Talk:First Epistle of Peter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 Rome 2 "Apostle of hope" 3 Reference in 1 Clement (for dating 1 Peter) 4 "Is the Septuagint really an *inconceivable* source for the real Peter?" 5 Reorganization 6 Questions

[edit] Rome

"If Rome is its true origin, then that fact would strengthen the case that it was actually written by Peter, and if by Peter, then written around AD 60." There's no logic to this circular statement. I've removed it from the entry. The motivation for an early date is to link this letter with apostolic Peter. "If Roman, then of Peter. If Petrine then early. If early, then Petrine." The Shepherd of Hermas was also written in Rome. But it was not written by Peter. Wetman 18:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Apostle of hope"

" Peter has been called "the apostle of hope," because this epistle abounds with words of comfort and encouragement fitted to sustain a "lively hope." " This lovely thought, though appreciative and pious, conveys no useful information about this text, not even who called Peter the "apostle of hope," a connection based apparently on a conviction that Peter was the actual author of this text. If "hope" is indeed a theme of this text, the entry should develop its thematic uses. Perhaps the implications of Early Christian church organization might be apropos here too: this is also a political document, is it not? There should also be a link to pseudepigraphy in this entry, as with all pseudepigraphical works. --Wetman 19:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reference in 1 Clement (for dating 1 Peter)

I think there should be reference made to 1 Clement, written around 100 AD, apparently quoting 1 Peter since that would be relevent to deciding the date. This quotation is in 1 Clement 49:5 and says "love covereth a multitude of sins" which matches 1 Peter 4:8. When I looked at the greek (see GreekBible.com) I think it matches exactly the Greek in the 1 Clement version (see Greek of 1 Clement, note: it works better if you make the font Symbol). I will add this information to the article if no one has a problem, though I would still like to find a better formatted version of the Greek for 1 Clement. --KyleT 19:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Is the Septuagint really an *inconceivable* source for the real Peter?"

This question was recently asked— rhetorically— in an edit summary. The "real" Peter was a fisherman of Galilee, speaking Aramaic. What are the chances he could read Aramaic, let alone read Greek? The Septuagint had recently been translated into Greek for the Greek-speaking, culturally assimilated Hellenized Jews of Alexandria, who were increasingly unable to read scripture in Hebrew. Yes, Virginia, the Septuagint really is an *inconceivable* source for the "real" Peter to be quoting. --Wetman 22:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No, strictly speaking, based on the evidence cited, it would be *improbable*, not *inconceivable*. (Although perhaps it would be inconceivable for the Sicilian). The evidence cited is poor and poorly cited, BTW. (1) At the point of the writing of 1 Peter, it is possible that the LXX had been extant in some form for three centuries, not "recently translated." (2) A large number of more or less direct NT citations of the OT appear to be LXX citations, (340 of 386, categories A-E of Archer and Chirichigno's "OT Quotations in the NT"). Instances of citation from the LXX are true of less "Hellenized" authors such as Matthew (not Hellenized in terms of Jewish orientation in content), Mark (in terms of language), and John (language and content). All of this to say that you can't assume from LXX quotations alone that an author is a Hellenized Jew.

I think it would be fair to say the following: Many critical commentators think it quite unlikely that 1 Peter was written by a Galilean fisherman. The major reasons for this are (1) the relatively high quality of Koine evident in the epistle (2) apparent traces of rhetorical training evident in the letter (3) consistent quotation from the LXX. This hinges on rejecting the conjectured possibilities that (1) a Galilean fisherman could have gained considerable learning at some point in his life or (2) that cooperation with Sylvanus could have had a significant influence on the composition of the letter. Both are conjectures (although the second is based on internal evidence). Arguments for and against both conjectures are in the realm of conjecture. In my opinion, however, the existence and nature of the conjectures means that under a rationally defensible definition of inconceivable, it is not inconceivable that the LXX is a source for the real Peter. That puts us in the realm of the probable or improbable, where other presuppositions are going to color one's decisions.

--21:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)dkwright

Inconceivable for the "historical" Peter, a "fisherman of Galilee"— in spite of his unlikely name. The switch to the author of 1 Peter wasn't performed subtly enough to confuse any of us who are paying attention. Of course these texts, in the form they reach us, are thoroughly Hellenized. Everyone knows that. --Wetman 22:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim about Hellenization is out of step with current scholarship (critical, liberal, conservative, you name it) on the 2nd Temple Jewish background of the NT, which has restored a sense of how deeply Jewish so much of the NT is in content and expression. There has been long and steady correction away from the notion of thorough Hellenization. In NT studies, there is now a much greater diversity of opinion on this across a wide spectrum of scholars. In fact, I think it would be fair to say that Hellenization in this sense is fairly "out", whether at Tuebingen or an evangelical seminary. Most assuredly, everyone no longer "knows that" (regardless of their other presuppositions).

I don't know what you are referring to with the posited subtle "switch to the author of 1 Peter." I am not trying to be subtle at all, or fool anyone. Surely, the specific argument about Peter and LXX is ultimately in the context of the overall argument about the authorship of 1 Peter, i.e. was it written by the historical Peter, a Galilean fisherman? "Yes" is the typical answer from the POV of Christian tradition. "No" is the typical answer from the POV of critical scholarship. Within that context, one of the many sub-arguments is "could a Galilean fisherman even know or be able to read the LXX?"

My intent was not to fool anyone, but to tweak you on your thinly argued blusteriness concerning this. I, too, have a distinct POV (very much traditionally Christian), which I have no desire to conceal. Yet, I appreciate informed and careful use of evidence, on any side of the issues. I am at this moment reading a highly respected commentary on 1 Peter by Paul Achtemeier. He argues for the pseudonymity of 1 Peter; he does so based on argument and evidence. I don't agree with his conclusions, but I respect his scholarly approach. (I tried to summarize three main strands of evidence above). I don't think your *inconceivable* and *Yes, Virginia* and *Everyone knows that* exhibit similar care. --dkwright 23:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

After reading this article I felt as thorough it deserved a rather through overhaul. There were many fragments of useful information, but the arrangement of this information was frenetic at best. There was a certain lack of scholarship, particularly the dreaded “most scholars say X” without argumentative support or textual citations. However, I did not take it upon myself to omit any of the information found. Indeed I bolstered many of those arguments. Instead I simply arranged the existing material in a more sensible form and then added more information. Hopefully the new structure will encourage further contributions.

There is one exception in that I omitted the following line, partially because it was covered already, partially because I simply could not work it in smoothly, and partially because I thought it was silly. I encourage anyone to reintroduce it to the article, and I give it here in full to facilitate that.

”There is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, i.e. circa 90-96 AD," say the editors of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, who conclude, however, that Babylon on the Euphrates was intended.

Some areas that the article is lacking, and could use as a nice addition would be a nice textual explanation of the various themes of the work, or at the least a summary of the material contained. I am not well equipped for this task. Also the article could use a section in which various interpretations of the assertions of the epistle are discussed. Again, I’m not the proper source for this job. Lostcaesar 03:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

The article reads: “there was little debate about Peter’s authorship until the advent of biblical criticism in the 18th century.” Was there little debate, or no debate? I left the statement as is, but I would like to see a refrence to some debate in antiquity if the article is going to read as such.

Is the use of “c.f.” inappropriate, if so I will cease to use it?

The article reads: “Modern scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, actually wrote the epistle…” To my knowledge there is no concensus among modern scholars. I changed the article to read “Some modern scholars…” – a minor change and on I think better represents the field of work. I am not entierly comfortable with the highly ambiguous “some”, but I am not sure what else to do here. There certainly are main stream scholars who think Peter was the author of this letter.

There is one final issue of some sensitivity. The article has the following passage: “These concepts eventually gave rise to the Christian myth of the "Harrowing of Hell", which flowered in elaborated anecdotal medieval imagery.” I do not object to its inclusion, but the cause for sensitivity is that the Harrowing of Hell is doctrine for most Christians, and so such phrasing might be better reviewed. There certainly was medieval legend which grew from this doctrine, and so I welcome the passage, but perhaps a bit more subtlety is in order. I attempted an amendment, please review.

