hatsoff

If true, that would be basically unhelpful. What I'm wondering is if the author, be him Peter or anyone else, actually knew Jesus personally. If it is established that Simon Peter did write it, however, that would be a strong indicator of eyewitness testimony, though admittedly off-topic. I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure, though.

What surprises me is how often we dismiss the testimony of early Church fathers (Paul, Clement, Papias, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, etc.) It seems like 1 Peter was never questioned as inauthentic. Does that evidence weigh so little as to be overcome by stylistic issues?

I have a long way to go with this. Thanks to everyone for their input!

Ben C Smith

The Muratorian canon counts against it; we will probably never know why exactly 1 Peter did not make it into that list, but that it is missing is indeed a strike against it. Not necessarily a fatal strike, but a strike nonetheless.

Ben.

hatsoff

Well, I was thinking about that, and I'm not sure it means much of anything. You're right, it is a strike against it, but it's almost not worth mentioning. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure why the Muratorian Canon is so popular, considering its piss-poor translation, missing content and unreliable dating. Even if the Muratorian canon was actually from the second century, representative of a large-scale consensus and not missing anything but the first couple of lines, then it seems more likely that the author was simply unaware of 1 Peter rather than opposed to it.

Then again, you never know, do you?

Johnny Skeptic

Right, while you dabble in useless trivia [the authorship of 1 Peter] that does not make any difference whatsoever in the world in which we live. You seem unaware that the Bible is a dangerous book, and that the Christian far right attempts to use the Bible to legislate religion, or you don't really care. You are one strange skeptic, that is, if you really are a skeptic, which I doubt. You frequently take issue with skeptics, but never with Christians. If your viewer profile did not specify your supposed world view, which you say is agnostic aka atheist, from your posts now and months ago I would have assumed that you were a Christian. If I were a Christian, I would consider your posts to be an asset to Christianity and a hindrance to skepticism. If you reasonably show that 1 Peter was probably written by Peter, which seems to be your goal, that would not provide any benefit to skepticism, but it would provide a benefit to Christians. However, that benefit would be very small since Christians are not in the least bit deterred that many books in the Bible were written anonymously.

Since you are so interested in Bible trivia, why don't you start threads on the books of 1 Kings and 2 Kings, Numbers, Ecclesiates, and Esther? Or, you could try to start a TV show on Bible trivia. Or, you could spend your time debating issues that make a difference in the world.

May I ask what your agenda are at this forum? My question is fair and reasonable, but I do not expect you to answer it.

Ben C Smith

I will not regard the Muratorian canon as popular until I see teenagers flashing it around it on their T-shirts.

It is what lies behind the translation that counts, and even the worst translation should not have removed 1 Peter entirely.

The missing content almost certainly did not name 1 Peter.

It regards the Shepherd of Hermas as recently written. That, to me, means century II.

The author of the Muratorian canon was familiar with the Roman church; it is hard to imagine how he could have been unfamiliar with 1 Peter.

But, as you say, you never know.

Ben.

Doug Shaver

Actually, that is what I think is most probable. I've come to believe that even if there was a historical Jesus, the gospels don't give us a shred of reliable information about him or any disciples he might have had.

hatsoff

I don't consider the history of the prevailing religion of Western culture to be useless.

That's exactly the sort of misinformation I despise.

The far left wants legislation just as wacky as the right. The Bible is not the cause of their idiocy, but merely the object of it.

This isn't a team sport. I'm not permanently aligned to one camp or the other. I'm after the truth, which you seem to hold in low regard.

Like I said, I'm after the truth. According to the evidence, it seems at least somewhat plausible Peter wrote 1 Peter. Scholars disagree, and since they tend to know better than myself, I'd like to figure out what I'm missing--or if by some small chance I happen to be correct.

I do believe you use that word much too casually. Better terms would be "pseudepigraphical" or "disputed."

It's very nice that you mock any curiosity about history, and liken a serious subject to mere "trivia." But, then, I don't expect much better of you.

I'm more concerned about New Testament-era history. Some day I'm sure I'll tackle early Jewish writings, but that time is not now.

What on earth are you babbling about? How does message board debating make any "difference in the world," regardless of the subject? Are politicians reading over our comments looking for deep insights? I'm here for my own amusement. I imagine you are, too--the difference is that I can have fun here without spamming up other folks' threads or willfully handing out false information.

I don't always answer your questions <edit>because they're often so ridiculously off-topic. However, like I said, I'm here for the entertainment, to satisfy my curiosity about New Testament history.

hatsoff

Hmm. Well, maybe it's more of a strike than I have supposed. I do have one question, though: How do we know the author of the Muratorian canon was familiar with 1 Peter? I was under the impression the author is completely unknown to us.

gstafleu

I'm not sure if "inauthentic" is the word here. If 1 Pet was indeed written by someone from the Jerusalem church then it probably accurately reflects their thoughts. It may be that its author is a different Peter than many people assume, but that doesn't make the document inauthentic. It may in fact be among the more authentic of the NT documents. Nobody is trying to spin a story, put words into peoples' mouths etc.

Because it so clearly contradicts Paul (Gal e.g.) it is interesting to see that it still made the canon. Maybe that is why it was left out of Muratorian canon?

Ben C Smith

It claims to have been written from Babylon. Are you saying that Babylon is a code name for Jerusalem?

In what way?

Ben.