Epistolary Postscript/Closing

Epistolary Postscript/Closing

1 Peter 5:12–14

Closing (5:12–14)

5:12

Silvanus, whom I consider a trustworthy brother, helped me write this short message. It’s meant to encourage you and to testify that this is God’s true grace. Stand firm in it!

5:13

Your fellow-chosen, she who is in “Babylon,” greets you, as does my son Mark.

5:14

Greet one another with the kiss of love. Peace to all of you, who are in Christ.

The closing consists of acknowledgments, greetings, and a final exhortation.

5:12

Silvanus (cf. 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1) is usually regarded as a Latinized version of the name “Silas”1 (Acts 15:22–18:5 passim), a traveling companion of Paul in Macedonia and Achaia. Those who consider the letter post-Petrine sometimes attribute mention of Silvanus to “a tradition shaped by Peter and Silvanus,”2 or perhaps a letter with Petrine content delivered by the actual Silvanus.3 On Petrine authorship, however, the allusion makes even clearer sense.

A CLOSER LOOK

Silvanus’s Role in Peter’s Letter4

The audience’s knowledge of Silvanus is not the only reason why Peter mentions Silvanus’s help (5:12); such help is not attributed here to Mark, for example (5:13). But does Silvanus help by actually writing the letter or merely by delivering it?

Silvanus was apparently a Roman citizen,5 a fairly rare privilege for those from the eastern empire,6 and it is thus likely that he was fairly well educated. Just as early second-century tradition says that Peter depended on Mark (cf. 1 Pet. 5:13) for writing his memoirs about Jesus,7 here Peter might depend on Silvanus to compose this letter.

Yet the language could be used more than one way, for delivering letters as well as for writing them. Second-century Christians sometimes used such language8 for delivering letters9 or supplying their means.10 Perhaps more importantly, papyri and ostraca also offer examples of this usage.11 Many examples of the exact form of expression that Peter uses here (egrapsa, the aorist first-person “I wrote,” with dia, “through”) are inherently less clear to us than they would have been to their first recipients,12 but others surely involve sending and not writing, which makes this meaning a plausible and perhaps the probable sense of this expression in most other passages as well:

Another example may be in Acts 15:22–23, where Silas (Silvanus) is explicitly sent as one of the couriers; in 15:23, “writing through” (grapsantes dia) may refer to sending the letter through Silvanus, not to composing it through him. Still, the wording need not rule out participation in the letter’s composition;16 as the church would send those most skilled in Greek to deliver the letter (15:31–32), they may well have relied on them in composing the letter.17 Moreover, in addition to “wrote,” Acts 15, unlike 1 Pet. 5:12, does expressly specify sending (Acts 15:22). Thus we must depend on other examples of the idiom to infer the idiom here.

If Peter refers to Silvanus as courier here, it seems relevant that one could commend letter bearers with a title similar to trustworthy18 brother (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7, 9).19 Still, the title was not limited to them (Col. 1:2), nor were commendations in general limited to bearers of letters (e.g., Rom. 16:3–4, 7; Col. 1:7; 4:12; Philem. 23).20 Further, the other commendations are less explicit about the commendee’s involvement, allowing it to be inferred.21 I could suggest another argument in support of Silvanus’s role as courier here. If Peter follows the Pauline format, coauthors (or honorary coauthors) would be listed toward a letter’s beginning (1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:2; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; Philem. 1), with the recipients’ visitors nearer the end (e.g., Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7),22 though not always (Phil. 2:25; Philem. 12). Nevertheless, if Peter treats Silvanus as an assistant (often unnamed in letters) rather than as a coauthor,23 he might name him toward the end in closing greetings (as in Rom. 16:21–23; 1 Cor. 16:19–20; Phil. 4:21–22; Philem. 23–24; Heb. 13:24)—along with Mark, who could also be known by name in the East (1 Pet. 5:13). Even today, a single-author work’s editor is likelier to be mentioned in the acknowledgments than on a book’s cover.

In support of Silvanus’s involvement in the letter’s composition, by contrast, some note that this short message specifies the composition itself, not its delivery.24 Moreover, however one understands 5:12, there is solid reason to believe that Silvanus was known to participate somehow in composing some apostolic letters (see 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1).

Furthermore, the language of “writing through” someone was not limited to couriers, despite the certainty with which this position has been expressed in some recent commentaries. In some cases, including some first-century Christian ones, writing “through” someone acknowledges the compositional participation of both parties. Thus, for example, the expression “written through the prophet” suggests God working through agents:

Moreover:

Outside the idiom, one could speak of matters recorded “through” (dia) a registry.29

Papyri can also use the expression “enter the public record through” (using anagraphō dia, with the genitive) for writing through someone literate, and matters could be written “through” (dia, with the genitive) a scribe.

It was clearly common for a person who could write to do so on behalf of another who could not, or could not do so well; for example:

More generally, many transactions and official documents begin with “X through Y” referring to the scribe writing on another’s behalf.37 Documents could indicate scribes writing on others’ behalf in various ways. “The author could authorize his consent, even his signature, in the first person singular, ‘through (διά) a [named] scribe,’38 with the writing verb in passive.”39 For example: “Signed by me, Sarapion also called Agathos Daimon, ex-gumnasiarch, through Antoninus, scribe.”40 Alternatively, “the voice of the scribe could be read as the one writing in the first person on behalf of another41 or stated in the third person.”42

I reproduce here some observations of Esteban Hidalgo regarding the usage of writing terms (graph- and gramm- cognates) with “through” (dia).43 Hidalgo finds “three main classifications of relevant data for literary activity with the preposition ‘through’ (dia). First, those related to the grapheion (or record-office) which employed scribes to copy legal and administrative texts.44 Most of the evidence in this category consists of docket entries, but it is often accompanied by the name of the scribe or official who copied the official document.” Here he notes the following examples:

“The second category,” Hidalgo continues, “groups those texts that mention legal or literary activity done through a scribe. Sometimes the omitted verb seems to be implied, but, given the title scribe, the assumption is that it had to do with literary activity. Other titles besides scribe (grammateus) are also included in this category, including assistant, under-secretary, friend, or simply the named individual without a title.” Examples include the following:

Finally, Hidalgo lists some miscellaneous examples “that have some relevance to literary activity with the preposition dia.” These include “commands through an edict,74 registration through various documents,75 and enrollment of minors through parents.”76

A complete survey of the evidence, then, suggests that the expression “wrote through” was a loose one that could be used to encompass the entire epistolary (or other written) communication process or specify help at a particular stage. It could designate either composition (the usual sense of “writing”) or, more loosely (yet quite commonly), delivery.77 Indeed, the expression was so loose that it could describe something entirely different than either composer or courier, as in 2 Cor. 2:4, where Paul “wrote through” tears.78 Scholars who have stated conclusively that 1 Pet. 5:12 refers only to the courier, not to an agent of composition, have worked from too narrow a sample of evidence.

Some scholars contend that Silvanus was probably now too prominent to be named either as a mere dictation clerk or as a mere messenger;79 if they are correct, participation in composition makes sense. Whether Silvanus participated or not, Peter surely had help. We do not know Peter’s level of literacy as a fisherman (he may have been completely illiterate when he followed Jesus),80 but as a first-generation disciple and witness of Jesus, he could count on eager Christian assistants for composition. Given the grammar and number of rare words in the letter, which is at a more sophisticated level of Greek than Mark’s Gospel, his assistants probably did more than simply take dictation. What is less certain is who those assistants were. Silvanus is at least the likeliest individual available; regardless of how we read 1 Pet. 5:12, he was with Peter at the time and, as already noted, had prior experience in contributing in some manner to apostolic letters (1 Thess. 1:1).

The term translated as encourage is the same term that Peter used for his exhortations in 2:11 and 5:1, which are key points in the letter. The term rendered as testify81 can also mean “warn” (LXX Neh. 13:15). Peter contends that the life in Christ, despite its sufferings, is the locus of God’s true grace and promise for the future (on “grace,” see comment on 5:10). Similarly Paul also spoke of standing in grace (although Rom. 5:2 is indicative, not an imperative calling for perseverance, as here).82 Stand firm (stēte), the verse’s final word in Greek, may recall 5:9’s stand firm against (antistēte); they are to stand against the devil, which one does partly by standing firm in God’s genuine grace. This is also the point of being strengthened, as in 5:10. The alternative to apostasy in the face of testing is perseverance; remaining a Christian, even when Christians are a tiny and despised minority, is perseverance to eternal life.

