Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Greek)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Greek)

Post by Peter Kirby »

In Acts 2:7, we find the story that the apostles were speaking in tongues, with each being able to understand them:
In wonder and amazement, they asked, “Are not all these men who are speaking Galileans?
How is it then that each of us hears them in his own native language? ...
Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”
But others mocked them and said, “They are drunk on new wine!”

Then Peter stood up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and addressed the crowd: "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and listen carefully to my words. These men are not drunk as you suppose. It is only the third hour of the day!"
One of the earliest and most pervasive arguments for the inauthenticity of James and 1 Peter is their good Greek. Such eloquent-sounding polished Greek style, it is said, could not have come from men who were simply rustic fishermen from Galilee. Kummel gives this reason pride of place in his Introduction:
1. The cultured language of James is not that of a simple Palestinian. Sevenster's evidence that the Greek language was much used in Palestine at that time and could be learned does not prove that a Jew whose mother tongue was Aramaic could normally write in literary Greek.
Similarly, on 1 Peter, Paul J. Achtemeier writes (A Commentary on First Peter, pp. 4-5):
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.
There's a remarkable blind spot in this argumentation, however: what if James and Peter were not Palestinian fishermen? Like many bits of data from our ancient sources, by making ourselves comfortable with the solutions of well-worn critical scholarship, we've built up our defenses against finding any data that can alert us to other plausible explanations: scholarship has already factored in most of the incongruous facts within this exhaustively-studied material and supplied us with a familiar, credible-sounding narrative that becomes our default position. Giving the basic planks -- assumptions -- of modern scholarship this privilege is to hand it an extra weapon while asking any challenger to tie one hand behind the back. Surely, though, we'd rather see what wins out in a fair fight? So, let's let go of this assumption, for now, and see what's in play here.

If the arguments against the authenticity of James and 1 Peter stand firmly on their own, without such assumptions, then that helps support the reasonableness of making those assumptions. If they cannot, however, then similarly those assumptions may be getting in our way, instead of helping us understand better. What other arguments have been made?

James

As the second argument, Kummel writes:
2. It is scarcely conceivable that the Lord's brother, who remained faithful to the Law, could have spoken of "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25) or that he could have given concrete expression to the Law in ethical commands (2:11 f) without mentioning even implicitly any cultic-ritual requirements.
Quote:
2 My brothers, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory. 2 For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in, 3 and if you pay attention to the one who wears the fine clothing and say, “You sit here in a good place,” while you say to the poor man, “You stand over there,” or, “Sit down at my feet,” 4 have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5 Listen, my beloved brothers, has not God chosen those who are poor in the world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom, which he has promised to those who love him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor man. Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the honorable name by which you were called?

8 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. 10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. 11 For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.
As I read it, the author wants there to be less partiality in assemblies. In the last bit, there is a veiled threat: you may not be breaking the letter of the law by showing partiality, but by showing judgment to the poor, you'll receive judgment yourself. By showing mercy, you'd act like those who are "judged under the law of liberty" (to love your neighbor as yourself), and you'd receive mercy yourself.

There seems nothing here that is incompatible with the little that we read about James (and the people in Jerusalem) in Paul's letters.

This one is easy:
3. Would the brother of the Lord really omit any reference to Jesus and his relationship to him, even though the author of James emphatically presents himself in an authoritative role?
Perhaps, if this James were not his flesh and blood.

Regarding this:
4. The debate in 2:14 ff with a misunderstood secondary stage of Pauline theology not only presupposes a considerable chronological distance from Paul - whereas James died in the year 62 - but also betrays complete ignorance of the polemical intent of Pauline theology, which lapse can scarcely be attributed to James, who as late as 55/56 met with Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18 ff).
As natural as it seems to us, used to the theory that the letter is inauthentic, could we not simply turn the tables around on this? We have no real evidence that the issues debated in Paul's letters regarding faith and works continued to be fought in the late first century. This seems to be a particular concern for Paul, among the earliest Christian writings, that just isn't framed this way in several other texts of the late first and early second century. Is it not more natural to assume that the polemical issues brought up by Paul would be opposed by those who were living, at the time, and who could oppose Paul's teaching? And, even if James does so, the idea that James couldn't misunderstand or misconstrue "the polemical intent of Pauline theology" appears risible.
5. As the history of the canon shows (see 27.2), it was only very slowly and against opposition that James became recognized as the work of the Lord's brother, therefore as apostolic and canonical. Thus there does not seem to have been any old tradition that it originated with the brother of the Lord.
But this seems to be a poor argument, since the tradition is seldom simply trusted, guided as it is more by theological arguments than actual tradition. Besides, the dispute over whether this James was actually Jesus' brother can be interpreted differently, as indeed casting doubt on James' presumed relationship.

