1 Peter Among Early Christian Writers

Lee Martin MacDonald notes the following use of 1 Peter among writers in the early Church:

Although there are several parallel phrases in Barnabas and 1 Peter (Barn. 5.6 and 1 Pet 1:20), it is only with Polycarp that clear use of 1 Peter is found (e.g., Pol. Phil. 1.3 and 1 Pet 1:8; Pol. Phil. 10:2 and 1 Pet 2:12).  The author of 2 Pet 3:1 (ca. 100-125, or possibly as late as 180) refers to the existence of an earlier letter by the Apostle Peter.  Eusebius claimed that Papias (ca. 100-150) knew and used 1 Peter (Hist. eccl. 3.39.17), and he includes it in the list of the recognised books (3.25.2 and 3.3.1).  Irenaeus was the first to use 1 Peter by name (Haer. 4.9.2; 4.16.5; 5.7.2), and thereafter many references are made to the book by the early church fathers.  Early witnesses validate the use of the book in the church, and it does not appear to have been seriously questioned in the fourth century, even though it is missing in the Muratorian Fragment.

Lee Martin MacDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origins, Transmission, and Authority (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007), 395-396.

Witherington on the Audience of 1 Peter

I'll outline a few of the reasons why Ben Witherington has offered the view that the audience is predominantly Jewish.

1:17 If you invoke as Father the one who judges all people impartially according to their deeds, live in reverent fear during the time of your exile.

2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Witherington sees these as suggesting a Jewish audience, since they would naturally refer to Jews and not to Gentiles. For when are Gentiles ever referred to as exiles in their own regions? [Witherington, 2007; 28]. Furthermore, Witherington asserts that vs. 9 "is a direct echo of the Petateuch's report of what God said to Israel." [pg. 28]

 

On one of the two decisive passages in 1 Peter that appear to suggest a Gentile audience, Witherington suggests, regarding 2:10 that:

First Peter 2:10 is frequently seen to be a clear proof that the audience must be Gentiles. Here we have an intertextual echo or partial quotation of Hosea 1:9-10. Could our author really have been referring to Jews by phrases like “once you were not a people” or “once you had received no mercy”? This in some ways is a very odd question when one reads the original text of Hosea in its own context, where Hosea is clearly speaking of and about Jews, and offering a prophetic critique of their behavior. The prophet is indeed talking about Israel being temporally rejected and then restored. Thus there is no good reason why the author of 1 Peter could not be using this language in the same way as some of his own Jewish contemporaries. The key perhaps is to recognize that our author, himself a Jew, reflects the view of over-Hellenized Diaspora Jews that was not uncommon among more Torah-true Jews, who had been raised and lived in a more conservative environment in the Holy Land. For instance, consider the reaction of Qumranic Jews to Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem and elsewhere. [28-29]

 

Witherington's got a point.  But is this enough to establish that the audience is Jewish? 

The First Letter of Peter by Feldmeier - REVIEW

The First Letter of Peter: A Commentary on the Greek Text – Reinhard Feldmeier
Translated from the German (2005) by Peter H. Davids. Baylor University Press, 2008

Feldmeier is well known to Petrine scholarship for his offering in Die Christen als Fremede: Die Metapher der Fremde in der antiken Welt, im Urchristentum und im ersten Pretrusbrief (Tubingen, 1992). For those without German, access to German scholarship on this epistle is now available not only through the translation of Goppelt’s commentary on 1 Peter (Eerdmans, 1993), but also in this offering. My thanks to Carey Newman for convincing me to purchase this commentary at SBL Auckland, 2008.

As a candidate seeking to further his own understanding of 1 Peter, and learning to engage with commentaries, I write from that perspective. I have no expertise in the Greco-Roman world or early Christian literature. But as one making his way through commentaries on 1 Peter written in English, my comments here may prove helpful to others, especially scholars seeking to write for my ilk.

The commentary opens with an introduction that deals with the usual suspects.

1. “The Situation of Suffering”,
2. “The theological interpretation of the situation”,
3. “The arrangement of the letter”,
4. “The crossing of the vertical and horizontal dimensions of soteriology”,
5. “1 Peter and tradition”,
6. “Questions of introduction”,
7. “The influence of First Peter”.

