No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The ending of 1 Peter includes greetings from a person or group designated by an adjective, συνεκλεκτός (co-elect, 5.13), found no where else in the New Testament. The adjective as it stands in 1 Peter is preceded by a singular feminine article and has a singular feminine ending. It functions as a substantive and has a modifying prepositional phrase, ν Bαβυλ
νι (in Babylon), sandwiched between the article and the adjective. The complete phrase reads: ν Bαβυλνι συνεκλεκτή literally, ‘the (feminine) in Babylon co-elect (feminine)’.
1 Most scholars think that Babylon represents Rome. Dennis Sylva (‘1 Peter Studies: The State of the Discipline’, Bib Theol Bull 10 [4, 1980] 158) lists Beare, Holmer, Reicke and Schweizer in this camp. However, Sylva sides with Kümmel to take an ‘agnostic view’. The reading ‘Pώμη stands instead of Bαβυλνι in a few minuscules (4mg, 1518, 2138) according to Bruce M. Metzger (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [UBS, 1971] 698). See also, Hunzinger, C., ‘Babylon als Deckname für Rom und die Datierung des 1. Petrus-briefes’, Gottes Wort und Gottes Land. Hans-Wilhelm Herzberg zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Graf, Reventlow; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1965) 67–77.Google Scholar
2 Nestle-Aland, Nouum Testamentum Graece. The scarcity of textual evidence and the ease in explaining the addition supports the assertion that this is an interpolation. In addition, both Beare, F. W. (The First Epistle of Peter [Oxford: Blackwell, 1958] 184Google Scholar and Kelly, J. N. D. (A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude [New York: Harper, 1969] 218Google Scholar) claim that this reading is also found in a ‘few cursives’.
3 The Holy Bible Containing the Old and New Testaments (repr. Cambridge: University, n.d.).Google Scholar
4 The Holy Bible (Glasgow, London, New York: Collins, 1989).Google Scholar
5 Archea, D. C. & Nida, E. A., A Translator's Handbook on the First Letter from Peter (New York: United Bible Society) 174–5.Google Scholar
6 Bibel, Die, nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers (Stuttgart: Würtembergische Bibel-anstalt, 1984)Google Scholar. But see also the 1948 edition which reads ‘Es grüssen euch, die samt euch auserwählt sind zu Babylon.’
7 La Sainte Bible (trans. Louis Segond; Paris: Alliance Biblique Française, 1957)Google Scholar. See also La Bible (2nd ed.; Paris: Société Biblique Française et Editions du Cerf, 1971)Google Scholar with ‘La communauté des elus que est à Babylone.’
8 In the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha (Oxford: Oxford U.P., 1973) 1977.Google Scholar
9 Oxford and Cambridge: Universities, 1970.
10 The New Testament of the Jerusalem Bible (Reader's Edition; ed. Alexander Jones; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966).Google Scholar
11 La Sainte Bible (ed. L'École Biblique de Jérusalem; Paris: Cerf, 1956).Google Scholar
12 Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (ed. & trans, by Arndt, W. F. & Gingrich, F. W.; Chicago: Univ., 1957) 794.Google Scholar
13 Reicke, B., The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958) 182, 184Google Scholar. Leaney, A. R. C., The Letters of Peter and Jude (Cambridge: Univ. 1967) 71Google Scholar. Leaney specifies that the co-elect does not refer to Peter's wife. Leighton, R., Commentary on First Peter (Grand Rapids: Dregel, 1972) 510Google Scholar. That this 500 page commentary contains no discussion of the feminine co-elect seems remarkable. Schiwy, G., Die Katholischen Briefe (Aschaffenburg: Paul Pattloch, 1973) 63Google Scholar. Brox, N., Der erste Petrusbrief (EKKNT, Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1986) 247.Google Scholar
14 Lumby, J. R. uses this term in The Epistle of St Peter (New York: A. C. Armstrong, 1898) 223.Google ScholarCranfield, C. E. B. (The First Epistle of Peter [London: SCM, 1950]Google Scholar) sees ‘no difficulty in understanding the feminine substantive κκλησία (church)’ to stand behind the meaning of the feminine co-elect (123). Only Hiebert, D. Edmond, First Peter: An Expositional Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1984)Google Scholar explains what he means by ‘natural’. It is natural to understand the co-elect as a reference to a ‘sister’ church in Babylon which sends greetings to the other ‘sister’ churches in Asia Minor. The problem is that the letter is addressed to the elect in Asia Minor, not to ‘sister’ churches. This argument will be discussed further below.
