6. Nature and possible sources of I Peter
6. Nature and possible sources of I Peter
a. A baptismal sermon?
To say that baptism is referred to only once in 1 Peter (3:21), and there only incidentally, may seem to some like shouting, ‘The emperor has no clothes!’ The index to Kelly’s commentary, for example, lists no fewer than forty-seven places where he discusses baptism in the course of analysing 1 Peter. And several have followed Preisker’s view that 1 Peter is a liturgy read at a baptismal service (with the baptism itself occurring between 1:21 and 1:22). But Professor Moule lists several decisive objections to the ‘liturgy’ view. In brief, 1 Peter so thoroughly bears the form of a letter addressed to readers distant from any local service of worship that it is hard to imagine that it originally had such a different form and purpose. Guthrie notes: ‘The many instances of “now” in the Epistle need not be regarded as evidence of a liturgy in process (as Preisker assumes), but rather the realization on the part of the Christians of the importance of the present in their eschatological outlook.’
But even if 1 Peter is not a liturgy for use in a service of worship, are there frequent references to baptism in it? Consider the following statements:
1:3
we have been born anew to a living hope …
1:12
the things which have now been announced to you
1:18
you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your fathers …
1:22
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth …
1:23
You have been born anew …
2:2
Like new-born babes, long for the pure spiritual milk … (but see commentary on this verse)
2:10
now you have received mercy.
2:25
you were straying like sheep but have now returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
3:21
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ …
4:3
Let the time that is past suffice for doing what the Gentiles like to do …
From such a list, it may be seen that Peter’s language frequently refers to the new life which Christians have. It may also be understood to refer to the beginning of that new life when they first came to faith. But mention of the beginning of the Christian life does not in itself imply a reference to baptism. Moreover, while these references viewed in isolation may seem at first to refer exclusively to the beginning of the Christian life, on closer inspection, especially within the contexts in which they occur, not one of them would be inappropriate to apply to all Christians, including many who had been Christians for most of their lives. The references to their new birth in Christ were appropriate reminders of their possession of a spiritual life which had begun long before. In 1:3 Peter includes himself in those whom God has ‘begotten again’ (AV). Thus Walls observes, ‘The act of begetting is already realized and its result enjoyed: it cannot refer to an event to take place after 1:21.’
The one clear reference to baptism in 1 Peter (3:21) is only a passing one, which has a brief function but certainly is not central to the apostle’s argument (see commentary on 3:21). The thesis that 1 Peter was originally a liturgy or perhaps a sermon at a baptism remains unconvincing and provides an unsatisfactory setting for the composition of the letter. It is far better to understand the letter as written by Peter to distant Christians in genuine need of its teaching and encouragement.
b. Possible sources of Peter’s teaching
One remaining question is to what extent we can determine possible sources which Peter used in compiling his letter, either in traditional Christian teaching which was circulating in the early church, in Christian or pagan moral codes (‘Haustafeln’) which were taken over and adapted by Peter, or perhaps in the teachings and writings of the apostle Paul, or in the letter of James.
It is noteworthy that Selwyn in his commentary devotes over one hundred pages (pp. 365–466) to an analysis of the sources behind 1 Peter. He finds no direct literary dependence on other New Testament writings, but finds many indications of common catechetical patterns or forms which were used widely in the early church. These familiar forms were then modified and used, according to Selwyn, by Peter, Paul, James and others.
However, although Selwyn’s detailed tables of parallel themes in Peter and other parts of the New Testament are interesting, they fall far short of demonstrating the existence of early catechetical ‘forms’. Many of the supposed parallels are neither precise verbal parallels nor are they parallels conceptually. They are merely statements on related topics of general concern, often ethical matters or issues related to the nature of the Christian life. But from this data we are justified in concluding only that there were many common ideas and similar teachings in the first-century church. This can all be quite satisfactorily explained by the common background of the Old Testament, the teachings of Jesus, and the shared teachings of the apostles as they found their way into the New Testament writings. To postulate the additional existence of rather fixed catechetical forms (or the adaptation of pagan moral codes, none of which have been shown to have precise and extensive parallels to New Testament commands) is not required by the evidence, nor is it particularly helpful for understanding the writings themselves. Guthrie appropriately says, ‘To what extent the catechesis can be disentangled from the writings and what precise value it would be if this could be achieved with any certainty is an open question.’
There have also been attempts by Bultmann and Boismard to find fragments of early hymns in 1 Peter but Guthrie correctly notes that they have been largely unpersuasive. On another matter, regarding the claim (made by Perdelwitz in 1911) that several parts of 1 Peter can be traced to elements in the teachings of pagan Greek Mystery Religions, Selwyn rightly comments: The claim that the author owed any of his leading ideas to the Mystery Religions must be rejected as wholly unproven.’
More convincing is the effort by R. Gundry to find words of Jesus echoed in 1 Peter. Though he is not able to demonstrate many exact verbal parallels of any length, he adduces a remarkable number of parallels in form and general content which, taken together, leave one persuaded that Peter was writing as one who was very familiar with the teachings of Jesus, both from personal remembrance and perhaps from early acquaintance with at least some of the gospel records.