This is then followed by a section by section, often verse by verse analysis with an original translation of the author (which is now translated into English, which makes it a double translation). Every section opens with a heading, and then a short bibliography of relevant articles or books on that specific section. There are no surprises in the structuring of the epistle, for those familiar with other commentaries on 1 Peter.

Interspersed among the comments are eleven excurses that explore further various topics within the letter.

1. Hope
2. The Reception and Transformation of metaphysical attributes of God in 1 Peter
3. Temptation/peirasmo"
4. The Soul and Salvation of the Soul in 1 Peter
5. The Desires
6. God as Judge
7. Rebirth
8. The Context of the Exhortation to Subordination
9. Subject and Responsible Citizen
10. “Humility”/tapeinovfrosunh
11. Devil/Satan

Exegetical issues: Three problematic texts

1:1-2    Feldmeier concurs with other commentators that this is not specifically a social description of the audience, contra Elliott, but rather a theological description of Christian status in the present form of the world. [52-54]

3:18-22    Suggests that the “spirits” in question, are the souls of those who died in the “deluge”, that is the flood. This is seen as a decent into Hell to proclaim the victory of Christ over evil powers. Admits that any interpretation of this passage is uncertain. [203-206]

4:6    Sees this as an evangelistic invitation to those who died in the deluge, but suggests this is a one off event, probably not repeated. [215-216]

The commentary makes consistent use of background materials in early Judaism to elucidate and explain various features and ideas in 1 Peter. Reference is also consistently made to early Christian writings that show how ideas developed and expanded. This suggests that this is a very historically oriented commentary. There is no attempt to construct a theological understanding of 1 Peter in the commentary itself.

The commentary is rather unevenly spread over the various chapters. Introduction = 45pgs; Chapter 1 = 78pgs; Chapter 2 = 57pgs; Chapter 3 = 33pgs; Chapter 4 = 19pgs; Chapter 5 = 27pgs; Bibliography = 64pgs. This ends with a helpful scripture and ancient materials index, but no subject or author index.

Greek is often discussed in the body of the commentary, though never consistently, and this is not transliterated. In the footnotes, the Greek is never transliterated. The numerous Latin phrases are never translated either, while the Hebrew is only seldom transliterated or translated. Which begs the question, who is this commentary intended for? Scholars? Perhaps in it’s original German format, but that seems unlikely given the amount of attention paid to the various sections.

For example, the exegesis of 1:25 amounts to three sentences, hardly scholarly engagement, and there is no reference to the Greek text. Let me quote the entire commentary on this verse:

This “enduring” word is at the same time the word that – as the something of an afterthought explanation stresses – was proclaimed “to you” as gospel. What was said in 1:3f. about the “living hope” and the “imperishable inheritance” is also true of the “living word” and the “imperishable sperm”: It is the divine life that the elect share in through hope, through faith, and through the proclamation of the gospel. [124]

There is also little engagement with the inter-textual echo of Isa. 40:8. Compare this with Achtemeier, Michaels, Elliott, and Jobes, who offer far more detailed comment on the Greek text, inter-textuality, and the exegesis. The treatment is thus too short to be significantly helpful to those wrestling with the text.

On page 248 there is an error of note, perhaps by the editors at Baylor, where there is a comment in the margin noting that the translation is “Not clear. Please fix.”

This begs our previous question, who is this commentary written for? David Horrell suggests that the translation of this commentary will be valuable for a wider audience [Horrell, 1 Peter (T & T Clark, 2008), 29]. I’m not sure that’s true. This commentary should have been previewed by a graduate student, which would have made it more beneficial to readers. This would have afforded opportunity to offer advice on how best to translate this commentary so that it actually becomes useful for students. The long sentences, Greek, Hebrew and especially Latin needed to be transliterated, and at the very least translated in brackets. Perhaps the translator, P. H. Davids, could also have offered a brief overview of the commentary and its position on certain exegetical or historical issues.

I wouldn’t recommend this commentary to lay readers, although it is a must read for scholars and those doing serious study in this fascinating letter. We should thank Baylor and Davids for making German scholarship on 1 Peter available to a wider readership, but unfortunately a better job could have been done in the editorial phase. 

Justice and Peace

Matt Hosier provides a thoughtful post on War and Peace, offering this penetrating question: *Does the pacifist emphasis on peace, love and reconciliation lead to a neglecting of the equally biblical emphasis upon justice? *

I'm quite sure that the NT vision of Justice is not justice by any means, and there is such a thing as passive resistance (ala Ghandi and Jesus). In fact, in Matt 5:39 Jesus specifically instructs disciples not to engage in violent resistance by using a technical term ἀντιστῆναι. Josephus uses the word with the sense of “violent struggle” 15 out of 17 times. Thus, what Jesus is saying here is that disciples are not to follow the way of violent resistance [like many Jews of the period. cf. Shammaite Pharisees and other messianic movements who started several revolutions] but rather, to follow his path of creative non-violent resistance. Thus, as Richard Hays notes, *Only when the church renounces the way of violence will people see what the Gospel means, because then they will see the way of Jesus re-enacted in the church.*

The book of Revelation provides the strongest support for this position. Rather than taking up arms and engaging in violence, they overcome the beast by peaceful protest in worshipping the Lamb, and laying down their lives. The eschatological vision of Revelation is that God's future will bring vindication and ultimate justice. So the question becomes not *is there not something rather perverse in the tolerance of a tyranny compared to which resistance may be a lesser evil?* But rather, do we trust God? Do we trust God enough to lay down our lives in peaceful protest, knowing that God's future will bring justice and vengeance for the oppressed? The NT commands us never to “repay evil with evil” but instead to “overcome evil with good” (Rom.12:17; cf. I Thess 5:15; I Pet 3:9).

The Neglected Apostle

Given my research into all things Petrine, I'm really looking forward to this upcoming volume by the late Martin Hengel.

Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle (Paperback)~ Martin Hengel (Author), Thomas Trapp (Translator). Many biblical scholars treat the apostle Peter as a vague figure in the early church and regard the early tradition as something that cannot be trusted. In Saint Peter: The Underestimated Apostle Martin Hengel rejects the common minimalist view about Peter’s role in the Scriptures and in the early church. Arguing that Peter is wrongly underappreciated, Hengel shows that Peter was, in fact, central to developing both the Jewish and Gentile Christian missions. / Though Hengel’s work rests on meticulous scholarship, it is written in a manner that any interested reader will find clear and enlightening.

Appealing to the Historical Jesus and his paradigm?

1 Peter 2:21

Indeed, into this you have been called, because the Messiah also suffered for you, leaving you a paradigm, so that you should follow in his footsteps.

I haven’t consulted the commentaries just yet as I’m away from home at the moment. But the issues in this verse seem to haunt me, so I must offer brief comments. Firstly we may question what is the this that Peter now refers to? And who specifically is Peter addressing? The household-slaves of 2:18-20, or does the apply to all followers of the Messiah? Given the placement of this section, it appears to be the climax of the household codes, and thus it applies to all of Peter’s audience. The “this” to which they have now been called, appears trickier to delineate. The direct context suggests that it is “doing right” or “doing good” to which these followers have been called (v. 20). It seems unlikely that they are specifically called to suffer, although suffering would be the natural result expected from the type of “good” they have been called to perform. But Peter once again, leaves open what this “good” consists of or amounts to.

Then we have the phrase, “Because the Messiah also suffering for you”. In light of the Messiah’s suffering, they are called to live lives that are good, or do what is right. There is an ethical response to the cross that Peter appeals to here. And this is precisely what Peter spells out in the next section of this sentence, “leaving you a paradigm/pattern/example” [The Greek word *hupogrammon* appears to be a hapax legomenon].

For Peter, Jesus embodies the quintessential life of faithfulness to God. As such, this life provides followers of Jesus with a paradigm to be imitated and implemented. Having seen Jesus’ intentional and missional life, the early followers are now expected to “improvise” their own lives of faithfulness towards God based on his life.[1]

But my question relates specifically to the final clause: “so that you should follow in his footsteps”. Is this a call to imitate the historical Jesus? Besides the fact that the next verses would seem to suggest as much, there is the old question of traditional material found in Peter. For the arguments see the works of Gundry and Best.[2] I’m interested to see if anyone knows whether or not this is some ancient idiom. Was this common among the moralist philosophers? Anyone know of any ancient Jewish sources that use this specific phrasing, or something like it? What exactly does “walking in his footsteps” entail?

