Talk:First Epistle of Peter

message: "If Rome is its true origin, then that fact would strengthen the case that it was actually written by Peter, and if by Peter, then written around AD 60." There's no logic to this circular statement. I've removed it from the entry. The motivation for an early date is to link this letter with apostolic Peter. "If Roman, then of Peter. If Petrine then early. If early, then Petrine." The Shepherd of Hermas was also written in Rome. But it was not written by Peter.  Wetman 18:11, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rome 

message: " Peter has been called "the apostle of hope," because this epistle abounds with words of comfort and encouragement fitted to sustain a "lively hope." " This  lovely thought, though appreciative and pious, conveys no useful information about this text, not even who called Peter the "apostle of hope," a connection based apparently on a conviction that Peter was the actual author of this text. If "hope" is indeed a theme of this text, the entry should develop its thematic uses. Perhaps the implications of Early Christian church organization might be apropos here too: this is also a political document, is it not? There should also be a link to pseudepigraphy in this entry, as with all pseudepigraphical works.   --Wetman 19:05, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Apostle of hope"

message: I think there should be reference made to 1 Clement, written around 100 AD, apparently quoting 1 Peter since that would be relevent to deciding the date. This quotation is in 1 Clement 49:5 and says "love covereth a multitude of sins" which matches 1 Peter 4:8. When I looked at the greek (see GreekBible.com) I think it matches exactly the Greek in the 1 Clement version (see Greek of 1 Clement, note: it works better if you make the font Symbol).
I will add this information to the article if no one has a problem, though I would still like to find a better formatted version of the Greek for 1 Clement.
--KyleT 19:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference in 1 Clement (for dating 1 Peter) 

message: After reading this article I felt as thorough  it deserved a rather through overhaul.  There were many fragments of useful information, but the arrangement of this information was frenetic at best.  There was a certain lack of scholarship, particularly the dreaded “most scholars say X” without argumentative support or textual citations.  However, I did not take it upon myself to omit any of the information found.  Indeed I bolstered many of those arguments.  Instead I simply arranged the existing material in a more sensible form and then added more information.  Hopefully the new structure will encourage further contributions.
There is one exception in that I omitted the following line, partially because it was covered already, partially because I simply could not work it in smoothly, and partially because I thought it was silly.  I encourage anyone to reintroduce it to the article, and I give it here in full to facilitate that.
: ”There is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, i.e. circa 90-96 AD," say the editors of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, who conclude, however, that Babylon on the Euphrates was intended.
Some areas that the article is lacking, and could use as a nice addition would be a nice textual explanation of the various themes of the work, or at the least a summary of the material contained.  I am not well equipped for this task.  Also the article could use a section in which various interpretations of the assertions of the epistle are discussed.  Again, I’m not the proper source for this job.  Lostcaesar 03:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization 

message: I took these statements out of the "Critical view" section:
:(However, Nazareth itself neighbored Tzippori/Sepphoris, which had been the capital of Galilee and was a center of Greek-speaking Hellenistic culture. Also, Jerusalem the capital of Judea had many Greek-speaking Jews, who could translate while taking dictation.) However, due to trade and other cultural interaction the Septuagint was widely available by the 1st century CE.It certainly would have been the Old Testament text the audience of I Peter was familiar with, if not the author.
The last two had been fact tagged for months, and the former was added recently. Could someone please source these statements. If the source isn't a critical scholar, then please feel free to restore the info, once sourced, to another section of the article. Thanks.-Andrew c 13:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs sourcing for the following 

message: I'm told the tradition (recorded by Papias) is that Peter didn't know Greek and needed Mark as an interpreter. If so, he could have written the epistle and Sylvanus could be the translator into Greek. Indeed, the second epistle could have been translated into Greek by someone else. That would explain the style(s). Tom129.93.17.174 02:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: why pseudonymous?

message: Harris says most scholars prefer 95 or esp. 112. Can anyone provide a reference that says any scholars prefer any other years for authorship? There's a claim that Ehrman and Brown favor 70-90, but no citation offered. If Harris is wrong, fine, but we need an RS saying that Harris is wrong. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is all Ehrman has to say about it in his New Testament overview textbook: "It is difficult to say, however, when the author would have been writing, or even from where and to whom. If the letter is indeed associate with Asia Minor, as its prescript suggests, it should probably be assigned to the first century, possibly near its end, when persecution was on the rise but the later church hierarchy with a solitary bishop over each church had not yet developed. There is no trace of this hierarchy in the letter, where the churches of Asia Minor appear to be ruled by groups of "elders" (5:1-4). A hierarchy is in evidence in this region, however, at the beginning of the second century, especially in the letters of Ignatius." This does seem to me that Ehrman favors the 90s over the 110s. But I agree that we shouldn't remove sourced material and replace it with unsourced material just because someone doesn't like the source. Come up with a more recent/notable/authoritative source to replace the existing source instead of deleting it. (not sure if Ehrman can be that source or not)-Andrew c [talk] 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article now has sourced material for a variety of dates between 70 and 112. Therefore (and this was my original motivation) the lead should be changed to reflect what is in the body of the article. I'll do that shortly. Peter Ballard (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Andrew. Ehrman's comment that the structure of solitary bishops over churches is a later development is also interesting, in light of discussions on other pages (Pope Clement I, etc.).Peter, thanks for getting these references. That makes the page a lot better. I don't much care what the years are. I only care that they're properly cited. I think this is how WP is supposed to work. The references to the two no-name scholars who wrote maybe 90 years ago probably aren't necessary, or could at least be trimmed. Leadwind (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cut the detailed discussion from the lead. There is now a summary in the lead (anywhere from 70-112), with the detail in the article (various scholars and the dates they propose). I don't think it is helpful to have too much detail in the lead, by my reading of WP:LEAD. I apologise if I removed anything, but I think it was all already duplicated in the article body below. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my hat's off to anyone who actually reads WP:LEAD. A lead should be a concise summary of the topic, able to stand alone. The current lead isn't meaty enough because it defines 1 Peter without describing it. Lots of leads share that failing. I'm planning to beef it up. The only thing you cut, Peter, that I'd really like to see is some reference to persecutions. Traditionalists say that the epistle was written during Nero's persecutions. Harris reports Domitian or Trajan. A simple reference to such persecutions would do. The year 112 is oddly specific for a work whose possible year of composition is in such a broad range, and the only thing that leads anyone to think that this epistle was written in the 2nd century is the persecution of 112.  No one thinks it was written in 105. It's 70-90, 95, or 112. Leadwind (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no argument with the lead containing a short, concise mention of the arguments for pseudonymity, or for particular dates. But it needs to be a summary, which means in turn that the article itself needs to be expanded. In any case, the detail of who argues what doesn't really belong in the lead. p.s. I agree 112 is oddly specific. My understanding is there was no "persecution of 112" - rather it was an ongoing situation. But now I'm drifting into WP:OR so I'll stop. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Persecution of Christians was both ongoing and sporadic. Since Nero, it was apparently against the law to be Christian, but hardly anyone bothered to enforce the law, and all a Christian had to do was perform oblations to the emperor to get off the charge. Every once in a while, though, the populace would get stirred up by threats of invasion, etc., and they'd blame the Christians. Then there would be an actual spate of persecution. Leadwind (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  years of authorship 

message: I see a lot of discussion regarding Peter not writing the letter because he was not fluent in Greek. According to the Bible (at least the Catholic version), didn't Peter and all the apostles acquired the skill to know several languages after the holy spirit appeared to them in the form of a tongue in flames. If there are no concerns, I will add that as part of the explanation on how Peter managed to write the letter.
:How on earth could anyone claim to know that Peter was not fluent in Greek? Sure, it wouldn't have been his native tongue, and he started out as a poor fisherman, but (assuming he really did write 1 Peter) it would have been much later; and it would have been perfectly logical for someone engaged in preaching to different peoples to learn the major languages of the time. 165.91.173.15 (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Peter would likely not have actually 'penned' the letter even if he is the author of it. Scribes were commonly used by most people (not just fishermen). He would likely have known Greek, even though it wasn't his native tongue. It would be kind of like assuming that someone from Mexico living in the USA wouldn't know English because their native tongue was Spanish. It could be the case, but certainly shouldn't be assumed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.65.10.51 (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter's language skills 

message: IP 108.235.228.92 added the uncited statement "This argument, of course, presumes that two authors could not write on similar topics with similar opinions (by supernatural inspiration or otherwise)" after "Many scholars also doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle’s ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles.". A statement such as that requires a citation to a reliable source. The IP also made quite a few other changes with the edit summary "Attempting to smoothen biased language" but all the "biased language" is cited to reliable sources, so I have reverted the IP's edit.Smeat75 (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to authorship section 

message: The lede states "The text of the letter states that it was written from Babylon." but this is not mentioned in the body of the aticle. Tigerboy1966  07:49, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Babylon? 

message: Why is the historical Jesus  completely missing from 1 Peter? 14.2.139.156 (talk) 04:41, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The historical Jesus 

message: That the view of Stanton isn't the view of Stanton, is a factual error. tgeorgescu (talk)  15:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual error