The Forgotten Apostle
- Being Also an Exegesis of 1Peter 1:1 -
[Or: More on the Horrendous Richness & Complexity of the Text!]

  Dear Cyber-Saints, in many ways it can rightly be said that the Faith is firmly established within the bedrock of historical realities. Remembrance of the truths of the past (as opposed to mythologies, as such) was always a part of the basic identity of the People of God; and in time this practice of reliving the past flowered into the sober study of history (ie. as a worthy entity in and of itself). Just as the modern historical sciences are birthed from the Faith, so the seedlings of faith are rooted in the rich soil of mundane historical realities.
.
 Therefore: any attempt to study the Faith without constant recourse to the full sweep of the millennia-long story of the People of God is surely doomed to fail. In the same way, it is impossible to fully understand the Sacred Text without constant recourse to the histories of the ancient Hebrews, the Jewish peoples (Palestine and Diaspora), and all the many and varied early Greco-Roman churches prior to the age of Constantine (whether "orthodox" or otherwise). The sacred texts are rooted in history, emerged from history, and also tell not one history, but two!
.
 First there is the story that is told to the Reader whenever reading the texts. This is the Narrative History that is a mixture of history (as such), legend, mythology, and sundry literary entities. Needless to say, the historical value of the texts necessarily varies enormously among the various biblical books; and it is important for every bible-student to be constantly aware that almost all of the biblical books are composed of various layers of traditions (stemming from different eras), and so the historical relevance will also vary accordingly.
.
 The second history that the texts tell is not nearly as obvious as the narrative-history (and indeed the thoughtless Reader can easily miss it entirely), but in many ways it is even more important to the Faith than the narrative-history. Let us simply call this the Non-Narrative History. It is the history that lies behind the things that the authors say (and even don't say). It is the silent history that lurks between the lines of the Text, and establishes the world within (and behind) the Text. [4X: in Luke-Acts the Fall of Jerusalem, and the destruction of the Holy Temple, in 70CE is everywhere assumed, but nowhere explicitly stated.] It is the small and quiet history that exists in the forms and genres of the texts, in the style and ideas of the particular authors, and even hides within the individual words [4X: the word 'Christian' in 1P.4:16 has tremendous significance in light of the always ticklish matter of dating the texts] that are the basic building blocks of the Word of God.
.
 Of course, not all readers can see this 'non-narrative history' that constantly evades the casual viewer, but it is there in the texts all the same; and remains just as much a part of God's Word as the overt message presented by a literal reading of the words and phrases. And it is this necessary distinction between these two different kinds of telling that is so difficult for most bible-students and bible-readers to make.
.
 But the *real* problems only begin when the stories told by the two tellings don't match, or even contradict each other out-right. That's when a careful attention to the details becomes even more important than usual. In any case, in order to understand the significance of the text to us in the here and now, it is essential to have a firm and coherent vision of the historical context within and around any text. And it is precisely at this crucial point that the churches, scribes, and scholars have so miserably failed the People of God by providing a paradigm for the sacred texts that serves doctrines rather than truth, that serves theology rather than history, that serves the vested interests of the powers and principalities rather than the needs of the spiritually hungry and intellectually challenged People of God.
.
 But if Christians are best served by theological fantasies, and historical ignorance, and a total lack of appreciation for the history and faith of the early Greek churches ... *then* all the World's churches, preachers, teachers, scribes, and scholars are doing a bang up job with that you bet!

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 5 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

 Dear Cyber-Saints, so when we turn to the Word of God, we must do so in the knowledge that truth comes in many forms, and that every text holds at least two truths: (1) the narrative-truth (which is "usually" the literal reading), and (2) the historical-truth (which refers to the specific religious and/or cultural realities and conditions which form and inform the context of the text and its author). Now usually there is no conflict between these two levels of truth that emerge from the two ways of 'textual telling' (ie. narrative-history and non-narrative history); but sometimes outright conflict emerges, and it is at this point that the believer is hard put to follow the narrow way of the eternal Logos.
.
 Let us discuss one glaring example of conflicting truths in order to illustrate how these two levels of textual reality can function independently of each other. The text in question is short and sweet: "[An epistle from] Petros, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen exiles of the Dispersion ..." (1Peter 1:1 / PV). Now this is a carefully crafted opening to a carefully crafted NT book; and so it should not surprise the Reader to find that even these simple statements are rich in meaning and history, and already show signs of being of the genre called prophetic-literature (which is a fairly loose and general category; owing to the many literary varieties of prophetic literature, nach).
.
 In any case, the problem here is that the narrative truth (ie. Peter is the author) does not match the historical context of the book (ie. the author is not Peter). Now some believers are distressed at this contradiction because they suppose that if the author was not Peter, then *that* non-Peter author was LYING, and that makes God a liar, but since God is NOT a liar, Peter *IS* the author! [This sort of biblical exegesis is, sad to say, about par for the course these days.] Other believers simply refuse to face the problem directly by declining to recognize the necessity of making this confusing distinction between the various levels of textual reality. And still other readers can accept that Peter is *and* is not the author, since it was common practice in ancient times for disciples to write in the name of their beloved master; (although this is NOT the case with 1Peter).
.
 Note to Reader: This practice involves the concept of honor; something which most post-modern Christians apparently have no knowledge of. But perhaps this is because they are unfamiliar with the nature of early Christian literature in general. 4X: "Further, an epistle of 'Jude', and two with the title 'John', are accepted in the catholic church; and the 'Wisdom' (written by friends of Solomon in his honor)" (from the so-called 'Muratorian Fragment'; generally thought to come from Rome round about c.200CE).