15 Ibid., 230.
16 Beare, , The First Epistle of Peter (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958) 182, 184Google Scholar. Best, , 1 Peter (New Century Bible; London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1971) 177–8Google Scholar. Schelkle, K. H., Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief (Wien: Herder, 1976) 134–5, n. 4.Google Scholar
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Selwyn, E. G., The First Epistle of St Peter (London: Macmillan, 1952) 243Google Scholar; and Kelly, J. N. D., A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and Jude (New York: Harper, 1969) 214, 217–18Google Scholar. Arichea and Nida cited above also use these phrases to justify their translation. They claim that ‘these references to the church indicate that it was no uncommon practice at the time to use the feminine gender in referring to Christian congregations’ (176).
20 See Best, 177–8. The 1 Cor 16.19–20 greeting includes separate verbs for three different greetings. Greetings come from (1) the churches in Asia (plural noun, plural verb), (2) Aquila and Prisca with the church at their house (double subject, prepositional phrase, singular verb), and (3) all the brothers (plural subject, plural noun). The second of these greetings seems most like the 1 Peter greeting. Note, however, ‘the church at their house’ is represented not as the subject of the greeting, but as the object of a prepositional phrase tacked on to the end of the greeting. The subjects of the greeting in 1 Corinthians consist of two persons ruled by a singular verb. This would give warrant for understanding the double subjects in the 1 Peter greeting as two individuals as well, rather than a combination of greetings from a church and an individual.
21 Best, 178. Peter's wife is also dismissed by Lumby, 230; Cranfield, 123; J. N. D. Kelly, 214; Leaney, 71, K. H. Schelkle, 134, n. 4, and others to be discussed below.
22 Hiebert, 310.
23 Blenkin, G. W., The First Epistle General of Peter (Cambridge: U.P., 1914) 127Google Scholar. Blenkin also discusses the textual data and the 2 John references.
24 See 1 Cor 16.1; Gal 1.2; 2 Cor 8.1; Rom 16.4, 16; 1 Thess 2.14 for plural, and Phlm 2; Col 4.15; 2 Cor 1.1; Rom 16.5 for singular house churches.
25 See Rev 1.4; 2.1, 8, 12, 18; 3.1, 7, 14.
26 Of course in 1 Peter the noun, κκλησία, does not appear.
27 See 1 Cor 16.19; Col 4.15 and Rom 16.5.
28 See 1 Cor 16.19 and 2 Tim 4.21 for greetings from particular women, and Col 4.15; Rom 16.3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15; and 2 Tim 4.19 for greetings addressed to specific women.
29 Rufus, Rom 16.13.
30 Greetings from individuals include ten from Rom 16.21–3 (Timothy, co-worker; Lucius, Jason and Sosipater, relatives; Tertius, writer of the letter; Gaius, host; Erastus, city treasurer; and Quartus, brother), ten from 1 Cor 16.19 (Aquila and Prisca), six from Col 4.10–14 (Aristarchus, co-prisoner; Mark, cousin of Barnabas; Jesus Justus; Epaphras; Luke, and Demas) four from 2 Tim 4.21 (Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brethren), five from Philemon (Epaphras, co-prisoner; Mark; Aristarchus; Demas; Luke, my co-worker), and one from 1 Peter 5.13 (Mark, my son).
Greetings to individuals include twenty-five from Rom 16.1–15 (Phoebe is ‘commended’ and called deacon of the church at Cenchrae; the following are ‘greeted’: Prisca and Aquila; Epaenetus, my beloved; Mary; Andronicus and Junia, my relatives and co-prisoners; Ampliatus, my beloved; Urbanus, co-worker; Stachys, beloved; Apelles; Herodian my relative; Tryphaena and Tryphosa, workers; Persis, beloved; Rufus; his mother and mine; Asyncritus; Phlegon; Hermes; Patrobas; Hermas; Philologus; Julia; Nereus; his sister; and Olympas), two from 1 Cor 16.19 (Aquila and Prisca), one from Col 4.15 (Nympha), and two from 2 Tim 4.19 (Prisca and Aquila).