Furthermore, are there other examples in early Christian literature [not Paul] that appeal to the historical Jesus as a paradigm for life/ethics.

These thoughts occupy my mind…

[1] Green, 1 Peter, pg. 84. On the notion of improvisation see N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (SPCK, 1992), pg. 140-142 and more specifically Samuel Wells, Improvisation: The Drama of Christian Ethics (Brazos, 2004).

[2] Robert H. Gundry, "'Verba Christi' in 1 Peter: Their Implications Concerning the Authorship of 1 Peter and the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition," NTS 13 (1966, 67), 336-50. and R. H. Gundry, “Further Verba on Verba Christi in First Peter”, Biblica 55 [ 1974], 211-232; E. Best “I Peter and the Gospel Tradition” NTS 16 (1969-70) 95-113.

Hebrew Scriptures & the NT

Chris Tilling asks the important question about how we understand the Hebrew Scriptures. He offers three positions. I'm currently reading David Horrell's guide to 1 Peter. It offers an introduction to "1 Peter", aimed at undergraduate students. He suggests that "1 Peter" is an important text not least for the ways in which it both reflects and constructs early Christian identity, in its relationships with Judaism and the Roman Empire.

I'm about to hit the two important chapters, 4-5, but with regards to Chris' question, Horrell makes this comment:

In effect, this constitutes a claim that the true subject of biblical prophecy – and, by extension, of the Jewish scriptures as a whole – is Christ, and that the fulfilment of what is said by the prophets is found in the Christian gospel and is appropriated by Christian believers. The author of 1 Peter shares with other early Christians the conviction that the coming of Christ marked the beginning of the end-times, the final act in God’s drama of salvation (1:20; cf. 1 Cor. 10:11; Heb. 1:2).

Horrell, 1 Peter, pg. 62-63

My question now arises, if this is the perspective of NT authors, does this mean that we, being those who submit ourselves to the worldview of the NT, have to embrace this view? Assuming we could demonstrate that the authors of the NT held strictly to a Christological interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures, would we be bound to that hermeneutic?

I'm slowly creeping through the pages of Goldingay's offering: Israel's Gospel. I've never been so refreshed and envisioned by these scriptures as I am now. Goldingay has done a tremendous job of showing the dynamic vision presented in the Hebrew narratives. So now I'm stuck, am I constrained to reject his view, because that is not the view of the NT authors?

This is ofcourse a deeply theological question, and those concerned with history only have the freedom to choose their option. But do we?

These thoughts occupy my time... You got any on this matter?

Transition Time

Greetings Friends. Please pardon my silence but study has kept me preoccupied. That, and I've just changed jobs, churches and have some big plans in the pipe line. So this doesn't really allow me enough time to blog all the things I want to. But I'm hoping within the next couple of weeks things will settle and my research into 1 Peter can continue.

Take care, sean D.

Mission in 1 Peter

Anyone got any clues as to articles, books or resources to consult for the theme of "MISSION" in 1 Peter? Torrey Seland will publish on this, at some point - but until then, any ideas?

There's definitely something to this theme in 1 Peter, and I'm hoping to explore this further this week... Willy let you know what I find...

God is no Spectator!

1 Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

God is not a spectator, but a fellow-sufferer, who has himself absorbed the full force of evil. In the lonely figure hanging in the darkness and dereliction of Calvary the Christian believes that he sees God opening his arms to embrace the bitterness of the strange world he has made. The God revealed in the vulnerability of the incarnation and in the vulnerability of creation are one. He is the crucified God, whose paradoxical power is perfected in weakness, whose self-chosen symbol is the King reigning from the gallows.

Polkinghorne, Science and Providence, pg. 68

Compare this with yesterday's quote and one has a very interesting view of the atonement...

Beyond Retribution

1 Peter 2:23 When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered, he did not threaten; but he entrusted himself to the One who judges justly.

Restorative justice cannot manufacture repentance and forgiveness. But by placing a concern for the healing of hurts, the renewal of relationships, and the re-creation of community at the heart of its agenda, it makes room for the miracle of forgiveness to occur and for a new future to dawn. Nothing could be more compatible with the message of the New Testament than this. For without diminishing the reality of evil, without denying the culpability of those who commit crime or minimizing the pain of those who suffer at their hands, and without dispensing with punishment as a mechanism for constraining evil and promoting change, the New Testament looks beyond retribution to a vision of justice that is finally satisfied only by the defeat of evil and the healing of its victims, by the repentance of sinners and the forgiveness of their sins, by the restoration of peace and the renewal of hope – a justice that manifests God’s redemptive work of making all things new.

Chris Marshall, Beyond Retribution: A New Testament Vision for Justice, Crime, and Punishment (Eerdmans, 2001) pg. 284

Atonement and 1 Peter

Chris Tilling offers a beautiful quote from M. M. Thompson's THNT commentary on Colossians and Philemon, about what the cross accomplishes. He then notes that his "inner jury is still out on the whole 'penal' issue. If you were to recommend any book on the penal substitution issue, what would it be?"

Well, the best book on the whole issue of the "atonement" that I've ever read is: The Nature of the Atonement (IVP, 2006), which is a "Four Views" book, so it has contributions by Greg Boyd (Christus Victor), Joel Green (Mixed Models), Bruce Reichenback (Healing) and Tom Schreiner (Penal Substitution).

Joel Green's offering has the following quote on 1 Peter, which is worth pondering:

Jesus' suffering is exemplary, providing a model for his followers of innocent suffering (1 Pet 2:19-20; 3:16-17; 4:1-2, 13-16); redemptive, providing a model for his followers of effective suffering (1 Pet 2:12, 15; 3:1-2); and anticipatory, providing a model for his followers of how God will vindicate the righteous who suffer (1 Pet 2:20; 4:13-14; 5:1, 10). This means that although it is true that Peter draws heavily on Israel's Scriptures, it is equally true that the biblical story is now fundamentally branded by the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus' execution functions for Peter as the conceptual scheme by which life is lived and the world is made to make sense. The cross of Christ provides a way of comprehending life, orients a community around its identifying beliefs and values, and guides the actions of those whose lives carry its brand. [pg. 183]

If one has to categorize 1 Peter's model of the atonement, it is surely Christus Victor, as 1 Pet 3:18-22 demonstrates. Jesus, though seemingly defeated at the cross, is vindicated into new life by the Spirit of God. This victory is then triumphantly announced to the demonic underworld, which signals their imminent demise. [For an interesting proposal of "how" the Spirit announces this victory see here].

On the whole "penal substitution" view, I still have one dangerous question: Show me a single verse that teaches the idea that God poured out his wrath on Jesus at the cross. This is my only objection to this view. It lacks biblical support. It sounds good, and theologically a good argument can be made for it, but where is the biblical support?

Exploring 1 Peter 3:18-22

This section of Peter is arguably the hardest. There are several interpretive options at the level of grammar, vocab and background influence. But my concern will not be to solve all those obscure details, Achtemeier has shown which option is most plausible, and I would like to build on that proposal here. But before I do, let me summarise my position:

Firstly, I contend that 3:18b should be understood as "He was put to death by the flesh, and brought to life by the Spirit". Thus, humanity was the agent of Jesus' death, but the Spirit was the agent that brought Jesus back to life. Furthermore, it appears that this forms a [temporal?] sequence which then leads onto verse 19.

That means that verse 19 cannot be understood as a reference to a decent into hell, since Jesus has already been raised, as noted in verse 18. So what does verse 19 mean? The Greek states ἐν ᾧ καὶ τοῖς ἐν φυλακῇ πνεύμασιν πορευθεὶς ἐκήρυξεν, which I have translated as "by the Spirit Jesus also ascended and made a proclamation to the demons in prison." It appears to me, and please correct me if you think my understanding has gone astray, that the Spirit is the agent that declares the victory of the resurrection. What was declared to the "spirits" which I take to mean "demonic forces" was that Jesus has been raised from the dead.

But the more interesting thing here, and admittedly this is conjecture, is exactly how does the Spirit make this proclamation? I would like to propose the following. 1 Pet 1:12, notes that “…in regard to the things that have now been announced to you through those who brought you good news by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven…” Does Peter understand the announcement of vs. 19 to be done through the Spirit by means of the Christian community? Thus, the community of followers is understood as the couriers of the message of Jesus' victory over the enemy.

Admittedly, this is a conjecture. But if Peter has set up an understanding that the Spirit is the agent from heaven that announces the victory of Jesus through Christians, then perhaps he is being consistent in his understanding and we should understand this verse to entail that the announcement of Jesus' victory of death, and the demonic forces that played a role in his execution, is communicated through these believers amidst their situation and circumstances. They are to continue a full frontal declaration, despite their suffering/persecution, of Jesus' victory as the Messiah and Lord.

Any thoughts or responses? Have I missed the point completely, or is there something here?

Finally - Achtemeier!

Finally, after waiting nearly 16 weeks, Paul J. Achtemeier's commentary on 1 Peter has finally arrived on my desk... Even with the silly mistakes on the back of the commentary [it has recommendations for Attridge's commentary on Hebrews, instead of this commentary on 1 Peter] this will prove to be a valuable contribution to my studies.

Although I'm half way through 1 Peter already, I couldn't delay research/preaching any longer, this commentary will still prove to be useful. Perhaps I'll be able to blog more about it soon. But work here is keeping me thoroughly busy... take care, ciao

Review of Green

Joel Green's commentary on 1 Peter is reviewed by Nijay Gupta, and I could not agree more with this review. Green has opened up the theological aspects of 1 Peter, and in so doing, has set a model for how theological exegesis should be done. I'm loving every page of this commentary, and would highly recommend it as one of the best ever written. Two quotes to stir your interest:

To read 1 Peter is to be told not how we might think about God, but what God thinks of us. Here in 1 Peter is an invitation to adopt God’s way of seeing things and to live accordingly; perhaps better, 1 Peter offers not so much an invitation as an exercise in formation in the character and ways of God. This entails allegiance to Jesus Christ, and not Caesar, as Lord.

Following the Christ who was crucified on a tree determines both internal and external relations; it is profoundly political and missiological act (external) and a commitment to indwelling a terrain determined by the sanctifying Spirit and intramural hospitality (internal). The homeless people of God comprise God’s household under construction, and a priesthood whose vocation it is to mediate God’s presence wherever they find themselves. As they journey through suffering in hope of eschatological honour, they bear witness in the present to the coming new age.

Review of Elliott's Commentary

Thanks to Bryan who notifies us of an online review of John H. Elliott's commentary on 1 Peter by none other than Paul Achtemeier. The link is to a formal review in the Biblical Theology Bulletin.

Achtemeier's review is favourable, and very worthwhile in seeing what are the major issues, and where these two giants agree and part ways.

Thanks Bryan!

Book Reviews

Thanks to Torrey Seland for alerting me to his book review on The Pentecostal Commentary on 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and Jude by Rebecca Skaggs, Pilgrim, 2004pp. xiv + 176. This caused me to look for other book reviews on 1 Peter, since that is the focus of my attention these days. I found some good reviews, such as:

1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter Achtemeier, Paul Fortress, 1996

Reviews: 1 Review by J. Ramsey Michaels

1 Peter Jobes, Karen H.Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005

Reviews: 1 Review by John Elliott, published 10/15/2006

Apostolic Letters of Faith, Hope, and Love: Galatians, 1 Peter, and 1 John Metzger, Bruce Wipf & Stock, 2006

Reviews: 1 Review by Timothy Wiarda, published 5/26/2007

Argument and Theology in 1 Peter: The Origins of Christian Paraenesis Thurén, Lauri Sheffield Academic Press, 1995

Reviews: 1 Review by M. Eugene Boring

Because You Bear This Name: Conceptual Metaphor and the Moral Meaning of 1 Peter Howe, Bonnie Brill, 2006

