On the Possible Links of 1 Peter with Paul
(avg. read time: 11–21 mins.)
As we have done recently in linking James with the Jesus traditions, this time I would like to examine possible connections between 1 Peter with another element of the NT. 1 Peter has, in fact, been linked with many other traditional and textual elements of the NT era, as one can see in John H. Elliott’s extensive survey of affinities in the introduction of his Anchor Bible commentary.
But of all the possible affinities with the NT, none has been more extensively asserted than the links of 1 Peter with Paul’s letters. Indeed, an older era of scholarship once mostly took a literary dependence of 1 Peter on Paul for granted. In that older era of scholarship, none more comprehensively tracked such possible affinities and sites of dependence than Ora Delmer Foster in his 1913 study (now freely available), wherein he purported to identify over 400 links with Paul (besides all the ones he purported for other texts).
Naturally, I will not be examining all 400-plus possibilities here. In any case, the winds of scholarship have reversed the course of these once popular assertions of literary dependence. Kazuhito Shimada has written some particularly significant refutations of the old theses of dependence from his ThD dissertation to his publications in the Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute, which were reprinted and revised in his 1998 collection of Studies on First Peter.
This is hardly the end of the discussion, however, and some scholars do not wish to rule out a relationship of dependence altogether.1 Nor do I pretend to deliver a final word on the matter. But I want to make my readers aware of some of the proposed connections and offer my own explanations of them. We will examine proposed links between 1 Peter and Paul in Romans (first) and Ephesians (second). These works are the two most frequently posited as sources for 1 Peter. Finally, beyond specific texts we will consider special vocabulary thought to demonstrate a connection between 1 Peter and Paul specifically. If there is interest in addressing other specific claims from Foster’s work or others asserting literary connections beyond what I address here, I could explore those another time.
1 Peter and Romans
Notable proposed links to review here are as follows: 1:14–16 with Rom 12:2; 1:21 with Rom 4:24; 1:22 with Rom 12:9; 2:5 with Rom 12:1; 2:6–8 with Rom 9:32–33; 2:10 with Rom 9:25; 2:13–17 with Rom 13:1–7; 3:8–9 with Rom 12:16–17; 3:11 with Rom 12:18; and 4:10–11 with Rom 12:6. The connection between 1:14–16 and Rom 12:2 consists only of the command not to be conformed. Otherwise, there are only broad conceptual similarities as Paul calls for being transformed by the renewal of the mind and Peter calls for sanctification. It is interesting that the key term only appears in Rom 12:2 and 1 Pet 1:14, but they use the term in different ways (Paul in reference to “this age” and Peter in reference to the former way of life) in different rhetorical contexts. The similarity thus appears to be incidental and the result of being derived from similar worldviews with similar theological ethics.
The second one of 1:21 with Rom 4:24 has more going for it lexically. Both texts use the same participle (as well as the same tense and case) to refer to God as the one who raised Jesus from the dead. They also use similar terms in referring to those who have faith/are faithful in/to this God. However, despite the semantic and conceptual overlap, this does not appear to be a solid case of genealogical connection. Similar phrases built around the aorist adjectival participle also appear in Rom 8:11 [2x]; 2 Cor 4:14; Gal 1:1; and Col 2:12. As such, the phrasing is not restricted to one text, and even this expression is a matter of shared tradition, as the non-participial statement that God raised Jesus appears in Acts 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 37; Rom 10:9; 1 Cor 6:14; 15:15 [2x]; 2 Cor 1:9; Eph 1:20; and 1 Thess 1:10. The texts from Acts are from both Peter and Paul. And given how common the verb is for referring to resurrection in the NT, it hardly seems plausible to attribute its invention to Paul, as if one could not have thought to use such a phrase without having Paul’s work in mind.
