Travis B. Williams and David G. Horrell. <i>1 Peter: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary: Volume 1: Chapters 1–2</i>; Travis B. Williams and David G. Horrell. <i>1 Peter: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary: Volume 2: Chapters 3–5</i>

Given the advances in textual, archaeological, historical, and linguistic research, as well as the proliferation of new methods and exegetical approaches, Travis Williams and David Horrell have written a new and updated ICC commentary on 1 Peter (the previous commentary was published by Charles Biggs in 1901). The authors indicate the following as important features of their approach: detailed engaged with textual variants through the use the Editio Critica Maior, extensive grammatical analysis, thorough engagement with both older and newer scholarship on 1 Peter, the use of the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) in order to expand the data used for lexical and syntactical analysis, and the use of new methods in biblical studies such as social psychology, postcolonial theory, and more (see preface, pp. xiii–xv).The commentary begins with a 300-page introduction. Here they argue that 1 Peter is a literary unity and that it should be understood as a letter indebted to “early Christian Diaspora” precedents (p. 29). The author draws upon a variety of accepted and authoritative early Christian traditions, such as the sayings of Jesus, confessional sayings, and OT texts in order aid his readers to cope with their challenges. On the one hand, they reject the notion that 1 Peter is “quasi-Pauline document,” although they do see Paul’s letters and specific formulations as influencing the author (pp. 65–66). The authors do not think it likely that 1 Peter was written by Peter; rather, “the epistle appears to be a pseudonymous work written sometime after the death of the apostle, which someone attempted to pass off as an actual letter from Peter” (p. 162). They argue that the audience of 1 Peter was most likely mostly composed of gentiles who were experiencing societal challenges and persecution, due to their rejection of their former way of life and worship of the pagan gods and experiencing new challenges due to alienation from their friends and neighbors. The theological agenda of the author is to provide hope to these Christians who are suffering by encouraging them that they are elect and honored in the sight of God.There are numerous detailed exegetical insights throughout the commentary, but the authors themselves highlight a few that they find to be some of their own distinct contributions. For example, in an excursus on “Imperatival Participles in 1 Peter” (pp. 460–65), the authors confirm the validity of understanding certain participles as having a force very close to a finite imperatival form. Another example relates to the author’s repeated exhortations to his audience to “do good” or have “good conduct” (e.g., 2:12, 14, 15, 20; 3:6, 11, 16, 17; 4:19). Here the authors argue that this theme “represents a concentrated application of specific terms and phrases commonly used to describe the beneficent acts of wealthy elites as a way to represent the moral behaviour prescribed for the Christian readers” (p. 717). This “good” behavior does not derive from conformity to society’s values but, rather, from the behavior “modeled by Christ” and that “represents the will of God” (p. 717). The authors also make an important contribution to the nature of suffering and persecution the audience is experiencing. They reject as false the dichotomy between so-called official and unofficial persecution. The audience experienced persecution largely due to their withdrawal from normative Greco-Roman activities that were associated with worshipping the traditional deities (see 1 Pet. 1:17; 4:3–4). It was, then, likely not “a case where Christians were being forced . . . to worship the emperor, but their lack of participation meant abstention from a variety of social and political structures, which further fueled the negative sentiments” (p. 246).In the authors’ preface, they make a small note that they “pity any reviewers” due to the “length and detail” of their commentary—something like 1,700 pages for only 105 verses (p. xi). While these volumes are, of course, best used as reference works, I, nevertheless, found them to be easily readable and even exciting. As one who consistently teaches Greek exegesis of 1 Peter at my divinity school, working through these commentaries both helped me to solidify my interpretive decisions and to consider new ones in ways. Readers of past ICC commentaries expect careful lexical, grammatical, and syntactical analysis of the NT texts. But I am not sure if I have read or used another commentary that is as excellent and updated in this regard as is the present commentary. The authors consistently take the reader through the different possibilities for understanding the grammar and argue for their reading. The commentaries are absolutely and immensely successful in their illumination of 1 Peter’s rhetorical strategy and theological message through their careful use of both (and especially) traditional exegetical tools and newer theoretical approaches.