Ohrid, Byzantine archbishop of Bulgaria (c.1050–1108), was one of the leading commentators of his day and is also thought to have compiled catenae. All of these show dependence on earlier sources as well as the influence of Didymus the Blind.
In the Latin world the catenae date to a later time. Both Augustine (354–450) and Jerome (347–420) often refer to 1 Peter as well as to most of the other Catholic epistles in letters or sermons but neither wrote a full commentary on them. Nevertheless, these readings are noteworthy since these writers have played such significant roles in shaping later theology.
The greatest of the early Latin commentators on the Catholic epistles was Bede the Venerable (672–735). His extensive knowledge of history, geography, and etymology was nearly encyclopedic; going beyond mere exegesis to also include pastoral instruction, he combines exegesis, theology, and practical application so that, according to Bray, he may have even influenced the later Anglo‐Saxton tradition of spiritual reading (2000: xxviii; see also Jones, 2001: 8–9). The ninth‐century Nestorian Isho’dad (c.850) also has written on our epistles but states that he regards only the three core books (James, 1 Peter, and 1 John) as canonical but not authentic (Bray, 2000). This clearly implies that he rejects both Jude and 2 Peter, possibly on account of Jude’s use of the apocrypha which was beginning to be more seriously challenged at this time.
Other than this, there are no full‐length commentaries on our three epistles in this era except for Theophylact (1050–1108). However, all of them are mentioned by various people who are engaged in the controversies at this time, for example, Grotius, Melanchthon, and Erasmus. St. Francis of Sales refers to them occasionally and Thomas Aquinas often cites both of the Peters in his treatments of various theological issues. He does not refer to or cite Jude. Significantly, all three of them are used in many church creeds, confessions, and constitutions of this era, indicating their perceived place in the church. Many new denominations were being formed on account of the impact of the various reformations, so that it is noteworthy that these little texts did have a role to play in the development of the various church documents. In short, we can conclude that, at this time, they were generally accepted for use in the churches and also were used in the discussions and controversies, particularly in the case of 1, 2 Peter regarding Christology, inspiration and authority of scripture, the foreknowledge of God, and the final judgment.
Of course, the time of the Reformation is well represented by Martin Luther and John Calvin, both with full‐length commentaries on all three of these epistles, contained in one volume. Whenever possible, other figures of the time such as Arminius, and pastors Matthew Poole, Thomas Watson, and Thomas Vincent, will be included when relevant material is available. These pastors infer that especially the Peters were used in sermons to address such issues as suffering, persecution, and whether or not salvation can be lost. Again major controversies were being debated and discussed both in councils and sessions at the universities. These included scholars, theologians, and pastors who engaged with Luther, Zwingli, and others in the development of theology and doctrine. Later, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, theologian John Bengel and others such as pastor and scholar John Wesley inform our understanding. From this time until the modern era with its restored interest in 1 Peter, the doubts and challenges regarding the authenticity and canonicity of all the Catholic epistles continue to linger. It should be noted, however, as already stated, all three texts are used by church creeds, constitutions, and confessions of this time (see Commentary section for details), so that, taken together, we can derive from these sources a good idea of the reception of our texts.
Although this series is not primarily interested in the discussions of current scholarship, I am including a selection of current theories when they show a continuity or relation to a topic discussed by the ancient writers or when they present a unique or interesting perspective (see Appendix 2 for list of ancient writers). The main scholars on 1 Peter will be Bigg (1961), Selwyn (1958), Michaels (1988), Goppelt (1993), Elliott (1981), Martin (1992), and Green (2007) bring the distinctive perspective of the social sciences; for current research, see Reading First Peter with New Eyes (Webb and Bauman‐Martin, 2007). Of course, additional relevant materials on issues such as slavery, women, and the harrowing of hell will be taken into account. On Jude and 2 Peter, significant modern works are Bauckham (1983), Neyrey (1993), and Reading Jude with New Eyes (Webb and Davids, 2008) and Reading Second Peter with New Eyes (Webb and Watson, 2010).
It is appropriate to include a brief overview of some significant modern dialogs since they provide distinctive perspectives on how the epistles are currently being read. This information is distinctive for each of the epistles so each will have its own section except for the overlap between Jude and 2 Peter. Three specific discussions have shaped modern understanding of 1 Peter.
Nineteenth‐ and Twentieth‐Century Perspectives
On 1 Peter
The pivotal dialog between Selwyn and Beare in the late nineteenth to early twentieth century led to the comment by New Testament scholar Stephen Neill that 1 Peter was “the Storm‐center of New Testament studies” (Elliott, 1976: 343).
Beare advocates that 1 Peter is “a Pseudonymous product of the Pauline Circle,” which is “inferior to the brilliance and … spirit of the genuine Pauline epistles” (Beare, 1970 [1947], cited in Elliott, 1990: xvii). In contrast, Selwyn argues vehemently that it is an encyclical letter to Christians in the five provinces of Asia Minor: “a microcosm of Christian faith, duty and the model of a pastoral charge” (Selwyn, 1958: 1).
This “storm” died out fairly quickly. However, it led to Elliott’s now famous statement that 1 Peter is “an exegetical Step‐child” which needs “rehabilitation” (Elliott, 1976: 243). His article of this title elaborates on this, commenting further on the state of 1 Peter as caught in “a disconcerting pattern of benign neglect” (ibid.: 343–354).
Elliott engaged in another dialog on 1 Peter in the 1980s – with Balch on the role and function of the household codes and the implications for understanding the letter’s general strategy. Balch stresses the use of the codes by 1 Peter (Balch, 1981a: 81–116), while Elliott argues that 1 Peter was written by a Petrine group in Rome in Peter’s name after his death by Nero. Elliott at this time understands the purpose of the epistle to be the solidarity of believers in Rome with the suffering believers in Asia Minor and through the world. He holds that the central message is that God alone is father and judge and is the only one to whom allegiance and reverence is due (1 Pet. 2:17) (Elliott, 1981: 208–220).
Meanwhile, separately in three different geographical locations, Elliott, Brox, and Goppelt were working on a new perspective – a methodology from the social sciences. Up to this point, much social‐scientific work had been done on the Pauline epistles but little if anything on the Catholic epistles, 1 Peter among them, leading to Elliott’s reference to the “benign neglect” of the small text (Elliott, 1990: xviii). Elliott states their position on 1 Peter as “an original and powerful statement on the social role of the Christian minority movement in a hostile non‐Christian society” (Elliott, 1990: xviii). All three of these scholars agreed that rather than a “distant echo of Pauline theologomena and an inferior product of a Pauline school”, in fact, 1 Peter is “an independent and creative piece of encouragement to a sectarian Christian movement threatened by local social pressure to go along in order to get along” (ibid.). Further, they show that 1 Peter is the most systematic and comprehensive treatment of the issue of Christian alien residence and responsibility within the structures of non‐Christianity (Goppelt, 1993 [1978]: 41; Elliott, 1990: xviii; see also Brox, 1993).
After this time, scholars have continued to explore still other dimensions of social‐scientific methodology such as rhetoric (Martin, 2007); postcolonialism (Horrell, 2007); and narrative (Boring, 2007). All of these plus a few others can be found
