Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hatsoff · 06-08-2006, 03:05 PM

Hey, all.

I've been reading a bit on 1 Peter, and I can't seem to fully accept scholars' assertions that the Greek used is too formal/fluent for a Palestinian Jew. Certainly, the lack of citation by Irenaeus seems damning, but does that really preclude Petrine authorship? After all, the internal evidence shows it to be penned by Silas, who could have written the letter. No early authors condemn it as a forgery. Is it, therefore, so unlikely that it was not written by Peter via Silas?

Just wondering. Thanks in advance!

Toto · 06-08-2006, 03:19 PM

Peter Kirby's site has extensive cites on the issue, both pro and con: 1 Peter. It seems that the weight of evidence is against 1 Peter having been written by a Galilean fisherman or by someone who knew Jesus personally.

Silas is more associated with Paul than Peter. What do you think his connection to Peter was?

hatsoff · 06-08-2006, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Peter Kirby's site has extensive cites on the issue, both pro and con: 1 Peter. It seems that the weight of evidence is against 1 Peter having been written by a Galilean fisherman or by someone who knew Jesus personally.

Silas is more associated with Paul than Peter. What do you think his connection to Peter was?

1 Peter 5:12 tells of the assistance of Silas (AKA Silvanus), so that connection is relatively straightforward. As for Peter Kirby, his quotations do not address said connection, unless I've missed something.

Toto · 06-08-2006, 03:58 PM

Silas is the Aramaic equivalent of the Latin Silvanus

Quote:

W. G. Kümmel writes: "Many scholars have sought to weaken both these arguments on the ground that 5:12 dia eigouanou umin. . . egraqa assumes that Silvanus is the real author to whom Peter gave the responsibility for the actual writing. Some think that they can prove that clearly common elements in language exist between I and II Thess, I Pet, and Acts 15:29, which indicates a common authorship by Silvanus. But these linguistic contacts are much too insignificant for much weight to be attached to them, and furthermore the distinction in style between I and II Thess and I Pet is important. No one has yet proved that grafw dia tinos can mean to authorize someone else to compose a piece of writing. Furthermore, if this were the case, then Peter would not be the real author of I Pet in any sense." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

Indeed, other occurences of the phrase in Acts 15:23, the letters of Ignatius (Rom. 10:1; Phil. 11:2; Smyr. 12:1; Pol. 8:1), the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 14:1, Martyrdom of Polycarp 20, and the subscripts at the end of letters by Paul (in the Byzantine text tradition) confirm that the Greek is used of the carrier of the letter. Wayne Grudem adds: "Moreover, the fact that Peter calls Silvanus a faithful brother as I regard him, argues strongly for Silvanus as the bearer (note Paul's similar commendation of the bearers of his lettersin 1 Cor. 16:10-11; Eph. 6:21-22; Col. 4:7-9; Tit. 3:12-13). And though Tertius mentions himself in Rom. 16:22, no New Testament author ever explicitly mentions or commends an amanuensis elsewhere." (1 Peter, p. 24)

. . .

Daniel Wallace also suggests Peter's use of an anonymous scribe, indeed a companion of Paul, nominating Luke as one candidate. While it may be impossible to disprove such an idea, Eric Eve writes: "One cannot save Petrine authorship by arguing that Peter employed a secretary. If one argues that this secretary was Silvanus, the travelling companion of Paul (e.g. Selwyn 1958) or an anonymous amanuensis of the Roman church (Michaels 1988) the letter then becomes the product not of Peter, but of the secretary, since it is the latter's language that the epistle exhibits (see Beare 1970)." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)

W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)

etc .

Ben C Smith · 06-08-2006, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Certainly, the lack of citation by Irenaeus seems damning, but does that really preclude Petrine authorship?

Irenaeus quotes from 1 Peter in Against Heresies 5.7.2:

And this it is which has been said also by Peter: Whom having not seen you love, in whom now also, though not seeing, you believe, and in believing you shall rejoice with joy unspeakable.

The quote is from 1 Peter 1.8. Were you perhaps thinking of the Muratorian Canon?

Quote:

1 Peter 5:12 tells of the assistance of Silas (AKA Silvanus), so that connection is relatively straightforward.

Yes, but that particular assistance was probably the delivery of the letter, not help writing the letter. The Greek is δια Σιλουανου υμιν... εγραψα (I have written to you through Silvanus), and this construction is generally used of the letterbearer, not the secretary. Peter Kirby quotes Kümmel as follows:

Indeed, other occurences of the phrase in Acts 15:23, the letters of Ignatius (Rom. 10:1; Phil. 11:2; Smyr. 12:1; Pol. 8:1), the letter of Polycarp to the Philippians 14:1, Martyrdom of Polycarp 20, and the subscripts at the end of letters by Paul (in the Byzantine text tradition) confirm that the Greek is used of the carrier of the letter.

I myself am undecided about the authenticity of 1 Peter. I agree that many of the arguments typically leveled against it are weak and inconclusive.

Ben.

ETA: I notice that my post crossed with that of Toto; you get two bits of Kümmel for the price of one.

Toto · 06-08-2006, 04:26 PM

Hi Ben - how do you account for the educated nature of the Greek if 1 Peter is authentic? Are you assuming that Peter graduated from fisherman to educated Hellenist, or that the bit about the fishing was just a metaphor? Why does he use the Septuagint?

Ben C Smith · 06-08-2006, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Hi Ben - how do you account for the educated nature of the Greek if 1 Peter is authentic? Are you assuming that Peter graduated from fisherman to educated Hellenist, or that the bit about the fishing was just a metaphor? Why does he use the Septuagint?

Since the entire question is still open for me, I do not have to account for it... yet.

Nevertheless, if the undereducated Galilean fisherman Peter were to sit down to write to a Greek audience, I think it almost goes without saying that he would solicit help from native speakers of Greek. We do not have to prove that Silvanus or any other particular individual helped Peter; the probability of some kind of assistance is so high a priori (in my humble judgment) that it scarcely needs specific support.

In neutralizing this possible counterpoint, however, I am vividly aware that nothing in the Greek actively supports the contention that a Galilean fisherman wrote this epistle. And for the purposes of authentication I would be seeking positive support, not the mere neutralization of counterarguments.

Ben.

hatsoff · 06-08-2006, 08:20 PM

Wow. That answered my question almost perfectly, a rare treat for message boards. Even so, I have a bit more curiosity: Ben, are your views consistent with modern scholarship, to your knowledge, or are you in the minority? Peter Kirby quotes several scholars who are almost unanimously against Petrine authorship. Like I said to begin, those arguments all seem suspect, yet the agreement of those who know better than I seems to be against Peter. Does Peter Kirby quote a biased sample of scholarly opinion, or are you in the minority for remaining undecided?

RUmike · 06-08-2006, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Does Peter Kirby quote a biased sample of scholarly opinion, or are you in the minority for remaining undecided?

On ECW, Raymond Brown is cited as writing:

Quote:

All this tilts the scales in favor of 70-90, which now seems to be the majority scholarly view." (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 721-722)

pharoah · 06-08-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RUmike

On ECW, Raymond Brown is cited as writing:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raymond Brown

All this tilts the scales in favor of 70-90, which now seems to be the majority scholarly view." (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 721-722)

I assume that scholars believe those dates also make Petrine authorship unlikely? Do you happen to know Brown's arguments for that date range?

06-08-2006, 03:05 PM	#1
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Help with 1 Peter Hey, all. I've been reading a bit on 1 Peter, and I can't seem to fully accept scholars' assertions that the Greek used is too formal/fluent for a Palestinian Jew. Certainly, the lack of citation by Irenaeus seems damning, but does that really preclude Petrine authorship? After all, the internal evidence shows it to be penned by Silas, who could have written the letter. No early authors condemn it as a forgery. Is it, therefore, so unlikely that it was not written by Peter via Silas? Just wondering. Thanks in advance!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-08-2006, 03:19 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Peter Kirby's site has extensive cites on the issue, both pro and con: 1 Peter. It seems that the weight of evidence is against 1 Peter having been written by a Galilean fisherman or by someone who knew Jesus personally. Silas is more associated with Paul than Peter. What do you think his connection to Peter was?

06-08-2006, 04:26 PM	#6
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Hi Ben - how do you account for the educated nature of the Greek if 1 Peter is authentic? Are you assuming that Peter graduated from fisherman to educated Hellenist, or that the bit about the fishing was just a metaphor? Why does he use the Septuagint?

06-08-2006, 08:20 PM	#8
hatsoff Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Rockford, IL Posts: 740	Wow. That answered my question almost perfectly, a rare treat for message boards. Even so, I have a bit more curiosity: Ben, are your views consistent with modern scholarship, to your knowledge, or are you in the minority? Peter Kirby quotes several scholars who are almost unanimously against Petrine authorship. Like I said to begin, those arguments all seem suspect, yet the agreement of those who know better than I seems to be against Peter. Does Peter Kirby quote a biased sample of scholarly opinion, or are you in the minority for remaining undecided?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.