“Confessing God from a Good Conscience”: 1 Peter 3:21 and Early Christian Baptismal Theology Matthew R. Crawford Durham University/Australian Catholic University Abstract: 1 Peter 3:21 has been called “the nearest approach to a definition of baptism that the NT af- fords,” yet the key phrase συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν is notoriously ambiguous and thus open to divergent interpretations. This article considers under-utilized comparative material from the early Christian tradition to shed light on the passage. Five sources are investi- gated: the early baptismal catechesis known as the Two Ways tradition; the interpretations of the verse put forward by Basil of Caesarea, ps-Didymus the Blind, and Cyril of Alexandria; and finally the translation of the verse in the Syriac Peshitta version. Several of these texts associate the ἐπερώτημα of 1 Peter with the ὁμολογία of the baptizand, a conjunction of terms that, as has long been noted, also occurs in legal contracts in the papyri. Moreover, the evidence of these early sources supports a subjective reading of the genitive in the Petrine verse, and also demonstrates some diversity with respect to the content of the “pledge,” with some authors highlighting moral commitment and others emphasizing correct belief. Hence, the view of baptism as a formal contract with subsequent binding force on the parties involved remains constant from 1 Peter through these later sources, and represents 1 Peter’s contribution to early Christian baptismal theology. 1 Throughout the early and mid-twentieth century, it was widely held that the letter of 1 Peter began its existence as a baptismal homily, or perhaps liturgy, to which an epistolary frame was later added to produce the form in which the text now survives in the New Testa- ment canon. 2 This theory has now apparently been abandoned, finding no support in recent 1. A previous version of this article was presented at the Muted Voices Conference at Durham Universi- ty in April 2015. I am grateful for the comments I received on that occasion, as well as for the in- sightful criticisms and suggestions offered by the anonymous reviewer for JTS. 2. This thesis was first suggested by Richard Perdelwitz, Mysterienreligion und das Problem des 1. Petrusbriefes (Religionsversuche und Vorarbeiten 11/3; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911). Throughout the twentieth century it was accepted, with occasional variations, by, among others, Oscar S. Brooks, “1 Peter 3:21 — The Clue to the Literary Structure of the Epistle,” NovT 16 (1974), 305; W.C. van Unnik, “Christianity according to 1 Peter,” ExpT 68 (1956/57): 79; Francis Wright Beare, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes (3rd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1970), 6, 25-26; C.E.B. Cran- field, I and II Peter and Jude: Introduction and Commentary (Torch Bible Commentaries; London: SCM, 1960), 13; Hans Windisch, Die Katholischen Briefe (3rd ed.; rev. Herbert Preisker; HNT; Tübingen: Mohr, 1951); F.L. Cross, 1 Peter: A Paschal Liturgy (London: Mowbray, 1954); W. Bornemann, “Der erste ***FINAL VERSION*** (1 June 2015) forthcoming in the Journal of Theological Studies - 1 -