Greetings are made to ‘all the churches’ in Rom 16.4 and 16. Greetings are sent from the ‘churches in Asia’ in 1 Cor 16.19. Greetings to and from the ‘church in the house of Prisca and Aquila’ are found in Rom 16.4–5 and 1 Cor 16.19. The ‘church in Nympha's house’ is greeted in Col 4.15. Greetings go to the ‘church in your house’ in Phlm 2. Other collective greetings include ‘the family of’ Aristobulus (Rom 16.10), ‘the family of’ Narcissus (Rom 16.11, both with the construction ‘τοὺς κ τν …’), ‘all the brethren’ (1 Cor 16.20; Phil 4.21; Col 4.15; 1 Thess 5.26; 2 Tim 4.21), ‘all the saints’ (2 Cor 13.12; Phil 4.21), ‘all those with me’ (Titus 3.15), the ‘children of your elect sister’ (2 John 13), and ‘the friends’ (3 John 15, twice).
31 For such a survey see Brown, Raymond E., The Epistles of John (Anchor Bible; Garden City: Doubleday, 1982) 647–55.Google Scholar
32 Brown offers such examples of this as Jer 31.21, ‘O Virgin Israel’, and the Revelation passages discussed above, as well as some extra-canonical references. Space does not permit a treatment of each of these examples; however, it is the judgment of this study that none of them is a convincing parallel.
33 See 1 Cor 4.14; Gal 4.19; 3 John 4; 1 Tim 1.18; Titus 1.4; and Phlm 10 for believers called children. While Brown cites Plummer and Ross as suggesting that the elect κυρία could refer to ‘an unnamed lady of importance’, and while this is what the feminine form of κύριος (lord) might suggest, Brown dismisses this possibility on the grounds that 3 John is addressed to a named leader. This, Brown claims, shows that ‘normally the Presbyter would name an individual recipient’ (653). The question is, how does one establish ‘normalcy’ when one has only two examples of something from which to judge? It is just as reasonable to argue that since 3 John is addressed to an individual, the Presbyter would ‘normally’ address a letter to an individual, and to conclude that the elect κυρία must be such an individual. In fact, this alternative is supported by the above references in which Christian followers are called ‘children’, and are associated with a certain leader, as in 3 John 4. There is no such trend to call believers ‘children’ of a particular church.
34 See references to Simon's mother-in-law in Matt 8.14; Mark 1.30; and Luke 4.38. She is also said to have travelled with Peter in 1 Cor 9.5.
35 The word κλεκτός (elect) is used twice in 1 Peter to refer to Jesus, called ‘chosen by God’ and ‘a chosen cornerstone’ (2.4, 6), and one additional time to refer to the readers as a whole, called ‘a chosen race’ (2.9). Of course, the letter is associating both the readers and the co-elect woman with Jesus by referring to them all by this title.
36 Kelly, 217. The reference is actually in Strom. 7.11.63. In Oulton, J. E. L. and Chadwick, H. (eds.), Alexandrian Christianity, Vol. 2: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen with Introduction and Notes (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1954) 133Google Scholar, the reference reads as follows:
So we are told that the blessed Peter, when he beheld his wife on her way to execution, rejoiced on account of her call and her homeward journey, and addressed her by name with words of exhortation and good cheer, bidding her to ‘remember the Lord’.
Oulton and Chadwick suggest that Clement is the only extant source of this tradition about Peter's wife.
37 Blenkin, 127.
38 Meeks, Wayne, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven/London: Yale U.P., 1983) 85–6.Google Scholar
39 Elliott, J. H., A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of I Peter, Its Situation and Strategy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981) 201, also 135–6, 227.Google Scholar
40 Since reference is made to Silvanus as το πιστο δελφο (the faithful brother, 5.12) and to Mark as ό υἱός μου (my son, 5.13), John H. Elliott argues that the phrase ή ν Bαβυλνι συυεκλετή (the co-elect woman in Babylon, 5.13) is most likely a greeting from the co-elect δελφή (sister) who is in Babylon (Elliott, Homeless, 202, 273. See also Elliott, J. H., I & II Peter/Jude [Augsburg Commentary on the New Testament; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1982] 113–14)Google ScholarPubMed. Actually, it is unnecessary to propose a ‘sister’ here for it seems common to include familial and titular references in the same greeting. (See the discussion of Romans 16 and other epistle closings below.)
Elliott grasps at every straw of evidence in the New Testament to establish an historical connection between Peter, Silvanus and Mark. For instance, Elliott argues that Peter and Mark were associated, because in Acts 12 Peter is said to have fled to the house of Mark's mother after his prison escape in Jerusalem. Elliott refers to this house as ‘Mark's home’, and then concludes that ‘Peter's flight to Mark's household indicates an obvious association of the two.’ This is concluded even though, as Elliott points out, Acts clearly places Mark in Antioch at the time of Peter's escape (Homeless, 275–9, esp. 276). Actually, Acts 12 suggests more clearly a link between Peter and the mother of Mark, than one with Mark himself.
41 See Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983)Google Scholar for a sustained argument for such a conception. For her discussion of the leadership of women in the churches in Asia Minor see 245–50.
42 I am following the discussion of women in Asia Minor by Fiorenza (Memory, 246–7) very closely in this section.
43 Ibid., 249. While Fiorenza does not defend the assumption that the Johannine letters were addressed to individuals, this study has shown that it is not difficult to understand 2 John as being addressed to a titled, un-named woman.
44 Ibid. It is interesting that while Fiorenza assumes that ‘the elect lady’ of 2 John is a woman who heads her own house-church, she passes over the ‘co-elect’ woman of 1 Peter.
45 Fiorenza refers to apocryphal literature from such as the Acts of Paul and Thecla to argue for the existence of such tension and women's resistance to subjugation to pagan families, see Memory, 245–50.
Her interpretation of 1 Peter's household code as a pressure for Christian assimilation to secular society seems to coincide most closely with that of David L. Balch (Let Wives be Submissive: The Domestic Code in I Peter [Chico, CA: SBL, 1981], 1–20Google Scholar for a summary of contemporary interpretations of the household code), while Elliott (Homeless, 218) feels that 1 Peter's overall strategy is one that generally resists pressures by secular society. For a recent debate between these two authors, see John H. Elliott, ‘1 Peter, Its Situation and Strategy: A Discussion with David Balch’, and David Balch, ‘Hellenization/Acculturation in 1 Peter’ in Talbert, Charles H., Perspectives on First Peter (Special Studies Series, Number 9; Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1986) 61–102Google Scholar. Balch's claim that Elliott fails to see the accommodation that is reflected in 1 Peter because he depends too heavily on Bryan Wilson's early theories of sectarian development is convincing (84–8).
However, Balch would apparently agree with Elliott (Homeless, 264), when he argues that oikos is ‘the chief ecclesiological symbol and the household code the major pattern for outlining communal roles, responsibilities and relationships’ in 1 Peter and in the literature of Asia Minor. That some degree of Christian accommodation to Greco-Roman household structures took place is unquestionable, and that it affected the leadership of women in the house churches seems clear from the fact that we find specific restrictions regarding women based on the household codes and other Greco-Roman cultural values (cf. 1 Cor 14.33–6, 1 Tim 5.1–16).
46 Speculation as to whether this woman actually supported the content and intention of 1 Peter's household code may arise at this point. Based on the arguments found in this study, it is possible to imagine at least two possibilities. If she were actually a follower of Peter, when he was alive and a co-author of 1 Peter, as Elliott argues for Silvanus and Mark, she could be considered a traitor to the women leaders of Asia Minor whose power was threatened by the code. If she, like Peter, were already dead, it is possible that her title and reputation were used to support a position in regard to women that evolved in the church after her passing, thus, in effect, betraying her own position and prestige.