Peter says that his message is short, presumably implying that it could have been much longer.83 One could claim, toward the end of one’s work, to have written “briefly,”84 regardless of length. Many deemed brevity a virtue,85 often in rhetoric86 and often in writing,87 including at times in letters.88 Of course, one should not be so concise as to obscure one’s point89 (or reveal one’s lack of available substance).90 Writers and speakers often noted their limitations, stating or implying that they had much more that they could say.91 Thus, for example, Cicero often laments that he must pass over Verres’s numerous villainies for lack of time,92 thereby implying many more than he could relate.93 Claims to brevity thus often functioned to highlight that one’s message was merely a sample of what could be offered.

5:13

Peter opens the letter by speaking of his addressees as God’s chosen (1:1), among the chosen community as a whole (2:6, 9) in Christ the chosen one (2:4). Now toward the end of his letter he reminds them of another chosen community of believers (5:13),94 among their brothers and sisters in the world who are suffering for Christ (5:9). Here he names this community’s location as Babylon. This is, however, probably a cipher for another city, as in Rev. 11:8 (which encompasses three geographically incompatible locations).

Ancient interpreters understood Babylon here as a reference to Rome;95 Calvin believed that Peter referred to literal Babylon in Mesopotamia, but he was apologetically motivated to undercut Roman Catholic appeal to Rome as the Petrine see.96 Literal Babylon was not one of Parthia’s more prominent locations in this period,97 and Jews were neither welcome nor safe there at this time.98

With most scholars today, I think that Babylon here probably refers to Rome.99 Writing in the early second century, Papias already cites earlier tradition that 1 Peter’s Babylon was Rome.100 Like Babylon, Rome conquered God’s people; after 70 CE, both empires had destroyed the Jerusalem temple. Some Jewish thinkers thus depicted Rome as a new Babylon.101 Thus in some Jewish literature Nero could flee “from Babylon”—that is, Rome102—and Babylon is linked to Italy, repressor of the Jewish people.103 Already soon after the temple’s destruction Jews compared the Roman and Babylonian conquests of Jerusalem.104 In an important sense “Babylon” could stand for the Diaspora world in which Peter’s audience are resident aliens (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11),105 like Judahites in the Babylon of old; but for Peter’s audience in Roman Asia Minor, that would also be a fitting description of the wider empire of Rome.106

Clearly, Rome is the contemporary embodiment of the spirit of Babylon in the Christian book of Revelation, written to churches in Asia Minor (Rev. 1:4, 11) before the end of the first century.107 Babylon sits on seven mountains (Rev. 17:9), just like Rome;108 some other Jewish oracles also recognized Rome as a city on seven hills.109 People saw it as the city that ruled the kings of the earth (17:18),110 the city that traded in the merchandise listed in Rev. 18:12–13,111 and so forth. Babylon’s head is apparently the new Nero (Rev. 17:8–11; cf. 13:3), and this Babylon is a maritime empire (17:15) that rules the world of John’s audience (17:18) and boasts the sort of imports known to be those imported into Rome (18:12–13). Revelation probably looks beyond Rome itself to the spirit of evil empire (cf. the blending of Daniel’s four beasts into a single one in Rev. 13:1–7), but Rome embodied it for Christians in Asia Minor.

Much as the temple’s destruction in 70 CE strengthened this identification, this association did not simply arise suddenly and across a range of documents only at that time. Interpretations of Daniel’s four kingdoms (Dan. 2:37–42; 7:3–8) that culminate in Rome—the dominant interpretation in the imperial period112—understood Rome as a successor of Babylon.113 (Note also the probable interpretation of Daniel’s Kittim in the latest Qumran texts as Romans.)114 Although likely written more than two decades after Jerusalem’s fall, even Revelation itself rests its connection between Rome and Babylon not on that event but on imagery from Dan. 7 (Rev. 13:1–7). Because Revelation’s beast, however, blends all four of Daniel’s beasts (Dan. 7:3–14; Rev. 13:1–7), it seems clear that John did not expect Rome to exhaust the image’s significance. The spirit of evil empire thus could outlive Rome—though any subsequent embodiments of that spirit would be ultimately as doomed as were Babylon and Rome.

A majority of scholars regard Mark in 1 Pet. 5:13 as the one who appears associated with Paul and the Jerusalem church elsewhere in the NT.115 This Mark does appear in Rome in roughly this period (Col. 4:10; Philem. 24).116 Calling Mark my son could fit a teacher-disciple relationship117 (or even elder-younger relationship; cf. 5:5); it was an affectionate title for a younger mentee (1 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 2:22; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 5:1–2; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10). (See further discussion on fictive kinship language, including regarding fathers and sons, at 1 Pet. 1:22.)

“Mark” was a common Roman name, but far less common in Judea, where Peter had flourished and where the relationship may have developed. “Marcus” is a Latin praenomen, and praenomena did not necessarily indicate Roman citizenship;118 still, the name was most in use among Jews in the west and is otherwise unknown in Judea. Among Jews, it seems normally a praenomen of those who had acquired citizenship,119 but a citizen would not go by his praenomen.120 John may have acquired this Latin epiklesis later, while on his mission travels (cf. Acts 12:25; 13:5; 15:39); certainly gentiles would have found “Markos” a much easier name to accommodate “than the outlandish and unfamiliar Yehohanen” (“John”).121 Roman praenomena in use were so few (the favorites, besides “Markus,” being “Gaius,” “Lucius,” and “Titus”) that these became very common,122 requiring the distinguishing “John”123 unless context (as in Acts 15:39; cf. 15:37) or audience knowledge (2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24; 1 Pet. 5:13) allowed the simple “Mark.” But it was uncommon enough among Jews that all NT references are probably to the same person.124

Greetings from others (1 Pet. 5:13) were common in letters by this period;125 for example:

Greetings most often appeared “before the farewell wish,”129 which is close to where they appear here (1 Pet. 5:13–14).

5:14

Letter writers often sent greetings to others;130 here Peter invites members of the entire community to greet one another.131

A CLOSER LOOK

The Kiss of Love

Kissing normally expressed love or affection; the verb phileō, in fact, can mean either “love” or “kiss,” and occasionally writers played on words to signify both.132 Kiss of love here, however, uses the noun philēma (used for Christian kisses throughout the epistles)133 with the affection term agapē, the noun from Peter’s consistent word group for love (1 Pet. 1:8, 22; 2:11, 17; 3:10; 4:8, 12).134

Kisses often expressed familial affection, appropriate to the community of believers as a spiritual family (1 Pet. 2:17; 5:9). Relatives greeted one another with kisses,135 notably when reunited136 or about to be separated.137 Kissing was a conventional greeting for family members;138 thus, for example, Roman women kissed kinsmen;139 likewise, a child should kiss mother140 and father.141 A mother kissing a son142 or a father kissing a daughter143 was normal, considered suspicious only if excessive and immodest. Male friends could embrace and kiss without sexual connotations;144 the kiss functioned as an intimate greeting.145 Kissing between friends was apparently less common in urban settings, however.146 In dramatic situations kissing and weeping were conjoined147—for example, as signs of mourning the deceased148 or for the joy of being reunited.149

Kisses were not limited to family members. They could serve as respectful greetings to one of higher status;150 they showed respect among social peers as well as connections between patrons and clients;151 one could also offer congratulatory kisses.152 Disciples and pupils kissed teachers,153 often on the head;154 in such cases, the kiss could be an affectionate contact on the mouth.155 One person who wished to honor his teacher in a particularly extreme way kissed his feet.156 An arrogant person of wealth might offer his hand to be kissed.157 A general needing to secure soldiers’ favor might go about greeting them with kisses.158 The salutation was so standard in some settings that neglecting it could function as an obvious insult.159