The lexical links of 1:22 with Rom 12:9 are slight and not especially significant. The terminology of “without hypocrisy” is present in other texts in the NT, mostly by Paul, but the instances also include one from Jas 3:17. Both texts also involve instructions to love, with Paul using the noun and Peter using the verb. But that is hardly indicative of any significant link, since there is not exactly a dearth of such instruction in the NT.
The links between 2:5 and Rom 12:1 are not exactly robust lexically speaking. The use of “living” in both texts is not unusual, and Paul uses it to modify “sacrifice” while Peter uses it to modify “stones.” They also both use “holy,” but Paul uses it to modify “sacrifice” and Peter uses it to modify “priesthood.” Of course, both texts use “sacrifice” in interesting ways to refer to the lives of believers in the present. This is also true of Hebrews, specifically 13:15–16, but that letter is especially dense with sacrificial language. It appears that we are dealing with independent uses of significant terms.
The noted link of 2:6–8 with Rom 9:32–33 is simply a result of the fact that they cite two of the same texts from Isa 28:16 and 8:14. But that is far from demonstrating literary dependence in the case of Romans and 1 Peter, particularly since the texts they cite are not identical in wording, not least because of Paul’s peculiar approach to drawing these texts together, and because Peter also adds reference to Ps 118:22 (a text also referenced in Acts 4:11). The “stone” imagery is more significant in Peter’s argument, it is what draws the three texts he cites together, and it is something he will connect associated images of building to. For Paul, the texts are introduced with the reference to the “stone,” but the reference to “stumbling” is more significant in his argument. Much the same could be said for the link of 2:10 with Rom 9:25, where both texts use language drawn from Hosea. However, Paul explicitly cites and quotes Hos 2:25, whereas Peter uses the language more allusively and could be alluding to both Hos 1:9 and 2:25. These are rather weak cases for literary dependence, presuming as if Peter would have no reason to appeal to these Scriptures if he did not read Paul doing so first.
However, the link of 2:13–17 with Rom 13:1–7 is more significant. There is even much overlap of terminology that is not driven by a use of common Scripture. But lest we overstate the point, let us look at the similarities more directly in Greek. (In line with my work on synoptic comparison, the text in bold is unique and the text in regular font is common, with any italics being for identifying different forms of the same word or synonyms. I note the verbal similarity in terms of absolute/verbatim similarity and weighted similarity, where I add a score of 0.75 for each different form of the same words and 0.5 for synonyms. The < symbol signifies that one could render the score as even lower in terms of similarity because of differences in word order.)
Of course, I stretched to get the verbatim similarities that high, as several of the similarities are entirely incidental in terms of prepositions and articles being used with different referents in different contexts, and the use of a rather common conjunction. The two uses of “God” that are identical in form are not significant in themselves, since they do not appear in the same phrases, and obviously the term is highly common. The same applies to the use of the same form of εἰμί, a verb that has the sense of “to be.” In fact, there is only one term of verbatim similarity that could even potentially be significant in that both texts use ἔπαινον, “praise.” And they both use it in the same context of referring to receiving praise for doing good even from rulers. Thus, we are one-for-fourteen on significant verbatim similarities.
The other significant verbal similarities are not verbatim, but they reside in different forms of the same words or synonyms (including verbal equivalents of nouns and vice versa, or using one word to convey what the other text uses two to say). We can exclude as significant the uses of extremely common conjunctions, the different forms of articles, the different forms of “all/every,” and the slightly different forms of “God.” Both texts do include instruction to “be subject/subject yourself” to the “superiors/those in authority.” Paul’s instruction is in the plural, whereas Peter’s is in the singular, directed as it is to the “king.” But Peter also extends it through ellipsis in application to the “hegemons/governors.” Both texts also refer to punishment (using different but obviously associated nouns) for those who do evil and praise for those who do good. Both texts refer in similar ways to the rulers as “slaves/servants” (in Peter’s case) or as “servants/ministers/administrators” (in Paul’s case) of God. The two terms have some semantic overlap, and both indicate the ultimate subservience of all leaders to God, from whom they have received their authority, and, by implication, by whom they will be held accountable for how they use it. The instruction to give honor appears differently in each text (verbal form in Peter and nominal form in Paul), but the presence of such instruction is hardly surprising in context. Finally, both use the verb for “fear,” but in Peter’s case he says to fear God, and in Paul’s case he gives instruction on what to do if his audience does not want to fear the authority.