Udo Schnelle writes (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, pp. 386):
If James the Lord's brother were the author of the Letter, then it is amazing that in James 5.10-11 it is Job and not Jesus who serves as an example of willingness to suffer.
It really is amazing, isn't it?

But that doesn't really count against authorship by James.

Two or three facts seem to keep this letter in the orbit of Christian writing, generally: the outward form of the letter itself with its references to James and Jesus Christ, the shared paranetical material, and the discussion of "faith and works" in contrast to Paul's teaching. Norman Perrin explains:
James shows knowledge of parenetical tradition that uses sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels: 5:12 (compare Matt 5:36-37); 1:5, 17 (compare Matt 7:7-12); 1:22 (compare Matt 7:24-27); 4:12 (compare Matt 7:1); 1:6 (compare Mark 11:23-24). There is, further, parenetical material also used in 1 Peter: Jas 1:2-3 (compare 1 Peter 1:6-7); Jas 4:1-2 (compare 1 Pet 2:11). It is not that James necessarily knows the gospels or 1 Peter, but rather that there is a Christian parenetical tradition into which sayings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels have been taken up, although not in the form of sayings of Jesus, and of which both James and 1 Peter make use. . .

Moral exhortation is very much the same throughout the various elements in a given culture. By the same token parenesis itself has little doctrinal concern, and James, a wholly parenetical work, has almost nothing distinctively Christian about it. Jesus Christ is mentioned only twice (1:1, 2:1), and both verses could be omitted without any harm to the flow of thought in the text. When the "coming of the Lord" is mentioned (5:7) there is nothing to denote the specifically Christian hope of the parousia; it could equally be a reference to the coming of the Lord God. "Faith" in this text is not specifically Christian faith but rather the acceptance of monotheism (2:19). These facts have led some scholars to suggest that the text is a Jewish homily lightly Christianized. But a number of features seem to speak of a Christian origin, especially the evidence of contacts with Christian parenetical tradition already noted and the discussion of "faith and works" in 2:14-26. The latter seems to presuppose an awareness of Paul's teaching in Galatians 3 and Romans 4.
If it is a letter by James, it bears witness to an expression of the Jerusalem side of what is otherwise a one-sided conversation undertaken by Paul the apostle. Not all ancient Christian literature has to beat the same drums (and the Didache might be very similar in its emphasis to James). While it may still be strange to us to consider that we may have had another document in our hands going back to around 60 CE all along, we should consider the possibility carefully, at least as long as we are not moored to the assumptions of the historicity of Jesus.

1 Peter

The letter known as First Peter is in much the same boat: it is assumed to be sunk because of the high quality of the Greek writing. If Peter weren't a Galilean fisherman called by Jesus to be one of the Twelve before being crucified by Pilate, but instead were a competing apostle and contemporary of Paul who could command Greek just as well, then this argument goes by the wayside.

