How authentic is 1 peter?

[wiggbuggie]

is this proof? Here we have a letter from an eye witness himself one of the original 12 not to mention the first pope talking about things like the resurrection etc. We know peter used a secretary to write this letter probably shorty before he was killed by nero?

 

[farpinho]

The first epistle of Peter claims to be written by St. Peter, using the help of a secretary, namely Silas (5:12):

“With the help of Silas, whom I regard as a faithful brother, I have written to you briefly, encouraging you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand fast in it.”

The “modern” biblical criticism has drawn attention to a number of difficulties in admitting the authorship of Peter, but none of these so called “difficulties” necessarily force us to have to invalidate the authorship of Peter himself. Consider:

1. the character of speech is exhortative and baptismal, but that does not necessarily indicate an advanced stage of eclesiostology. In fact, a Letter of the Apostle could have, very early, a character of moral exhortation and a background that is consistent with a “baptismal homily”.
2. there are several references to persecution to the Christians, but these references don’t necessarily imply that they are related to the official persecution of the Roman emperors that only spread throughout the Roman Empire by the end of the 1st Century.
3. The elegance and perfection of the written Greek found in the letter, as well as the frequent pauline expressions are completely explainable if you admit that Peter indeed used Silas to write the letter, being he the same Silas referenced in the Acts of the Apostles, disciple and companion of St. Paul.

 

[Mystophilus]

is this proof? Here we have a letter from an eye witness himself one of the original 12 not to mention the first pope talking about things like the resurrection etc. We know peter used a secretary to write this letter probably shorty before he was killed by nero?

Sorry, but is it proof of what?

If you mean “of Jesus’ life and miracles”, then the short answer is “No”: eye-witness testimony is not proof. What is does prove is the existence of the belief in those things at the time.

 

[wiggbuggie]

Sorry, but is it proof of what?

If you mean “of Jesus’ life and miracles”, then the short answer is “No”: eye-witness testimony is not proof. What is does prove is the existence of the belief in those things at the time.

you think so? even if peter saw jesus condemned to death than saw him again three days later in bodily form multiple times

 

[stevekehl]

Sorry, but is it proof of what?

If you mean “of Jesus’ life and miracles”, then the short answer is “No”: eye-witness testimony is not proof. What is does prove is the existence of the belief in those things at the time.

I have to disagree. John Dominic Crossan, a NT critic, conceded that Jesus performed miracles. But he qualified that by saying that there were many miracle workers in Palestine at that time.

 

[Mystophilus]

you think so? even if peter saw jesus condemned to death than saw him again three days later in bodily form multiple times

No, eye-witness testimony is not proof: as is demonstrated in courts of law on a daily basis, eye witnesses disagree markedly on the basic details of what has transpired only minutes earlier.

What Scripture shows us is what people believed to have happened, and then some of us choose to believe them, while others choose not to.