1) Anonymous author for Saint Peter? 2) Continuing a few arguments 3) Responding to Criticism
... from previous post.
- The style of writing and the philosophy exposed is considered by many to be too advanced for a Galilean fisherman. I will acknowledge he could have used a secretary, and his philosophy could have developed over decades in the church.
- And the three years or so with Our Lord Jesus Christ, who created the universe and who is the Wisdom of the Father?
That teaching him philosophy?
It's like saying that having an excellent fishing boat and an excellent net and setting out in excellent weather on an excellent fishing water can land you with a good catch. Totally mythical, of course!
- More significant is that he uses the Septuagint as a source for Old Testament quotes, which certainly is bizarre for a Hebrew-speaking Jew.
- Since he wrote the letter he can not have been a monoglot.
If the Christian Church later rather systematically accepted LXX for at least a Greek speaking reference, what is so curious with arguing the Apostles themselves did so from start and did so because Christ had told them to?
- In 1 Peter 5:1, the author refers to himself as an elder, a position that appeared later in the church, further indicating a later authorship.
- Again presuming without proof that certain things hitherto presumed there from scratch in the Church were later.
Actually, one Catholic has presumed that the word "presbyteros" could be used as we now use "bishop" (he is indeed older than the other priests, often) and "bishop" as we now use "priest" (that was his solution to why "bishops" could marry like Eastern rite priests, others have said bishops were only later exclusively recruited from monks).
- In 1 Peter 1:1 the author mentions "the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia," Various sources on the internet (eg here indicate that this sequence of states was established by Emperor Vespasian in AD 72. I have found only limited support for that claim outside articles dating the epistle, so count it as suspect:
- That second link (which I do link to) is from 1936 and as title suggests from Cambridge.
Cambridge being more reformed and anti-Catholic was also more anti-Christian and more modernist, at least back then, when modernism was very firmly held at bay on most accounts in the Catholic Church.
It is sad that these outdated resources can be so preeminent over more recent ones, just because the more recent ones have copyright holders who either think they will be ruined or are published by editors having such bank loans that they are not eager to share knowledge as such for free.
If people could read more modern texts, this claim might have been already exploded, or clarified as Vespasian in a sense doing that, but formalising or reestablishing what had been there.
Supposing this were the exact truth:
The sequence of provincial boundaries mentioned in 1 Peter 1:1 was set up by Emperor Vespasian in AD 72.
It could still be exactly true that it was just one of the older states, bearing a double name, for instance "Asia and Bithynia" which was by Vespasian divided.
Or it could be true that one of the provinces had another name before, but was nicknamed "Asia", while all of these are in Asia Minor, a bit like Florida is called "The Sun State" - and even so Vespasian established it under that name, as if a future president were to rename Florida officially "Sun State".
If I knew the history of Vespasian better, I would of course probably be able to tell.
But this argument is probably, when coming from Cambridge University Press 1936, even in a reference work not purporting to argue, a bit due to the influence of German academia.
The page you linked to on "Theopedia" actually admits on top:
In particular, German scholarship is the strongest supporter of the idea of pseudonymnity.
This has a real connection to Marcan priority thesis. That too came from German scholarship and from pressure of Bismarck against the Gospels being reliable, since he was afraid of Papal implications of St Matthew:
The ChurchinHistory Information Centre : BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS, 1870 - 1914
by William R. Farmer (University of Dallas) Editor of A NEW CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY
Passage also available on:
Biblical studies and the shifting of paradigms, 1850-1914
Auteur : Henning Reventlow, Graf.; William R Farmer
Éditeur : Sheffield, Eng. : Sheffield Academic Press, ©1995.
Biblical Studies and the Shifting of Paradigms, 1850-1914 (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) Paperback – November 1, 2009
by Henning Graf Reventlow (Editor), William R. Farmer (Editor)
It is page 24 in the google book and paper versions.
By Kulturkampf is meant that conflict which dominated relations between Germany and the Vatican during the decade of the eighteen seventies. This conflict arose soon after the close of the first Vatican Council and pitted the iron chancellor prince Otto von Bismarck against Pius IX. The issue was an age old question of church and state. Constantine had simply announced to bishops of the church that he had received a revelation from God that he was to exercise the office of bishop on all matters outside the church, just as they were to exercise jurisdiction on all matters internal to the life of the church. Therefore, it has always been tempting for the head of any government in Christendom to presuppose the right of a Christian ruler to exercise sovereignty over Christian subjects. Kaiser Wilhelm was no exception and Bismarck was his appointed minister. Pius IX, on the other hand, was the inheritor of a tradition according to which, as the head of the Roman Catholic church, he was responsible for every Roman Catholic, including those who were German citizens.
