When was 1 Peter written?

[JohnDB]

And 3Peter was unwritten after both
:^)

So....
When was the book of Hezekiah written?

You know....that section in 2nd Paul which quotes it.

 

[homwardbound]

Peter was killed somewhere around 55AD. (Before Paul died) His two letters were written while he was alive, albeit by a stenographer. And he overworked his words, each one was carefully chosen to reflect passages in the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew....but he personally knew both translations.
His second letter was more of a collaboration than his first according to internal evidence and tradition. (But the evidence somewhat shakey)

Where in the Bible does it mention Peter's death?


What does the New Testament say about the deaths of Peter and Paul? Answer? Nothing. The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome alive and preaching unfettered (Acts 28:30–31).May 19, 2022

Date of Writing: The Book of 1 Peter was likely written between A.D. 60 and 65. Purpose of Writing: 1 Peter is a letter from Peter to the ...
other sources I got AD 80's
However, Peter learned and penned what Peter learned, Peter went through many mistakes also as I know I have too, thank you for your post Brother

 

[greenonions]

Authorized (King James) Version

Acts 15:37-40

37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. 38 But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. 39 And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; 40 and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God.

Acts 13, yes about John, Mark left. Yet the acts reported continue forward in what happened
Not sure why you are separating this out about Mark

Can you expound this, please

I was under the impression that GWH said that Paul asked Timothy to bring Mark to Rome (2 Tim 4:11) and Mark was in Antioch (Acts 15:37-38). So I added a verse (Acts 13:13) to support the possibility that Mark was in Jerusalem when Peter and Silas were there at the Jerusalem Council.

Did you also factor in the presence of Mark with Peter? (1PT 5:13, 2TM 4:11, ACTS 15:37-38)

 

[greenonions]

Peter was killed somewhere around 55AD. (Before Paul died) His two letters were written while he was alive, albeit by a stenographer. And he overworked his words, each one was carefully chosen to reflect passages in the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew....but he personally knew both translations.
His second letter was more of a collaboration than his first according to internal evidence and tradition. (But the evidence somewhat shakey)

Your timeline actually fits my imaginary story about Silas taking 1 Peter on Paul's second missionary journey.

This might be unfruitful, but maybe the epistle of James was delivered at the same time as 1 Peter, since it is also written to the dispersion and talks about trials. We could also speculate that Paul carried 2 Peter on his third missionary journey, since it was written to the same audience (Peter mentions second epistle in 2 Peter 3:1) and Peter endorses Paul (2 Peter 3:15). It that case, Paul would have only written Galatians, 1+2 Thessalonians that Peter mentions (2 Peter 3:15-16). By Paul's final return to Jerusalem, Peter would be dead according to your timeline, which is possible since Peter is not mentioned in Acts 21:18. Which means Peter may have been crucified under Governor Felix, but that doesn't quite add up since Paul was "happy" to make his defense before Felix (Acts 24:10).

 

[homwardbound]

I was under the impression that GWH said that Paul asked Timothy to bring Mark to Rome (2 Tim 4:11) and Mark was in Antioch (Acts 15:37-38). So I added a verse (Acts 13:13) to support the possibility that Mark was in Jerusalem when Peter and Silas were there at the Jerusalem Council.

there is much to become aware of. as we each in belief or not to God Father in risen Son or not.
I'm accountable to me, not anyone else, nor am I accountable to the disciples, and they are not accountable to me
I see I am accountable to God. The same as King David stated back to Nathaniel.
I not only did this, what you said I did. More importantly, David saw he ultimately did what he did to God personally
How many of us people are accountable to God personally? I see why God said David is a man after his own heart.
David sincerely repented and that got accounted to him as righteousness from Father, Daddy. PaPa to me
Love all, not just a few. You have angst against another, or others have angst against you
Before you offer your or any gift in at the Altar of any church building
Go and do this first. You harmed go and tell them. As well forgive all that have or might have done you harm as well

You want to be freed. It takes being willing to be freed to see and go through things like that, to get freed and see it personally, being given a new clean conscience in it from Father of Risen Son form you too
Hebrews 9:14
how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God
Hebrews 10:2
For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Do you now see what under Law is doing and has done to humans? The first chosen could never do it perfect ever. What makes anyone else think they can

Read 1 Tim 1 and see why the Law was put in place in the first place. Read Galatians thoroughly as well, read it not in verses only the entire 6 chapters please to see the real truth for you to love all by the done work of son for you too, thank you

 

[greenonions]

The Temple in Jerusalem was besieged for 3½years before it was finally destroyed in 70AD.
So the siege and riots beforehand were in 64-66 AD. (My thoughts as to the timing of the writing of John's Apocalypse were during the 3½year siege)
And all the Apostles except for Luke and John were dead at this time.

Meaning that Paul had already written his many letters and Matthew and Luke were written as well. The Gospel of John was written afterwards and Mark's Gospel was the last one....written after Peter died and shortly before Mark, his cousin, died but was a faithful retelling of all the gospel stories Peter used to tell and Mark heard numerous times. Mark's Gospel likely was written after the destruction of the Temple or close to the time it was falling.

The siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 only lasted months, right? Not 3.5 years.

I'm surprised to hear that you think Mark was written last. The general consensus is that Mark was one of the earliest gospels.

 

[Cameron143]

The siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 only lasted months, right? Not 3.5 years.

I'm surprised to hear that you think Mark was written last. The general consensus is that Mark was one of the earliest gospels.

It was 3 and a half years with a break in the middle.

 

[homwardbound]

The siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 only lasted months, right? Not 3.5 years.

I'm surprised to hear that you think Mark was written last. The general consensus is that Mark was one of the earliest gospels.

You do realize, Mark and Luke were not apostles, they were scribes, in case you did not know this Matthew and John were Apostles.

 

[JohnDB]

The siege of Jerusalem in AD 70 only lasted months, right? Not 3.5 years.

I'm surprised to hear that you think Mark was written last. The general consensus is that Mark was one of the earliest gospels.

No....wrong on both counts.
The Jerusalem siege was done in basically 3 phases. It started with a fight at the Temple where the fire arrows (from outside the walls) burned all the food stored there due to an excellent xylaforee festival) and then they pulled back to Lasich and then closer again shortly before the end. All told the fight (Menalaus cutting down the Roman Eagle above the gate) and siege lasted 3½ years....the final destruction was in 70AD.

Peter said it,
Mark wrote it.

I'm having a brain fart at the moment but essentially the senior Church leader who took Peter's place (and was one of the writing leaders) told Mark (Peter's personal assistant/apprentice and cousin) that he should write Peter's teachings before he died so there would be a lasting account of Peter's retelling of the Good News. This was Tertullian, Origen or someone like that....again I'm having a brain fart at the moment. Peter had long since been dead and the Temple destroyed at this point. Mark was also an old man at this point...likely in his 60's to 70's. He included himself in the narrative as "The disciple who ran naked through the streets".
There is an argument to be made that John's gospel was last...and it may well be.
All things considered....it's amazing that we have the four gospels.

The first Gospel written was Matthew's Gospel. Followed by Luke. Then there's the race for last between John and Mark. (I've stated my opinion as to why I believe that Mark was last) We don't have any real tangible evidence of John's Gospel timing. So I put his before Mark's.

 

[JohnDB]

You do realize, Mark and Luke were not apostles, they were scribes, in case you did not know this Matthew and John were Apostles.

Mark was a disciple....Luke wanted to be a disciple but was turned away because he was a gentile (as he mentioned himself in his gospel account)

Just agreeing with you but adding some juicy bits.

 

[JohnDB]

Your timeline actually fits my imaginary story about Silas taking 1 Peter on Paul's second missionary journey.

This might be unfruitful, but maybe the epistle of James was delivered at the same time as 1 Peter, since it is also written to the dispersion and talks about trials. We could also speculate that Paul carried 2 Peter on his third missionary journey, since it was written to the same audience (Peter mentions second epistle in 2 Peter 3:1) and Peter endorses Paul (2 Peter 3:15). It that case, Paul would have only written Galatians, 1+2 Thessalonians that Peter mentions (2 Peter 3:15-16). By Paul's final return to Jerusalem, Peter would be dead according to your timeline, which is possible since Peter is not mentioned in Acts 21:18. Which means Peter may have been crucified under Governor Felix, but that doesn't quite add up since Paul was "happy" to make his defense before Felix (Acts 24:10).

Paul was killed around 60AD. How exactly he died is somewhat debated. Either he was executed formally or as a last resort during a riot or killed in a riot over his teachings or some other reason. We really don't have any definitive answers and the Catholic Church is reticent about releasing his ossuary for forensic examination and verification. (Nothing new here)

Catholic Church holds most all of the Early Church treasures in some fashion. All are not available for any forensic evaluation or examination. They also hold many ancient original manuscripts they do NOT want available to the public. Mainly because many of their practices and theologies would be called out by them. A FEW over the centuries have accessed these manuscripts and retold what they learned....but not many.

The story of the authorship of the Book of Hebrews has just such a tale. Insanity IMHO. Using old scripture scrolls to light a fire because the young scribe didn't know any better and was largely unsupervised....

 

[tourist]

And 3Peter was unwritten after both
:^)

That estimation appears to be logical.

 

[lrs68]

Look at the Gospel of Mark. We know this Gospel is the from the viewpoint of Peter, written by his Disciple Mark. Also, some of what Peter wrote was addressed to the same congregation as Paul. They were clearly written before 70 AD because the majority of the Apostles were killed by then or just after.

 

[homwardbound]

Mark was a disciple....Luke wanted to be a disciple but was turned away because he was a gentile (as he mentioned himself in his gospel account)

Just agreeing with you but adding some juicy bits.

Thank you much to learn as I see to not get ahead of my Father's lead and continue to stand in trust, thanksgiving for Son as the way, truth and new life for us all throughout the done work of Son. The history is quite interesting, thank you Brother