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 7 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

 "Yet the one these things are spoken about belongs to a different tribe and no one from it has ever officiated at the altar. For it is clear that our Lord is descended from Judah, yet Moses said nothing about priests in connection with that tribe."  -- From the book sadly miscalled 'Hebrews' 7:13-14 / NETbible

 Anyway, in order for the Reader to accept my forthcoming exegesis of this verse (ie. 1P.1:1), and the meaning thereof, it is first necessary to briefly discuss the questions of the date, author, and setting for the epistle called First-Peter. We shall deal with place first because it is the easiest to handle :) So where was 1Peter written? The most common answer to this question is: Rome. Thus Rome is given as the place of writing on the basis of verse 5:13 ... "She in Babylon (a co-chosen one) greets you; as does Mark (my son)" (PV). But if 1Peter was indeed written from Rome by Simon-Peter roundabout c.64-65CE (as is commonly supposed), then we have a serious problem to explain. Namely, why does the historical evidence contradict this popular "conclusion"?
.
 4X: If 1Peter was written in Rome in the mid-60's of the first century, then it is inconceivable that there would be no mention of it in the so-called 'Muratorian Fragment' (which comes from Rome c.200CE). Now while many Christians may wish to ignore the plain facts, this is not a luxury that any sincere bible-student can afford. The evidence *must* be explained! And the evidence here suggests that 1Peter was NOT written in Rome, and was NOT written in the early apostolic period (ie.30-70CE). This means that verses 5:13-14 are *very* probably not original to the author's work-a-day autograph, but were added later (mainly for political-ecclesiastical (rather than religious) reasons). btw: Such deliberate textual-manipulation was not uncommon among the pre-Constantinian churches. Indeed the Whore of Babylon had also done similar adjustments to both 1Clement and the ending of Hebrews. Therefore these later additions to the text of 1Peter (including the opening signature) simply mean that 5:13 cannot be regarded as evidence reliable to the question of setting and occasion.
.
 Thus we cannot know the place of writing with certainty, but from various clues within the text (eg. the place-names in the opening verses) I would offer NE Asia-Minor (in the post-matthean period; ie. c.80-95CE) as perhaps the most likely place from which the apostle-author (or rather the author-editor) reworked (over the course of many years) his prophetic 'book of homilies'-in-a-letter into the universal-occasional epistle only later to be called 'First-Peter'.

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 9 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

 Turning now to the far more difficult questions regarding the author (4X: Is 'Petros' a pseudonym or not?) and date, the first thing to do here is to admit that these two problems are so intermixed that it would be futile even to attempt to separate them. Solving the problem of authorship essentially determines the dating of the book, while giving 1Peter a Post-Fall date (ie. any time after 70CE) more less proves that the apostle Simon-Peter is not the author . . . This is a very brief and crude sketch of the general scholarly paradigm that deals with the most common questions that are asked about the text of First-Peter. From here the commentators usually approach the problems of dating by attempting to link the author-apostle's concern with what is called 'the theme of persecution' to the known activities of the far-flung Roman Empire ... [That is, as these relate to church history.]
.
 Therefore those who fancy Simon-Peter as the author will point to Nero (c.64-65CE) and his sadistic abuse of the Roman assembly as the socio-political context out of which the great saint and fearless martyr didst dash off an epistle to the churches of Asia-Minor (ie. his time was short, you see), and soon thereafter was crucified upside- down. Apparently this fate is considered by many to be exceptionally appropriate, and therefore almost certainly true and factual:
.
 Under Nero "Both St. Peter and St. Paul were prob. executed at Rome in his reign" (The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p.354). Hey! If the CODCC says so, then it *must* be history, right? Alas, dear reader, it is not history at all! The "fact" that Peter and Paul were both killed in Rome under Nero is *IN NO WAY* an established and documented *historical* fact, but rather is a "fact" built upon rampant piety, feverish imagination, ecclesiastical politics, and a popular (and vulgar) taste for cheesy melodrama. All this comprises the vast bulk of the so-called evidence "confirming" that Peter and Paul were indeed killed at Rome, and the rest is merely hearsay (at best).
.
 In other words, our attempted exegesis of the text is everywhere confounded and confused by a gross inability to distinguish between "history" (here defined as the totality of past reality) and "legend" (here defined as ideas which primarily serve a specific purpose, and which may (or may not) have a loose connection with actual historical realities). The significance of always making this distinction while studying the scriptures, ought to be a question of fundamental methodology for any and all bible-students. Therefore our duty to affirm historical truth compels us to make it crystal-clear to the Reader that the final fate of the apostles Peter and Paul is well beyond the grasp of History, and will most likely never be known ... Such is the way of history, after all; although it is perhaps safe to say that they were both swallowed whole by that bloody meat-grinder called the Jewish Wars (cf. Josephus).
.
 In any case, even *if* Peter did fall under the hand of the Mad Emperor, this does NOT explain why he should write at once to the churches of Asia-Minor. What I mean is that they were well out of Nero's sight, and so in no particular danger from his excesses. So why write to those churches in particular? Do you see the problem here? There's no real connection between the situation in Rome under Nero and the then-current concerns of the churches of Asia- Minor. So why address his epistle to them? Why didn't Peter simply write a universal epistle to *all* the churches instead (now that he was at the new "Holy City" and new "Center of the Cosmos") ???
.
 The answer is that he surely would have ... *IF* the occasion (Nero) and author (Peter) of 1Peter are who the Fundies say they are. Take all this along with the fact that the second-century Roman author of the Muratorian Fragment knows nothing about 1Peter, and we can safely dispense with the idea of a pre-Fall date for this apostolic NT book so sadly mislabeled as a 'catholic epistle' and so erroneously entitled 'First Peter'.

