Here's the explanation.
WRITING
The author of this letter identifies himself as Peter, so that most of traditional Christians believe that this was indeed the letter of Peter, Jesus' disciple who was also known as Simon Peter. However, modern biblical scholars, especially German scholars, questioning its authenticity for having strong reasons to believe that the letters were actually wrote by someone else who used Peter's name as a pseudonym.
ARGUMENTS
Pseudonymity arguments
- This book is full of Paul's ideas and writing style.
- Paul had already done evangelism in the areas to which the letter was addressed. This means that by sending his letters, Peter has violated the fence of the "cultivated" area of Paul's church.
- In Peter's letter, there is no personal account of Jesus' life as the reader would expect if it was really the authentic writings of Peter.
"1Peter contains no evidence at all of familiarity with the earthly Jesus, his life, his teaching, and his death, but makes reference only in a general way to the 'sufferings' of Christ. It is scarcely conceivable that Peter would neither have sought to strengthen his authority by referring to his personal connections with Jesus nor have referred to the example of Jesus in some way." [WG Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament , p. 424]
- The style of Greek Literature used in the writing of 1 Peter goes far beyond what an ordinary fisherman might be excellent at.
"The type of Greek found in 1 Peter reveals that whether or not the author was born a Greek, he had enjoyed some level of formal education, if not an 'advanced' education in rhetoric or philosophy, at least a 'middle' education that would have included, along with geometry, arithmetic, and music, a reading of such classical authors as Homer. While one may surely presume some facility in Greek even among Palestinian fishermen in the first century who lacked formal education, the kind of Greek found in this epistle was probably beyond such a person, and hence the language was in all likelihood not given its present form by Simon Peter." [Paul J. Achtemeier, A Commentary on First Peter, p. 4-5]
- The persecution spoken of in 1 Peter could not have occurred in Peter's lifetime, because the things discussed took place after his death.
The author describes himself as "sumpresbuteros" (elder fellow), a title that appeared not in Peter's time (and was unknown to Peter) but much later in the development of early Christian ecclesiology. In 1 Peter 1: 1 the writer describes himself as an apostle (identical to Paul's style in the "preamble" of nearly all of his letters), but in 1 Peter 5: 1 he claims to be a "sumpresbuteros" (elder fellow). Yet the people of the circle of the twelve disciples of Jesus, the apostles, the people to whom Jesus first visited after his resurrection, need not use the title which appeared far back in the development of early Christian ecclesiology. " [Udo Schnelle,, p. 400]
OBJECTIVES FOR PSEUDONYM ARGUMENTS
Peter's supporting scholars responded as follows:
- Peter was close to Paul in many aspects of theology.
- Although Paul may have evangelized parts of the area where the letter was sent, Peter also evangelized parts of that area.
- Peter probably did not feel the need to include a personal account of Jesus' life in his letter for various reasons. One possible reason is that he gave a lot of information about the life of Jesus to Mark, who later wrote the Gospel naming him.
"It further states that the writings of an apostolic author like Peter would naturally reflect a great deal regarding his closeness to Jesus and his knowledge of the teachings of the teacher. This objection cannot be taken seriously considering the same case for 2 Peter is considered by some to be object to the writings of the apostles, but no critical canon can claim the validity of both. " [Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction]
- It is quite possible that Peter had the opportunity to learn much about Greek literary style during his travels. In addition, he lived his early life in the city of Bethsaida which received the status of "the city under Philip the King." Philip was known to be a traitor (an advocate of Greek culture) and Bethsaida likely had a large Greek speaking population (Thiede).
- It is quite possible that Peter was talking about lesser persecution in the area to which he wrote the letter. An alternative explanation is that it may refer to Neronian persecution which, according to traditional records, ultimately took his life.
- Peter did not need to describe himself as an apostle. The argument for Peter's statement in 1 Peter 5: 1 is not conclusive. In fact, the term elder may have been used as a description of the apostles during Papias' time (c. 60-135 AD).
Scholars are divided on this issue. Those who put aside the idea of Peter authorship switched to the possibility that the author of the letters of Peter is one amongst Peter's disciples who uses the name of his mentor. It is likely that this author was reminded of things that Peter said, or perhaps from several written sources. While those who like Peter's way of writing have no theory whatsoever about the style of the letter.
LOCATION
Despite the disputes that arise among biblical scholars as to who really wrote 1 Peter, there seems to be a general consensus as to where the letter was written. Because of the internal reference to "Babylon" in 1 Peter 5.13, most scholars agree that the letter was written from the city of Rome. Some scholars argue that some scholars refer to Babylon literally and others believe Babylon refers to a kind of spiritual exile. However, the scholarly consensus seems to prefer Babylon to be some sort of code name for Rome.
TIME
Estimating when Peter's first letter was written is a difficult task for scholars. One of the strongest reasons is the question, was the persecution mentioned in the letter local persecution that occurred in Asia Minor, or persecution throughout the empire? The way in which one determines when epistles were written is often directly related to the thoughts the author has devoted to responding to a situation at some point in his writing.
Those who support Peter as the author of the letters estimate their date to be shortly before Peter's own martyrdom.
- The pro-Petians set the time between 63 and 64 AD This is because it refers to Silvanus at the end of the letter which seems to indicate the same time as Paul's arrival in Rome, although this is by no means certain.
- It has taken a long time to spread Christianity since Paul's mission began.
- The provincial boundary sequence mentioned in 1 Peter 1: 1 was founded by Emperor Vespasian in AD 72.
- A certain distance to Paul's period is assumed to be due to a lack of debate about the law of Moses and responses to the persecution that occurred.
The original recipients of this letter lived in Asia Minor - particularly the eastern and central regions - as well as the regions bordering the black sea. Some scholars believe that Peter's first introduction indicates that the recipients were Jews who saw themselves as God's chosen people. Yet most scholars agree that the original recipients included a large (if not exclusively) Gentile element. The letters are thought to be circular letters sent to the church in the first place on the list, then re-copied, then sent to the churches on the next list.
However, it seems that the recipients of Peter's letters were experiencing various persecutions that caused them to consider leaving "Paul's way" and returning to their previous lives.
However, it seems that the recipients of Peter's letters were experiencing various persecutions that caused them to consider leaving "Paul's way" and returning to their previous lives.
HISTORICAL REVIEW
The biblical scholars who disagree about Peter's epistles are Christians, so regardless of the severity of the dispute, it is quite understandable if by common sense they had to agree to "keep the corps" saved by not exposing this embarrassing issue to the public domain. Because in addition to adversely that affecting the faith of church congregations in various parts of the world, it will also extend the list of facts about the profanity of Christian scriptures, which in Indonesia we know it as the Alkibul! Therefore, there has never been a "fatwa" from any supreme church authority that explicitly announces to its congregation that Peter's letters in their book are not actually written by Peter!
Ironically, consider the example of the above arguments which are clearly not based on facts and empirical evidence, but mainly based on hypothesis which is full of theories such as quite possible, likely, may be, most probably, and all kinds of probabilities as self-proof that in fact none of those arguments valid!
The Bible proves that apart from Paul - he is not part of the twelve disciples of Jesus - who remarkably often referred to himself as an "apostle", none of Jesus' twelve disciples ever made a point of claiming to be "apostle" except Peter. This of course attracts attention, and becomes extraordinarily astonishing when even a lay reader, if one takes a close look at the contents of the letters of Peter "the fisherman", will soon find that his writing - from many perspectives - is identical to Paul's writing style. It is therefore not surprising when a very strong conjecture then arises that Peter's letters are actually Paul's writings using the name of Peter.
Paul did have many interests for himself, and for that he never hesitated to lie to anyone, so that the issue of "pseudonymity" has become a familiar thing for most biblical observers and scholars.
While on the other hand, Peter had strong reasons not to write any letters to the non-Israelites whose contents could be partly interpreted as statements - representing the twelve disciples of Jesus - justifying Paul's "apostleship".
Firstly, Peter would not betray Jesus who strictly forbade his twelve disciples to preach the gospel to "gentiles", or non-Israelites, as on the other hand, was entirely done by Paul. Even though some lay Christians would contest this argument with Jesus' Great Commission based on the record in Matthew 28:19 , it is still irrelevant because Peter would have known better that for the twelve disciples, the Great Commission was precisely what was recorded in Matthew 10: 5 . Moreover, based on the copy of the original Hebrew Bible manuscript of Matthew, which is well preserved in Israel, it is confirmed that Matthew 28:19 is a false verse that Jesus never uttered.
Secondly, In real life, Paul and Peter are not two friends, but on the contrary, like Paul and the other twelve disciples of Jesus, they tend to be enemies. Paul's own writings indicate this for example in Galatians 2: 6,7,9 and Galatians 2: 11-14.
Thirdly, even though the highest authority of the churches in the world has tried to hide this scandal, or shut it down tightly, it still does not change the fact that for centuries, ordinary Christians have been fooled by Paul. [Gus Mendem, Paul and his thoughts ]
CONCLUSION
The Epistles of Peter are not written by Peter, but are part of the forged letters attributed to Jesus' disciples.
Sources:
- Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome by Carsten P. Thiede
- The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 5 by Ed Davis
- IVP Dictionary of the Later NT and its Developments edited by Ralph Martin and Peter H. Davids
- IVP New Testament Commentary: 1 Peter by Howard Marshall
- Scott Nelson , Jesus and Judaism vs Paul and Christianity
- Mizanul Adyan, Fake letters attributed to Jesus' disciples
0 Comments