Reviews: 1 Review by John H. Elliott, published 4/14/2007

Compositional Transitions in 1 Peter: An Analysis of the Letter-Opening Tite, Philip L. International Scholars Publications, 1997

Reviews: 1 Review by John L. White

First and Second Peter, James, and Jude Perkins, Pheme John Knox Press, 1995

Reviews: 1 Review by Andrew Chester

Following in His Steps: Suffering, Community, and Christology in 1 Peter Bechtler, Steven Scholars Press for the SBL, 1998

Reviews: 1 Review by Troy W. Martin

Four Times Peter: Portrayals of Peter in the Four Gospels and at Philippi Cassidy, Richard J. Liturgical Press, 2007

Reviews: 2 Reviews by Timothy Wiarda, published 10/16/2007

Patrick J. Hartin, published 3/8/2008

Honor, Shame and the Rhetoric of 1 Peter Campbell, Barth Scholars Press, 1998

Reviews: 1 Review by David De Silva, published 3/15/2000

However, one soon discovers that there are some significant books that have not been reviewed. None of John H. Elliott's books on 1 Peter have been reviewed. [The search results said "Try Again"]. Ok, so it's going to be tough to review a 956pg commentary, but someone out there should do it! Although Troy Martin has reviewed a book, see above, his book on 1 Peter remains un-reviewed. I find books reviews from this site generally very helpful, unless they're in a foreign language! So for those who love book reviewing, there's some openings here.

BTW, for some fortunate soul, there is Reading First Peter With New Eyes: Methodological Reassessments of the Letter of First Peter Webb, Robert and Betsy Bauman-Martin, editors T&T Clark, 2007 available for review. So get on to that, and when you're done with it, send it to me!

1 Peter 1:1-2

I'm working my way through 1 Peter at the moment, and it's a real eye opener.

Πέτρος ἀπόστολος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐκλεκτοῖς παρεπιδήμοις διασπορᾶς Πόντου Γαλατίας Καππαδοκίας Ἀσίας καὶ Βιθυνίας κατὰ πρόγνωσιν θεοῦ πατρός ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος εἰς ὑπακοὴν καὶ ῥαντισμὸν αἵματος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη πληθυνθείη

These opening verses have generated further discussion since the release of John H. Elliott, “A Home for the Homeless: A Social-Scientific Criticism of 1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy”, 1990. (Wipf and Stock, 2005). {Keith Jagger provides a succinct review.} Basically, concerning the opening verses, Elliott argues that words like paroikoi (2:11), paroikia (1:17), and, parepidēmoi (1:1; 2:11) alert us to the social reality of the audience.

The latter (parepidēmoi ) has been translated as “exiles”[1], “sojourners”[2], “strangers in the world”[3], “foreigners”[4], “resident aliens”[5], “visiting strangers”[6] and “scattered people”[7]. Finding an adequate way of translating these terms is difficult for much debate and discussion has arisen due to their natural referents. The two important questions here are:

1. Are these terms metaphors for the community, or are they legal terms suggesting a definite people group?
2. Do they refer to people that held this status before becoming followers of Jesus, or as a result of following Jesus and becoming part of the Christian community?

• And finally, does it have to be either/or or is it possible that writing to such a large group of people would probably entail a mixture of the above views?

Despite the concerns raised by some commentators, Elliott does not deny the metaphorical/religious sense of these terms (pg. 48-49). Apparently Torrey Seland's article "παροικoς καὶ παρεπιδήμος: Proselyte Characterizations in 1 Peter?" BBR 11 (2001): 239-68, is the article to read that offers criticisms of Elliott's view. But a trip to the library will have to wait until next week sometime [unless someone has a digital copy?].

For now it is enough to note that the opening verse of Peter are very important in understanding the entire ethos and message of 1 Peter, something I did not realise until closer inspection.

[1] NRSV

[2] Witherington, 1-2 Peter, pg. 63; Senior, “1 Peter”, pg. 25; Selwyn, The First Epistle of Peter, 118.

[3] NIV, Green, 1 Peter, pg. 14; Michaels, 1 Peter, pg. 3.

[4] Jobes, 1 Peter, pg. 58, Goppelt, A Commentary on 1 Peter, pg. 61

[5] Boring, 1 Peter, pg. 54

[6] Elliott, A Home for the Homeless, pg. 47

[7] Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude, pg. 39.

Reading 1 Peter

I'm currently reading everything on 1 Peter that I can get my hands on. This will be my reading for the next two months as I prepare to teach a course on 1 Peter at our Church. Hopefully, Achtemeier and Elliott will arive soon, so that I can delve into those two, but currently this is what I'm reading:

• Gerald Bray, ed. James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (IVP, 2000)
• E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays (Macmillan, 1947)
• J. N. D. Kelly, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude (A & C Black, 1969)
• L. Goppelt, 1 Peter (Eerdmans, 1993)
• J. R. Michaels, 1 Peter (Word, 1988)
• M. Volf, “Soft Difference: Theological Reflections on the Relation between Church and Culture in 1 Peter.” Ex Auditu 10 (1994): 15-30. Available online and accessed 2008-04-14. http://www.northpark.edu/sem/exauditu/papers/volf.html.
• P. Perkins, First and Second Peter, James, and Jude (Westminster, 1995)
• Scot McKnight, 1 Peter (Zondervan, 1996)
• M. E. Boring, 1 Peter (Abingdon, 1999)
• G. Stanton, “1 Peter” in The Eerdmans Bible Commentary eds. J. D. G. Dunn and J. W. Rogerson (Eerdmans, 2003)
• D. P. Senior, “1 Peter” in 1 Peter, Jude and 2 Peter D. P. Senior and D. J. Harrington (Michael Glazier, 2003)
• J. B. Green, “Faithful Witness in the Diaspora: The Holy Spirit and the Exiled People of God according to 1 Peter” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honour of J. D. G. Dunn eds. G. N. Stanton, B. W. Longenecker, S. C. Barton (Eerdmans, 2004)
• K. H. Jobes, 1 Peter (Baker, 2005)
• D. A. Carson “1 Peter” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament eds. G. K. Beal and D. A. Carson (Baker, 2007)
• Ben Witherington, A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1-2 Peter. Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians (IVP, 2007)
• J. Green, 1 Peter. Two Horizons New Testament Commentary (Eerdmans, 2007)

Volf's paper: Soft Difference, is outstanding and I would encourage anyone interested in 1 Peter to read this, in fact anyone interested in the Church and Culture should read this. Is there anything else on 1 Peter that is just a must read? Please, post it or email me...

I think I've finally cracked the first two chapters of 1 Peter, and so if I find time I'll blog about it. There's some great nuggets from Joel Green's excellent commentary, especially the way he translates the passages. Very helpful. Anyway, back to the books... Oh, and my laptop got a nasty virus called "stupid" and deleted by HDD, so I'm busy with that too...

Chat soon...

Selwyn on Peter's Audience

Reading through the commentaries on 1 Peter, I'm struck by this response by Selwyn to the view that first Peter is primarily directed to a Jewish audience.

This interpretation of the facts, however, encounters serious difficulties at certain points, and, though sufficient to put the extreme “Gentile” view out of court, is too narrow for its parts. While, for example, the “vain conversation” (ματαία ἀναστροφῆς) {1:18} of the readers’ life before conversion admits of the view that they had been lapsed Jews, the description of it as “handed down by tradition from your fathers” (πατροπαραδότου) {1:18} could hardly have been used of any but Gentiles. Again, though many Jews may have fallen into the vices named in iv. 3-5, they are typically Gentile excesses, and certainly no Gentile could have been “surprised” if Jews abstained from taking part in them. Further, the careful attention given in ii. 18ff. to the duties of slaves, even though based on common sources, indicates that there were many slaves among St. Peter’s readers; and it is most improbably that these were Jews.[1]

I'm beginning to think that Witherington has succeeded in demonstrating that a Jewish contingent among a Gentile Christian community is probable, but not that 1 Peter is predominantly addressed to a Jewish Christian community. But I'm continuing to read Witherington, as he has definitely made his case well, if not ultimately persuasive.

[1] Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, pg. 43