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 11 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

 "Come to Him! To that Living-Stone; rejected by men, but in God's sight chosen and precious. And like living stones, be yourselves built into a spiritual house ..."  -- 1Peter 2:4-5 / RSV [slightly edited ... forgive please]

  In some ways it is sad to see Peter go, but once we open our minds to the near-certainty that 1Peter was written *after* the Fall of Jerusalem by some prophet preaching with many years of apostolic authority, *then* we can finally begin to appreciate the relevance of the evidence that points to a situation within the context of the Late Apostolic Period (ie. 70-150CE). ... 4X: Just as the polished language and diction of the author bears no resemblance to the man called Simon-Peter portrayed in the Gospel of Mark and Peter, so the more developed theology of 1Peter bears a passing resemblance to the semi-crude theological efforts typical of the early apostolic literature (ie. the authentic epistles of Paul, and Mk). Since we are (supposedly) concerned with the opening verses of our NT book, let me illustrate this theological development with this little 'Exhibit A' -> the *almost* trinitarian formula that our author uses in his opening address: To the chosen exiles of the Dispersion [in Asia-Minor] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the spirit giving obedience, and sprinkling in the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace to you, and may peace be multiplied! - 1P.1:1-2 / Prophet Version
.
 Now anyone who thinks that something like this could have been written prior to the appearance of Matthew's Gospel (c.80-85CE) is, I suggest, not thinking very clearly about the nature and progress of early Christian literature. There is a natural progression to the development of early Christian thought whereby any one author builds upon the labors of those who came before ...
.
 Just as Matthew, John, and Luke (each in his own way AND time) build upon the original Gospel of Mark and Peter; just as Colossians and Ephesians both build upon the authentic pauline epistles; just as Second-Peter builds directly upon the text of Judas' universal epistle [*and* deliberately speaks (unlike 1Peter) with the (assumed) voice and authority of Simon-Peter]; just as all the early Christian prophets, evangelists, and teachers built upon the insights and revelations of the great Hebrew prophets (and none more so than our good forgotten-apostle Silvanus); and so on and so forth.
.
 So the author of First-Peter clearly owes much to both the early pauline and petrine traditions (both oral and literary forms, and practices), but his relative theological independence (from these two *major* early Faith traditions) is apparent not only in his abiding concern with the persecution tradition (as such) to which he is (shall we say?) fervently committed, but also shows through in his scriptural discussion of Jesus as the rock and cornerstone.
.
 As to this last item, it may even be the case that the recent publication of Matthew's revision of "The Gospel" (ie. Mk) was, at the very least, one occasion prompting the composition (or rather, the contents) of the author's general letter. Indeed it is entirely possible that this section of 1Peter could best be understood as a considered prophetic rebuttal of the new and unwarranted claims made on behalf of Simon-Peter at one point in the spanking-new gospel-book:
.
 "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church ..." (Mt.16:18 / NIV). The prophet's answer is to point out that this claim is entirely false owing to the true and authentic witness of the Hebrew prophets who know full well that it is the Lord who is the one and only cornerstone for 'the chosen exiles'.
.
 In that regard it is somewhat ironically amusing that the words of the Greek-speaking and peace-loving apostle (who was nevertheless not shy to criticize both Peter and Paul when they erred) later came to be attached so closely to the name and authority of 'the Pillar of Antioch' that they are now almost universally "known" to have been written by that very same 'rock' that our author-apostle argues so powerfully and persuasively against!

