(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...In this series providing overviews and discussions of each of the books of the New Testament “in a nutshell” we come, following the canonical sequence, to another gem, the book of 1 Peter. In this post I will focus on its major themes and emphases, and then in subsequent posts deal with a number of critical questions about it, such as who wrote it and when, and why, if it claims to be by Peter, it sounds so much like Paul.
First, a one-sentence fifty-word summary.
First Peter, is a letter allegedly written by the apostle Peter to gentile Christians scattered throughout Asia Minor who are suffering persecution, urging them to remain true to their faith and to suffer only for upright behavior, in imitation of Christ and in anticipation of his imminent return in judgment.
Now I can provide a fuller account of this short but intriguing book. Here is an edited account taken from my book The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (Oxford University Press.
************************
The book of 1 Peter is a kind of circular letter written in the name of the apostle Peter to “the exiles of the Dispersion” in several of the provinces of Asia Minor: “Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1). The author addresses his readers by calling them “exiles” (1 Peter 1:1) and “aliens” (1 Peter 2:11). Most scholars have understood these to be figurative designations of Christians, whose real home is heaven and who are therefore exiles in this world for the time being. Supporting this interpretation are verses where the author indicates that his readers are in exile only for “a while” (1 Peter 1:17) and that their real allegiance is to their heavenly calling (1 Peter 1:13).
He emphasizes the point because things are not going well in their current world of “exile.”
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I’ve been thinking about the audience of 1 Peter and I’m conflicted. On one hand, it seems aimed at Jewish Christians. The letter is packed with Septuagint quotations, purification language, and Old Testament imagery, suggesting readers familiar with Israel’s scriptures. It uses covenant identity terms like “chosen race” that originally applied to Israel, and calls them “exiles of the diaspora,” a term normally for Jews living outside the land. The imagery of the Exodus, prophets, and the call to holiness fits believers from a Jewish background (especially those excluded from synagogue fellowship.)
On the other hand, much of the letter sounds directed to Gentile converts. It describes their former lives as marked by “ignorance,” idolatry, and debauchery—more typical of paganism than Torah observance. It says, “Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people,” applying Hosea’s prophecy to those outside Israel’s covenant. There’s no discussion of circumcision, food laws, or Sabbath—only a focus on honorable conduct in pagan society so outsiders might glorify God. Even the “diaspora” could be metaphorical, describing Christians as spiritual exiles.
So which is it? Was 1 Peter mainly to Gentiles adopting Israel’s story? To Jewish Christians with Gentiles included? Or perhaps mixed audience?
STay tuned.
Hello Bart, hope everything is well.
I noticed that out of all the Catholic epistles that Peter is the only one with a non-Hebrew name. In the original languages Peter is a Greek name and James:Jacob, John and Jude are Hebrew names.
Also, 1 Peter 1:1 “the elect exiles of the Dispersion” compared to James 1:1 “the twelve tribes of the Dispersion” seems to be not as much Jewish.
Is it just a coincidence or opinion?
Were Simon and Saul, both Hebrew names, both renamed with Latin or Greek names because they were doing theology away from the stricter Law of Moses traditions as they were now in more non-Jewish territory while James, John, and Jude were staying more at home in Jewish territory and so they kept their Jewish names?
It depends what you mean. “Peter” was not a name at all until Jesus came it to his disciple Simon, and it was a nick-name (Rock) which he gave in Aramaic, Cephas. So Peter is a Greek tranlation of an Aramaic (semitic) nickname; James and John are Greek versions of Aramaic names.
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
I am aware of your view on the end times and Nero and the mark of the Beast. You included that in your book Heaven and hell and interviews. What do you think the bible is talking about when it says in regards to the mark of the beast that “no one will be able to buy or sell “without it ? More specifically what do you think the Bible means when it says the part “no one will be able to buy or sell” Thanks.
It means that no one who fully cooperates with the beast will be able to engage in any economic transactions, and presumably have to steal or starve.
Hello Bart/Dr Ehrman
What do you think it’s referring to in
Matthew 24:24 :
“For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders, even to the point of deceiving, if it were possible, the elect.”
Thanks.
Apparently to people rising up claiming to be sent from God here at the end of the age, possibly for self-important reasons.
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Why do you think there are so many religions with jewish roots?
Apart from Christianity and Islam, what do you have in mind?
Hello Dr.Bart Erhman
Alan Kirk has said that Jan Vansina, whom you quoted as evidence for corruption in the Jesus tradition, changed his mind, arguing that information was conveyed through a community that placed controls, rather than through chains of transmission easily subject to change. What do you think?
