M. Eugene Boring on 1 Peter

M. Eugene Boring, ‘First Peter in Recent Study’, Word & World 24, 4 (2004), 358-67.

Boring notes a ‘convergence’ (though not a uniformity) in mainstream scholarship on 1 Peter with respect to the following points.

1. 1 Peter was not written by Simon Peter, directly or indirectly
Out of the 10 technical or semi-technical commentaries (published in English since 1988) surveyed by Boring, only Wayne Grudem insists the letter was written by Simon Peter, while J. Ramsey Michaels thinks Peter is in some sense responsible for its content even though he did not necessarily compose it personally. Silvanus (5:12) is generally understood to be the deliverer of the letter rather than as having a hand in the composition.

2. 1 Peter is a positive example of early Christian pseudonymity
‘First Peter is now generally accepted as pseudonymous, but not grudgingly so’, and can still be seen as ‘canonical Scripture whose message is to be respected’ (360).

3. 1 Peter is an expression of the church’s growing ecumenicity
‘First Peter is now widely understood as a letter representing the (or some of) leadership of the Roman church in the latter part of the first century, addressed to harassed fellow Christians encouraging them to hold fast to their faith’ (361). Both Peter and Paul are associated with the church at Rome, although 1 Peter is not dependent on Paul since common elements and vocabulary can be explained by ‘both authors having drawn from a common stream of early Christian tradition’ (362). As such, the author of 1 Peter should be thought of ‘as a spokesperson for the Roman church, a church that is aware that it is steward of the legacy of both Paul and Peter’ (363).

4. 1 Peter is a real letter
Against older views that 1 Peter is a theological tract (such as a baptismal homily) dressed up as a letter, recent scholarship regards 1 Peter ‘as a real letter addressed to a particular situation’ (364).

5. The message of 1 Peter has been illuminated by recent methods and perspectives
Boring mentions four in particular:

• Sociological exegesis – especially in the work of John H. Elliott, with a consensus building around the view that the addresses in 1 Peter 1:1 are those who have been marginalised socially, not those who consider this world to be foreign territory and heaven their true home. They are those ‘on the edge of society, harassed by their neighbors and former associates, without political rights and subject to sporadic abuse, and tempted to abandon their faith’ (365-66). The readers are not being subjected to official government persecution so much as ‘verbal abuse and socioeconomic discrimination’ (366). The categories of ‘shame’ and ‘honour’ play a crucial role here, with 1 Peter assuring its readers that though they are ‘dishonored by this-worldly culture (like Jesus himself) they are ultimately honored by inclusion in the eschatological community of the household of God’ (366).

• Rhetorical criticism – exploring the role of rhetoric in texts, how they communicate and persuade.

• Feminist hermeneutics – with exegetes being more sensitive to the patriarchy of the first-century context as reflected in the New Testament, but with ongoing disagreement as to how this ‘translates’ into the contemporary context, as well as disagreement as to whether the author of 1 Peter was calling for conformity or resistance to social patterns.

• Narrative criticism – recognising that letters, no less than narratives, ‘presuppose a narrative and project a narrative world’ (367), into which readers are invited to live, to accept as the ‘real’ world, ‘and to live the alternative life to which it calls’ (367).

Of course, that there is an alleged convergence on these views does not necessarily make them correct…