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 13 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

  The next step in our exegesis requires the Reader to form a strong impression of the author as a man who is not only impressively literate (ie. adept in written Greek, and able to express himself both concisely and forcefully), but also has a deep love for the Holy Scriptures as a whole. Thus his teachings (and almost every word he writes) are well-soaked in the LXX, the epistles of Paul, and in the Gospel (ie. Mk & Mt). For the apostle-author of 1Peter there was no absurd division of the holy books into 'Old Testament' and 'New Testament'. There was no single solitary "Holy Bible". There was no canon, no 'rule', no need to measure and fence off and divide into this, that, and the other thing. For him, *all* scripture is unified, imbued, and inspired by the power and grace of the Holy Spirit to the end of revealing *your* salvation! That is the only standard that the prophet knows. And so nothing more is required. [Amen!] As evidence for all of this "unwarranted speculation" I would like to present this most fascinating passage from 1Peter wherein the author reveals much about himself, as well as his vision of the essential unity among the Hebrew and Greek scriptures:
.
 "The prophets who prophesied of the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired about this salvation; they inquired what person or time was indicated by the Spirit of Christ within them when predicting the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glory. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things which have now been announced to you by those who preached the good news to you through the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look" (1Peter 1:10-12 / RSV).
.
 Here it is especially significant to observe that, for the prophet, the Word of God is not merely confined to the written texts, but it is also a *living* thing delivered orally by the Lord's apostles and prophets. In this regard, Silvanus' thinking is entirely consistent with his earlier views on the subject:
.
 "Because of this we for our part unceasingly thank God that when you received from us the word of the message of God you accepted not a word of men, but what it really is, a Word of God (which works in you who believe). -- First Thessalonians 2:13 / Prophet Version
.
 So then we should not be surprised that our multi-layered book demonstrates a close connection with the Word of God's prophetic tradition right from the get-go:
.
 "Petros, an apostle of Jesus Christ" (1P.1:1a).
.
 "Paulos, an apostle of Christ Jesus" (2Cor.1:1a).
.
 Hmmm ... Shall we hurry up and ignore this fact as fundamentally meaningless, absolutely coincidental, *AND* utterly insignificant??? ... Oh yes! Let's do so at once; such that we may not bother our silly heads about the very serious implications thereof! :) But before we move on to other matters, let us pause here long enough to observe that in opening the epistle in just this particular way, the "author"  ...
.
 [That is to say, the second-century editor-redactor (ie. someone other than the author of the pre-canonical version (ie. Silvanus)) who added this superfluous signature verse in order to lend the epistle all the authority and status associated with the 'Great-First-Apostle' -> no longer 'Simon-Peter', but simply 'petros'; ie. the close association with 'patros' is now at the heart of the Peter-legend around which the priestly traditions built.]
.
 ... of this "authoritative epistolary opening" is deliberately and intentionally linking himself directly with the (literary) Christian prophetic tradition that developed (in the early decades of the Faith c.50CE) in and around the two Hellenistic-apostles, Paulos of Damascus, AND Silvanus! [This fact says a lot about that redactor's ignorance about the very text that he is trying so hard to affirm.]
.
 So now let us regain our bearings by returning to the idea that the evidence of the texts pointing to a post-Fall date for 1Peter is persistent and undeniable (if not outright overwhelming :) ...
.
 There is a strand of biblical scholarship (leading off from Semler & Cludius) that recognizes the significance of the intimate (and general) link between 1Peter and the authentic epistles of Paul. In attempting to explain this relationship, it is observed that 'the literary and theological dependence' upon the genuine epistles is "intrinsically unlikely in Peter and chronologically impossible within his lifetime" (A.M.Stibbs, 'The First Epistle General of Peter', p.18). Scholars who hold this view (and acknowledge the implications thereof) are, of course, quite right; and it should come as no surprise to the Reader that the offensive one most heartily applauds them ...

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 15 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

7. On Prophet & Spirit

  "If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed ones, because the spirit of glory, and the Spirit of God, upon you rests."  -- First Peter 4:14 / Prophet Version

  As further textual evidence in support of our contention that the forgotten apostle Silvanus is the true author of 1Peter, I would like to draw the Reader's attention to a careful comparison of the following verses which relate (more or less directly) to the Holy Spirit:
.
 1Peter 1:2; 4:6,14; 1:11-12; and "Through Silvanus" (5:12)
.
 1Thessalonians 1:4-7; 4:8; 5:19; and 2Th.2:13
.
 In this connection (ie. 1P.1:10-12) it may be helpful for the Reader to inquire further into the author's vision of the role of the Holy Spirit in the lives of prophets and believers. Now it is our view that both Silvanus and Paulos were directly involved in the creation of the Christian epistle [firstly at Athens, and then in Corinth] as a vehicle for the Word of God and/or the Gospel.
.
 When the original four Thessalonians letters (combined in canonical 1&2Thes) are laid out chronologically, the initial development of this earliest Christian prophetic literature is both apparent and dramatic. Silvanus was just as much involved with every stage of the process as Paul was, and so it is safe to conclude that the Thessalonians letters reliably reflect this apostle's thinking and theology at mid-century (ie. just prior to his permanent break with Paul whilst the small band of prophets was sojourning in the great (and wicked) city of Corinth).
.
 So what was Silvanus thinking about the Holy Spirit after his exile from the region of Paul's churches, and as he made his way deep into Asia-Minor with the firm intention to steer well clear of the pauline tradition on one side of him, and the petrine tradition (ie. those churches in and around Antioch) on the other? Being thus sandwiched between the two most influential traditions within the still-emergent Christian faith, Silvanus was able to generate a faith tradition that respected both the petrine and pauline forms, while yet maintaining the independence required of the prophet's critical third-way.
.
 "Since we know your election, brothers and sisters loved by God, that our Gospel did not come to you with words only, but with power, and with the Holy Spirit, and with much conviction; just as you know the kind of people we were among you for your own sakes. And you, for your part, became imitators of us (and of the Lord), in receiving the Word (in much tribulation) with the joy of the Holy Spirit, so that you became an example to all the Believers in Macedonia and Achaia."  -- First Thessalonians 1:4-7 / Prophet Version

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 17 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

  "What is Apollos, really? [Paul's pseudonym for 'Silvanus', I'll wager!] Or what is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, and each of us in the ministry the Lord gave us. I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused it to grow. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters counts for anything, but God who causes things to grow" (1Cor.3:5-7/NETbible). [offensive insert by cybrwurm]

  Now Perkins' revolting treatment of 1Peter (in 'Reading the New Testament') is most curious in one respect. She begins by observing that although 1Peter appears to be a letter (owing to the epistolary opening and closing), it doesn't really read like a letter. This is because 1Peter is actually a collection of oral sermons cast into the overt form of a Christian epistle. In other words, the closest literary-relative of 1Peter is not the classic pauline epistle, but rather the book of James; which also happens to be a collection of sermons cast into the basic epistolary format.
.
 So these textual-facts are significant in that they strengthen our argument that 1Peter is not *really* "a letter from Peter" (written to address, or on occasion of, some specific event or situation), but rather must be classified among the Christian prophetic literature of the Late Apostolic Period. In fact, Perkins *does* classify 1Peter with its prophetic literary-brothers (ie. James, Jude, and 2Peter), but she never really gets around to explaining the connection between this most curious group of NT books and the text of 1Peter.
.
 Nevertheless, it is exactly right and proper to group these four books together; although Perkins does not seem to be aware of the full significance of this unlikely gathering of second-generation Christian-prophets. She entitles her chapter on the four pro-bro's as "The Catholic Epistles: An Apostolic Heritage" (p.293); which (btw) is also quite right and proper (but not for the reasons she gives).
.
 Thus the Persecution-Tradition, in a very real sense, set the course of the Faith on the road to Christianity; not only with the Death & Resurrection itself, but even more so with the expulsion of the Hellenistic-Jewish believers from the Holy City of Jerusalem (this was just a few years after the Crucifixion in c.33CE). From there the persecution-tradition followed after the exiles, and some years later entered into the earliest passages of the NT's prophetic literature. Thus the first words of the NT to be set to papyrus was the opening 'Vituperatio' of Letter-A (of the four Thessalonian letters), which (incidentally) was co-authored by the apostles Paulos and Silvanus:
.
 "Because of this we for our part unceasingly thank God that when you received from us the Word of the message of God you accepted not a word of men, but what it really is, a word of God (which works in you who believe). For you brothers and sisters became imitators of the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea. You suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all people by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved. They always fill up the measure of their sins; but the wrath of God has come upon them at last!" [Opening of letter 1of4 -> 1Th.2:13-16 / Athens / c.49CE / Prophet Version]
.
 Later on (ie. in the 2nd and 3rd centuries) the martyrs (or "witnesses") were, by far, the most effective servants of the Lord (by proclaiming the Gospel with their lives and blood). Later still, it was the prophetic revulsion against the Emperor's episcopal-church that led to the Great-Withdrawal into the deserts of Egypt, and thus began the monastic tradition that was eventually to save "The Church" and the scriptures, *and* conquer Europe for the Lord! . . . Amen!
.
 In other words, the persecution tradition that so vitally shaped and formed the nature and characteristics of the early Greek churches is everywhere associated with the apostles and prophets and saints. Moreover, the persecution-tradition is a *constant* presence among the early churches. It can no more be fenced in, or encircled, or squeezed into just this or just that period, or assigned to just these or just those years; anymore than the apostles and prophets can quit being apostles and prophets after the year 100CE (which they knew nothing of, btw) because some foolish Christians nineteen-centuries hence will arbitrarily decide that there can be no more apostles and prophets after the year 100 *because* the NT was finished and completed in that year (you bet!) such that the apostles and prophets are *thereby* rendered null and void!!!
.
 Oh that's *just* lovely alright! Nothing so pleases a prophet than to know that his efforts are *fully* appreciated ...
.

P.S. "He who plants and he who waters are equal, and each shall receive his wages according to his labor. For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man [Silvanus?] is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it ... [because] each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1Cor.3:8-10;13-15 / RSV).

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 19 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

  Returning again to the matter of the so-called 'occasion' for the text, it is our view that in light of the composite, collective, and gradual nature of the genesis of canonical 1Peter (ie. as a gathering of 'prophetic preachings'), it would be far more accurate to speak instead of the various *occasions* behind the themes and concerns displayed in our good book. For example, the theme of persecution is best understood as a characteristic and abiding concern of the forgotten apostle. As evidence of this proposal, let us return once more to the following text, which recalls the early years of Jerusalem's Hellenistic-Jewish assembly of believers (which included two young and raw recruits named Paulos and Silvanus):
.
 "For you became imitators, brothers and sisters, of God's churches in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, because you too suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they in fact did from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets and persecuted us severely. They are displeasing to God and are opposed to all people, because they hinder us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they constantly fill up their measure of sins, but wrath has come upon them completely."  -- 1Thes 2:14-16 / NETbible
.
 Now we are able to see that the prophet's interest in the persecution tradition of the Faith is such a deep and abiding one precisely because both he and Paul define themselves *and* the Faith in just these terms (4X: Believers are 'strangers', 'aliens', and 'exiles' just as much as their prophets are) as constituting the core structure around which all the early Christian traditions will be built. Even that huge monster that later came to be known as classic orthodoxy emerges from all those events and people that are merely echoing reverberations of that original, bloody, and incredibly powerful explosive outburst; which was (in many ways) the most defining moment (following the Incarnation, of course) in the entire history of the Faith!
.
 We should all of us every-day wonder and pray about those days! ... And the anonymous author of Luke-Acts demonstrates his identity *as* an historian simply by recognizing the great significance of that original persecution and dispersion of the early (and altogether much too radical!) Hellenistic-Jewish believers; although the Romish solution to the "problem" [ie. Peter and Paul, by bringing the Gospel to Rome (and then promptly shedding their blood and lives to seal the deal) didst make 'Babylon' the New Holy City, etc, etc] leaves *much* to be desired ... historically speaking, I mean ... :)
.
 In any case, we should *not* be looking for some specific occasion that "explains" the author's interest in the theme of persecution, but rather we should be thinking that its absence from the text of 1Peter would very clearly demonstrate that the forgotten apostle Silvanus is most certainly *NOT* the author!

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 21 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

  So I turned my attention to the Lord God so as to implore him by prayer and supplications, with fasting, sackcloth, and ashes. I prayed to the LORD my God, confessing in this way: "O Lord, great and wondrous God who keeps covenant fidelity with those who love him and keep his commandments, we have sinned, behaving with iniquity and wickedness, and we have rebelled by turning away from your commandments and judgments. We have not paid attention to your servants the prophets, who spoke as your representatives to our kings, leaders, and fathers, and to all the inhabitants of the land as well." -- Book of Daniel 9:3-6 / NETbible

  In the popular mass-mind the standard approach to 1Peter (and all other biblical books as well) is basically a question of 'either-or': *Either* 1Peter was written by the apostle Simon-Peter (as the text plainly states), OR it is a forgery *period*. Now the first thing that I want to say about this sort of hermeneutics is that language such as 'forgery', and ideas such as 'forgery', are certainly suitable to Anti-Christ rationalists, and other unbelievers, but they have no place in *any* faithful study of the Sacred Text ... Period!
.
 Therefore we hold the 'viable alternative position' (so to speak) whereby we maintain that while 1Peter (and, incidentally, 2Peter also) was certainly NOT written (or even co-composed) by Simon-Peter himself, it is *nevertheless* not a "forgery" or anything even remotely like it. The most likely explanation for the misleading opening words of the book is that they (along with the place-names in the opening salutation, and the superfluous conclusion in verses 5:13-14) were added to the text during the final redactional period (thereby completing its transformation into our current canonical format) sometime during the first few decades of the second century (the last two verses very probably came later, perhaps even much later).
.
 For most of the time prior to these 'touch-up' additions, the text was circulated verbally in a limited geographical region to a specific and particular group of ex-Gentile assemblies ... And so there was really no occasion for anyone to confuse the authorship with anyone other than the "faithful brother" (mentioned in the closing signature) and "fellow elder" (5:1); being how the apostle refers to himself.
.
 Now if the Reader is curious as to the condition of the original letter (say around the time of the prophet's death: c.90CE) prior to its popular circulation in its canonical format, we must first of all take note of the plain fact that this book is a collection of discrete units cast into the form of a letter whereat the following is the finished and natural opening:
.
 "To the chosen exiles of the Dispersion [in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia] according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by sanctification of the spirit giving obedience, and sprinkling in the blood of Jesus Christ. Grace to you, and may peace be multiplied!" -- 1Peter 1:1b-2 / PV
.
 ... and v.5:12 is the finished and natural conclusion:
.
 "Through Silvanus, your faithful brother (as I consider). I wrote [here] briefly to encourage you, and testifying this [letter] to be the true grace of God (in which you stand)" (1P.5:12 / PV).
.
 Note to Reader: Our reconstruction presupposes that the bracketed place-names above (like the 2Cor.1:1a modification, and 5:13-14) were 'picked up en-route' (as they say) to canonization; ie. as "necessary accretions" (as the bible-scholars might put it). I suppose that the place names function in a similar way; those sites near the Aegean arena are especially suspicious in that regard. Of course, the meaning of the place-names is that they indicate the area and churches where the prophet conducted his ministry in relative freedom from the 'pillars' so soon to be deified as the great-saints and super-apostles known as Peter and Paul. Later on the priests would drop the emphasis upon Paul, and concentrate their efforts on making Peter the primary source of their priestly "authority".