Dear Dr Ehrman
I recently came across a rather bold and curious linguistic claim regarding the term ‘Paraclete’ within the Gospel of John, and I was hoping to ask your opinion of it. To be exact, it theorizes that the word “Parakletos” may be translated as “praised in excess over” or “glorified in excess over”. Apparently, according to this claim, the word “kleos” (κλέος) translates to “glory” or “renown”.
An example cited to support this theory is the Queen Cleopatra, whose name is the Latinised form of the Ancient Greek Kleopatra, meaning “glory of her father”, derived from ‘kleos’ meaning “glory” and ‘pater’ meaning “father”. So, according to this theory, if we adopt the meaning of “praise” or “glory”, then the verbal adjective ‘kletos’ can be translated as “praised” or “glorified”.
The resultant alternative literal translation apparently renders ‘parakletos’ as “praised more than/in excess over” or “glorified more than/in excess over”. If I may ask, in your academic opinion as a biblical scholar and as a colleague of the late Bruce Metzger, does this theory have linguistic validity ? Any clarification would be immensely welcome, and I am truly so sorry for bothering you.
Is the person who claims this an expert in ancient Greek? That would be interesting!
So far as I know, the word is never used that way in Greek. It comes from the verb parakaleo, which means “to call to your side,” and almost always (the verb) means to call someone over to help, either as an advocate, and intercessor, or an encourager. It (the verb) can to cheer up, encourage, comfort, console, summon, or support — but it doesn’t mean to “praise in excess.” So too the non (paraklete) means someone who is called to assist, for example as a legal assistant or advocate in court. So no, I don’t think it can mean (well, at least, that it ever does mean) “praised in excess over.”
I think this person’s confusion may from a false etymology; parakaleo and paraletes derive from the verb KALEO, “to call”; they do not come from the verb KLEO which means “to celebrate.” The words do look similar, but they are not related etymologically.
If someone knows better – let me know!
May I ask an off-topic question? In your book, How Jesus Became God, you discuss quotations of “pre-literary” traditions in the New Testament. I think I remember you mentioning once on the blog that you wrote a paper on this topic in grad school (apologies if I’m wrong). I’d love to learn more about this. Do you know of a list of all such pre-literary quotations in the New Testament (or even better, an article or book about them)?
I don’t know of any books etc. written about them for layfolk, just technical works for scholars that presuppose a lot of background (including Greek). For those not familiar with the issue, a “pre-literary tradition” is a passage (a verse or several verses) that an author *appears* to be quoting rather than composing on the spot when writing their work. They are “pre-literary” in the sense that they were formulated/composed ad put in circulation prior to their earliest literary occurrence (NOT because they were composed before there was writing or before the author who quotes them was born or could read, etc.).
I don’t have a full list, but some of the big ones that have long been suspected/argued for are:
• The songs found in Luke’s birth narrative, such as the Magnificat (1:46-55); the son of Zechariah (1:68-79); the Nunc Dimittis (2:28-30)
• The Prologue to John (1:1-18)
• Romans 1:3-4
• 1 Corinthians 11:24-26
• 1 Corinthians 15:3-5
• Philippians 2:6-11
• Colossians 1:15-18
• 1 Timothy 3:16
• The songs in Revelation
They are usually identified as quoted traditions rather than compositions on the spot because of their writing style, often poetic character (as opposed to surrounding prose; poetic not as in traditional Greek poetry which is metrically oriented, but exalted language with balanced lines), unusual vocabulary (for the author), contents that sometimes differ in ways from the views of the author otherwise, etc.
Hi there, picking up on the theme of persecution, though straying from this thread, I think this is how best to ask a question. I have looked at Bart’s March 16, 2016 blog post and others on homosexuality. I’ve looked at recent reports on the growing persecution of the Queer community in the US and in Canada and I’m working with a social justice activist. I am wondering about the film titled 1946′. Some up here have decided this is just the best film to explain the source of persecution and modern prejudice against homosexuality in our society. They refer to a Greek mis-translation discovered by a theology student. I’ve only seen the trailer and a description and reviews. But, what do New Testament scholars say about this film? What does Bart think? Is this film really the be all and end all of explaining biblical scholarship errors? Thanks if you can.
Hello Dr. Ehrman,
First, thanks for this great series of posts. I read them all eagerly as soon as they are posted.
This is a miscellaneous question based on something I heard from an evangelical recently. It is regarding the word “church” in Matthew. In Matthew 16:18, Jesus is reported to have said “I will build my church.” and in Chapter 18 is the well-known passage on “church discipline” in which Christ instructs his followers who have confronted someone with sin (first individually and then with witnesses) to “tell it to the church.”
Many believe that the church began at Pentecost, though I realize that is debated. But regardless, do you think Jesus (or the writer of Matthew if Jesus didn’t speak these words) had in mind the New Testament church in these passages? Or could church (ekklesia) simply mean “assembly” and be understood by Jews as the synagogue or any gathering?
It seems strange to me that there are teachings on the New Testament church when Jesus and his followers were still thoroughly Jewish. Your thoughts? Thanks!
P.S. Not to mention the problems that would occur if Christians really took these instruction to heart! Lots of confronting and expelling would be a-goin’ on!
No 50-word summary for 1 Peter? I think that’s the best part of the Nutshell posts!
It got cut off somehow when I pasted the post into the blog site. I’ve restored it now so you can see it if you go back to the post.
I have some questions about translations and whether we have true translations of the Greek or Hebrew words when translating the bible.
There are two places I know of where mistranslation has been acknowledged and re-translated. One is where Moses was depicted as having horns after coming down from Mt. Sinai. This lasted all the way up to Michelangelo’s day and can be seen in his famous sculpture of Moses with horns. Another is the word ‘love’ being translated as ‘charity’ in the early English translations of the bible. I believe this is true even in the earliest King James versions.
My question is about the word ‘submission’. I understand this is from the Greek word hypotasso (not sure about the spelling). I’ve read that it comes from two Greek words, ‘hypo’ meaning under, and ‘tasso’ meaning mission. Does this mean that Christians should be under or in the same mission as Christ?
What I get from today’s churches is that it means that we should be bowing and groveling to Christ, and like doing whatever the church says, including giving them money. I feel like there’s some really weird confusion here.
Thanks if you can answer. Thanks
Upo does mean “under,” but “tasso” is a verb that means to “put in order,” “arrange” “appoint,” — so “upotasso” means “to put one thing under something else” that is, for humans, “to subject one person to another.” When used in the passive voice, it means “to obey”
How did we get ‘hypo’ from ‘upo’?
How did we get from ‘under arrangement’ or ‘under an arrangement’ to/with someone to ‘subjection’ and having to ‘obey’ someone?
——————————–
Something I’ve been thinking and wondering about rather often is: Are there cases where a word is translated into a dominant/more prevalent language, where it takes on a different meaning? Then, the prevalent/more dominant language influences or imposes that new or different meaning onto the original, less prevalent language?
Could this have happened with English or Latin onto the Greek? Or Greek onto Hebrew or Aramaic? Or the Aramaic onto the Hebrew?
Could this have happened in other cases, including the example mentioned above?
———————————
I’m trying to think of examples where this might have happened. . . . . . Is it ‘charity’ or is it ‘love’? . . . . Is it ‘lillies’ of the field or is it ‘flowers’? . . . . . Is it a ‘rope’ that goes through the eye of a needle, or is it a ‘camel’? (in either Greek or Aramaic, camel and rope are spelled very similarly). . . . . Is it ‘mission’ or ‘arrangement’?
I don’t know any languages besides English, so I can’t make comparisons myself.
UPO in Greek has a rough breathing mark in front of it. Greek does not have an “H”. To produce the H sound before an opening vowel of a word they used a piece of punctuation that looks like a reverse apostrophe. To replicate that in English requires an H.
Compound verbs in Greek are notoriously tricky. They typically involve a preposition or adverb with a verb, and knowing the etymology provides a clue to the meaning usually, but they take on a meaning of their own and that meaning can be determined only by seeing the word used time after time after time in one context or another. English is like that too. If you “undertake” a task or “understand” a concept, in what that does it mean going underneath it to take it or stand there? It kinda does, but we would (almost) never think of it that way. We just know what the words mean.
How did they spell and say ‘Helen’ in Greek?
Would the Greek word ‘upo’ be pronounced more like ‘hoopo’, ‘ hypo’, or ‘hupo’? Or don’t people really know?
—————————————
I wonder what people will think our word ‘understand’ meant to us, 2,000 years from now? It certainly doesn’t mean to stand under someone. At least we have pretty good dictionaries nowadays. Possibly, they will still be around in 4025. What does it mean? To ‘comprehend and care’ is my best understanding of the word.
Hoopo (with a long O at the end). Hellen was pronounced Hellen, where teh first e was short and the second sound like the ai in air.
This is kind of fun and funny.
When I get a number of emails saying there have been replies to my comments here on the blog, and I open the links to the replies to different pages in my browser and have them all open at once, I seem to be able to make more than the two comments a day that the blog rules allow.
🙂
This is fun and funny. It’s also interesting.
I figured if the blog site lets me make more comments, then I can make them, and it’s okay.
This is fun! 🙂