Ben C Smith

Conjectures have been made, none of them conclusive. The author is anonymous (to us, at any rate).

I am not saying that he had to be familiar with 1 Peter. I am saying that it would be quite odd if he was not. 1 Peter was known quite early (Papias, probably Polycarp) and in a wide geographic area (Papias and Polycarp in Asia, Clement in Alexandria, Tertullian in Africa, Irenaeus in Rome and Lyons). The author of the Muratorian canon, as I pointed out, clearly has some connection with the church at Rome. Especially if Babylon is supposed to be a codename for Rome in 1 Peter, it would be weird if he was unaware of the epistle.

Ben.

gstafleu

Ah codenames, maybe I should read some Thiering. But no:
Notice go to. Paul's mission took him to all kinds of places, so the mission to the Jews could have taken Peter to all kinds of places as well, including Babylon.

1 Pet clearly tells its audience to stop mingling with the Gentiles:
These pagans are of course the εθνων or Gentiles.

Galatians 2 however:
I think we see in 1 Pet a work of the group, these "certain men," that Paul had a, let us say, difference of opinion with. Elsewhere he refers to them as the "circumcision faction" or "circumcisionaries," or words to that effect.

The contradiction is with respect to the applicability of Mosaic law. Paul said it, at least the purity laws, no longer aplied. I would suggest that the Author of 1 Peter says it still does apply. At least "debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry" sounds to me like a reference to the Law and the breaking thereof.

Ben C Smith

Of course we agree that Peter was based (at least for a while) in Jerusalem, and of course we agree that he could have visited other places. I thought you were saying that the epistle was written in Jerusalem.

1 Peter 4.3-4 does not tell readers to stop mingling with gentiles; it tells them to stop acting like gentiles (emphasis mine):

3 For you have spent enough time in the past doing what gentiles choose to do, living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. 4 They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.

Paul, too, stereotypes gentiles as perennial sinners in 1 Corinthian 5.1:

1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you of such a kind as does not exist even among the gentiles, that someone has his stepmother.

Paul, too, has catalogues of various kinds of immorality. See Romans 13.13; 1 Corinthians 5.11; 6.9; Galatians 5.19-21.

Ben.

gstafleu

True enough, but this nevertheless indicates that is audience was the Jewish faction, not the Gentiles. This is also shown by the opening, where he addresses "To the pilgrims of the Dispersion (διασπορας)".

But I admit that the author says nothing about the law, except indirectly through that list of living in debauchery etc. I read that into the text given Paul's carrying on against the circumcision faction. It could still be that the author of 1 Pet belongs to that faction, but the text doesn't say so one way or another.

EthnAlln

That seems eminently reasonable. Since Peter was said in Acts to be illiterate, he would have dictated the letter to someone who could both translate it into Greek (if Peter didn't speak Greek---possibly he and Jesus both did) and correct his style. But, as you apparently do, I also think the evidence that it actually was written by Peter is about nil. The best one could say is that Peter's authorship is not actually ruled out.

Ben C Smith

Yes, I agree that the purported readership was Jewish. I did not know that point was in dispute. Again, I originally thought you were saying the epistle was written from Jerusalem. It appears that all you are saying is that someone wrote it with the Jerusalem faction in mind, and I can agree with that.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

Later today I will try to find time to lay out what I consider the most damaging evidence against Petrine authorship.

Ben.

gstafleu

I think I mentioned it because the following ideas were playing in my mind:

1) The Jerusalem Church (under James the Just) was (one of) the earliest faction(s) of Christianity. I mostly got that from Eisenman and Price, I think.
2) The Jerusalem Church knew nothing about the Gospel Jesus (Doherty).
3) So if you show that 1 Pet was written by someone from the Jerusalem Church, then you have shown it was written by someone who knew nothing about the Peter from the Gospels, and a forteriori by someone who wasn't that Peter.
4) The Jerusalem Church was the most prominent Jewish Christian faction. Not sure where I got that, or even if it is true. Perhaps there were other Jewish factions of which the author could have been a member?

Ben C Smith

I would agree.

I would disagree (not with Doherty particularly, since I have not read him, but with the statement).

This depends on number 2, of course.

I would agree with this up to the fall of Jerusalem, after which, I believe, Rome (gradually?) took primacy.

Now for what I think is the stickiest evidence against the authenticity of 1 Peter. 1 Peter 5.13 claims that the letter was written from Babylon. The church fathers (unanimously?) interpreted Babylon as Rome, and for good reason. Babylon is certainly a codename for Rome in various Jewish and Christian texts.

But now consider why Rome would be called Babylon. Is it not because Rome, like Babylon, conquered Jerusalem and dispersed its inhabitants? If so, then calling Rome Babylon would indicate a date later than 70. Patristic tradition has Peter dying under Nero, before 70, so, if Babylon means Rome by way of paralleling the two falls of the holy city, then Peter could not have written 1 Peter.

This argument, of course, will not work for those who reject the patristic tradition that Peter died under Nero, since in that case Peter could have lived past 70.

There are several ways out of the argument, including:

1. Babylon is literal, not a codename for Rome; Peter really visited one of the cities called Babylon and wrote the epistle there.

2. Babylon is a codename for Jerusalem, not Rome (this position was more popular a hundred years ago than it is now).

3. Rome was called Babylon even before the fall of Jerusalem in 70, based not on the events of 70 but rather on the Neronian persecution of the church.

Just because we can get out of the argument, however, does not mean we should get out of it. As I said before, I am still undecided on the authenticity of 1 Peter.

Ben.

gstafleu

Ben,
interesting post about Babylon. I have a few questions.

First, you say the letter claims the be written from Babylon. However the text is "She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings,..." Who is this she? Probably not Peter. His wife? Or the Ecclesia (I think that is fem or is it plural neut?) The Ecclesia certainly makes sense to be in a symbolic Babylon (and hence not yet out of Egypt ) after 70. But then there was a diaspora already during Paul's time, and isn't he usually placed ~50? Anyway, it might be that the author is sending greetings in the name of some entity that is symbolically in Babylon, while he himself is not.

Second, what do you make of the three endings of 1 Pet? There are two amens (4:11 and 5:11), followed by the final ending. Or am I making to much of the fact that amen is often used as ending?