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, 5 Jun 2002 16:26:58 -0500


Dear Hyam,

Thank you for your comments. While I would agree that a few scholars may doubt the Petrine authorsip of 1 Peter, I believe there are some who also hold to it. The majority of scholars tend to agree on the pseudonymity of 2 Peter, but 1 Peter seems to be a bird of a different feather. The style of Greek while unusual for a Galilean fisherman, would not on the other hand be unusual for a learned and educated scribe writing on behalf of Peter, such writing practices were common in the first century. As to the similarities with Pauline theology, I think this does not necessarily lead one to beleive that a Jewish-Christian group was seeking a harmonious relationship with the Pauline churches. Is it possible, that if Peter was the true author of this letter, that he had come to later agree with Paul?
Acts 10:43 contains a vicarious atonement theology in which the words are attributed to Peter in his dialogue with Cornelius. Some text critics would argue that Acts has been brushed through with Lukan interests that were sympathetic to Paul. However, if the testimony of the Early Christian Fathers can be trusted, (Eusebius quotes Papias on this point) that point out that Mark was the disciple of Peter and that he wrote his gospel under his (Peter's) guidance then we also have support for a vicarious atonement theology found in Mark 10:45 (NASB), "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to **give His life a ransom for many**." Best regards,


Tony Costa

University of Toronto

The majority of scholars who use historical criticism hold that Peter did not write 1 Peter: See John H. Elliott, Paul Achtemeier, et al. among recent commentators. Most date the work into the 90s or slightly later.

The speeches in Acts are written by the author of the book, not historical accounts of what was actually said, and need to be read in the light of ancient historiography.

I think 1 Peter is best read as written by a later paulinist, like the writers of Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians and the Pastoral Epistles, all of whom continue the pauline approach, but with varying emphases that go beyond Paul's own theological views.

Read today the introduction by Udo Schnelle as the most up-to-date work, or the NT introduction by Raymond Brown.

Cordially,

Edgar Krentz
--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
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