At issue was whether Catholics in Germany in a showdown were to obey the pope or the Iron Chancellor. From the pope's point of view it was a matter of whether these Catholics were going to obey man or God, he being God's appointed representative by way of Christ who had been sent by God. Christ in turn had sent Peter whose infallible successor he (Pius IX) was. From Bismarck's point of view it was more a matter of whether these German citizens were to be subject to the laws promulgated by elected representatives of the German nation, he guiding the legislative process by means of influence over a Protestant majority within the dominant Prussian parliament.
The conflict broke out when Dr. Wollmann, a Catholic instructor of religion in the gymnasium at Braunsberg in East Prussia, having refused to signify his assent to the Vatican decrees of 1870 on the supremacy and infallibility of the pope, was excommunicated and deprived of his right of giving instruction in the Catholic faith . It helps to know that although Dr. Wollmann was giving instruction to Catholics, he in fact, in accordance with a long-standing arrangement, had been appointed by government officials, and his salary was paid by the state. Ordinarily this arrangement worked well, since such appointments were made in consultation with church authorities. The state in turn took for granted that no local bishop would dismiss a government appointee without due cause.
Read on where you like.
But German scholarship on the Bible came out of the 1870' tainted with subservience to State expedience. Bismarck targetted the Gospel of Matthew (as literally reliable) about like Pim Fortuyn would target the Qoran. Bismarck had to be less direct, Bible believing even Protestants but especially Catholics were not exactly a very insignificant minority, he couldn't just start throwing people into prison for it. He would have lost the throne if he had.
But he could appoint and did appoint professors of theology. And the power was abused, consciously by his wanting to do so, or unconsciusly only if he was very blind to what he was up to.
I am therefore glad of having been finally raised in the German speaking part of my childhood, in Austria, not under Bismarck.
And if you know anything about Cambridge, it was probably on Bismarck's side.
- There is no mention of Mosaic law; this was a big issue in the early church, as Acts and the Pauline letters make clear, and that suggests the letter is later, after the issue had been resolved.
- It is probably after St Peter had made his position clear enough, after he had been ambiguous about it as witnessed by Galatians.
- The letter finishes "By Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you", and some suggest this indicates Peter dictated the letter to Silvanus, which accounts for the good Greek. However, the Greek indicates that Silvanus was the courier, not the scribe.
- As if living among Greek speakers for years couldn't make your own Greek rather perfect. Indistinguishable from native at 2000 years distance.
- Very, very few people today would argue for Petrine authorship of this book. The Word Biblical Commentary, which is a conservative commentary series, argues against Petrine authorship. Of all of the books of the Bible, this is the one that is most difficult to defend in regard to authorship.
- Very few except Catholics and Evangelicals and Mormons, you mean.
Very few among the non-Christians, that is non-Catholics.
- quoting Origen
- Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle, and, it may be, a second also; for it is doubted.
- Why so much doubt?* for one thing, 2 Peter 3:15-16 refer to Paul's letters as scripture; the early church would not have regarded them as such, indicating this was written relatively late.
- St Paul's writings were accepted as Holy Writte by the adressees as soon as received and authentified as really his.
- There is some evidence 2 Peter is based on Jude, again giving a later date.
- Would the evidence be such that, like Jude and Peter cannot both have it from in part genuine OT tradition confirmed by Christ (during the 3 years they walked with him) but one of them HAD to have it from the other?
A bit like Flood deniers are saying Babylonians and Bible authors cannot have had account of Flood from event, but one of them had to plagairise fiction from the other?
- This article makes the case that they are similar because both were authored by Jude (so in 2 Peter 3:1, this is the second letter after Jude, not 1 Peter):
- Not linking, since answering that article would involve reading it, I haven't the time right now, but I would like to know why the similarities aren't such that they can be explained by Sts Peter and Jude sharing a common cultural background and a common Master (a bit closer to each other than to Matthew, John, or Paul with Barnabas.
That will be another day.
As in previous,
Hans Georg Lundahl
* In general, because one Church would be in a position to know genuiine Apostolic authorship before another one was, as communication capacity varied under persecution, the debates would go faster to full scale acceptance for some than for others./HGL