While these similarities are interesting, the fact that they are taken as evidence of literary dependence is indicative of a stunted imagination. You see it in comparative religion a lot. It is as if only one person could have had an idea and anyone else who had it in a posterior time must have taken it from them or from a conceptual line of descent from them. Paul must be the original thinker and Peter must be ripping him off. This is the kind of thinking that led 1 Peter to be relatively neglected in scholarship for too long because it was considered derivative of Paul. Too many scholars had difficulty imagining that two people could have similar teachings or come to similar conclusions without one consulting the other (perhaps because that was how they operated, given how susceptible scholars have been and are to groupthink). In this case, it appears to be a matter of shared wisdom from two authors seeing the need to present such instructions in similar situations.
Paul wrote his instruction to Roman Christians he had never met (though they knew many of the same people, per Rom 16). As such, it could be that this is instruction he felt free to leave unstated in other letters because he had covered it in conversation with the various audiences at some point. But more specifically, it would be apropos to emphasize such instruction for Christians in the capital of the empire, and in light of how they had been previously expelled with the Jews for the disturbances caused thereby several years before this letter was written. Paul wrote this in the time of Nero, who ruled after Claudius and the repeal of his edict. Some try to overaccentuate this data point because what they know of Nero and the Christians is all the persecution and martyrdom that happened after the fire in Rome in 64 CE. But this letter was written in the early part of his reign (somewhere between 55 and 58 CE), long before there was any suspicion of how he would turn out (indeed, with an ethicist like Seneca advising him, and other factors going in his favor, some expected he could be a better ruler than his predecessors). In any case, it is in that context that Paul calls on the Roman Christians not to make unnecessary trouble for themselves, and perhaps implying that they want to avoid being expelled again and lose their ministerial presence in the city.
Peter (as I do think Peter wrote this letter) wrote from Rome to various churches in what is now Turkey, probably also during the reign of Nero. While there are definitely elements of the text hinting at conflict, persecution, and suffering for the audience, that does not appear to be indicative of some official program of persecution. After all, Nero’s persecution of Christians was focused on Rome. Insofar as it spread elsewhere, it would only be from rulers taking cues from Nero, as if trying to please him by persecuting the same group he persecuted. It seems that the pressure on Christians presented in the letter comes less from the authorities and more from their fellows they used to associate with shaming them for not doing as they do (esp. 4:1–6). More generally across the letter, the impression is that the pressure is more social (“from below”) than official (“from above”). Peter’s instruction here is among a series of similar instructions on keeping behavior excellent among the gentiles/nations so as to undermine the slander they direct against the Christians (2:12). Of course, Peter is well aware that this and other instructions he gives to slaves, wives, and others are not means of avoiding suffering due to one’s conduct, but as he tends to ground the Christians’ story in the gospel story, he argues throughout that it is better to suffer for doing good than to suffer for doing evil.
Both teachings can be well accounted for without appealing to external literary dependence as some necessary cause of existence. On what basis, then, is it to be asserted? There is only one case of significant verbatim similarity between the texts. Among the lesser degrees of verbal similarity between them, the similar terminology is well enough accounted for by the fact that similar instructions are going to tend to use similar vocabulary. Thoroughgoing structural similarity could have been potentially more indicative of a closer relationship, but even in that case it could have been more indicative of common tradition than literary dependence, depending on the precise character of the similarities and texts. In any case, even structural similarity is lacking.