Like the author of Paul's letters, the author of 1 Peter was more familiar with the Septuagint than with any other version.
Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "The intimate acquaintance of our author with the Greek language is shown by the text of the OT which the author quotes and to which he alludes frequently: it is the LXX rather than the MT. Direct quotation is limited to two instances (gegraptai, 1:16; en grafh, 2:6), and there the text is rather clearly the LXX (1:16 from Lev 19:2; 2:6 from Isa 40:6-8, though with modifications); additional clear examples of quotation would include Isa 40:6-8 at 1:24-25 and Ps 33:13-17 (MT Ps 34) at 3:10-12, in both instances with modifications. In addition to quotations, allusions to the OT that contain LXX language occur in such places as 2:3, 7, 9-10, 22-25; 3:14; 4:14; 5:8, indicating that the author was saturated with the language of the Greek Bible. The absence of influence from the language of the Hebrew Bible or the Targumim on the one hand, and the clear influence of the LXX on the other, show that the author was at home in Greek rather than Semitic culture, and such is likely not to have been the case with Simon Peter." (A Commentary on First Peter, pp. 6-7)
Some of the arguments approach the comical, once you remove the immovable assumption of the historicity of Jesus.
W. G. Kümmel writes: "I Pet 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." (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 424)
Paul J. Achtemeier writes: "An argument often cited against the authenticity of 1 Peter is the lack of personal reminiscences from the life of Jesus, something one would surely expect in a letter from one who had accompanied him from Galilean ministry to resurrection. In defense of Petrine authorship, a variety of indications have been cited that are held to represent such reminiscences. For example, the alteration of first and second person in 1:3-9 is claimed to show that while the readers have not seen Jesus (v. 6), the author (by implication) has (v. 3). Again, the reference to 'witness' in 5:1 is taken to mean Peter is calling himself an eyewitness to the passion of Jesus, a witness reflected supremely in 2:22-25. The difficulty with finding assurances of the report of an eyewitness is that these verses are patently drawn from Isaiah 53, and hence may owe more to the author's demonstrable reliance on the OT, and even to a notion of the fulfillment of prophecy by Jesus, than to the reminiscences of an eyewitness." (A Commentary on First Peter, p. 9)
Some play up the division between Paul and Peter in Galatians as showing that they must have had dissimilar theologies, but this doesn't necessarily follow. Peter and Paul preached in the same places and often to the same people (in Antioch and in Corinth). The letter to the Galatians focuses on a difference regarding whether the movement was to be fully open to Gentiles, not a disagreement regarding theology. And, if we don't trust the evidence of Paul's letters here, then a letter claiming to be by Peter might be the next best thing for trying to figure out what Peter believed. We don't allow it to function as evidence if we rule it out because it's not what we're expecting. In any case, the tradition of the clashing theologies of Peter and Paul is more a matter of the record in the secondary literature, rather than the primary and oldest (the Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions notwithstanding).
Donald Guthrie writes: "There has been such widespread assumption that Peter's epistle is but an echo of Paulinism that it is refreshing to find an increasing tendency to mark the individual contribution of Peter in the field of New Testament theology. There is both an absence of such Pauline doctrines as justification, law, the new Adam, and the flesh, and the presence of highly characteristic methods in Peter's own presentation, such as his copious use of Old Testament citations and moral codes, his church-consciousness, historic consciousness and Christ-consciousness. Peter's teaching cannot be systematized into a theological school of thought, but there is enough distinctiveness about it to differentiate it from Paul's approach. The most notable contribution is the doctrine of Christ's descent into Hades, which in its focus upon the resurrection of Christ stands in direct relationship to Peter's emphasis on the resurrection in the early Acts speeches." (New Testament Introduction)
Eric Eve writes: "It is not clear that similarities between 1 Peter and, for example, Romans and Ephesians require literary dependence, but at first sight the letter does have a deutero-Pauline feel. Yet many distinctive elements of Pauline theology (e.g. justification by faith) are entirely absent from 1 Peter, and even where characteristic Pauline expressions, such as 'in Christ' are employed, they are hardly used in a distinctively Pauline manner (see 1 Pet 5:14). The epistle also shows some affinities with non-Pauline writings such as James, Hebrews, and 1 Clement. This suggests either that all these writings are drawing on common traditions, or that at least some of them were sufficiently well known to our author to have influenced his language (in favour of literary dependence, see Beare 1970; in favour of common catechetical and liturgical traditions, see Selwyn 1958; Achtemeier 1996)." (The Oxford Bible Commentary, p. 1263)
Some see a situation of persecution described in the letter that point to a later date, in the second century or under Domitian, but this is not necessary.
Raymond Brown writes: "If one thinks the work is pseudonymous and written about 90, the references could be to imperial harassment in Domitian's time . . . A more recent tendency has been to refer I Pet's suffering/trial language not to imperial persecution but to local hostility wherein non-Christians spoke badly of Christians, treating them as evildoers (2:12), defaming their conduct (3:16), vilifying them (4:4), and insulting them because of their belief in Christ (4:14). Christians would have constituted a new cult, exclusive and, to outside eyes, secretive and subversive—suspect of immorality or even of atheism because they did not participate in the public cult and thus insulted the gods. On the one hand, 'trial by fire' (4:12) might seem overly hyperbolic for such treatment; on the other hand, this explanation accounts very well for the atmosphere of alienation that pervades the letter. The strong stress on the dignity of Christians and their status would be meant to encourage a group being ostracized by their countrymen, a group that can be addressed as homeless and sojourners (2:11; also 1:1,17). They are like Israel in the exodus on the road to the Promised Land; they should not look back to their former status as did the Israelites (1:14), but press on to their imperishable inheritance (1:4). Although they may have been accepted by their neighbors before, they were then 'no people' in God's eyes and had not received God's mercy (2:10 echoing Hos 1:9, 1:6); now they are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's own people (I Pet 2:9)." (An Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 713-714)
John H. Elliott writes: "An attempt to link 1 Peter and the Christian suffering it describes to a general persecution of Christianity initiated by Rome (Beare 1970: 28-38; Windisch-Preisker Katholischen Briefe HNT, 76-77) has justifiably been rejected by the majority of scholars. 1 Peter speaks of Christians suffering 'throughout the world' (5:9) but the first general imperial persecution of Christianity did not occur until 251 C.E. under Decius. Earlier anti-Christian actions under Nero in 64-65 (Tac. Annals 15:44; Suet. Ner. 16:2), possibly Domitian in 93-96 (Suet. Dom. 10-17), and Trajan (Pliny Ep. 10:96-97) were limited in scope to Rome or Pontus and were the product of sporadic local incidents rather than of universal legal proscription. Nor is a state persecution envisioned where respect for the emperor and civil law is enjoined (2:13-17) and a positive outcome of good behavior is anticipated (2:11-12; 3:13-17). The nature of the hostility encountered—verbal abuse and reproach (2:12, 3:16, 4:14), curiosity concerning Christian hope (3:15), anger at the severance of former social ties (4:4)—likewise makes the theory of a state-sponsored persecution both improbable and unnecessary. Details of the situation point rather to social polarization and conflict which was local, disorganized and unofficial in character (Selwyn 1947; van Unnik IDB 3: 758-66; Reicke James, Peter, Jude AB; Kelly Peter HNTC; Best 1 Peter NCBC; Goppelt Petrusbrief MeyerK; Elliott 1981; Brox Petrusbrief EKKNT). As strangers and aliens belonging to a novel cult and exclusive minority actively seeking adherents, these Christians were the victims of the harassment and discrimination regularly experienced by those suspected of posing a disruptive threat to local peace and prosperity." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, art. "First Epistle of Peter")
There remain a couple questions about 1 Peter, however.

