Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: Peter and Paul

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Edgar M. Krentz" <ekrentz AT earthlink.net>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Peter and Paul
  • Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 17:17:27 -0500


I interject a number of reactions:

A couple of comments on this interesting topic:
1. Profs. Maccoby and Krentz are of course right that 1 Peter is
widely regarded as pseudonymous. I'm not sure the grounds are the
strongest, however. Especially notable in 1 Peter is an
eschatological expectation rivalling that of 1 Thessalonians in its
immediacy (2:12; 4:7, 17), which is unfashionable for a proper
Frühkatholik.

But it is in the 90s that there is a burgeoning of immediate
apocalyptic expectation in the Apocalypse of John, Matthew [far more
apocalyptic than Mark], 2 Thessalonians. It is precisely when there
is oppression that apocalyptic flourishes. Did anyone suggest that 1
Peter is an example of Frühkatholizismus? I certainly would not>

The letter's style poses problems for genuineness only
on the assumption that early Christian letters were entirely solo
productions, the named author locked in a room with papyrus until the
letter was done; Paul's letters were not written this way, but rather
with the aid of secretaries (Rom 16:22), and 1 Pet 5:12 suggests that
Silvanus played such a role in that letter's composition, conceivably
even serving as Peter's translator and editor in the composition of
the letter; no surprise if one should find some echoes of Paul in a
letter on which his one time co-worker collaborated. One wonders why
a deutero-Petrine author would clutter his composition up with an
allusion to so minor a figure; if the idea was to connect Peter with
Paul and so unite Baur's polarized Christianity, something like 2 Pet
3:15-16 would seem more effective.

Are you so sure that the Silvanus of 1 Peter and the one named in 1
Thessalonians are the same person? After all, Silvanus is a Latin
name of a nature deity. Is the name so uncommon that two people could
not bear it? And were all of Paul's letters written by scribes?
Romans, certainly. Galatians and Philippians name no scribe, nor does
1 Thessalonians. Are you explaining the difficult here by the unknown?

2. On the question that originated the thread, we have evidence
apart from 1 Peter that Peter conceived of Christ's death and
resurrection along lines congruent with Paul. In a passage that
summarizes his initial instruction in Corinth (and likely elsewhere,
too), Paul attributes his understanding of the death of Jesus as
"for our sins" to Peter, the 12, James the Lord's brother, and "all
the apostles" (1 Cor 15:3-8, 10-11) -- i.e., to the leadership of
the Jerusalem church and the extra-Pauline mission.

What Paul does here is expressly cite an early Christian creedal
statement. He does not attribute the tradition to them as tradents,
but says that "whether it is they or he, that is the way they preach
and that is the way the Corinthians came to believe.

Similarly, in Gal 1:23, Paul attributes to Judean churches the
recognition that the content of his faith agreed with theirs.

I think that this is a misinterpretation of Gal 1:23. Paul does not
here refer to agreement at all. The sense of his first visit is to
make clear that he went to Jerusalem to interrogate Peter [and that
he also saw James]. He was not personally known to the rest of
Jerusalem Christianity; they had heard that a former persecutor was
now a proclaimer. But there is not one syllable about agreement in
content. So I find the statement in the paragraph below not at all
persuasive.

1 Peter also cites early Christian tradition in 2:18-25 and in
3:18-22. But that does not date the letter. I doubt that your
arguments will bear the conclusions you suggest.

The second of these statements Paul makes in a controversial context
where an easily refuted statement of concord with Jerusalem would be
sure to invite rebuttal and damage Paul's credibility; one chapter
after his summary in 1 Corinthians, Paul invites his converts to
accompany him to Jerusalem, even to to make the trip without him to
deliver their alms to the church there. In both of these cases, Paul
can only be thought a fool if he made such claims after having
misled his converts about the degree of concord between the faith he
preached and Jerusalem theology.

All best,

Jeff Peterson


--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Edgar Krentz
Professor Emeritus of New Testament
Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago
1100 East 55th Street
Chicago, IL 60615
Telephone: (773) 256-0752
Office e-mail: ekrentz AT lstc.edu
Home e-mail: ekrentz AT earthlink.net
GHRASKW D' AEI POLLA DIDASKOMENOS.
"I grow older, learning many things all the time." (Solon of Athens]
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page