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 23 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

  So why does Silvanus address his letter "To the chosen exiles of the Dispersion"? The exegetes and commentators have generally done a very poor job of explaining the opening address; although they are certainly right to point out that even before believers were called 'Christians', they were known as 'the chosen ones'. Yes, but notice also that the prophet immediately qualifies this general address: he is speaking not to *all* the chosen ones, but rather specifically to those who are 'exiles of the dispersion'.
.
 What this means basically is that the apostle's concern is for those believers whose roots are set within the proto-Christian tradition that developed among the early Hellenistic-Jewish believers who were forced out of Jerusalem (and thus exiled) in the early years of the Faith following the Death and Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. In the most general sense, this could include the churches in northern Palestine and Syria, those around the Aegean, and even those in Egypt and the West. But it seems clear that Silvanus is deliberately addressing those small and scattered assemblies of believers in the Asia-Minor arena that are the direct recipients of his decades-long apostolic ministry (c.50-90CE?).
.
 The most significant thing to note about all this is that the prophet clearly recognizes *two* valid faith traditions: (1) the original apostolic tradition headed by the Aramaic 'pillars' (ie. Peter in Antioch, and James in Jerusalem); and (2) the persecution tradition of the Greek-speaking exiles (which included both Paulos and Silvanus among their numbers). Therefore the phrase 'exiles of the dispersion' is simply the prophet's way of identifying his people as those 'chosen ones' who follow, not the traditions of the great Aramaic 'pillars', but rather the persecution-tradition of the early Greek-speaking Judeo-Christian prophets, martyrs, and saints.

  Note to Reader: There are four pivotal turning-points in the story of the Faith following the astonishing revelation of the Son of Man.  These are (in chronological order):
.
(1) the explosive and multi-directional Dispersion of the Hellenistic-Jewish assembly of believers from Jerusalem (roundabout 40CE);
.
(2) the 'Parting of the Ways' between the newly energized Rabbinic-Judaism and (emergent) Christianity (c.80-95CE);
.
(3) the establishment of the empire-wide Imperial-Church by the Emperor Constantine and his bishops (c.324CE), and the corresponding withdrawal by the Desert Fathers; and
.
(4) the Radical Reformation of the early sixteenth century (c.1524).
.
 Therefore, everything that constitutes the nature and characteristics of *all* the churches and believers (that have passed through the centuries since the Son of Man up to the present generation) can be understood and defined as a direct function of how they relate to one or more of these four epoch-making moments in the history of the Faith!
.
 4X: Our good prophet Silvanus was clearly not much disturbed by the 'Parting of the Ways' that caused such turmoil in Egypt (see John's Gospel for details). This is largely because, for him, that 'parting' had already been forced upon him during the bloody and chaotic events of the Jerusalem Dispersion that nudged the Faith to a new direction.
.
 As the Vituperatio witnesses, the anger of the Jewish prophets Paulos and Silvanus in no way takes a back-seat to the righteous rage of the evangelist called John. In 'Romans' (Paul's last and (perhaps) greatest epistle) the apostle displays considerable concern for the problems created by this fast-approaching split within the House of Israel. Thus Romans represents Paul's mature approach toward 'the Jewish problem', in stark contrast to his earlier negative (largely emotive) response: "They always fill up the measure of their sins; but the wrath of God has come upon them at last!"  -- 1Thessalonians 2:16 / PV
.
 So Paul got over his dramatic 'parting', and eventually even made a bold move to heal the breach. In the same way, Silvanus also grew beyond his initial violent anger, and gradually learned the greater value of peace, non-violence, simplicity, humility, and obedience unto the Lord. It was the prophet's life as an apostle of Christ that made him the quiet (but still powerful) man he became (a faithful brother and fellow elder); and it was this very same well-seasoned faith that makes the Book of Silvanus a key element in the New Testament's prophetic literature, and an endless resource for believers seeking an authentic expression of how religion can and should be lived.

  So the reason why the forgotten-apostle urges us to imitate the Living-Stone (as at 1P.2:4-5) is because "imitation" has always been a central element in the prophet's theology and practice of the Faith right from the beginning, and indeed is a vital characteristic of the prophetic persecution-tradition in general. We can see the importance of this emphasis upon imitation even at the very start of the prophet's earliest letter to the new People of God:
.
 "... For you brothers and sisters became imitators of the assemblies of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea. You suffered the same treatment from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the [Christian] prophets, and also drove us [ie. Paulos & Silvanus] out ..." [ie. out of the Holy City of Jerusalem in c.40CE]. -- Opening Vituperatio of Letter-A (from 1Th.2:14-15 / PV).
.
 "And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, when you received the message with joy that comes from the Holy Spirit, despite great affliction" (1Th.1:6 / NETbible)
.
 And also: "For we never came with flattering speech, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed God is witness nor did we seek glory from men, either from you or from others, even though as apostles of Christ we might have asserted our authority. But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares for her own children. Having so fond an affection for you, we were well-pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God but also our own lives, because you had become very dear to us. For you recall, brethren, our labor and hardship, how working night and day so as not to be a burden to any of you, we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; just as you know how we were exhorting and encouraging and imploring each one of you as a father would his own children, so that you would walk in a manner worthy of the God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory." -- 1Th.2:5-12 / NASB

/ TheologyOnLine - Bible Study / 25 Dec 2000 / Newsgroups > alt.religion.christian.biblestudy, alt.bible.prophecy /

  Anyway! Speaking of Silvanus, commentator Perkins proposes him as the possible author only to immediately reject him and move on to the possibility that the author of 1Peter was some anonymous 'elder' ...
.
 "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed" (1Peter 5:1 / NIV).
.
 ... revealed in and through the Roman church (presumably this is the option she favors). But consider carefully the way she disposes of the good prophet Silvanus: "One of Paul's associates, Silvanus, is referred to as the actual writer in 5:12, though one would expect more personal greetings if Silvanus had written the letter, since he was certainly familiar with Christians in this region" (Pheme Perkins, 'Reading the New Testament', Rev.Ed., 1988, p.293).
.
 The answer to this objection is that since 1Peter is not *really* a letter, we should not expect "more personal greetings" in any case; even if Silvanus is the direct source of the independent oral-literary units comprising the body of this so-called epistle. All such personal greetings would be given by our author in person as he made his way from one local church to the next. In other words, Silvanus cannot be so easily dismissed from the status of 'most likely author'.
.
 Indeed, when *all* the evidence is considered (in whole and in part) it becomes increasingly apparent that Silvanus is the sole and only real contender who meets *all* the exacting requirements demanded of the author of 1Peter. One would think that the closing signature verse 5:12 should be quite sufficient to establish the true identity of the author of this NT book, but (unfortunately) nineteen centuries of unrelentingly pious Peter-worship (compounded by a long tradition of gross translating and moronic interpretation) have effectively prevented Christians from recognizing this closing signature verse for what it *so* very plainly and obviously IS!
.

Revelation by Electronic-Fire

 In 1Cor.3:10 Paul's mention of "another man" suggests the strong possibility that "Apollos" is none other than our good forgotten-apostle Silvanus. The significance of Paul's ongoing relationship with Apollos (after their permanent breakup in Corinth) is thus made apparent in the fact that throughout the Book of Silvanus (ie. 1Peter) there is abundant evidence of an ongoing dialogue between the prophet's critical third-way and the literary traditions stemming from the major pillars Peter and Paul. We have already seen that Silvanus' concern for the Gospel (Mk & Mt) peaks with his cornerstone discussion. In the same way, his dependence upon the authentic pauline epistles becomes especially evident when the apostle's focus turns to the theme of fire as set forth by Paulos of Damascus:
.
 "... for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." -- First Corinthians 3:13-15 / Revised Standard Version
.
 To which the prophet responds thusly: "Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. If you are reproached for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the spirit of glory and of God rests upon you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a wrongdoer, or a mischief-maker; yet if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but under that name let him glorify God. For the time has come for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?" -- First Peter 4:12-17 / Revised Standard Version

On Mystery & Meaning

  And so the reason why 1Peter is not mentioned by the Muratorian Fragment is because the canonical 'catholic epistle' called First-Peter was a long time in the forming. In its earliest stages it existed as discrete homilies to be read out loud to the various assemblies of Asia-Minor that were receptive to the prophet's unique scripture-based preaching and gospel. These original sermons were constantly revised and improved upon over the years by the apostle-author, such that the raw text now incorporates and reflects decades of prophetic ministry in that 'no man's land' between the pauline churches (around the Aegean Sea), and the petrine churches (in and around Antioch).
.
 After the Jewish prophet's (natural) death, his book-in-a-letter would pass on to his students and disciples, and eventually one of these would edit them into their present canonical form (4X: by adding the epistolary signature and place-names to the beginning verses). Since this final redactional stage most likely didn't begin until the early years of the second century (and then perhaps circulated during a stop-over in Egypt prior to making it's way to Rome?), the absence of any mention of 1Peter in the Muratorian Fragment is no longer such a vexing mystery.
.
 How about that?! Well, I don't know about you, dear reader, but I personally find all of this to be quite amazing and altogether tremendously exciting! These are great days to be a bible-student and a Believer; in that we are *finally* gaining a better view of the world within and behind the Sacred Text. As I was suggesting earlier, history can be the believer's second-best companion and guide. The history of the early Greek churches is an incredible demonstration of Providence in action; just as the entire history of the multi-verse in general can be faithfully (and rationally) viewed as the universal unfolding of the Eternal Logos ...

P.S.  He also said to them, "A lamp isn't brought to be put under a basket or under a bed, is it? Isn't it to be placed on a lampstand? For nothing is hidden, except to be made clear, and nothing concealed, except to be brought to light. Let the one who has ears to hear, listen!" And he said to them, "Take care about what you hear. The measure you give will be the measure you receive, and more will be added to you. For whoever has, more will be given, but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him." Mk4:21-25/NETbible
.
P.P.S.  Thus sayeth the Lord: "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
.
P.P.P.S.  Thus sayeth the cybrwurm: "Amen!"