Re: [Synoptic-L] Christological Peculiarities
From: "Ronald Price" <ron.price@...>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Synoptic-L] Christological Peculiarities
> I had written:I could never understand why it could be argued that Peter wrote the Petrine
>>> 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
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
- Jeff Peterson wrote:
> ..... Your "ordinary follower of Jesus" wouldJeff,
> have found it just as difficult to believe that while the Pillars didn't
> understand how followers of Jesus should conduct themselves at table, Paul
What I'm trying to say here is that one can accept a hero who has minor
flaws, such as the earnest but fallible Peter who emerges from a casual
reading of the gospel of Mark. But a follower of Jesus can't accept a hero
who is fundamentally on the wrong track christologically. So Paul could not
have portrayed Peter in this way without upsetting many of his Galatian
> I think the reality described by 1:11 is more complex than Paul having had aJames and Peter were expecting the kingdom of God to come with power
> visionary experience which included a command to "Preach this," with a list
> of propositions appended. Rather, as persecutor he had already heard what
> Jesus' followers were proclaiming about him (viz., the crucified Messiah had
> been raised and enthroned with God, inaugurating the age of deliverance
> promised in Scripture) .....
(Mk 9:1, derived from logia saying C12), i.e. the overthrow of the Roman
occupiers and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth. This clearly
hadn't happened when Paul came on the scene. Paul's supporter, Mark, had to
replace the hopes of the original disciples for the establishment of a new
Israel (saying C21, c.f. Mt 19:28) with a reward in the life to come (Mk
10:29-30). This echoed Paul's promise of eternal life (e.g. Rom 6:22-23).
The idea that the kingdom had been inaugurated by the coming of Jesus arose
after the deaths of the original disciples when it began to look as if the
return of Jesus was delayed and might be delayed a lot longer.
> Your last sentence [regarding the ability or otherwise of the Galatians toTravel was indeed facilitated by the Pax Romana, and also by the widespread
> check Paul's claims] neglects the extent of travel in the early Empire, and
> the use made of this mobility to connect early Christian communities;
> ..... We know that Paul organized Corinthians and Macedonians for an
> embassy to Jerusalem (1 Cor 16:34; 2 Cor 9:4),
Roman roads. But it was still slow. Your example above concerns a journey
which Paul regarded as most important. Travelling several days merely to
check on the truthfulness or otherwise of Paul's assertions in Galatians
would have been a lot less palatable.
> It was very shortsighted of Paul to maintain that he and the Pillars agreedBut as I indicated earlier in this thread, I don't think Paul claimed that
> on the gospel if contact with their followers was a real possibility for his
> converts, and if the reaction of a Jerusalem Christian to an acclamation
> like "Praise be to the God and Father of our crucified Messiah Jesus, who
> raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand" would have been,
> "Come again?"
the pillars agreed on the gospel.
> ..... Peter and theI don't see 9:9 or 14:9 as indicating eventual enlightenment.
> other disciples are depicted as uncomprehending regarding Jesus' impending
> death and resurrection during his ministry, but their eventual enlightenment
> and proclamation of these events is clearly anticipated (9:9; 13:913; 14:9,
> 2728; 16:7).
As for 14:28 and 16:7, I take these verses as early interpolations designed
to rehabilitate Peter. They are quite inconsistent with the rest of the
> In historical terms, once Jesus is executed, a Christology like thatI agree. But my understanding of what transpired is that James, Peter et al.
> ascribed to Peter in 8:2733 becomes untenable .....
changed to a 'Son of Man' christology (see my reconstruction of the logia),
Paul faced up to the inconsistency by glorying in the crucifixion (e.g. 1
Cor 1:23 : "we proclaim Christ crucified"), but playing down the belief in
Jesus as messiah by (for the most part) using "Christ" merely as a sort of