Diseño de las columnas de la estructura de la planta

Before I put forth my own proposal to explain the logic that brings together Isaiah 53 and the shepherd imagery of 2.25, I will offer some critiques of these two lines of interpretation as they presently stand, which ultimately make them either implausible or unsatisfying explanations respectively.

If the ‘conversion approach’ were the best option for understanding the relationship between 2.24 and 2.25, we would have to conclude that scholars have rightly paid little attention to the shepherd imagery, which would seem to be rather incidental to the main thrust of the passage. There are, however, certain features of this proposal which are implausible. First, all indications are thatἐπεστράφητεis best translated with the passive voice (‘have been returned’) rather than as a passive

26_{Jobes 2005:198. According to Jobes, the shepherd imagery appears as a by-product. ‘The thought in Is 53.5 that the}

wounds of the Suffering Servant heal is followed in 53.6 by the statement “We all have wandered like sheep…”. Peter picks up the same imagery in the same sequence’.

27_{Jobes 2005:198. The ‘elsewhere’ she is referring to is 1 Pet 5.1-4 (Jobes 2005:304).} 28_{Jobes 2005:199.}

29_{Dubis 2002:46: ‘One will only properly understand 1 Peter’s theology of suffering if one sets it within the broader}

framework of his exile/restoration metaphor. Indeed the suffering/glory pattern in 1 Peter (1.11; 4.13; 5.1, 10) is essentially and exile/restoration pattern. First Peter portrays the suffering of the readers as exilic suffering, and portrays future glory as the glory of Israel’s anticipated eschatological restoration…’. For the full argumentation see Dubis 2002:46-58; See also Deterding 1981 for a development of exodus motifs in 1 Peter.

deponent (‘have turned’), which is what Goppelt and Michaels have done.31_{While it is} true that the aorist passive ofἐπιστρέφωcan be deponent, this is rare in the New Testament. Outside of 1 Peter 2.25,ἐπιστρέφωappears 35 times in the NT; only four times in a passive construction (Matt 10.13; Mark 5.30; 8.33; John 21.20).32_{In none of} these four cases does the passive construction convey the idea of conversion.

Conversely, we do have cases in the NT whereἐπιστρέφωdoes mean ‘to turn’ in the

sense of convert; in every case the verb appears with the active construction (e.g. Acts 3.19; 11.2;14.15; 15.19; 26.18; 1 Thes 1.9).33_{Additionally, in the texts that Goppelt points} to as the likely impetus for the appropriation of the verbἐπιστρέφωin 1 Pet 2.25 (e.g. Matt 13.15; Mark 4.12 and Acts 28.27) the active construct (i.e. non-deponent) is used. There is no evidence in the NT, outside of the debatable instance in 1 Peter 2.25, where

ἐπιστρέφωin the passive is meant to convey the idea of turning in the sense of

conversion. This in no way makes a deponent reading impossible, however the lexical evidence of the NT coupled with what appears to be an intentional pattern of aorist passive verbs (2.21ἐκλήθητε, 2.24ἰάθητε, 2.25ἐπεστράφητε), and the fact that in the

LXX prophetic materialἐπιστρέφωis the verb often used in reference to YHWH’s

activity of returning his straying sheep (e.g. Ezek 34.16) or exiled people (e.g. Zech

10.10) make it highly improbable thatἐπεστράφητεshould be translated ‘have turned’

in the sense of conversion.34 _{This, in turn, would make it improbable that the early} Christian tradition based on Isa 6.10 is the source (and logic) that connects 2.24

(ἰάθητε)and 2.25 (ἐπεστράφητε), and calls into question the notion that healing is

synonymous with religious conversion, in part because both Goppelt as well as

Michaels argue thatἐπεστράφητεandἰάθητεmutually interpret each other. In fact, as

Elliott has argued, one can just as easily argue that it is healing which provides the

means for conversion, rather than the two being synonymous.35_{What is more, while}

31_{Bosetti 1990:132; Elliott 2000:539; Achtemeier 1996:204; Dubis 2002:57.}

32_{It appears thatἐπιστρέφωis deponent most often when it occurs as an aorist passive participle—e.g. Exod 7.23;}

Num 23.5; Deut 1.24; Mark 5.30; Mark 8.33; John 21.20; Barn 4.8; Herm 12.4.6.

33_{Of particular note is Acts 11.21,ὁ πιστεύσας ἐπέστρεψεν ἐπὶτὸν κύριον, which, like 1 Pet 2.25, uses the}

prepositionἐπὶwith the personal object.

