@curiousdannii I guess to me the focus includes both, but it's about the perspective of the author of 1 Peter, sure. Seems clear enough to me. If we re-named it, "Does 1 Peter show evidence of the author's familiarity with Galatians?" -- would that help?
@James and Curious -- there are many questions about authorship, source criticism, and other historical and "background" issues that do not require a specific passage. I'm thinking of a question I asked: What is the internal evidence that Peter provided source material for Mark's gospel?. Nobody insisted that I specify a specific verse. The point of the question is to request the evidence from the text with respect to a question that is specific and on-topic. (Not "searching for a text" in the sense of, "what verse teaches X?") — Susan ♦44 secs ago
@curiousdannii "Texts" = 1 Peter and Galatians. I think we're just arguing about whether that's focused enough. To me it seems like there probably aren't that many examples that are relevant, so I'm fine with it, but I can see how one might not be.
The question is begging for specific texts to be quoted. If they were then it would be a simple matter to ask whether they imply that the author had read Galatians
The specific text that is meant is probably not even in 1 Peter, but instead is 2 Peter 3:15-16
If not that, then it could be one of dozens of things in 1 Peter, with less obvious links to Galatians
I'm amazed the question got three upvotes and has three reopen votes! :P
@curiousdannii I think it's unlikely that the OP is mixing up 1 Peter and 2 Peter. (I find it interesting that the OP abbreviates the author of 1 Peter as "Peter" in the title as well, since I doubt that's his perspective, but whatever.)
The question is just so unspecific, broad, and open ended currently. It isn't asking for an explanation of one theory of intertextuality/authorship, but inviting any number of completely different theories to be presented in answers
@curiousdannii It's a whole lot less specific, more broad, more open-ended, and inviting a larger number of completely different theories of importance. The comparison is abstract.
@curiousdannii I don't think so. I think we get into trouble when we limit ourselves to several very specific brands of questions. Other things are interesting and answerable.
@Susan It's definitely borderline too subjective. I know that the SE has the general idea of good-subjective, and I think this one meets such an idea, but it is very very borderline
@curiousdannii That's a different topic than breadth, but regardless I think that one was answered meaningfully. I wonder where the claim comes from that it was completed by 132.
The question was asking a factual-historical question of whether the individual Peter had read Galatians. It's now asking about textual evidence within 1 Peter which supports a dependence on Galatians. Hopefully now everyone will be happy :)
@Susan Is thisanother post which has mistaken your name for Sarah?
@curiousdannii Yeah, a popular mistake for some reason. Not nearly so disturbing as the gist of the post: "stop worrying about Hebrew and go get saved....and by the way I'm not..."
@Susan What do you use for typing the letters of the Greek alphabet? I want to search for for words ending in -ω, -εις, -ει, -ομεν, -ετε and -ουσι ... and if I'm lucky, find some verbs. Today's lesson was verbs in the present tense.
I have been copying and pasting each letter individually. I could also use beta code and use any conversion tool.
@PaulVargas I have a Mac, and I just added Greek and Hebrew keyboards that I can flip to with a keyboard shortcut. I assume there's something similar on other platforms.
BTW, you'll need to look for -ουσιν for 3rd pl. verbs in "real life".
@PaulVargas Right, I started this whole thing by not explaining myself. Yes -- the ν gets added to the end of 3rd person verbs frequently, in the case of active indicative 3rd pl., I think it must be always. It's called "movable nu" (sort of like "a" vs "an" in English), and it comes and goes without any discernible pattern in many cases.
Also (I think) the most common text variant in the NT -- purely spelling, and purely meaningless.
What is the LXX and why is it so noteworthy that there is a Greek translation of the OT? Wouldn't it be better to reference the Hebrew original?
The Library
The Library