First, the letters of Paul are conspicuous for never using the word "Christian," but 1 Peter 4:16 refers to those who "suffer as a Christian." On the other hand, it may not have taken much time after the last Pauline letters for this expression to gain currency, especially in Rome. In this matter, we are fortunate to have some literary remains to provide a context. Both Suetonius and Tacitus refer to the "Chrestians"/"Christians" being punished by Nero, ca. 65 CE. While they are writing from the second century, the name under which this group was punished in the 60s CE is mentioned specifically in both cases. So it is certainly plausible that this name was being used in Rome in the 60s CE (and, specifically, in the context of suffering as Christian, no less).

If by "Babylon," it refers to Rome, then it becomes likely that the Jewish war had begun, pointing to a date after 66 CE. It also might be easier to read as having a date after 70 CE, when the destruction of the temple had been accomplished, thus creating the clear parallel between Babylon and Rome.

Thus, if it is authored by Peter, we'd want to set the terminus a quo around 65 CE (after the letters of Paul and after the Jewish war was afoot) and end somewhere before the references to the death of Peter and within this apostle's lifetime (perhaps up to around 80 CE). A date range of 65-80 CE is consistent with the reference to "Christians" (Chrestians), to "Babylon," and with authorship by Peter.

Have James and 1 Peter Been Rehabilitated?