34_{In the LXX, for example, there are several cases ofἐπιστρέφωappearing in the passive construct but carrying an}

active or middle voice (e.g. Exod 16.10; 34.31 [‘to turn around’]; 2 Kings 1.5 [to return from a journey]; Deut 30.2; Isa 45.22; 55.7 [‘to repent or re-establish relationship with someone]. When it is used metaphorically, this is almost always in the sense of repentance or as a way of describing forgiveness of sins rather than referring to conversion.

35_{Elliott 2000:532: ‘Through his own upright behavior (vv 22-23) and vicarious suffering (v24), Christ has made}

possible the believers’ renunciation of wrongdoing and their living for doing what is right’. First Peter 2.24b-c, then, is there to explain ‘the effect of Christ’s vicarious suffering and crucifixion: the transfer of human sins upon him and the consequence thereof; namely, liberation from the compulsion to do what is wrong and empowerment to live justly’.

healing is at times a metaphor to describe conversion, it is also used in the OT (LXX) as a metaphor that refers to forgiveness of sins and/or restoration from punishment, affliction or exile.36_{As will be highlighted in greater detail below, this sense of healing} seems to fit better within the context of Isaiah 53. It also complements the restoration theme that is developed throughout 1 Peter, which will also be detailed in due course.37 In conclusion, the ‘conversion approach’ of Goppelt and Michaels does not adequately explain the relationship between 1 Peter 2.24 and 2.25. We must, then, find a better solution, while also being open to the possibility that the shepherd imagery is more significant than we have been led to believe.

Bosettiet alhave helpfully anchored the analysis of 1 Pet 2.21-25 within the wider theme of Jewish restoration eschatology, and have rightly pointed to the shepherd tradition of the prophets as a way to explain the logic behind the conflation of imagery. None of the proponents of the ‘restoration approach’, however, has adequately analyzed the shepherd tradition.38_{In particular, Bosetti, who offers the} most comprehensive account, has failed to recognize the way in which the shepherd tradition of Ezekiel 34 has been significantly reworked in Zechariah 9-14, or how the Zechariah 9-14 tradition has been picked up in parts of the NT. Instead, her study focused in an atomistic fashion on words and phrases in the shepherd tradition that share parallels with 1 Peter 2.24-25. Additionally, none of the proponents of the

‘restoration approach’ offer a sufficient rationale for why Peter would be reading Isaiah 53 together with Ezekiel 34—an exegetical move that is not found elsewhere in the NT. Finally, no one advocating the ‘restoration approach’ has given serious consideration to similar verbal parallels found in Zechariah 10—a text of particular significance since (a) it is widely agreed that Zechariah 9-14 interacts with and even reworks the shepherd tradition of Ezekiel 34, and (b) it is where the eschatological program of Zechariah 9-14 begins to develop this reworked tradition of Ezekiel 34.39_{For example, an analysis of all} three texts—Ezekiel 34, Zechariah 10 and 1 Pet 2.25—reveals that they all share the

36_{See for example LXX Deut 30.3-5; Jer 33.6; Isa 30.26; 53.5; 57.18-19; 61.1; Ps 59.4; 102.3; 106.20; 146.3; Hosea 6.1; 7.1;}

14.4.

37_{Dubis 2002: 46-62; Furnish 1975; Deterding 1981.}

38_{This is certainly understandable in the case of Elliott, Jobes and Dubis, since it was not the aim of their studies.} 39_{Coggins regards the shepherd theme in Zechariah 9-14 as ‘the beginnings of a tradition of biblical commentary,}

applying to the contemporary situation (whatever that may have been) the warnings against false shepherds which are found particularly in Jeremiah 25 and Ezekiel 34’ (Coggins 1987:71); Meyers 1993: 35-45; Duguid 1995:266, 272-5; Larkin 1994; Tigchelaar 1996; Laniak 2006:162. In an otherwise comprehensive study of shepherd imagery in 1 Peter, Bosetti (1990:118-152) notably fails to trace the progress of the shepherd tradition through to Zechariah 9-14.

wordsπρόβατα,ἐπιστρέφω,ποιμήν, and cognates ofἐπίσκοπος.40_{The only verbal} parallel present in Ezekiel 34 and 1 Peter 2.24-25 but lacking in Zechariah 10 is the verb

πλανάω. There is, however, a similar connotation in Zech 10.2 where the sheep are

described as ‘wandering’ or ‘cast out’ (וּע ְס ָנ/ἐξήρθησαν).41 _{It is inadequate, therefore,} to establish a link between 1 Peter 2.25 and Ezekiel 34 or Zechariah 10 respectively based solely on the presence of verbal parallels.