We can address the last three potential links—3:8–9 with Rom 12:16–17; 3:11 with 12:18; and 4:10–11 with Rom 12:6—in one go. There is little reason to connect these specific texts on a lexical level. There are only broad resemblances between the texts from 1 Peter and the purported correspondences in that they provide similar exhortations. As with the other examples we have gone over, such links may have been more plausible if there was some more definite anchor point of connection with the text that we could establish, as here and here.
1 Peter and Ephesians
Notable links to review here are as follows: 1:1 with Eph 1:1; 1:3 with Eph 1:3; 1:3–5 with Eph 1:18–19; 1:10–12 with Eph 3:5; 1:13 with Eph 6:14; 1:20 with Eph 1:4; 2:4–6 with Eph 2:19–22; 3:18, 22 with Eph 1:20–22; and 5:8 with Eph 6:11. Broadly, the household codes in Eph 5:21–6:9 and 1 Pet 2:18–3:7 are also sometimes linked. The first possible link is insignificant, as Paul identifies himself as an apostle of Christ Jesus and Peter identifies himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ. That is all there is to it. Presumably, Peter could not have thought of describing himself as an apostle without Paul coming up with such a self-description in his letters before.
The link between 1:3 and Eph 1:3 consists of the fact that both texts described as blessed, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” While these two texts are closer to each other than they are to any other text in the NT, they are simply both combining elements that are hardly unusual in the NT. There are several texts that praise and bless God, and many others that refer to God as God and Father, sometimes in direct relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is more likely that both authors are drawing from common traditions of praise and worship than that the one author needed the other to come up with such phrasing.
The rest of 1:3 to the end of 1:5 is a portion of text also said to be linked with Eph 1:18–19. The links are, again, not especially significant, as they consist of words like “inheritance,” “power,” and “faith.” And these are not really even the most structurally central portions of either text, so a link of dependence hardly seems likely here.
The link of 1:10–12 with Eph 3:5 has a similar level of verbal similarity that is once again non-indicative. Both texts refer to “prophets,” but 1 Peter uses the term to refer to the prophets of old while Ephesians uses the term to refer to prophets (alongside apostles) of the present time. Both texts refer to something being done in/by the Spirit, but that is not unusual in the NT (besides this, in 1 Peter the reference is to the gospel proclamation and in Ephesians the reference is to the revelation). Both texts use the identical form of “was revealed,” but it is again to completely different referents, one to the prophets of old (1 Peter) and the other to the apostles and prophets of the present (Ephesians). After all, both texts are talking about related subjects, but not the same subject.
The proposed link of 1:13 with Eph 6:14 does certainly involve some unusual phrasing. Both use different compounded forms of the verb ζώννυμι, which share the basic sense of “gird” “put on a belt.” Both texts also use a term that is sometimes obscured in translations: “loins” or “waist” (ὀσφῦς). This is particularly obscured in Peter because he uses the phrase “loins of your mind,” which could perhaps be better translated as an epexegetical genitive, “gird up/prepare your loins, that is your mind.” Such combinations (including the simple form of the verb) also appear in Luke 12:35; Exod 12:11; 4 Kgdms 1:8; 4:29; 9:1; Neh 4:18; Job 38:3; 40:7; Prov 31:17; Isa 11:5; 32:11; Jer 1:17; Ezek 9:11; and 23:15 (cf. 2 Kgdms 20:8; 3 Kgdms 20:32). Those are the only lexical links, and nothing else is really holding them together. The imagery is hardly unique to Paul, so this is not strong evidence of literary dependence.
The only thing holding 1:20 with Eph 1:4 is the phrase “before the foundation of the world.” However, the phrase of referring to the creation event as “the foundation of the world” is a fairly widespread expression in the NT in terms of the variety of authors who use it (besides these two texts, see Matt 13:35; 25:34; Luke 11:50; Heb 4:3; 9:26; Rev 13:8; 17:8). The phrase with the specific preposition added also appears John 17:24. We are not exactly working with a nearly unique phrase here.
We have already explored the proposed link of 2:4–6 with Romans. The major reason why it is also linked with Eph 2:19–22 is the fact that the only two NT texts that use the term ἀκρογωνιαῖος are 1 Pet 2:6 and Eph 2:20. Otherwise, there are only broad conceptual links that are not unique to these two texts or even to Paul and Peter generally. Even the apparent lexical link is insignificant because it derives directly from the quotation of Isa 28:16 in 1 Peter, on which Peter is explicitly literarily dependent.
Both 3:18, 22 and Eph 1:20–22 embody patterns I have noted in a series on the three-stage gospel narrative in the NT. Given that each fits emphases that can be found so broadly across the NT, is there anything that links these two specific texts more strongly? Nope.
The only lexical link between 5:8 and Eph 6:11 is that both use the same term for referring to the “devil.” Otherwise we are apparently supposed to believe Peter could not think in terms of believers resisting the devil without taking the idea from Paul (despite Jesus, James, John, and others being fine with referring to the devil as an enemy). If I sound like I am being dismissive of this connection, rest assured it is because I am.
More General Connections
Scholars have also noted broader shared language/material between 1 Peter and the works of Paul that are supposed to be indicative of dependence by the former on the latter. One such feature of 1 Peter thought to be evidence of this is the reference to Jesus’s Second Coming as his “revelation” (1:7, 13; 4:13; cf. 5:4). This is a term that appears in Paul’s works (1 Cor 1:7; 2 Thess 1:7; Col 3:4), but it also appears in 1 John (2:28; 3:2). Unless one comes into the discussion with assumptions about 1 Peter’s dependence on Paul, I am not sure how a description that is otherwise relatively more characteristic of Peter counts as evidence of his dependence on Paul.
A second notable feature is Peter’s use of “in Christ” (ἐν Χριστῷ; 3:16; 5:10, 14). This is absolutely some of Paul’s preferred language as he refers to all kinds of things as being “in Christ.” And no one else uses the exact prepositional phrase besides Peter and Paul. Of course, given that both authors and others convey—each in their own ways—the notion of union with Christ that this phrase often signifies, as well as other equivalences in function in the various phrases they use, are we really on secure ground to act as if Paul invented the phrase and people could have only come up with this phrase through his influence? Since we have yet to find any other more secure connection of literary dependence between 1 Peter and Paul, I am inclined to dismiss the suggested implication here as well. It is interesting that these are the only authors to use the phrase, but it is hardly an entailment of this fact alone that one is dependent on the other.
A third notable feature is that Peter uses the term χάρισμα (“gift” or “grace-gift”) in 4:10. This term only appears elsewhere in the NT in Paul’s works. Does this indicate Pauline influence? Is there any reason to think that Paul invented the use of this term so that its very use is a solid indicator of dependence on Paul? I see no reason why this is so simply because the two authors use the term. I also am not familiar with a case where another author could have used the term, did not, and thereby ensured that it remained the special reserve of Paul and those he influenced.
On a more structural level, the fact that 1 Peter includes a household code in 2:18–3:7 is sometimes supposed to be an example of Pauline influence. We can say for sure here that Paul did not invent the type of discourse that has been called “household code.” Several other ancient writers wrote such instructions. Nor is the household code characteristic of Paul, since most of his letters include no such thing. Nor, indeed, is Peter structurally dependent on some template from Paul, as he moves from addressing slaves to wives to husbands (briefly). It is not even a more thorough household code like Paul has. This is simply another in a list of weak resemblances that are meant to suggest dependence simply because of the number of them, not because of the high quality of the resemblances or because of having definite anchor points that can open up exploration of further reaching influence.
As an example, see Travis B. Williams, “Intertextuality and Methodological Bias: Prolegomena to the Evaluation of Source Materials in 1 Peter,” JSNT 39 (2016): 169–87.