Lostcaesar 04:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem writing about scholarly views in articles such as these. There is a large group of biblical scholars who teach at public universities around the US and UK and Germany (and probably other countries). They teach classes on the bible, and bible as literature, and biblical criticism, and history etc. And they generally agree on some of the bigger issues. On the other hand, there is a group of scholars who teach at Christian universities and they would probably be considered "conservative" and they tend to agree on a number of major points as well, only there is a difference between what the "liberal" scholars and what the "conservative" scholars agree on. Both are clearly valid POV, and we need to present both sides with out giving either undue weight. This tends to run into some problems with weasel words. And how do we define these two positions. Whatever the solution may be, I feel we should use it consistently throughout the articles on the books of the bible. I do not want to force a particular view on this article if it isn't appropriate, or doesn't meet concensus, but I feel we should mirror the format found in the 4 canonical gospel articles because they seem to be the best NT book articles.

"c.f." isn't inappropriate (though I had to pull out a dictionary on that one), I just made a minor edit that I thought read a little better. It isn't a big deal, and if the other way is superior, I won't complain about it being changed back.

As for the debate about authenticity, the only thing I found was the argument from silence regarding the Muratorian Canon. I'll keep digging for more info, but maybe my edits were a little premature. And as for the 'Harrowing of Hell' edits seem fine to me. Good work! --Andrew c 16:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think “weasel words” are even more problematic on religious topics. It is possible that a person’s scholarly opinion will be swayed based on his religious or non-religious predisposition, entailing bias. It is also possible that someone’s religious / non-religious disposition may be formed based on scholarship. In other words, whether the person believes something is true because he has X disposition, or has X disposition because he believes something is true will result in the same result: a scholarly opinion. Ergo, scholars divide into secular and religious (liberal / conservative) camps, and to assume that a neutral POV is something besides one of these two camps is perhaps mistaken. A neutral analysis might well entail belief / non-belief. Whatever the case, I have no solution.Lostcaesar 20:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason to assume that most religious scholars, or even most conservative scholars (excluding apologists, professors at "bible colleges," etc.) accept Petrine authorship? I think Andrew c's categorization of a distinction between scholars at secular universities and scholars at religious universities is problematic. The largest set of religiously affiliated universities in the United States is that of Catholic universities. Catholic scholars, as far as I'm aware, tend to agree with the more liberal/secular scholars about most issues of authorship and such like, as far as I'm aware. I'm less familiar with scholars at protestant institutions, but I'm not sure it's that different. I'm very leary of saying there's scholarly disagreement, when really there's just apologists disagreeing with the scholarly consensus. john k 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, John, but in this case there really is scholarly disagreement. There are historical reasons to accept Petrine authorship of this letter. For example, this letter (unlike 2 Peter) is quoted in very ancient texts like the Didache and the wirtings of Justin Martyr. That's why "liberal" scholars can't get away with dating it any later than 70-90A.D. Lostcaesar 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize if my categorization was inaccurate to you. When I said "Christian Universities", I was refering to the unaccredited type (you know, the ones that teach creationism). I think your summary is more accurate, however, you have belittled a POV. Just because it is motivated by religious belief, and is clearly biased, does not mean we shouldn't mention it in this article. In fact, we should mention all relavent POV, as long as undue weight is not given to a minority position. The issue then goes: if someone is an apologist, does that exclude them from being a "scholar"? We always have to keep this stuff in mind when writing about these issues. All that said, are there any specific issues in this article, and how can they be cleared up?--Andrew c 21:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think when somebody is explicitly simply trying to find rationales to justify an answer that they already know before they've begun working, they are, in fact, not a scholar. We should certainly discuss the traditional vies of the origina of books of the Bible, or whatever, which these people hold. But we shouldn't pretend that what they are engaging in is comparable to actual scholarship. As to Lostcaesar's comments - the Gospel of John is from around that time, and very few people think John actually wrote it. john k 10:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)