In what remains of this chapter, I will argue that it is more plausible that 1 Peter 2.24-25 conflates Isaiah 53 with the shepherd tradition of Zechariah 9-14. The argument will develop in three movements. First, I will seek to build on the notion that 1 Pet 2.21-25 is an example of early Christian ‘pesher’ on the passion of Jesus, making Zechariah 9-14 a more likely source than Ezekiel 34.42_{Second, I will examine the title} ‘shepherd’ within the context of Israelite tradition and the Ancient Near East (ANE), and in light of the exegetical activity of 1 Pet 2.21-25. My analysis will suggest that at the very least, the shared theme of restoration through YHWH’s afflicted agent serves as the link between Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 9-14. I will further suggest that Peter, employing the exegetical techniquegezerah shavah,may have linked LXX43_{Isa 53.5-6}

with LXX Zech 10.2 via the catchwordsὡς πρόβαταandἰάθημεν/ ἴασις, so that the

two texts and their wider text plots mutually interpret each other.

3.3 FIRST PETER 2.21-25: A PASSION ‘PESHER’?

A number of 1 Peter scholars have noted that the letter exhibits ‘pesher-like’ activity at various places.45_{Some have suggested that 1 Peter 2.21-25 is one such example of an} early Christian midrashic reflection on Isaiah 53.46_{In this section, I wish to expand on}

40_{Additionally, given the proliferation of shepherd imagery in Zech 10.8-12, YHWH is to be conceived as theποιμήν.} 41_{In other words, ‘straying’(πλανάω)sheepand a ‘wandering’ (}

ע ַס ָנ) or ‘cast out’ (ἐξαίρω)flock in their respective contexts refer to YHWH’s people in exile. As Gordon has noted, Targum Zechariah 10.2 makes the theme of exile more explicit, most notably by replacing ‘they are afflicted’ with ‘they went into exile’ (Cathcart and Gordon 1989:208).

42_{See below for a discussion of the terms midrash and pesher.}

43_{From this point on in this paper, the term LXX refers to the critically reconstructed text of theSeptuaginta. I}

acknowledge that the Greek OT was in a state of flux in the first century. TheSeptuagintaoffers a working hypothesis for what Peter and the Anatolian Christians were likely reading, one that will be maintained unless there is good reason to adopt another reading. It should be noted that in a recent survey regarding the Septuagint textual tradition in 1 Peter, Jobes concluded: ‘The author of 1 Peter seems to be…familiar with a Greek form that is…the same as the critically-reconstructed Septuagint text’ (Jobes 2006: 332).

44_{I use the termpesherhere because it is the way others have described the author’s exegetical practice. This}

terminology will be critiqued at the end of this section. Additionally, I wish to point out that 1 Peter 2.21-25 will be analyzed within its larger literary context in Chapter Six. Finally, I do not find warrant in the notion that 1 Pet 2.22- 24 is an early Christian hymn for the reasons laid out in Elliott 2000: 548-50.

45_{Bauckham 1988; Schutter (1989:85-179) highlights 1 Pet 1.22-2.3; 2.4-10; 2.21-25 in particular.}

46_{Michaels (1988:136-7) uses the term Christian midrash, while Schutter (1989:138-44,168, 170) prefers ‘pesher-like}

this proposal by first noting that (1) 1 Pet 2.21 (‘because Christ also suffered on your

behalf’,ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) functions as the theme verse for the

‘midrashic’ activity (2.21-25) and that (2) the OT citations and commentary that follow it (2.22-25) serve to develop this primary theme. Richard Bauckham has demonstrated a similar exegetical technique in 1 Peter 2.4-10, where ‘vv. 4-5 briefly state the theme which is then both supported and expanded by OT citations and their interpretation in vv. 6-10.’47_{This could also be compared to 1 Pet 3.18 (ὅτι καὶ Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ}

ἁμαρτιῶν ἔπαθεν), which appears to be the theme verse for 1 Pet 3.19-22.

