Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: kosta50; Uncle Chip

“You have to read more, and then some...1 Peter (80-110 AD)”

Even the early church fathers and those of the first century agreed that Peter wrote the Epistle. It was not written later to compromise, but a letter to churches undergoing severe persecution after Paul’s death, but before Peter’s.

From your own citation.

Donald Guthrie writes: “There has been such widespread assumption that Peter’s epistle is but an echo of Paulinism that it is refreshing to find an increasing tendency to mark the individual contribution of Peter in the field of New Testament theology. There is both an absence of such Pauline doctrines as justification, law, the new Adam, and the flesh, and the presence of highly characteristic methods in Peter’s own presentation, such as his copious use of Old Testament citations and moral codes, his church-consciousness, historic consciousness and Christ-consciousness. Peter’s teaching cannot be systematized into a theological school of thought, but there is enough distinctiveness about it to differentiate it from Paul’s approach. The most notable contribution is the doctrine of Christ’s descent into Hades, which in its focus upon the resurrection of Christ stands in direct relationship to Peter’s emphasis on the resurrection in the early Acts speeches. As an eyewitness of the risen Christ Peter would never forget the profound impression which that stupendous event made upon his mind, and the doctrine of the descent, however obscure it is to modern minds, would surely be more natural as a part of primitive reflection upon the significance of the resurrection than as a later development, or as a peculiar fancy of a pseudonymous author.” (New Testament Introduction)


1,066 posted on 02/02/2008 12:13:35 PM PST by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1061 | View Replies ]


To: blue-duncan; Uncle Chip
Even the early church fathers and those of the first century agreed that Peter wrote the Epistle.

Of course they did. It was essential that the Petrine-Pauline rift be overcome once Judaism and Christianity definitely parted ways. Peter was essential because of the Gospels, but he and James the Just were Jews in practice, and Paul was essential in redefining the faith into a Gentile religion.

It was not written later to compromise, but a letter to churches undergoing severe persecution after Paul’s death, but before Peter’s

There was no persecution of Christians in Asia Minor during Peter's lifetime. That began at the end of emperor Domitian's reign (in the 90's of the 1st century). Peter is believed to have died around 65 AD or so. The only persecutions of Christians during +Peter's time was in Rome, yet 1 Peter clearly opens up with a different location:

From your own citation. Donald Guthrie writes: “There has been such widespread assumption that Peter’s epistle is but an echo of Paulinism that it is refreshing to find an increasing tendency to mark the individual contribution of Peter in the field of New Testament theology...

Of course, there are die-hard apologists among conservative evangelicals. That doesn't mean he is right. For example he says:

What Peter's characteristic presentation? What other works, before 1 Peter, are attributed to Peter (and John) whom the Book of Acts described as to "uneducated and untrained men"? [Act 4:13]

Obviously you chose to cherry-pick one commentary that fit the evangelical point of view, and the rest are automatically discarded. I guess we can always stick our heads into the sand and pretend the sun doesn't shine.

1,072 posted on 02/02/2008 3:58:36 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1066 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson