John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: an appreciation - Book Review

Biblical Theology Bulletin, Fall, 2002 by Paul J. Achtemeier

John H. Elliott, I PETER. A NEW TRANSLATION WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY. Anchor Bible 37B. New York, NY: Doubleday (Random House), 2000. Pp. xxiii + 956. Cloth, $60.00.

Professor Elliott's commentary on 1 Peter belongs among the very best commentaries on this epistle published within the past half-century. That this commentary merits the high praise I give it will come as no surprise to those who have followed Professor Elliott's work over the past four decades, particularly his seminal publications regarding 1 Peter. Beginning with his masterful doctoral dissertation on 1 Peter 2 (1966b) and continuing through his cri de coeur about the epistle's status as step-child in the exegetical enterprise (1976), Professor Elliott has produced a steady stream of articles and books about 1 Peter that no one in the scholarly guild could afford not to read (1966a, 1966b, 1968, 1970, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982a, 1982b, 1983, 1985a, 1985b, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1995a, 1995b). It is all drawn together here in his Meisterstuck, which well reflects his long and productive career in this area of academic endeavor.

I

There are several points that attest the excellence of this commentary. There is first and foremost the exhaustive research that underlies the volume, attested to by the voluminous evidence presented for the points made as well as for the points gainsaid. That evidence covers primary sources from the world within which 1 Peter was written, as well as voluminous secondary materials in any number of languages. That evidence is sifted, evaluated, organized, and clearly presented; there are no snap judgments in this book.

Again, Elliott has done an excellent job in integrating Old Testament evidence and background in his book. He constantly relates the theological movements in 1 Peter to the Old Testament and to Second Temple Judaism, thus giving significant depth to his discussion. The same can be said for the New Testament. There are constant discussions of links between points made in 1 Peter and in the remainder of the New Testament. Elliott does not fall into the trap of seeing literary influence on 1 Peter from those New Testament writings. He accurately accounts for such similarities on the basis of common traditions, but he does on a regular basis show how the theology of 1 Peter is related to that of the other New Testament writings.

In another area, Elliott is sensitive to the compositional devices and patterns employed by the author of 1 Peter. There are lengthy charts illustrating the kind of rhetorical strategies used to enhance the literary appeal of the letter to its hearers. And Elliott is as good as his observations about 1 Peter. Repeatedly pointing out the kind of alliteration used in this letter, Elliott himself shows a like talent when he writes, in relation to 1 Peter 5:2, that "elders are not to be leaders for lucre or ministers for mammon" (829). Again, pointing to an occasional neologism in 1 Peter, Elliott again shows similar talent when he uses the word "complexify" (844). But maybe that is a neologism only to old fogies like me.

On the historical background of the period during which the letter is written, Elliott again gives ample and interesting information, as he does on the geographical locations of the persons to whom the letter is addressed.

Finally, in the matter of socio-historical perspective, Elliott has continued his impressive analysis of the place of the material in 1 Peter within the honor/shame categories that so dominated Mediterranean culture at the time this letter was written. You will hear more on that point later from others, but no comment on this book from the viewpoint of recent scholarship would be complete without calling attention to this signal contribution of Elliott's commentary.

II

In much of this Elliott has taken positions common to the better commentaries on 1 Peter produced within the past decades. For example, he correctly argues that the letter is a literary unity, not an adapted homily, whether baptismal or other, tricked out with introduction and conclusion (874). Elliott is too good a literary analyst to miss the fact that the letter is a literary unity. Again, Elliott argues that the letter is pseudepigraphic, written sometime during the last third of the first century, almost surely stemming from a Petrine group in Rome--points that all have been supported by most of the better recent research. Two final, minor but important points: Elliott correctly argues that the "briefly" of 5:12 represents a literary convention of first-century letter-writers, and is not meant to be taken literally in any twenty-first-century sense (876), as he correctly sees that that same verse contains a summary of the intent of the letter (880), thus providing one more proof of the literary unity of the letter.

To the points made above concerning some of the conclusions Elliott has in common with recent scholarship, let me add some further points where I would find myself in complete agreement with his views on 1 Peter. I can list only a small number, since those agreements, as you will see, range from the very broad to the very specific.