hatsoff

D.A. Carson, Douglas Moo, Arthur Patzia, Wayne Grudem and Paul Achtemeier all seem to agree that Peter wrote 1 Peter. Those are just a few names I gathered in a simple Google search. I'm sure there are many, many more.

S.C.Carlson

Where did Achtemeier come out in favor of Petrine authorship of 1 Peter? According to Raymond Brown's introduction, p. 719, n. 35, "Achtemeier, 1 Peter 43, opts for I Pet as a pseudonymous letter drawing on traditions associated with Simon Peter."

Stephen Carlson

hatsoff

Quite right. My mistake.

Roger Pearse

I'm afraid that I always find the certainty with which these things are said somewhat baffling. Do we apply the same argument to non-NT texts? A similar argument would probably render most ancient texts "anonymous".

I'm afraid that I simply cannot see how texts which have names attached in the manuscripts and are invariably referred to by ancient authors under the names of those authors can sensibly be described as of unknown authorship. (This isn't an attack on you, since I know you are repeating the opinion of others unspecified, here).

Pardon me if I am dense, but I do not see this.

Is referring to the data preserved in the historical record as 'traditions' a very good way to describe them? Does it not rather mislead and demean them before we start? Each statement by each author needs to be evaluated separately, and weighed separately.

I don't know of any good reason to ignore the actual information that has come down from antiquity, in this matter as any other.

A lot of this sort of argument also silently relies on the presumption that no-one in antiquity had any information other than that which has reached us. Given the loss of 99% of all ancient literature -- never mind oral communication such as John->Polycarp->Irenaeus and a-lot-of-people-who-knew-Polycarp -- isn't this presumption very unlikely, and arguments based on it likewise?

I read your list of reasons, but I am afraid that such logic seems very subjective to me. I can think of few statements from antiquity or indeed today that could not be dissected in order to ignore it in such a manner. Data first, and inferences from it or speculations about it come a long way second, in my view.

I saw also in your post some claims that almost no NT scholar would disagree with the claim of anonymity. I wouldn't know whether this is so, but I wouldn't regard it as much of an argument, when we are discussing things such as religion and politics on which every man has an opinion, including academics; and on the other hand, where the data is available to all. Surely we should argue from data, not from some supposed medieval-like authority?

Pardon me: I have no solid additional information to offer here, so I won't continue with the thread. I merely wanted to point out that the emperor being praised here seems to have no clothes.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

John Kesler

When Paul gives his list of various people to whom Jesus "appeared" (1 Corinthians 15:5-8), does Paul mean that the "appearance" that Jesus made to him was of the same nature as that which Cephas, James, etc. received, or do you think that Paul thought that a bodily Jesus appeared to some, while Paul got a vision?

S.C.Carlson

I'm not sure Paul really knew (or cared) what the exact nature of the appearances to the others were. Rather, Paul meant that his visionary experience is somehow on par with what the others experienced. That Paul's claim was accepted suggests that at least some of the other sightings of the risen Christ could well be visions too. In other words, Paul's contemporaries apparently did not view as significant the distinction that DtC finds important between a visionary and "physical" appearance. Such distinction, however, became more important by the time Luke and John were written (with the eating a fish, touching the wounds, etc.), and even those later evangelists did not claim that all sightings of the risen Christ involved a "physical" body.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

1 Corinthians 9.1 (have I not seen the Lord?) keeps me from regarding what Paul experienced as audition only, no vision.

Ben.

John Kesler

Do you subscribe to the theory that what Paul and Peter (Luke 24:34) experienced was a vision, and that as the story was told later, Jesus' appearances were "physical" in nature? If so, do you think that the empty tomb story was added later? If not, what effected the stories of seeing the risen Jesus, especially since resurrection was an event not expected until the end of the age?

Ben C Smith

I do not subscribe to any particular theory of the appearances as yet; still thinking it all through. However, I admit I am indeed attracted to the notion that what Cephas, James, and the rest experienced were mystic visions, and those experiences accumulated physical details in the retelling.

But what gives me pause is that I do not think we can rule out physical sensation in a vision; it is possible, then, that many of those physical details were there from the beginning.

Again, my answer must be tentative pending further investigation. Right now I tend to think there was an empty tomb. Part of my reason for thinking this is a sort of reverse parsimony. Grant the visions and an empty tomb (even if the two are not really related), and the next 300 years of Christianity stand explained.

But I will require more than that, of course, to accept it fully as a theory.

That is another thing the combination of vision and empty tomb would explain. Visions by themselves might be mere apparitions, having nothing to do with a bodily resurrection. An empty tomb by itself might be theft, having nothing to do with a bodily resurrection. But combine the two and even we moderns might start thinking about bodily resurrection.

Ben.

Amaleq13

If they arise from a similar context of forged and pseudonymous texts focusing on the same general subject, it would seem foolish not to do so.