One might kiss another who pleased him;160 a kiss was generally seen as pleasant (Prov. 24:26) and hence might function as a suitable reward. A king might rise to kiss a teacher whose wise discourse had pleased him (1 Esd. 4:47). A rabbi might rise and kiss the head of a student who expounded well;161 a Roman patron could also greet a client with a kiss.162

But kissing could also have sexual overtones under some circumstances.163 A strict father executed his freedman for kissing the father’s daughter, demanding labial as well as genital virginity.164 Traditionally, Roman values condemned public, erotic kissing, restricting it to the private sphere,165 but erotic banquets altered those traditions.166

Some kissing may have been on the cheek.167 Most kissing, however, was on the mouth.168 This included kissing teachers, as noted above. One typically kissed relatives on the lips;169 thus, for example, Roman women kissed kinsmen on the lips;170 mothers kissed daughters on the lips;171 a Roman father might kiss his son on the lips, albeit lightly,172 or his daughter on the lips in pure innocence.173 A mourning sister might wish to kiss her dead brother on the mouth;174 children might do the same with a deceased mother.175 Facial kissing may have sometimes compromised hygiene; it was said that social kissing in Rome led to “at least one outbreak of an infectious facial disorder among the leading citizens.”176

Kisses of greeting could become the occasion for lustful abuses,177 but such abuse could be betrayed by the kiss’s character. The modest lip-kisses of a mother, a sister, or girls kissing one another were not considered passionate,178 so the passionate kisses of a lustful deity in disguise might give him away.179

What Peter calls a kiss of love, Paul calls a “holy” or “sacred” kiss (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26). In this period, it appears less a rite than an expression of familial affection.180 As in these letters, kisses could at least sometimes be conveyed by proxy in secondary greetings in letters.181 Later, however, the “kiss of peace” did achieve a regular role in the church service.182 The earliest form of the practice probably was not limited to one’s own gender,183 producing condemnations for those who kissed a second time.184 Concerned with abuses, Christians eventually restricted its practice to members of one’s own gender.185 It came to express Christian ideals of spiritual equality.186

Although Christian letters could open with a blessing of grace and peace (shalom), they could sometimes close with grace187 or peace separately.188 “Peace” was more than a greeting; it was a blessing, formally addressed to the recipient but implicitly functioning as a request (or at least hope) that God would bless the person with well-being (cf. Num. 6:26; Matt. 10:13; Luke 10:5). Blessings often included, “Peace be on [so-and-so],”189 including in tomb inscriptions.190 Often they included, “Peace be on Israel” (see, e.g., closing benedictions in Pss. 29:11; 125:5; 128:6).191 An inscription dedicated to a synagogue ruler in Antioch reads, “May peace and mercy be on all who . . .”192 Where context dictates, “peace” can also be an eschatological blessing.193

Like many letters, then, Peter’s begins and ends with a blessing. Like the rest of this letter, Peter’s conclusion breathes affectionate concern for the brothers and sisters elsewhere in the world. These brothers and sisters might have to carry on the legacy of Peter’s risen Lord until Christ’s return.

1. Furnish, II Corinthians, 135; Marshall, Thessalonians, 48. “Silvanus” was the name of the most famous Satyr, a comrade of the wine-god Bacchus; see Rives, “Silvanus”; Rives, Religion, 15. Paul’s letters prefer formal names like “Silvanus” and “Prisca,” whereas Luke employs the less formal “Silas” and “Priscilla” (Ramsay, Cities of St. Paul, 207). The name was not so common as to make mere coincidence of figures likely (though Jewish use of the names “Silas” [CIJ 2:139, §935; Josephus, Ant. 14.40; 18.204; 19.299, 317, 320–21, 353; Life 89–90, 272; cf. J.W. 2.520; 3.11] and “Silanus” [Heb. text in CIJ 1:449, §630] appears elsewhere; a gentile in Josephus, Ant. 18.52).

2. Goppelt, Peter, 370.

3. Elliott, Peter, 874. Elliott suggests (875) that Silvanus could then clarify and supplement the letter “with encouragement of his own,” as in Acts 15:27, 32. Yet if this was true after delivering the letter, why not for playing a role in its composition as well?

4. In this excursus I draw on a number of papyri from Duke’s papyrological database that are not listed in the table of abbreviations. Readers may find information about these papyri at https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/clist_papyri.html.

5. Suggested both by his name (Judge, First Christians, 562; cf. Judge, Rank, 36n20) and by Acts 16:37. Many of the old challenges to citizenship by Stegemann (“Römischer Bürger”) reflect inadequate knowledge of the period in question (see, rightly, Baugh, “Paul and Ephesus,” 169–77, 195; Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 5–12; Rapske, “Citizenship”; Légasse, “Career,” 370–72; Lüdemann, Christianity, 240–41; van Minnen, “Roman Citizen”; Keener, Acts, 3:2517–27).

6. In this period, it still conferred significant status in the eastern empire, from which Silvanus hailed. See, e.g., CIL 5.5050 (46 CE; Sherk, Empire, §52, pp. 94–96); Meeks, Moral World, 34; Malherbe, Social Aspects, 77.

7. For Mark as a contributing amanuensis even to 1 Peter, see Moon, Amanuensis.

8. Usually in the present tense rather than Peter’s epistolary aorist.

9. Ignatius, Phld. 11:2; Smyrn. 12:1; though both these references also include explicit mention of sending as well as writing. Polycarp (Phil. 14:1) speaks of writing through Crescens and is more explicit about a visit of Crescens’s sister, but probably implies Crescens’s visit as well.

10. Richards (“Silvanus,” 420) denies that the Ephesians, mentioned in Ignatius, Rom. 10:1, could function as Ignatius’s scribes, but allows that they could be his couriers. Perhaps they were primarily his hosts, supplying means of composition. In view of 9:3, however, even this group may be traveling and acting as couriers.

11. Richards (“Silvanus,” 424–25) cites BGU 1.33; P.Oxy. 937; P.Fay. 123 (of which P.Oxy. 937 clearly refers to the carrier; but the other two appear to me far less clear; he dismisses P.Mich. 8.466; P.Oxy. 129); Elliott (Peter, 124, 872) cites (on 872n774), e.g., P.Wisc. 2.69, lines 4–5; CPR 6.80, lines 9–10; P.Mich. 8.466, lines 6–8; 14.751, lines 4–7; P.Oxy. 42.3067, lines 4–5; 939; P.Ant. 94, line 8.

12. P.Brem. 48, lines 19–20 (118 CE); P.Fay. 123, lines 4–5 (ca. 100 CE); P.Mich. 8.501, lines 14–15 (first half of second century); P.Mil. 2.80, lines 8–9 (200–299 CE); P.Oxy. 17.2151, line 3 (cf. 8–9; 200–299 CE); O.Claud. 1.158, lines 7–11 (ca. 110 CE). I am grateful to Murray Vasser for collecting for me these samples from the Duke papyri database, which I then translated.

13. P.Lund 2.4, lines 6–9 (third century CE). A plethora of local scribes or literate friends seems less probable than a plethora of potential couriers.

14. P.Princ. 3.163, lines 2–3 (100–199 CE) (trans. APIS). One would not expect a camel-driver to be literate, given the average range of literacy usually acknowledged by current scholarship.

15. O.Did. 343, lines 7–9 (ca. 77–92 CE). Cf. also P.Berl.Cohen 14, lines 18–20 (150–99 CE), though it explicitly mentions only sending (rather than writing, in contrast to 1 Pet. 5:12) through Valerius Rufus.

16. Cf. Hart, “Peter,” 14.

17. The letter in Acts 15:23–29 contains some of the most sophisticated Greek in the NT. It includes only one of two periodic sentences in Luke-Acts (Conzelmann, Acts, 120; Blass, Debrunner, and Funk, Grammar, §464). When used in letters, periodic sentences could be used only in short ones (Malherbe, “Theorists,” 17), and when addressing more elevated matters (Trapp, Maximus, xxxiv).

18. For consider . . . trustworthy, cf. Neh. 13:13.

19. For commending letter bearers, see, e.g., Rom. 16:1–2; Dio Chrysostom, Ep. 1.

20. Richards (“Silvanus,” 429) notes that postscripts could commend secretaries, but even more frequently commended carriers.

21. Zahn, Introduction, 2:149, noting Rom. 16:1; 1 Cor. 16:17; 2 Cor. 8:16–24; Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7. The trustworthiness of a courier could also be inferred from the safe arrival of the letter, but this applies to other commendations as well.

22. Cf. also 1 Clem. 65:1; probably Polycarp, Phil. 14:1.

23. Secretaries, certainly, were not named as coauthors (Richards, Letter Writing, 105). For Paul’s coauthors, cf. Loubser, “Media Criticism”; Murphy-O’Connor, “Co-Authorship.” Byrskog (“Co-Senders”) suggests that Paul merely discussed the content with them, rather than that they shared in composition. Others suggest a scribal role (e.g., Fee, Corinthians, 836–37; Witherington, Story, 13). Sometimes, listed coauthors simply represent greetings (Cicero, Fam. 16.1.title; 16.3.title; 16.4.title; 16.5.title; 16.6.title; 16.9.title; 16.11.1), although Paul’s letters can include both.

24. Michaels (Peter, 307–8), however, objects that “writing” means “sending” even when carrying a plural object, citing Ignatius, Rom. 10:1; Polycarp, Phil. 14:1.

25. 1 Clem. 63:2, purporting the Spirit’s agency.

26. Though Peter here obviously does not write in Silvanus’s name.

27. See Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.20.1–4.21.1.

28. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 4.23.11. Although acknowledging this instance, Elliott (Peter, 872–73) weighs against it the more common usage in the papyri (the same argument from “preponderance” that he uses for resident aliens being literal ones in Peter, 480–81).

29. A Duke database search by my PhD student Esteban Hidalgo, at my request, yielded the following instances: CPR 17B.6, line 7 (if the reconstruction is correct); P.Kron. 24, line 7 (if the reconstruction is correct); P.Mil.Vogl. 3.145, lines 28–29; P.Oxy. 14.1725, lines 6, 10; PSI 13.1320, lines 24–25; and SB 14.12023, lines 21–22 (if, as is likely, the reconstruction is correct). Cf. also P.Lond. 2.303 (= M.Chr. 160), line 1 (142 CE).

30. P.Mil.Vogl. 2.99, line 24 (hand 5; Dec. 29, 119 CE); these and following examples from the papyri derive from Duke database searches by (shall I say, “through”?) my PhD student Esteban Hidalgo.

31. P.Mil.Vogl. 3.145, lines 28–29; cf. P.Fuad I Univ. 29, line 9; SB 14 11405, line 18 (98 or 101 BCE); SB 14 11408, line 8 (71 BCE); SB 14 11409, line 11 (69 BCE); “written through the registry,” P.Ryl. 2.173, lines 31–32 (99 CE); P.Mich. 3.195, line 29 (121 CE); P.Mich. 3.198, line 30 (124 CE); 3.199, line 28 (126 CE); P.Tebt. 2.311, lines 45–46 (134 CE); P.Prag. 1.31, line 22 (148 CE); P.Mich. 6.428, line 19 (154 CE); P.Louvre 2.113, line 7 (159 CE); P.Ryl. 2.162, line 38 (159 CE); P.Flor. 1.97, line 24 (ca. 162–63 CE); P.Berl.Leihg. 2.29, col. 2, line 66 (164 CE); P.Tebt. 2.390, line 43 (167 CE).

32. SB 16.12685 (Oct. 4, 139 CE). Cf. also P.Lips. 1.3, line 40 (hand 8).

33. P.Ryl. 2.107, lines 24–25 (84 CE; HGV translation).

34. P.Lond. 2.311, line 25 (Feb. 6, 149 CE); cf. P.Mich. 9.551, line 33 (103 CE); P.Mich. 3.188, lines 28–29 (120 CE); P.Mich. 3.197, lines 25–26 (123 CE); P.Flor. 3.302, lines 25–28 (151 CE). Cf. related formulas, such as perhaps a scribe signifying a matter “through” (perhaps “on behalf of,” despite the genitive?) another (O.Bodl. 2.1416, line 5 [151 CE]; 2.1420, line 5 [151 CE]; O.Ashm. 55, line 5 [151 CE]).

35. P.Flor. 1.32b, line 20 (Dec. 20, 298 CE). Cf. O.Wilck. 1233, lines 8–12 (153 BCE); P.Oxy. 10.1281, lines 11–12 (21 CE); P.Athen. 25, line 22 (61 CE); P.Kron. 21, line 16 (117 CE); P.Alex.Giss. 15, lines 26–27 (119 CE); P.Lips. 1.27, line 40 (123 CE); P.Ryl. 2.174a, lines 22–23 (139 CE); a long text from 155 CE (SB 16,13060 + BGU 13,2270 + P.Graux. 3,30 + P.Col. 2,1 recto 4), col. 8, line 18; col. 11, line 17; P.Col. 2.1.R.4.Kol. 1, col. 10, lines 20–21; col. 11, line 14. Cf. also writing on behalf of someone who writes slowly (O.Wilck. 1027, lines 8–10 [fourth through first century BCE]). One who was literate could write on behalf of an illiterate friend or relative (P.Berl. Leihg. 2.29, col. 2, lines 43–44).

36. P.Berl. Frisk 1 Kol. 1 (SB 5.7515 col. 1), lines 12, 19 (155 CE); cf. P.Col. 2.1.R.4.Kol. 1, col. 2, lines 21–22 (155 CE); a long text from 155 CE (SB 16,13060 + BGU 13,2270 + P.Graux. 3,30 + P.Col. 2,1 recto 4), col. 18, lines 21–22; col. 22, line 15; col. 23, line 22; col. 29 ctr, line 25; col. 32, lines 26–27; col. 33, line 23; col. 34, lines 12–13; col. 35, line 14; col. 36, lines 12–13; col. 37, line 15; col. 38, line 16; P.Col. 2.1.R.4.Kol. 1, col. 12, lines 16–17; col. 14, lines 16–17; col. 17, lines 20–21.

37. Hidalgo cites here O.Bankes 14, line 1 (177 or 209 CE); O.Bankes 36, line 1 (158 CE); O.Bodl. 2.537, lines 1–2 (130 CE); O.Bodl. 2.810, lines 1–2 (177 CE); O.Bodl. 2.1036, lines 1–2 (121 CE); O.Heid. 201, lines 1 (reconstructed), 4 (129 CE). Cf. further “through the scribe” in, e.g., P.Mich. 2.123R.Kol. I, col. 7, line 5 (45 or 46 CE); O.Wilck. 1609, lines 2–3 (110 CE); O.Deiss. 30, line 6 (111 CE); O.Bodl. 2.1200, line 1 (114 CE); O.Wilck. 95, line 2 (115 CE); O.Theb. 127, line 1 (117–18 CE); P.Giss. 1.10, line 16 (118 CE); O.Heid. 193, line 1 (123 CE); O.Heid. 194, line 1 (123 CE); O.Heid. 196, line 1 (124 CE); O.Theb. 39, lines 1–2 (126 CE); P.Aberd. 77, line 1 (127 CE); O.Theb. 87, line 3 (133 CE); O.Heid. 212 (138 CE); O.Theb. 40, line 2 (139 CE); P.Lond. 2.315, line 18 (150 CE); a long text from 155 CE (SB 16,13060 + BGU 13,2270 + P.Graux. 3,30 + P.Col. 2,1 recto 4), col. 12, line 25; col. 25, line 22; col. 27, line 28; O.Heid. 232, line 2 (163 CE); P.Petaus 9, line 24 (185 CE); for example, O.Heid. 187, line 1 (112 CE): “through Horus the scribe.” In at least some or many cases it may refer merely to one issuing a receipt or the like, probably including P.Fay. 48 col. 1, lines 2–3 (98 CE); O.Ont.Mus. 2.101, line 2 (107 CE); O.Petr.Mus. 304, lines 1–2 (107 CE); O.Petr.Mus. 260, line 4 (110 CE); O.Ont.Mus. 2 108, line 1 (119 CE); O.Ont.Mus. 1.20, line 1 (120 CE); P.Strasb. 5.402, col. 3, line 3 (125 CE); O.Amst. 48, line 1 (126 CE); P.Strasb. 5.405, line 2 (128 CE); O.Ont.Mus. 1.22, line 2 (131 CE); O.Ont.Mus. 2 120, line 2 (131 CE); O.Ont.Mus. 2.122, lines 1–2 (132 CE); P.Strasb. 5.408, line 5 (133 CE); P.Col. 2.1.R.4.Kol. 1, col. 3, lines 15–16 (155 CE); a long text from 155 CE (SB 16,13060 + BGU 13,2270 + P.Graux. 3,30 + P.Col. 2,1 recto 4), col. 2, lines 19–20; P.Ryl. 2.432, frg. 1, line 0 (164–65 CE); col. 9, line 25; P.Aberd. 38, line 4 (reconstructed; 198 CE); P.Lips. 1.93, lines 18–19 (second to third century CE); O.Bankes 14.1; 36.1.

38. E.g., P.Tebt. 2 320, lines 15–17; P.Ryl. 2 107, line 24 (84 CE).

39. I quote here the written report of Esteban Hidalgo, Sept. 1, 2019. See esp. P.Berl.Frisk 1 with the formula ἐγράφη διὰ X νομογράφου or a cognate εἰκονίσθη / εἰκονίσθησαν διὰ X νομογράφου; multiple times, see also P.Col. 2; 1 R 4 for other examples, or with emphatic prepositional prefixes affixed to the writing verb (e.g., διαγέγραπται διὰ X γραμματέως; cf. P.Strasb. 5 402 col. 1, line 3; col. 2, line 3; 405, line 2; 408, line 5). Cf. “written through the scribe” in a long text from 155 CE (SB 16,13060 + BGU 13,2270 + P.Graux. 3,30 + P.Col. 2,1 recto 4), col. 14, line 32; col. 30, line 15; col. 37, lines 14–15; col. 38, line 16.

40. P.Tebt. 2.320, lines 15–17 (181 CE) (trans. APIS).

41. E.g., P.Mich. 3 197, lines 23–24; P.Mich. 9 551, lines 31–33.

42. Again quoting Esteban Hidalgo, Sept. 1, 2019. E.g., P.Flor. 1 32 b, line 20; P.Alex.Giss. 15, lines 26–27; P.Mich. 3 188, line 28; P.Mich. 3 197, lines 22–23.

43. Provided to me Sept. 1, 2019.

44. For the literary activity in the grapheion, see Pierce, “Grapheion.”

45. PSI 10 1143, line 34; SB 1 4414, line 22; SB 1 5247, line 36; SB 24 16163, line 1; SB 24 16160, line 1; SB 24 16160 r, line 1; SB 24 16159, line 1; SB 24 16158, line 1; SB 24 16157, line 1; SB 24 16156, line 1; SB 22 15637, line 25.

46. SB 16 13017, lines 26–27.

47. UPZ 1 136, line 1; UPZ 1 141, line 1.

48. SB 14 11488, line 12.

49. SB 14 11488, lines 29–30.

50. SB 10 10539, line 13.

51. SB 10 10539, line 27.

52. P.Dime 3 27 GD, lines 67–68.

53. PSI 10 1143, line 10.

54. PSI 10 1117, line 23.

55. SPP 4 S. 58–83, line 652. “Graphes” could mean “writing” or “document.”

56. SPP 4 S. 58–83, line 626.

57. PSI 10 1117, lines 32–33.

58. SB 16 12685, lines 106–7.

59. SB 18 13259, lines 2–5.

60. SB 6 9545 (26), lines 1–2.

61. SB 5 8051, line 5.

62. PSI 1 56, line 13.

63. SPP 4 S. 58–83, line 488.

64. SPP 4 S. 58–83, line 376.

65. SB 24 16160, lines 2–3.

66. SB 24 16159, line 3; cf. SB 24 16157, line 3.

67. SB 24 16158, line 4.

68. SB 24 16156, lines 2–3.

69. SB 18 14027, lines 1–2.

70. SPP 10 127, line 6.

71. SB 1 4365, lines 1–2.

72. PSI 1 56, lines 16–17.

73. PSI 1.56, line 14; PSI 3.275, line 5. For deposits with scribes, see, e.g., SPP 4 S. 58–83, lines 430–31; for nondecisive examples of documents “through” someone not named as a scribe, see, e.g., SB 18.14027, lines 2–3; SB 24 16163, line 4; PSI 3.202, line 27.

74. SB 12 10929, lines 3a–4a.

75. Through a declaration (SPP 4 S. 58–83, lines 38, 90, 617), through the census (SPP 4 S. 58–83, lines 31–32, 327, 586–87), transcripts (SPP 4 S. 58–83, lines 396, 440, 550), or population lists (SPP 4 S. 58–83, lines 328, 436).

76. Through the mother having been copied (SPP 4 S. 58–83, lines 607, 641).

77. With Johnson, Writings, 433.

78. “I wrote” also could sometimes refer to what the author wrote by hand, as opposed to the rest of the letter (Gal. 6:11; cf. Philem. 19), but that meaning does not make sense here. For the idea of making something known “through” a document, cf. SB 16 12685, line 55.

79. See Selwyn, Peter, 10; Kelly, Peter, 215; Davids, Peter, 198.

80. For discussions of literacy and the early gospel tradition, see esp. Keith, Scribal Elite; sources cited in Keener, Christobiography, 437–41. For the lower range, see Hezser, Literacy; for the upper range, see Millard, Reading and Writing; Millard, “Literacy”; Head, “Note”; Evans, World, 63–88; cf. Beard, Literacy; Wright, Reading. Cf. also considerations noted in Bernier, Quest, 136–37.

81. Cf. this sense of the term (epimartureō) in Josephus, Ant. 7.349; 17.128; Papias, Frag. 3:1; 14:6.

82. The textual debate in that context regards the indicative echomen or subjunctive echōmen in Rom. 5:1, not the perfect of the same verb echō in 5:2.

83. I condense the following from Keener, Acts, 4:3367–69. Given the (mock) apologies in Pliny Y., Ep. 3.9.26–27, 37; 9.13.26, 1 Peter would not have been thought brief.

84. E.g., Sallust, Caes. 13.8; Heb. 13:22 (Hebrews is almost three times as many verses as 1 Peter); Ignatius, Rom. 8:2; Pol. 7:3; at the beginning, Barn. 1:5.

85. E.g., Pindar, Ol. 2.95; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 1.pref.; 7.2.ext. 4.

86. See, e.g., Isaeus, Philoct. 19; Aeschines, Leg. 51, 118; Demosthenes, Crown 266; Rhet. Alex. 29, 1437b.29–30; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Thuc. 55; Lysias 5; Demosth. 18, 20, 24; Cicero, Or. Brut. 40.139; Quinct. 10.34; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 18.5; Tacitus, Dial. 25, 31; Fronto, Ant. imp. 1.2.4; Maximus of Tyre, Or. 18.6; 25.2; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.4.569; Vit. Apoll. 1.17; Menander Rhetor, Treat. 2.7, 405.15–16, 29; Anderson, Glossary, 30, 112–13; though some were unhappy about this preference (Pliny Y., Ep. 1.20.1; 6.33.7–8). Rhetorical handbooks showed how to condense speeches (Rhet. Alex. 22, 1434b.11–18; 30, 1438a.38–41).

87. E.g., Artemidorus, Onir. 1.pref.; Josephus, Ag. Ap. 1.251.

88. E.g., Pliny Y., Ep. 2.5.13; 3.9.27; 4.5.3; 9.13.26 (though Pliny actually considers longer letters a sign of affection, 9.20.1; 9.32). Papyrus letters averaged only eighty-seven words and could be as few as eighteen (Richards, Letter Writing, 163); Peter’s letter and especially some of Paul’s letters flout epistolary convention (Anderson, Rhetorical Theory, 113), but because they are mostly exhortations rather than typical letters.

89. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 2 Amm. 2; Tacitus, Dial. 23; cf. Cicero, Verr. 2.1.9.24–25; Pliny Y., Ep. 1.20.2–3, 23; 4.5.4; 4.16.3; 5.6.44; 6.2.5; Dio Chrysostom, Or. 12.38.

90. Cicero, Rosc. Amer. 32.89.

91. E.g., Homer, Od. 3.113–17; Pindar, Pyth. 4.247–48; Nem. 4.33–34; Ol. 2.95; Lysias, Or. 2.1, §190; 2.2, §190; 2.54, §195; Polybius, Hist. 2.56.4; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Demosth. 42, 46; Thuc. 55; Valerius Maximus, Mem. 2.7.5; 3.7.ext. 5; 3.8.ext. 1; Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 2.29.2; 2.46.1; 2.89.1, 5–6; Plutarch, Alex. 1.1, 3; Mal. Her. 1, Mor. 854F; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 2.17.597; 1 Macc. 9:22; Philo, Abraham 1; John 20:30; 21:25; Heb. 11:32.

92. Cicero, Verr. 2.2.1.1–2; 2.4.26.57; 2.4.46.102; 2.4.47.105; cf. similarly Flac. 5.12. Isocrates (Antid. 140, 310, 320) feigned inability to complete all his thoughts on a matter within the required time.

93. This practice sometimes resembles paralipsis, the technique of mentioning something in the process of disclaiming opportunity to mention it (e.g., Philem. 19); on paralipsis, see, e.g., Rhet. Her. 4.27.37; Demosthenes, Crown 268 (18.3); Hermogenes, Method 7.419–20; Inv. 2.5.117; Anderson, Glossary, 88–89.

94. Cf. also, e.g., Donelson, Peter, 155. Cf. in 2 John the chosen lady (v. 1) and the chosen sister (v. 13). Letters could address or send greetings from “ladies” (e.g., P.Oxy. 112.1, 3, 7; PSI 209.1; Cicero, Fam. 5.11.2; Fronto, M. Caes. 3.8.3; 3.12; Ep. graec. 6), and some construe the figure here literally as a woman (see esp. Applegate, “Woman”), but these are probably churches (with, e.g., Minear, Images, 54; Grayston, Epistles, 152; Brown, Epistles, 654).

95. E.g., Andreas Presbyter, Catena (CEC 82–83; Bray, Peter, 126); Ishodad of Merv, Commentaries 39 (because of Rome’s multilingual identity) (Bray, Peter, 127); Bede, Commentary, 119 (citing Jerome, Vir. ill. 8; Rome’s idolatry). For one challenge to the tradition, see Goulder, “Peter.”

96. Edwards, Peter, 19–20.

97. See Pliny E., Nat. 6.30.121–22 (noting that Seleucia was much larger); for what remained of it, see Quintus Curtius Rufus, Alex. 5.1.24. Sib. Or. 5:434–46 apparently refers to literal Babylon. But the geography of Philostratus, Vit. apoll. 1.25, however, is manifestly fictitious, and by early in the Roman imperial period the city was largely ruins (Kelly, Peter, 218; Davids, Peter, 202; Grudem, Peter, 33, citing Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 2.9.9; Strabo, Geogr. 16.1.5; Dio Cassius, Hist. rom. 68.30).

98. See Josephus, Ant. 18.371–79, rightly noted in Kelly, Peter, 218.

99. E.g., Moffatt, General Epistles, 170; Cranfield, Peter, 139; Brown, Donfried, and Reumann, Peter, 151; Kelly, Peter, 218; Best, Peter, 178; Beare, Peter, 183; Achtemeier, Peter, 354; Elliott, Peter, 882–86; cf. Cullmann, Peter, 89; so, earlier, Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15.2 (probably reflecting earlier tradition; cf. Papias, Frag. 21:2); cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.5. Contrast the unlikely and generally rejected suggestion that Peter is in the obscure colony in Egypt named “Babylon” (Josephus, Ant. 2.315; cf. Finegan, Records, 83). Peter could hardly expect his audience to understand him as referring to that site without further explanation.

100. Papias, Frag. 21:2 (from Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 2.15.2).

101. E.g., Sib. Or. 5:143, 159–61; probably 1 Pet. 5:13 (with Papias, Frag. 21:2); 4 Ezra (esp. 3:28, 31) and 2 Baruch (esp. 11:1; 67:7; 77:17–19). See discussion in, e.g., Gaster, Scriptures, 318; Kelly, Peter, 218; Kraybill, Cult and Commerce, 149–50.

102. Sib. Or. 5:143, probably from late first- or early second-century CE Egypt.

103. Sib. Or. 5:159–61.

104. Elliott, Peter, 884.

105. Prete, “Espressione”; cf. Elliott, Home, 232.

106. Cf. Selwyn, Peter, 303; Lane, Mark, 15; Kelly, Peter, 219; Senior, Peter, 155; Green, Peter, 183–84; Jobes, Peter, 323. As Feldmeier (Peter, 41) puts it, its functions as a symbol for the dispersion and for Rome are not “mutually exclusive.”

107. Beasley-Murray, Revelation, 225.

108. E.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 4.13.2–3; Varro, Ling. lat. 5.7.41; Ovid, Tristia 1.5.69–70; Pliny E., Nat. 3.5.66; Silius Italicus, Pun. 10.586; 12.608; Statius, Silv. 2.3.21; 4.1.6–7; Symmachus, Ep. 1.12.3; further sources in Caird, Revelation, 216; Aune, Revelation, 944–45; Clarke, “Italy,” 457. For the annual festival celebrating Rome’s founding on these hills, see Suetonius, Dom. 4.5.

109. Sib. Or. 2:18; 11:113, 116.

110. E.g., Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 1.4.3; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 1.9.1; Cicero, Phil. 4.6.15.

111. See, e.g., Bauckham, Climax, 352–66; esp. Pliny E., Nat. 37.78.204.

112. See T. Mos. 3:14; Josephus, Ant. 10.209 (with 11.276); 2 Bar. 39:4–7; Sipre Deut. 317.4.2; 320.2.3; y. Taʿan. 2:5, §1; Midr. on Ps. 40, §4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:25; Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen. 15:12; Wright, People of God, 317; Wright, Faithfulness, 1316–17. For early Christian views, see, e.g., Pfandl, “Kingdom.” For gentile views, such as the five kingdoms that influenced Sib. Or. 8:6–11, cf. Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 1.6.6 (but F. W. Shipley [LCL, pp. 14–15] regards it as a gloss); Mendels, “Five Empires”; Lucas, “Four Empires.” Although the Kittim, the eschatological enemy in Qumran texts (e.g., 1QM 1.9, 12; 15.2; 16.3–9; 1QpHab 2.12–14; 3.4, 9; 4.5), might refer to Seleucids (cf. Avi-Yonah, “War,” 5; Michel, Maître; Rowley, “Kittim”; Treves, “Sons of Light,” 420) or be generic (Carmignac, “Kittim,” 748; North, “War,” 88; van der Ploeg, Guerre, 24–25; Gaster, Scriptures, 388) in the earliest scrolls, today’s consensus is that the later ones apply them to Rome (1QpHab 3.10–11; 4Q169 f3–4.1.3; Burrows, Scrolls, 123–42; Burrows, More Light, 194–203; Rabin, “Jannaeus”; Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings, 167–68, 349; Bolotnikov, “War”; Vermes, “Elements”; Nodet, “Kittim”).

113. Cf. Goppelt, Peter, 374–75; Meade, Pseudonymity, 165; Schutter, Hermeneutic, 5n8; Thiede, “Babylon”; cf. also Roman sources in Thiede, Peter, 154; cf. Moon, Amanuensis, 71–72. Achtemeier (Peter, 47) recognizes that a Danielic identification would vacate the persuasiveness of dating 1 Peter after 70 on the basis of the identification.

114. See Dupont-Sommer, Essene Writings, 349; Vermes, “Elements.” Earlier Greeks and Romans envisioned four eastern empires—though replacing Babylon with Assyria—before adding Rome; see Velleius Paterculus, Comp. 1.6.6 (though some view this as a gloss); Mendels, “Five Empires”; cf. Sib. Or. 8:6–11.

115. As Elliott (Peter, 887–88) points out, the eight NT mentions of Mark “form a consistent picture”; cf. Marcus, Mark 1–8, 17–18; Collins, Mark, 4–6; Healy, Mark, 19; Garland, Theology, 49–50; Bock, Mark, 21. For the Papian connection between Peter and Mark, cf. further also Gundry, Mark, 1036–40; Garland, Theology, 53–57; Riesner, Messias Jesus, 418–22.

116. On the majority, though disputed, view that these letters are written from Rome. Cf. 2 Tim. 4:11.

117. E.g., Sipre Deut. 34.3.1–3, 5; 305.3.4; cf. 4 Bar. 7:24; Porphyry, Marc. 1.6–8; see further Keener, John, 922.

118. Judge, Rank, 36n19; Judge, First Christians, 561. Whether he was a Roman citizen or not, use of the name could suggest that Mark derived from a wealthy family comfortable with Roman rule, if he had the name before leaving Judea.

119. Williams, “Names,” 105. Many Diaspora Jews used variants of this name (including “Marcia” and “Marcellus”); see, e.g., CIJ 1:97, §138 (Appian Way; a child, hence not a proselyte); 1:98, §139 (Appian Way); 1:176, §248; 1:177, §249 (Latin); 1:178, §250 (Latin); 1:293, §377 (Greek, but “wife of Maximus”).

120. Bauckham, “Origins,” 160.

121. Williams, “Names,” 105.

122. Stambaugh, City, 94.

123. Or, “Barnabas’s cousin” (Col. 4:10).

124. Bauckham, “Origins,” 161, as noted by Garland, Theology, 50.

125. E.g., Chariton, Chaer. 8.4.6. Since Augustus’s era they had become standard; see Weima, Endings, 39–45, here esp. 42–45.

126. Cicero, Att. 5.9, closing paragraph (trans. Winstedt, LCL, 1:357).

127. M. Aurelius, in Fronto, M. Caes. 3.12 (trans. Haines, LCL, 1:17).

128. Fronto, M. Caes. 4.10 (trans. Haines, LCL, 1:189).

129. Weima, Endings, 45.

130. Weima, Endings, 41–42, noting that this was the most common greeting form.

131. What follows is adapted from Keener, Acts, 3:3070–73; see further Keener, “Kiss”; Binder, “Kiss” (Greco-Roman, 55–59; Jewish, 59–60); Hurschmann, “Kiss”; Klassen, “Kiss.”

132. Diodorus Siculus, Libr. Hist. 9.37.1.

133. Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26.

134. He never uses phileō or philia. For what it is worth, this is true also of 2 Peter (2 Pet. 1:7, 17; 2:15; 3:1, 8, 14–15, 17), and mostly for Paul (more than ninety uses of agapaō or agapē in the Pauline corpus, but the only two uses of phileō are 1 Cor. 16:22, which might include a pre-Pauline element, and Titus 3:15). John’s Gospel is distinctive in varying the terms, and even John uses agapaō roughly three times as often as phileō (or twice as often if one adds philos).

135. E.g., Suetonius, Otho 10.2 (with embracing, as here); in Persia, Xenophon, Cyr. 1.3.2–3; 2.2.31; 5.5.6, 36 (to fail to grant the kiss signaled trouble in the relationship; Xenophon, Cyr. 5.5.37).

136. E.g., Homer, Od. 16.190–91; Xenophon, Cyr. 1.4.28; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 7.7.1; 4Q158 frg. 1 2.14; 4Q538 frg. 1 2.6; also bodies of those killed (Tacitus, Ann. 4.63). One might, weeping for joy, kiss a relative who had just arrived from a distant land (Gen. 33:4; Tob. 7:6–7), or kiss any other relative one had not seen for a long time (Exod. 4:27; 18:7). A kiss might also function as an affirmation (e.g., 1 Sam. 10:1) or welcoming back into fellowship (2 Sam. 14:33), as when John kisses the repentant Callimachus in Acts John 78. Discovering that a relative was safe might produce the same emotional response (Song Rab. 8:1, §1).

137. E.g., Xenophon, Cyr. 1.4.27; 6.4.10; one might kiss a child (Gen. 31:28, 55; Tob. 10:12) or other relative (Ruth 1:9, 14; 1 Kings 19:20) who was about to depart. See also Binder, “Kiss,” 57.

138. Longus, Daphn. 4.22–23. One might rise and kiss a cousin who had greeted him (Achilles Tatius, Leuc. Clit. 1.7.3); sisters would kiss (Num. Rab. 9:9), as would a sister and brother (Song 8:1; Jos. Asen. 8:4/3). For more distant relatives, cf. discussion in Deissmann-Merten, “Kinship,” 53.

139. Plutarch, Rom. Q. 6, Mor. 265B.

140. Ovid, Metam. 10.525.

141. Euripides, Andromache 416. Sons also kissed fathers in Jewish culture (Gen. 27:26–27; Jub. 22:10–11; 26:21).

142. Heliodorus, Aeth. 1.9.

143. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 1.5.3. Fathers kissed their children (Virgil, Georg. 2.523; Gen. 31:28, 55). Jewish people also counted it natural for a father to kiss and embrace a son he loved (Jub. 31:21; T. Sim. 1:2; Song Rab. 5:16, §3)

144. E.g., Valerius Maximus, Mem. 7.8.9 (a dying man kisses his friend, though deceitfully, since he has just disinherited him).

145. E.g., Homer, Od. 21.224–27; Jewish friends also kissed at separation (1 Sam. 20:41; Acts 20:37) and in greeting (2 Sam. 15:5; 19:39; 20:9). Pagans thought that kissing a friend signified a good omen in a dream (Artemidorus, Onir. 2.2).

146. Dio Chrysostom, Or. 7.59, recounting the urban laughter attending a rural person kissing his friend.

147. E.g., Gen. 29:11; 45:15; Tob. 7:6; Luke 7:38.

148. E.g., Tacitus, Hist. 2.49; Suetonius, Otho 12.2; Gen. 50:1; Jub. 23:5.

149. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Rom. Ant. 7.7.1; Apoll. K. Tyre 45; Ahiq. 5:12; Gen. 33:4; Jub. 31:8; Philo, Joseph 182. For parting, see Ruth 1:14; 1 Sam. 20:41; Acts 20:37; cf. Josephus, J.W. 7.391.

150. Arrian, Anab. 4.11.3; cf. Lucian, Dial. D. 365 (20/10, Charon and Hermes 2), involving a tyrant; 4Q550c, frg. 1.ii.8; Luke 7:38, 45; see further Binder, “Kiss,” 55–56. A monarch might expect others to kiss his image (Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 1.27).

151. Toner, Culture, 135.

152. On the neck, hands, eyes, or other body parts (mocked in Epictetus, Diatr. 1.19.24). After coming to an agreement, a Roman general and an Armenian prince parted with a kiss (Tacitus, Ann. 15.29).

153. E.g., Fronto, M. Caes. 3.13.2.

154. E.g., Fronto, M. Caes. 2.3.3; Eccl. Rab. 9:5, §1. The kiss of a disciple is relevant to Luke 22:47–48 (as is Prov. 27:6).

155. Fronto, Ver. imp. 2.8; Philostratus, Vit. soph. 1.25.537 (both adults). One teacher who practiced this exclusively with boys, not with adults, gave grounds for suspicion (Lucian, Alex. 41).

156. E.g., y. Peʾah 1:1, §13; cf. Luke 7:45.

157. Lucian, Men. 12 (mocking one who thought this granted others happiness to so kiss him); Alex. 41, 55 (in 55 Lucian bites him instead); sycophantic supplicants kissed the emperor’s hand in Tacitus, Ann. 15.71; a parasite like a slave kisses the master’s hand (Quintilian, Decl. 298.11). In one Jewish story, Abraham, in respectfully kissing Death’s hand, died (T. Ab. 20:8–9 A); cf. Moses dying by the Memra’s kiss in Tg. Ps.-J. on Deut. 34:5. Eventually, even hands might appear too elevated for kisses; in the later empire, people counted it an honor “to be allowed to kiss the hem of the emperor’s purple cloak, while lying prostrate on the floor” (Toner, Culture, 136).

158. Suetonius, Vit. 7.3.

159. E.g., Nero toward senators (Suetonius, Nero 37.3); perhaps Simon toward Jesus (Luke 7:45; cf. Bailey, Peasant Eyes, 6, 8; on the stock character of the insulted guest in symposium settings, cf. Smith, Symposium, 49).

160. Thus God is said to have kissed some Israelites who got circumcised (Exod. Rab. 19:5). One source similarly reports that Miriam’s father kissed her hand when he thought her prophecy had been fulfilled, though he struck her head when he later (wrongly) concluded it to be a false prophecy (b. Soṭah 13a).

161. This practice is reported for Johanan ben Zakkai (t. Ḥag. 2:1; ʾAbot R. Nat. 6 A; 13, §32 B; b. Ḥag. 14b; y. Ḥag. 2:1, §4), R. Gamaliel II (y. Roš Haš. 2:9, §2), R. Simeon ben Yohai (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 1:3), and R. Abba bar Kahana (y. Hor. 3:5, §3; Eccl. Rab. 6:2, §1). In Lucian, Critic 23, one kisses his pupils or hearers.

162. Binder, “Kiss,” 56.

163. See Binder, “Kiss,” 58–59.

164. Valerius Maximus, Mem. 6.1.4. Numidian kings allegedly avoided kissing, to retain the proper use of kisses; but this claim appears only in Valerius Maximus (Mem. 2.6.17).

165. Cf., e.g., Suetonius, Tib. 34.2; on public reticence, cf. also Brown, Death, 255. Still, few went so far as Cato, who expelled from the senate a man for kissing his own wife in front of their daughter (Plutarch, Bride 13, Mor. 139E). For erotic kissing, see, e.g., Fronto, Ant. imp. 1.2.4; Prov. 7:13; Song 1:2.

166. The basium was an “erotic banquet kiss” distinct from the innocent, familial osculum; the basium “may have been just a slight brushing of the lips,” a hint pointing to something more (Dupont, Life, 285).

167. Ellington, “Kissing.” For kisses merely on the hand, see Apollonius Rhodius, Argon. 1.313; Libanius, Topics 3.15; b. Ber. 8b.

168. With, e.g., Witherington, Corinthians, 323n2 (following Benko, Rome and Christians, 79–102). This could apply even to casual greetings (Lucian, True Story 1.8, though he is writing proto–science fiction).

169. Jos. Asen. 8:6 takes this for granted; in Persia, see Xenophon, Cyr. 1.4.27–28.

170. Plutarch, Rom. Q. 6, Mor. 265B; see also Fitzgerald, “Egnatius,” 120–21.

171. Ovid, Metam. 2.356–57.

172. Virgil, Aen. 12.434.

173. Ovid, Metam. 10.362.

174. Euripides, Phoen. 1671.

175. Euripides, Alcest. 403–4. Likewise, for a deceased father; cf. facial kissing in Gen. 50:1.

176. Toner, Culture, 135, citing Pliny E., Nat. 26.3. Toner (133) notes the frequency of foul breath (citing for example Philogelos 231, 235; also noting 232–34, 236–40, 242), which may have tended to reduce the duration of much social kissing.

177. Chariton, Chaer. 2.7.7; cf. Jos. Asen. 8:3–7.

178. Ovid, Metam. 4.222, 334.

179. Ovid, Metam. 2.430–31.

180. Cf., e.g., Conzelmann, Corinthians, 299; Morris, Romans, 537; Banks, Community, 88; Mounce, Peter, 92; for the view that it expresses traditional Mediterranean “tactile” culture, see Malina, Windows, 22–23. Some others read the later liturgical significance back into these passages (e.g., Cullmann, Worship, 20). Paul would hardly need to command a rite; rather, he encourages such greetings on the receipt of his letter. Given the pervasiveness of ancient kissing documented above (and utter lack of initiatory significance in our NT texts), a writer’s association of early Christian kissing with mysteries’ “rites of recognition” (Mack, Lost Gospel, 220) reflects inadequate acquaintance with the range of relevant sources.

181. Fronto, M. Caes. 1.8.7 (if original); 5.33 (48); 5.42 (57). Fronto writes considerably later than Peter, but the NT is a very unlikely source for his practice.

182. Justin, 1 Apol. 65; see further (in Bray, Romans, 375) Tertullian, On Prayer 18; Origen, Comm. Rom. on 16:16 (CER 5:258).

183. Tertullian, Ux. 2.4.

184. Athenagoras, Leg. 32.5.

185. Apos. Con. 2.7.57. Cf. also Grant, Paul, 101; for concerns with abuses, see (in Bray, Romans, 375) Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3.11; Ambrosiaster, Comm. Rom. on Rom. 16:16 (CSEL 81:487). Neil (Thessalonians, 135–36) notes that later Christians believed that they were returning to the original custom. Given charges against the church (such as incest, Athenagoras, Leg. 3; Theophilus, Autol. 3.4; Minucius Felix, Oct. 31.1; Tertullian, Apol. 2.5, 20), such restrictions may have eventually become necessary even without abuse.

186. Chrysostom, Hom. Rom. 31 on Rom. 16:16 (Bray, Romans, 375).

187. Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 16:23; Gal. 6:18; Eph. 6:24; Phil. 4:23; Col. 4:18; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18; 1 Tim. 6:21; 2 Tim. 4:22; Titus 3:15; Philem. 25; Heb. 13:25; 1 Clem. 65:2; Ignatius, Smyrn. 13:2.

188. Gal. 6:16; Eph. 6:23; 2 Thess. 3:16; 3 John 15.

189. 1QSb 3.5.

190. See, e.g., Carmon, Inscriptions, 79, §174; 176–77, §174; CIJ 1:273, §349; other “peace” or “rest” funerary inscriptions in, e.g., CIJ 1:198–99, §283; 1:230, §292; 1:250–51, §319; 1:362, §497; 1:364, §499; 1:412, §558; 1:422–23, §570; 1:423, §§572–73; 1:427, §584; 1:432, §§594–95; 1:433, §§596–97; 1:436, §§606–7; 1:437, §609; 1:438, §611; 1:440, §613; 1:446, §626; 1:449, §630; 1:464, §649; 1:466, §650; 1:473, §659; 1:474, §661; 1:483, §671; 1:499, §688; 1:597, §732; 2:108, §874; 2:110, §877; 2:120, §892; 2:121, §893; 2:122, §897; 2:125, §903; 2:129, §914; 2:132, §920; 2:133, §922; 2:138, §§933–34; 2:139, §937; 2:142, §943; 2:144, §948; 2:145, §951; 2:147, §956; 2:148, §959; 2:149, §961; 2:156, §970; 2:159, §973; 2:197, §§1078–80; 2:198, §1086; 2:199, §1090; 2:232, §1195; 2:236, §1200; 2:364, §1437; 2:364–65, §1438; Leon, Jews of Rome, 123; cf. Sir. 30:17; Wis. 3:3; 4:7; Syr. Men. Sent. 470–73; Rev. 14:13.

191. CIJ 1:231, §293; 1:307, §397; 1:434, §599; 1:466, §650; 1:474, §661; 1:481, §670; 2:103, §866; 2:115, §884; 2:159, §973; 2:160, §974 (reconstructed); 2:222, §1175. CIJ 2:104, §867 (in Greek) includes, “Peace to the synagogue.” See also 4Q503 f29–32.11. Cf. prayer for the peace of Jerusalem (Ps. 122:6–8).

192. CIJ 2:56, §804.

193. E.g., Jub. 23:29–30; 31:20; 1QM 1.9; 12.3; Tob. 13:14–15 MSS; Sib. Or. 2:29; 3:751, 753, 755, 780–85; T. Jud. 22:2. The wicked would not have peace (1 En. 98:11, 15; 99:13; 101:3; 103:8), but the righteous will (71:17; 105:2; cf. m. ʾAbot 2:7).

↑ Back to top