Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 06-14-2006, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gstafleu

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 usual interpretation is that it is the church. You are correct that the Greek word for church (or assembly) is feminine.

Quote:

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.

It was customary to send greetings from people who were with one at the time (see, for example, Colossians 4.14; Philippians 4.22; Romans 16.23); so, if the church in Babylon was with the author, then the author just about had to be in Babylon.

Quote:

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?

Those two instances of amen in 4.11 and 5.11 are not each the end of a letter; they are each the end of a doxology (to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever; to him be dominion forever and ever). Compare Galatians 1.5; Ephesians 3.21; Romans 1.25; 9.5; 11.36; 1 Timothy 1.17; Philippians 4.20; 2 Timothy 4.18; Hebrews 13.21.

Ben.

Gamera · 06-14-2006, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Probative of what? Could you expand on this? Thanks.

Ben.

Probative that it's not an authentic letter by Peter.

gstafleu · 06-14-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Those two instances of amen in 4.11 and 5.11 are not each the end of a letter; they are each the end of a doxology (to whom belongs the glory and dominion forever and ever; to him be dominion forever and ever). Compare Galatians 1.5; Ephesians 3.21; Romans 1.25; 9.5; 11.36; 1 Timothy 1.17; Philippians 4.20; 2 Timothy 4.18; Hebrews 13.21.

Ben.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation.

Ben C Smith · 06-14-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Probative that it's not an authentic letter by Peter.

So you take 1 Peter to be pseudonymous? Based on the lack of early attestation? Are you the same Gamera who took the pastorals to be authentic? 1 Peter is attested before they are. For 1 Peter we have Papias (according to Eusebius). For the pastorals we have nothing solid until Irenaeus, I think. (For both 1 Peter and the pastorals we have parallels in Polycarp, but as he does not attribute those parallels to a source it is hard to tell whether he was copying from the epistles or the epistles from him.) 1 Peter is missing from the Muratorian canon, but the pastorals are missing from Marcion and an early collection of Paul (though the latter may have omitted personal letters).

Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.