From: "Ronald Price" <ron.price@...
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Christological Peculiarities
> I had written:
>>> For those of us who acknowledge that the apostle Peter was not in any
>>> responsible for either 1 Peter or 2 Peter,
> David Cavanagh replied:
>> Well, surely that should be "hold" rather than acknowledge. I'm
>> perfectly well aware that 2 Peter is generally considered pseudonymous,
>> but I had never heard that said of 1 Peter ...
> For the conclusion that 1 Peter was pseudonymous see e.g. :
> Duling & Perrin, "The New Testament", 3rd. Edn. (Harcourt Brace, 1994),
> Udo Schnelle, "The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings"
> 1998), pp. 400-401,
> Bart Ehrman, "The New Testament" (OUP, 1997), p.373.
>> ..... In the first generation "Christian" and
>> "Jew" were not contrasting labels.
> Admittedly the term 'Christian' may not have been widely known in the
> generation. I'll rephrase my statement, trying also to take into account
> David Mealand's comment on 'son of God':
> There remains no evidence that Peter ever came to accept Jesus as the Son
> God in the sense proclaimed by Paul (c.f. e.g. Rom 1:3-5; 1 Cor 15:3b-4;
> 2:5-11), i.e. that he ever became what we would now call a 'Christian'.
>> I also wonder what interest the early
>> church could possibly have had in presenting Peter as a Christian and
>> indeed the first amongst the apostles if he was not.
> They would naturally have assumed he was a Christian because the synoptic
> gospels presented him as the leading follower of Jesus during his
> Ron Price
> Derbyshire, UK
I could never understand why it could be argued that Peter wrote the Petrine
Epistles. On 1 Peter:
This epistle is written to the "exiles of the dispersion" in Pontus,
Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia." The historical Shymeon bar
Yona/Kefa/"Peter" died in the Neronian Roman persecution of 64-67 CE when
there WERE NO Christian communities in Pontus-Bithynia. This epistle could
ONLY have been written during the persecution of Domitian in 95 CE, the same
during which John of Patmos wrote Revelation and I Peter was stimulated by
the completed Revelation already in circulation (96-98 CE). This epistle
was CLEARLY written when Christians in those provinces were being persecuted
FIRST time that happened was the last few years of the 1st century. Even
the governor of this province, in a letter to Trajan in 112 CE testified
that Christians first came there around 90 CE:
Alii ab indice nominati esse se Christianos dixerunt et mox negaverunt;
fuisse quidem sed desisse, quidam ante triennium, quidam ante plures annos,
non nemo etiam ante viginti.
Therefore if some in these Asian churches, founded by Paul, had been
Christians for THREE years, others more and a few ABOVE TWENTY years ago in
112 CE, by my calculations there were Christians there in 90 CE still many
years after the death of Shymeon Bar Yona/Kefa/Peter. Peter had been dead
We can't set aside the beautiful literary, almost classic, Greek and
extensive knowledge of Greek philosophy, including Gnosticism (also
something later than the lifetime of Peter).
It is hard for me to imagine an illiterate, Aramaic speaking Galilean
fisherman (Acts 4:13) who needed his own Greek interpreter to help him with
his exchanges in Antioch and other Greek speaking communities (Papias,
Irenaeus, Justin, Eusebius) wrote an Epistle in the most literary and
rhetorical Greek of the NT. There is also no Aramaic interference in the
sophisticated Greek syntax of 1 Peter which would have been present if
dictated to an amanuensis. The author of 1 Peter refers to himself as a
SUMPRESBUTEROS, a title that did not arise until the late first century and
would not have been used for a disciple (Apostles and elders distinguished
at Acts 15:6). Additionally, "Babylon" was not used as a code word for Rome
until quite late in the 1st century. This author is writing to churches
that were founded by Paul which Peter would not have done if Paul was alive.
There are 35 references to the LXX in 1 Peter and Shymeon Bar
Yonah/Kefa/Petros could not read no less use the LXX which, btw, was not
widely used by Christian authors other than Paul until the last two decades
of the 1st century.
The letter is clearly referring to a persecution in Asia and that began
under Domitian long after the death of Peter. This letter is not only
theologically Pauline but uses a Pauline structure and the Paul invented
XARIS UMIN KAI EIRHNH that appears in Pauline or Pauline influenced Romans,
Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Philippians,
Philemon, Titus and 1 and 2 Timothy.
It was not unusual, as well, for a pseudepigraph to also be pseudotoponymic
as well and this epistle has all the hallmarks of having been written in
Asia Minor rather than Rome, a claim to support the pseudonym.
Now on to II Peter.
II Peter was written LATER than I Peter (not the same author) and we have
established that I Peter was written at the end of the 1st century during
the Domitian persecution. II Peter uses I Peter as a source and also uses
Jude. At the time of II Peter, the Pauline epistles had been collected and
II Peter 3:15-16
... our dear brother Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave
him ... His letters contain certain things that are hard to understand,
which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures,
to their own destruction.
This did not occur until the early second century but MOST important of all,
a "New Testament" added to the OT did not happen until 150 CE and the
Pauline epistles were not considered "scripture" until then. That the
historical Peter would even see the collected epistles of Paul (some written
after his death) and considered them SCRIPTURE is totally absurd. II Peter
probably dates to about 170 CE.
San Antonio, TX