You can read the rest, but the summary is that γράφω διά was used solely to identify the letter-carrier and never to identify the secretary, let us note four points. First, although references identifying a secretary are found in GrecoRoman letters, we have found no examples of the formula gravfw diav tinoÍ being used to identify the secretary. There is an adequate number of examples of this formula. The formula seems always to be identifying the lettercarrier. Second, the best two examples we have of this formula come from literature that is quite analogous to the NT and clearly demonstrate that the formula gravfw diav tinoÍ was meant to identify the letter-carrier and not the secretary. The remaining secular papyri support this contention. Third, the expanded superscription for Romans found in the majority text reads: “. . . . proÍ PwmaiouÍ egrafh apo Korinqou dia FoibhÍ . . .” where Phoebe is clearly the carrier and not the secretary. While we would not argue for the historical reliability of the superscription, it is noteworthy that egrafh . . . dia is use to identify the carrier, not the secretary. Fourth, a variation of this formula is found in the letter/decree of the Apostolic Council (Acts 15). There we ˜nd the text of the letter introduced: “They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, writing through their hand . . .” The structure and wording is su¯ciently diˆerent, so that it might not serve as an example of the gravfw diav tinoÍ formula. Nevertheless, the usual interpretation of this phrase is that Judas and Silas were chosen as bearers of the letter to accompany Paul and Barnabas and are commended to the church in Antioch in the manner we have seen as fairly typical for a letter-carrier.
As we have demonstrated, this formula gravfw dia; tinoÍ elsewhere clearly identi˜es only the letter-carrier and cannot be construed as identifying the secretary.45 With such compelling evidence, one would assume unanimity among commentators. However, what we ˜nd is that commentators are not unanimous in interpreting this phrase. Such respected—although quite diverse—commentators as Paul Achtemeier in the Hermeneia series, Ramsey Michaels in the Word Biblical Commentary series, and John H. Elliott in his social-scienti˜c commentary46 argue brie˘y (with the same basic line of argumentation I had given in an earlier work47) that this formula gravfw dia;SilouanouÅ indicates solely the carrier. This is not just the conclusion of more recent commentators. Alexander Nisbet (1658), John Brown (1850), Robert Leighton (1853), Mason, Plummer, and Sinclair (1957), and John A. T. Robinson (1976) all argued that gravfw dia; SilouanouÅ indicated that Silvanus was the letter-carrier.48 Nevertheless, such respected commentators as Cran˜eld, Haenchen, Metzger, Kistemaker, and Guthrie consider the formula gravfw dia;SilouanouÅ as evidence that Silvanus was Peter’s secretary.49 This is not an opinion held solely by those favoring Petrine authorship: Conzelmann and Lindemann, in their introduction to the NT, state that 1 Peter claims to be written by Silvanus, citing 5:12 as evidence.50 Ernst Best argues that while gravfw diavtinoÍ is “ambiguous” and could mean either the secretary or the letter-carrier, 1 Pet 5:12 is referring to the secretary. 51 Other writers maintain that 1 Pet 5:12 can mean that Silvanus was either the secretary or the carrier.52 Since the evidence outside 1 Peter argues rather conclusively that this formula indicates solely the letter-carrier, what arguments are marshaled for 1 Pet 5:12 being an exception to the rule? Four arguments regularly appear in works on 1 Peter to argue that gravfw dia;SilouanouÅmeans that Silvanus was the secretary. These more “pragmatic” arguments usually make speci˜c reference to the context of 1 Pet 5:12. These four arguments may be summarized as follows. First, it is argued that the reference in 1 Pet 5:12 could not mean that Silvanus was the letter-carrier because it is highly doubtful that one person would have been expected to carry the letter to all the churches mentioned in the letter’s address. I ˜rst noticed this argument in Beare’s commentary.53 Although Beare soundly rejects what he calls the “Silvanus Hypothesis,” he does add that verse 12 could not have been used to indicate the carrier: “it is simply fatuous to think of a single courier conveying such a letter to all parts of the four provinces mentioned in the Address; it would take him months, or even years to accomplish such a task.”54 This argument is picked up again by L. Goppelt and Ernst Best.55 Achtemeier dismisses this by noting the “kind of traveling that Acts reports of Paul on his missionary journeys.”56 Selwyn adds the additional point that the letter address was so ordered to indicate the route which Silvanus was to take. Another version that assumes less of Peter is that he dictated in Aramaic, while the secretary translated to Greek. An issue against this possibility is that the letters do not show signs of Aramaic speech patterns turned into Greek ones; if this occurred, then the secretary modified the message sufficiently well to turn the passage into Greek idiom and style rather than Aramaic idiom and style.