The phraseΧριστὸς ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν (2.21) echoes several similar passages

in the Pauline corpus (most notably 1 Cor 15.3, but also Rom 5.6, 8; 2 Cor 5.14) that are considered to be either kerygmatic/creedal formulations or catechetical summaries regarding the significance of Jesus’ death—the only difference being that in 1 Pet 2.21

ἔπαθεν has been substituted for ἀπέθανεν.48_{In 1 Cor 15.3, Paul himself identifies the}

phrase as a part of a tradition that has been ‘handed down’ to him, which may indicate that it is one of the earliest Christian traditions. Peter’s deliberate choice of ἔπαθενin 1

Peter 2.21 instead of the more common traditional formulation ofἀπέθανενfound in 1

Cor. 15.3 and elsewhere can be explained on the grounds that he wanted to connect the traditional creedal formulation/catechetical summary to his prominent usage of the theme of suffering throughout the letter,49 _{suffering which entails more than just Jesus’} death (cf. 1 Pet 4.1-2).50_{Barth Campbell has aptly demonstrated that the concept of} suffering in 1 Peter may include but is not synonymous to (or limited to) death, but instead consists of a variety of forms of social ostracism within an honor-shame

society.51 _{Regarding the suffering of Jesus, Cervantes Gabarrón has noted that ‘the use} of this verb[πάσχω]in relation to Christ…is found also in the Synoptics, Acts, [and] Hebrews, and refers to the passion and death of Christ, considered as a whole, as one

47_{Bauckham 1988: 310. Elliott 1966:156-159; Elliott 1981:167-170; 200-237.}

48_{Cf. Schutter 1989:63; See Conzelmann 1975:251. Fee writes, ‘[I]t is generally agreed that…Paul is repeating a very}

early creedal formulation that was common to the entire church’ (Fee 1987: 718). For more on 1 Cor 15.3 as a catechetical summary, see Peter Stuhlmacher 1968:266-82.

49_{The verbπάσχωappears 12 times in the letter (2.19, 20, 21,23; 3.14, 17, 18; 4.1 (bis), 15, 19; 5.10. The cognate noun,}

πάθημα, is used 4 times (1.11; 4.13; 5.1, 9). The subject of the suffering is predominantly either Jesus or those who faithfully follow him.

50_{See Elliott 2000:525. Some manuscripts haveἀπέθανενinstead ofἔπαθεν. It is likely that a scribe wroteἀπέθανεν}

instead of the original ἔπαθενbecause it was more in keeping with both the oral tradition and the early textual form found in 1 Cor. 15.3 an elsewhere. The fact that the two words look alike may have also influenced the scribe’s reading. On this see also Achtemeier 1996:189, note 10; Elliott 2000:524; Feldmeier 2008:166. For a similar textual variant in 1 Pet 3.18 see Dalton 1965:119-21.

event, but at the same time highlights the sufferings that preceded the death of Jesus.’52 In Peter’s scope, then, was the entire narrative surrounding his death--his unjust trial, how he responded to this unjust treatment and his subsequent crucifixion. It may be significant that Mark’s Gospel has Jesus foreshadowing his unjust trial and crucifixion with the words ‘the Son of Man must undergo great suffering’ (δεῖ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ

ἀνθρώπου πολλὰ παθεῖν;Mark 8.31).53

This initial appraisal ofἔπαθενis strengthened when consideration is given to why the Isaiah 53 citations do not appear in 1 Peter in the same order in which they occur in Isaiah 53:

verse 1 Peter 2 Isaiah 53 citation/allusion

22 ὃς ἁμαρτίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν οὐδὲεὑρέθη δόλος ἐντῷ στόματιαὐτοῦ, 53.9 ἀνομίαν οὐκ ἐποίησεν,οὐδὲεὑρέθη δόλος ἐντῷ στόματιαὐτοῦ 23a ὃς λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει, πάσχων οὐκ ἠπείλει, b παρεδίδου δὲ τῷ κρίνοντι δικαίως· 24a ὃςτὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶναὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐντῷ σώματιαὐτοῦ ἐπὶτὸ ξύλον, 53.4 οὗτος τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν φέρει b ἵνα ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἀπογενόμενοι τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ ζήσωμεν, c οὗ τῷ μώλωπι ἰάθητε. 53.5 τῷ μώλωπιαὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς ἰάθημεν 25a ἦτε γὰρ ὡς πρόβατα πλανώμενοι, 53.6 πάντες ὡς πρόβατα ἐπλανήθημεν

In this regard, a number of scholars have rightfully proposed that Peter arranges Isaiah 53 in this fashion in order to ‘reflect fundamental aspects of the Passion narrative’.54 Feldmeier, for example, posits that ‘the paraenesis [2.21-25] is tied to a remembrance of the Passion in which Jesus’ behavior in his Passion becomes a pattern for Christian life.’55_{More specifically, Goppelt suggests thatὃς λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει} (2.23) ‘summarzies the impression that the [PNs] themselves give, such as slander after

52_{Cervantes Gabarrón 1991a:167; translation mine. He notes the following texts as significant: Luke 22.15; 24.26,46;}

Acts 1.3; 3.18; 17.3; Heb 9.26; 13.12. Dalton (1965:120) argues that πάσχωhas acquired a technical meaning in the NT ‘by which it refers to the sacrificial death of Christ’ (cf. Luke 22.15; 24.26, 46; Acts 1.3; 3.18; 17.3). This is, of course, not mutually exclusive of what Cervantes has argued.

53_{This becomes even more significant if one accepts that Peter is the author of the letter and the tradition that}

Mark’s Gospel is based upon Peter’s preaching, or if, like Elliott, one thinks that the letter was written by a Petrine group of which Silvanus and Mark were members (Elliott 2000: 118-130). For a recent argument proposing a close relationship between Peter and Mark’s Gospel see Bauckham 2006:155-239.

54_{Goppelt 1993:211. See also Achtemeier 1993:180; Jobes 2005:194-95; Schutter 1989:140; Feldmeier 2008:167, 173. In}

his study of the PNs Joel Green (1988:181) points to 1 Tim 6.13, Heb 5.7, and 1 Pet 2.23 as cases in which the passion story has been used to illustrate an ethical or theological point.

the condemnation in the Sanhedrin (Mk. 14.65 par.), the ridicule by the guards (Mk. 15.17-20a par.), and the derision by the crucified thief (Mk. 15.29-32 par.).’56_Similarly, Achtemeier has suggested that 2.22-23 alludes to Jesus’ trial, and 2.24 refers to the crucifixion of Jesus.57_{If we are right that Peter has intentionally arranged the Isaiah} material in order to fit the pattern of Jesus’ trial and death, this demonstrates, importantly, that our author had at least some basic knowledge of the PN tradition, which would include Jesus’ unjust treatment before his death and the way he

responded to that treatment. Peter’s comparison of Jesus to the unblemished lamb (1 Pet 1.18-19) may also indicate an awareness of the Last Supper tradition and its interpretation of Jesus’ death as a new Passover.58_{Unfortunately, we are unable to} determine with certainty the extent to which his knowledge of the PN conformed to that which we have in the canonical Gospels; nevertheless this at least demonstrates that it is plausible to place our author’s exegetical work within the milieu of the PN tradition, which, as I have demonstrated, drew upon Zechariah 9-14. Peter’s use of the PN tradition for his paraenetic purposes also suggests that he assumed his readers had knowledge of the basic contours of that narrative.59

It appears that the modified Isaiah 53 citation60_{in 1 Pet 2.22 (Isa 53.9) was} selected not only because it corresponds to the way Jesus responded when falsely accused (as per the PN tradition), but also because it conforms with the description of the Righteous Sufferer of LXX Ps 33.14, which Peter would later appropriate in chapter three in another paraenetic passage (3.10):καὶ χείλη τοῦ μὴ λαλῆσαι δόλον.61_In other words, the two passages (i.e. Isa LXX 53.9 and Ps 33.14) are appropriated both because they share the same word,δόλος, as well as because they share a similar concept (i.e. the blameless speech of the righteous sufferer), which was a common exegetical technique in both Jewish as well as the Greco-Roman contexts.62_{This is} significant for two reasons. First, it further substantiates that Peter is applying ‘pesher-

56_{Goppelt 1993:211.} 57_{So Achtemeier 1993:180.}

58_{The proliferation of Passover imagery in John’s PN could also have influenced Peter on this point, if he in fact had}

access to it.

59 _{This is strengthened if the PN tradition was in fact regularly reflected upon in Sunday worship. (Cf. Trocmé 1983; 1}

Cor 11.23-25; 1 Corinthians 15).

60_{For more on the modifications of Isaiah 53 in 1 Pet 2.22-24 (which is beyond the scope of this study) see Schutter}

1989:139-144; and Jobes 2005:193-198.

61_{So Bauckham 1988:313.}

62_{A similar parallel exists between 1 Pet 2.23 (ὃς λοιδορούμενος οὐκ ἀντελοιδόρει)and 1 Pet 3.9 (μὴ ἀποδιδόντες}