It's naturally quite difficult to prove authorship and, perhaps, especially difficult to prove the positive side of the case. They could still be written in the names of the famous apostles -- as could any letter claiming to be by Paul, or a John, James, or Peter. Yet, if we are willing to consider the authenticity of the Pauline letters as something that seems probable, and if we are also wiling to let go of the assumptions that come with the HJ package, then we should also be ready to take a careful look at the epistles of James and 1 Peter and wonder whether additional witnesses to early forms of Christianity, on par with the letters of Paul, have been hiding in plain sight.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:The letter known as First Peter is in much the same boat: it is assumed to be sunk because of the high quality of the Greek writing. If Peter weren't a Galilean fisherman called by Jesus to be one of the Twelve before being crucified by Pilate, but instead were a competing apostle and contemporary of Paul who could command Greek just as well, then this argument goes by the wayside.
Part of the impetus for my thread about Simon, Cephas, and Peter being three different men was the possibility that 1 Peter is either genuinely Petrine or at least more accurately reflective of Peter than we usually suppose:
Ben C. Smith wrote:This whole notion on my part derives at least partly from the multifaceted nature of the Petrine material. It sometimes feels like this guy changed his entire lifestyle every decade or so:
  1. A Galilean fisherman, something of a dunderhead, a disciple listed alongside zealots and sons of thunder and a traitor, ranging from Galilee to Jerusalem (and back?).
  2. A Judean luminary, a pillar of the Jewish church, associated with James and a group called the brothers of the Lord, ranging from Jerusalem to Antioch (and back?).
  3. A globetrotting apostle,a student of Pauline theology (if 1 Peter is any guide) and Christian apologetics (if the Preaching of Peter is any guide), often named alongside Paul himself as a messenger to the Gentiles, ranging from Antioch to (his alleged martyrdom in) Rome.
We tend to assume that something big (like a purported resurrection) changed him from #1 to #2, and that something else (like the Gentile mission) changed him from #2 to #3. I want to test that assumption. The idea has already been floated that perhaps Cephas and Peter are not the same person, and to me it seems like the ties between either of those individuals and Simon are at best no stronger than the ties between Cephas and Peter, and potentially much weaker.
And I think that all of the Catholic epistles ought to be paid more of this kind of attention than we usually render them, as per my thread about Acts and the epistles:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Various scholars have noted similarities between the New Testament epistles on the one hand and the speeches in Acts attributed to those epistolary authors on the other. Here are some sample statements to this effect with respect to each epistolary author.

....

These observations give us four purported epistolary authors (James, Peter, John, and Paul) whose speeches in Acts seem to reflect distinctive wording or phrasing or theological traits. Jude does not figure into the argument.

So my first question is: are these correspondences between Acts and the epistles (both Pauline and Catholic) a real phenomenon? It appears so to me right now, but is there a way to select the data so that they prove the opposite? If correspondences of similar number and closeness could be found between, for instance, Petrine speeches in Acts and the epistles of John, then the perceived correspondences between the Peter of Acts and the Peter of the epistles would be mitigated.

My second question assumes that the perceived correspondences are real before going on to ask: how are we best to account for them?

....

I admit, I rather like the idea that Acts was composed or compiled as a narrative commentary to the Catholic and Pauline letter collections (probably not including Jude yet in the former nor possibly Hebrews in the latter). The heresiologists inform us that various groups emphasized Paul as the one and only (true) apostle, a tendency to which the narrative of Acts served (and still serves) as counterbalance and control from its very first attestations in the patristic record (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.13.1-3, for instance). Acts justifies the reading and appreciation, not only of the Pauline epistles, but also of the Catholic, as authoritative.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:01 pm, edited 3 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by John2 »

Peter wrote:
One of the earliest and most pervasive arguments for the inauthenticity of James and 1 Peter is their good Greek. Such eloquent-sounding polished Greek style, it is said, could not have come from men who were simply rustic fishermen from Galilee.
While I suspect that the Damascus Document was written by pre-70 CE Jewish Christians, in any event I think it is at least a useful parallel to this situation since the DSS sect and Jewish Christians were champions of the poor. And in the Damascus Document it says that:
The Guardian of all the camps shall be from thirty to fifty years old, one who has mastered all the secrets of men and the languages of all their clans. Whoever enters the Congregation shall do so according to his word, each in his rank. And whoever has anything to say with regard to any suit or judgement, let him say it to the Guardian.
As Hengel notes:
The "overseer (mebaqqer) over all the camps" in the Damascus Document should be "one that has acquired mastery in every language (lason) according to their families." Of all foreign languages, Greek was the most important. Greek speaking Jews had probably entered the community...

https://books.google.com/books?id=2393T ... nt&f=false
So this word guardian (mebaqqer) is also translated as overseer, and as noted here:
...there was at Qumran a functionary similar to the Hellenistic bishop, the mebaqqer, an etymological equivalent in Hebrew of "overseer."

