Travis Williams and David Horrell are perhaps the two most qualified individuals to write a critical exegetical commentary on 1 Peter. Horrell was Williams’s Doktorvater at the University of Exeter and the two collaborated for a full decade to write this commentary. During that time, Horrell has supervised many other doctoral students (some of whom have gone on to revise their theses for publication in such prestigious series as LNTS and SNTSMS), and both he and Williams have published numerous peer-reviewed articles and monographs on 1 Peter. In this commentary, the authors built on the foundation of these studies and conducted robust research in relevant scholarly literature in English, French, German, and Spanish. This comprehensive commentary on 1 Peter thus deserves a wide welcome, especially among Primopetrine scholars but also among New Testament scholars in general.

The introduction alone is monograph-length and exhaustive on its covered topics (1:1–297). From the beginning, the scholarly value of this commentary is apparent. Williams and Horrell first survey cutting-edge text criticism to establish their method for determining the text of 1 Peter for their commentary (1:2–20). They adopt the recent Coherent-Based Genealogical Method (CGBM) of text criticism, and they critically engage the Editio Critica Maior (based on the CGBM), which distinguishes this 1 Peter commentary from others. Indeed, one of the many strengths of this commentary is its lengthy discussion of text critical matters in each text unit of 1 Peter. This commentary is the most thorough resource for people conducting text criticism of 1 Peter to consult.

Williams and Horrell also devote significant space in the introduction to “sources, traditions, and affinities” of 1 Peter (1:37–85). They follow a robust methodology for identifying “literary dependence in 1 Peter,” based on explicit reference; external plausibility; authorial tendency; recurrence; verbal agreement; and level, number, and type of similarities (1:40–42). Williams and Horrell agree with most scholars that 1 Peter is dependent on many passages of the Old Testament, and they affirm that 1 Peter is also dependent on Jesus Tradition. Against most modern scholars, they also find that dependence on some Pauline literature is likely. Regarding the affinities between James and 1 Peter, they conclude that most likely, “the letter of James borrowed from 1 Peter” (1:80). Finally, they consider Hebrews and 1 Peter not to have “a literary connection” (1:83).

For most of the introduction, Williams and Horrell construct an argument for the historical setting of 1 Peter, covering the date of writing, authorship, and recipients (1:100–265). In these sections of the introduction, their social-scientific critical standpoint is evident. External evidence for the date of 1 Peter precedes discussion of internal (and external) evidence for the authorship of 1 Peter. Williams and Horrell conclude that 70 CE is “the earliest possible date at which 1 Peter could be written,” with 70–95 CE “as the approximate period” of composition (1:115). With Peter’s death dated to Nero’s persecution of Christians in the 60s CE, apostolic authorship of this letter seems impossible even before Williams and Horrell evaluate the evidence in its favor. Readers, then, should not be surprised when Williams and Horrell conclude, “the epistle seems 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” (1:162). They “tentatively incline to origins in Asia Minor” as the provenance of 1 Peter itself, “with the letter depicted as originating in Rome” (1:196). With most modern scholars, they consider the recipients of 1 Peter to be mostly Gentile Christians. Consistent with previously published scholarship on the nature of the audience’s suffering, Williams and Horrell maintain that this suffering spanned the spectrum of possibilities: from informal “verbal accusation from outsiders” and “physical punishment and abuse, especially from slaveowners and husbands” to formal “judicial punishments, including torture and potentially execution” (1:265).

Throughout the commentary on 1 Peter itself, the authors prove themselves to be even-handed, erudite exegetes. Williams and Horrell repeatedly follow the evidence for making exegetical decisions, even if they must be against current scholarly consensus. They interpret ἀγαλλιᾶσθε in 1 Pet 1:6, 8 as a present indicative in form that functions as a future indicative (1:377–85, 407–9). Regarding the interpretive cruxes in 1 Pet 3:18–4:6, Williams and Horrell make a monograph-length case that Jesus preached the gospel to dead people sometime between His death and His ascension to the right hand of God (2:185–357, esp. 235–41, 344–55). They defend the majority position that Διὰ Σιλουανοῦ … ἔγραψα (1 Pet 5:12) portrays Silvanus as the letter’s courier, not the author’s amanuensis (2:612–26), in part against Craig Keener’s counter-arguments in his 2021 commentary (2:619 n. 47). Though no one will agree with Williams and Horrell’s exegesis of 1 Peter at every point, their exegesis is robust and will require thorough counterarguments to overturn.

Though this commentary is overall coherent and comprehensive, it is nevertheless imperfect, like any other publication. The many years over which this commentary was written and its collaborative nature are occasionally, unfortunately apparent. Williams and Horrell initially interpret τίνα in 1 Pet 1:11 “as a substantival interrogative pronoun (‘what person’)” (1:420). However, they later interpret τίνα as “function[ing] like an attributive adjective modifying καιρόν” (1:427). Williams and Horrell acknowledge, “This stands in contrast to a previous publication in which the ‘two-question’ hypothesis was espoused,” but they now “conclude that … the ‘time-only’ view appears to have slightly more to commend it” (1:427 n. 375). More than in a previous publication, though, Williams and Horrell endorse the “two-question” view merely seven pages before rejecting it! They are also inconsistent in their interpretation of the noun πρόγνωσις in 1 Pet 1:2 and its cognate verb, προγινώσκω, in 1:20. The topic—whether in nominal or verbal form—is God’s foreknowledge. Williams and Horrell conclude that God’s foreknowledge implies foreordination in 1:2 (1:320–21) but that it does not in 1:20 (1:523–25).

Certain critical aspects of this commentary will be more concerning to conservative evangelical scholars. Williams and Horrell deny that their rejection of the apostolic authorship of 1 Peter is based on a predisposition toward pseudonymity (1:162 n. 571). However, their discussion of the date of 1 Peter before the letter’s authorship and their identification of 2 Thessalonians as another “likely … pseudepigraphon”—an increasingly uncommon claim among even some critical Pauline scholars—suggest otherwise (1:177). They also stand over (rather than under) the biblical text at various points in 1 Peter, especially in their comments on 1 Pet 3:1–7 (2:64–65, 75, 77) and on 1 Pet 5:1–5 (2:553). As noted above, Williams and Horrell exhibit a willingness to go against modern scholarship at some points, but when discussing hierarchical relationships, they adopt the spirit of the age and consider it impossible that certain hierarchies may be divinely ordained or even good for people cross-culturally. Finally, the authors caution readers not to find teaching regarding God’s final judgment of unrepentant sinners from within 1 Peter (2:115, 357, 493).

Despite these rare inconsistencies in interpretation and a critical perspective that produces some objectionable conclusions, Williams and Horrell have done all Primopetrine scholars a great service by writing this two-volume commentary on 1 Peter. It is most comprehensive and will set the standard for scholarly study in 1 Peter for years to come. Every library of theological higher education should procure it for students’ and faculties’ use. New Testament scholars, as able, should also prioritize purchasing this treasure trove of scholarship. The high price of each volume unfortunately makes this work inaccessible to most pastors, but if paperback or electronic versions are released, even pastors should avail themselves of this resource for the way its authors mine the original meaning of 1 Peter. Understandably lacking indices, this commentary would be even more useful in Bible software format, for scholars and pastors alike.