for this view. In 2:14, for instance, governors are envisaged positively as those who praise the good and punish only the wicked (eij~ ejkdivkhsin kakopoiw`n e[painon de; ajgaqopoiw`n) rather than those who join in the persecu- tion of the righteous as would seem to be implied in 4:12–19. Similarly, in 3:14 persecution is imagined simply as a possibility (ajll j eij kai; pavscoite), whereas in 4:12 it is treated as a present reality (mh; xenivzesqe th ejn uJmi'n purwvsei … ginomevnh/). Furthermore, prior to 4:12 Christians are the victims of slander and verbal abuse (e.g., katalalou'sin uJmw`n wJ~ kakopoiw`n, 2:12; th;n tw`n ajfrovnwn ajnqrwvpwn ajgnwsivan, 2:15; blasfhmou'nte~, 4:4), which, so the argument goes, is a long way from legal prosecution and punishment.15 On fuller reflection, however, this analysis falters on a number of points, particularly as regards the rhetoric of 1 Peter and the actual circumstances of early Christian persecution. I will return to both of these topics repeatedly over the course of this book,16 but for now let me make the following counter-obser- vations. First, and quickly, the optative pavscoite in 3:14 does not mean that at the time of writing the physical persecution of Christians has yet to occur, that everywhere and for all Christians persecution remains a mere possibility, but only that for any particular Christian – or more likely, for any particular local group of Christians (note the plural) – it might not occur.17

13 Paul’s favorite type of concluding sentence is the summarizing conclusio (e.g., Rom 3:20; 4:25). At Rom 8:38–39 and again at 11:33–36 he employs extended crescendos or excla- mations known in the rhetorical handbook tradition as epiphonemata (cf. Quint., Inst. 8.5.14–15, who cites Cic., Pro Lig. 4.10; Pro Mil. 4.9; and Virg, Aen. 1.33). The doxology that concludes Rom 11:33–36 (aujtw`/ hJ dovxa eij~ tou;~ aijw`na~, ajmh;n) is similar in both form and function to 1 Pet 4:12. 14 On the continuation of 1:1–4:11 in 4:12ff., see Angelika Reichert, Eine urchristliche Praeparatio ad Martyrium: Studien zur Komposition, Traditionsgeschichte und Theologie des 1. Petrusbriefes (BET 22; Frankfurt: Lang, 1989) 46–59. 15 This last point continues to be made even by those who hold to the unity of the letter; e.g., Elliott, 1 Peter, 100–1, 795. 16 See esp. chapter 3 below. 17 It is as if someone today were to say, “But even if you are audited by the IRS, you are blessed,” which no one – except perhaps a certain type of Biblical scholar! – would interpret to mean that the Internal Revenue Service has heretofore never audited anyone. 12 Part 1: Encountering Prejudice

Second, it is anachronistic to imagine a sharp distinction between popular hostility and judicial prosecution in the early Roman Empire, especially as re- gards the trials of such publicly despised groups as Christians. On the contrary, the public and ad hoc n at u re of t he prov i nc ia l cognitio or jud ic ia l “ i nve st igat ion” 18 allowed popular outcry to lead seamlessly to judicial prosecution, with the re- sult that popular hostility and judicial sanction often went hand in glove.19 In- deed, this became such a problem in the trials of early Christians that even Ro- man emperors took notice and tried to correct it. Thus Trajan in his famous re- script to Pliny20 prohibits trials on the basis of published lists of Christians. Even more revealing is Hadrian’s rescript to Fundanus,21 which explicitly ad- dresses the fact that Christians are being successfully indicted by the shouts of the courtroom crowd, a practice that so angered him that he concluded his letter with an oath! I will return to these important documents below in chapter 3. Third, the seemingly positive assessment about governors at 1 Pet 2:14 – that they have been sent by the emperor to punish bad people and praise good people – is a parade example of Roman imperial propaganda and should by no means be read as a straightforward description either of life in the provinces or of the way the author of 1 Peter feels about Roman provincial justice. That this has been overlooked by interpreters is striking and is, I guess, an indication of just how blind we remain even today to the rhetoric of imperialism. That said, there are several responsible ways to read 2:14, ranging from Marxist “false conscious- ness” to the kind of social “hybridity” evident in so many colonial cultures, not all of which are mutually exclusive. My own view, which I will develop below, is that 2:14 is a case of a subaltern minority consciously appropriating a piece of imperial propaganda, what Scott calls the “public transcript,” to leverage the

18 See the discussion below in chapter 3. 19 Ernest Cadman Colewell, “Popular Reactions against Christianity in the Roman Em- pire,” in John T. McNeill, Matthew Spinka, and Harold R. Willoughby, eds., Environmental Factors in Christian History (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939) 53–71; more re- cently, Reinhard Feldmeier, “The ‘Nation’ of Strangers: Social Contempt and its Theological Interpretations in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity,” in Mark G. Brett, ed., Ethnicity and the (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 240–70: “official proceedings against Paul always began with enraged citizens” (252; citing Acts 14:4–5; 16:19–22; 17:8, 13; 19:23–40; 21:27–40), and: “the persecution logia speak of Christians being delivered up to judgment by their own neigh- bors, even by their own relatives (ibid.; citing Mark 13:9–13; Matt 10:17–18; Luke 21:12–17); cf. David G. Horrell, “Leiden als Discriminierung und Martyrium: (Selbst-)Stigmatisierung und Sozial-Identität am Beispiel des ersten Petrusbriefes,” in Gerd Theissen and Petra von Gemünden, eds., Erkennen und Erleben: Beiträge zur psychologischen Erforschung des frühen Christentums (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007) 119–132, esp. 120–1: who rightly describes social discrimination against early Christians and their judicial accusation as points on a continuous “Spektrum.” 20 Pliny, Ep. 10.97. 21 Just., 1 Apol. 68.6–10; reproduced at Eus., Hist. eccl. 4.9.1–3. Chapter One: Locating 1 Peter 13 way they are treated by those in power.22 Something like: “The Romans say that their goverors reward ‘those who do good’ (ajgaqopoioiv), so let’s present our- selves to them as ‘do-gooders’ (ajgaqopoiou'nte~).”23 But however we decide to interpret 1 Pet 2:14, it should not be read as evidence that at the time it was written Christians were not being subjected to prosecutions in the provincial courts. Indeed, the decision to appeal to official propaganda relating to those courts argues just the opposite. Fourth, Perdelwiz seems to assume that at any given time Christians would have been treated in a uniform fashion across the five provinces mentioned in 1 Pet 1:1,24 and that therefore when separate portions of a document such as 1 Pe- ter appear to treat separate situations they must be assigned to separate sources composed at different points in time.25 This shows a lack of historical imagina- tion. If we know anything about the persecution of Christians prior to 250 c.e., it is that local situations varied widely and changed rapidly, and we should not assume that these dynamics were lost on early Christians like the author of 1 Peter. It makes much more sense, therefore, given the scope of his intended au- dience, to imagine the author of 1 Peter picturing several possible scenarios and saying in effect, “If you find yourself in this type of a situation, do this. If, how- ever, you find yourself in this type of situation, do that.”26 Fifth, and finally, a good case can be made – and I will attempt to make it be- low – that an actual court appearance is envisaged in 1 Pet 3:13–16, which if true would mean that it is simply factually incorrect to say that the first part of 1 Pe- ter (1:3–4:11) treats only verbal abuse and not judicial sanction, a distinction that I would qualify on other grounds, as I have already indicated.27 Virtually all commentators today rightly reject Perdelwitz’s literary critical arguments for partitioning 1 Peter.

22 James C. Scott, Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990). 23 Note that the opponents of these early Christians were playing the same game. Roman propaganda claimed that governors punished “those who do evil” (kakopoioiv) and that is pre- cisely what they accused Christians of being: katalalou'sin uJmw`n wJ~ kakopoiw`n (2:12). 24 1 Peter’s pseudepigraphy notwithstanding, it is commonly assumed that these pro- vinces indicate at least something of the area the author of 1 Peter had in mind when he wrote his letter. 25 I suspect this narrowness is due to the fact that most New Testament scholars take Paul’s letters to be paradigmatic. Paul’s letters were indeed written to a particular local situa- tion, but this cannot be the case with “circular” letters like 1 Peter and James, a point that re- mains true even if these are judged to be pseudepigraphal, as I think they should be. 26 Modern coping theory is also relevant here. Coping theory has shown that persons seeking to cope with a stressor typically employ multiple strategies at the same time in the same situation and that these strategies, while serving the same practical objective, may ap- pear to outside observers to be contradictory. See my discussion in chapter 5 below. 27 William L. Schutter, Hermeutic and Composition in I Peter (WUNT 2.30; Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1989) 11–17. See my discussion in chapter 3 below.