https://books.google.com/books?id=kVqRa ... op&f=false


And here:
That term in fact means "overseer," just as episkopos does, and the mebaqqer was charged to do many of the same things that an episkopos was to do...

https://books.google.com/books?id=YS_d3 ... op&f=false
The latter book goes on to say:
As Jermemias points out, comparisons are made between the mebaqqer and a father and shepherd (Damascus Document 13:9); he does not mention, but the point is worth making, that Christ himself is said to be an episkopos, to care as a shepherd does in bringing us to God [1 Peter 2:25] ... Divine care and the institution of the overseer appear to have been linked in both Essene theology and primitive Christianity.
Something else that stands out is 1 Peter 2:4-6:
As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
And 1 Peter 2:21:
To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
This sounds similar to 1QS col. 8:
In the Council of the Community there shall be twelve men and three priests, perfectly versed in all that is revealed of the Law, whose works shall be truth, righteousness, justice, loving kindness, and humility.They shall preserve the faith in the Land with steadfastness and meekness and shall atone for sin by the practice of justice and by suffering the sorrows of affliction. They shall walk with all men according to the standard of truth and the rule of the time.

When these are in Israel, the Council of the Community shall be established in truth. It shall be an Everlasting Plantation, a House of Holiness for Israel, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron. They shall be witnesses to the truth at the judgement, and shall be the elect of Goodwill who shall atone for the Land and pay to the wicked their reward. It shall be that tried wall, that precious corner-stone, whose foundations shall neither rock nor sway in their place.

It shall be a Most Holy Dwelling for Aaron, with everlasting knowledge of the Covenant of justice, and shall offer up sweet fragrance. It shall be a House of Perfection and Truth in Israel that they may establish a Covenant according to the everlasting precepts. And they shall be an agreeable offering, atoning for the Land and determining the judgement of wickedness, and there shall be no more iniquity.


So I'm thinking that 1 Peter could be genuine and related to the DSS and that consequently the polished Greek of the Letter of James and 1 Peter could be due to the requirement that the guardian/overseer/bishop was to be "one who has mastered all the secrets of men and the languages of all their clans."
Last edited by John2 on Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:18 pm, edited 7 times in total.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ben C. Smith wrote:(Sorry, Peter. I do not mean to derail your thread. Just wondering out loud here.)
Quite alright! I'm glad to have your contributions here.
Ben C. Smith wrote:
Ben C. Smith wrote:Then we have James the apostle and James the brother of the Lord, each filling out a different triumvirate (Peter, James, and John as disciples; Cephas, James, and John as Jerusalem pillars).
Once we have potentially separated James the Pillar from James the son of Zebedee, we might wonder about Jude, who is called the brother of James in Jude [1.]1. Not only might we wonder whether James and Jude were turned into brothers of Jesus based on a particular (mis)understanding of the phrase "brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1.19, but we might also wonder who the Mary, James, and Joses are in Mark 15.40, 47; 16.1. Once "brother of the Lord" came to mean "physical brother of Jesus", was James the Pillar perhaps confused with another James, son of Mary, brother of Joses? And then what about the familiar names in Mark 6.3? James and Joses and Judas and Simon, all brothers, all sons of Mary.
I wonder too. Were Jude and James associated as "brothers in/of the Lord" (i.e. God)?

Hmmm...

Unlike 1 Peter and James, though, the epistle of Jude has fewer champions for a very early date (vv. 3-4, 17-18).

3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

17 But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. 18 They said to you, “In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.”

Still, it could be late 1st century or early 2nd.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ben C. Smith wrote:A Judean luminary, a pillar of the Jewish church, associated with James and a group called the brothers of the Lord, ranging from Jerusalem to Antioch (and back?).
A globetrotting apostle, [coworker and competing apostle in faith with Paul], a student of Pauline theology (if 1 Peter is any guide) and Christian apologetics (if the Preaching of Peter is any guide), often named alongside Paul himself as an [occasional] messenger to the Gentiles, ranging from Antioch to [Corinth] (his alleged martyrdom in) Rome.
I've underlined the things that I think we can find in Paul's letters (although, yeah, they could be different people or reflect different time periods).
Ben C. Smith wrote:And I think that all of the Catholic epistles ought to be paid more of this kind of attention than we usually render them, as per my thread about Acts and the epistles:
I agree, very much so. And that sounds like an interesting project (trying to test the assumption that Acts represents the apostles in the same terms as the letters attributed to them).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by andrewcriddle »

One issue with James is the limited evidence of any early knowledge of it. Not by Paul alone by David R. Nienhuis argues that James is very late 2nd century. I'm not convinced, but the fact that the case can be made shows how obscure the work was in the early Church.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by Peter Kirby »

andrewcriddle wrote:One issue with James is the limited evidence of any early knowledge of it. Not by Paul alone by David R. Nienhuis argues that James is late 2nd century. I'm not convinced, but the fact that the case can be made shows how obscure the work was in the early Church.
Very true. It requires some kind of explanation.

Perhaps a certain provenance (ostensibly written from pre-war Jerusalem) and prejudice (pro-Paul ... and, if not that, simply pro-Gospel ... such that James almost didn't make it in the canon) kept it 'obscure' to the writers we know from the second century.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:One issue with James is the limited evidence of any early knowledge of it. Not by Paul alone by David R. Nienhuis argues that James is late 2nd century. I'm not convinced, but the fact that the case can be made shows how obscure the work was in the early Church.
Very true. It requires some kind of explanation.

Perhaps a certain provenance (ostensibly written from pre-war Jerusalem) and prejudice (pro-Paul ... and, if not that, simply pro-Gospel ... such that James almost didn't make it in the canon) kept it 'obscure' to the writers we know from the second century.
An option which has occurred to me is that the phrases "and of the Lord Jesus Christ" in James 1.1 and "in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ" in 2.1 are Catholic interpolations. Those are the only two verses which mention Jesus at all. What looks like the second advent of Jesus in 5.7-11 is probably the coming of Yahweh ("the Lord") promised by the Hebrew prophets, especially since the Lord appears to be called "the Judge" in verse 9, and 4.11 explicitly says that there is one Lawgiver and Judge. So, if 1.1 and 2.1 are original, either (A) Jesus is, cleanly and without remainder, Yahweh himself or (B) the title of "Lord" given to him is honorary only. If these options are not appealing, then the conflict between calling Jesus "Lord" and speaking elsewhere only of God as Lord becomes intolerable. So perhaps the original epistle was not Christian in any sense, but the name of James was too big to let an epistle penned by him (or in his name) to pass by (especially in the second century), so those two lines were added to Christianize it, thereby making it fit for the canon.

Bernard argues that those two lines are interpolations too: http://historical-jesus.info/38.html. I am not wed to the hypothesis, but I think it may be worth exploring. It might explain how the epistle could be very early without being mentioned by Christian authors: it was not at all Christian. Maybe they did not even know about it until later, if it circulated only in certain Jewish circles.

ETA: More here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2629.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8027
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by Peter Kirby »

It's a fairly popular suggestion (that these parts were interpolated), but I am not really a big believer in the problem as something to be solved.

Especially in something this size, I think it's very typical to find only a few oblique references to Jesus. Rather than ask about their content or density, to determine whether it's "Christian," I think I'd focus on the rest of the contents and whether they are closer to the Christian milieu than typical Jewish literature. In that respect, I would point to the Perrin quote above, about the ethical teachings shared with the other NT epistles and about the interaction (apparent) with Paul's doctrine of salvation through faith.

That leaves the possibility that it is "Christian" in the sense that it is from that group in general, but that it had these interpolations. Which I don't find too satisfying either.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Apostle Rehab: could James or Peter write a line? (of Gr

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Peter Kirby wrote:It's a fairly popular suggestion (that these parts were interpolated), but I am not really a big believer in the problem as something to be solved.

Especially in something this size, I think it's very typical to find only a few oblique references to Jesus. Rather than ask about their content or density, to determine whether it's "Christian," I think I'd focus on the rest of the contents and whether they are closer to the Christian milieu than typical Jewish literature. In that respect, I would point to the Perrin quote above, about the ethical teachings shared with the other NT epistles and about the interaction (apparent) with Paul's doctrine of salvation through faith.
Setting Paul aside for a second, let me ask you, could not those overlaps in ethics and whatnot (between James and Christianity) not be a result of this epistle belonging to the particular kind of Judaism from which Christianity emerged? IOW, might not what you are reading as this epistle's indebtedness to Christianity be read instead as Christianity's indebtedness to a certain branch of Judaism? If not, why not? What are the signs that tell against it?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply