| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Theauthorship of the Petrine epistles (1 Peter and2 Peter) is a question inbiblical criticism, parallel to that of theauthorship of the Pauline epistles, in which scholars have sought to determine the exact authors of the New Testament letters. The vast majority of biblical scholars think the two epistles do not share the same author, due to wide differences in Greek style and views between the two letters. Most scholars today conclude thatPeter the Apostle was the author of neither of the two epistles that are attributed to him.[note 1]
An issue common to both epistles of Peter, as well as various non-canonical works that claim to be written by Peter, is whetherPeter even had the capability to write them. Peter is described inActs 4:13 as "uneducated and ordinary" (NRSV). TheKoine Greekagrammatoi (ἀγράμματοι) can be literally translated as "unlettered" or "illiterate". More generally, Peter is agreed to be a fisherman fromCapernaum, a comparatively small and likely monolingual town. In the era ofRoman Judea, literacy was rare, the ability to write rarer still, and the ability to write detailed philosophical tracts (rather than simple receipts and contracts) rarest of all. What advanced literacy training did exist was almost exclusively taught to the children of the elite in large towns such as Jerusalem, rather than fishermen in small towns. Consequently, most scholars find Acts' claim that Peter was uneducated credible. While it is of course possible that Peter embarked upon adult education later in his life after the time period Acts described, such a feat would have been highly unusual for the era. Even if Peter did pursue education later in life, there is little indication that Peter would have learnt or spoken fluent Greek in his livelihood before Jesus's call, as multilingualism was generally seen only in towns closely involved in trade. So Peter would not only have had to learn writing, but also a new language.[13]
There is a line in the 2nd-centuryActs of Peter where Peter says "we have written down [the Holy Scriptures of our Lord]", although this tradition may itself have been affected by belief Peter (and the others included with "we"?) wrote 1 Peter, and thus not be an independent source.[14] More generally, early Christian tradition generally remembers Peter as a preacher and church leader rather than a writer. Peter is not usually associated with writing epistles in various 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-century Christian works (with the obvious exception of the four allegedly Petrine epistles themselves), and later works wishing to invoke Peter's authority usually used homilies, dialogues, and revelations often attributed to other writers such as Clement.[15]
There exist a number of possibilities whereby Peter could have been the source of the epistles attributed to him without directly writing them. The "secretary" hypothesis is the most common of these, that Peter either dictated to a literate associate or perhaps even just summarized the gist of his thoughts while the secretary turned it into a proper Greek letter. In one version of this, Peter did learn spoken Greek, but dictated the letters to a secretary capable of writing Greek. This still assumes a truly impressive leap in education for Peter late in his life; the epistle 1 Peter is in fluent Greek and the author well acquainted with theSeptuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.[13]
Another version that assumes less of Peter is that he dictated inAramaic, while the secretary translated to Greek. An issue against this possibility is that the letters do not show signs of Aramaic speech patterns turned into Greek ones; if this occurred, then the secretary modified the message sufficiently well to turn the passage into Greek idiom and style rather than Aramaic idiom and style.[13] Another possibility is that the letter was composed by a Greek-writing associate of Peter, summarizing Peter’s general thoughts. Finally, it is possible that the author was a disciple of Peter who wrote later in Peter's honor, especially if the date of composition is believed to be well after Peter's death (such as 2 Peter). The difficulty with the final two is that the letters directly identify themselves as being directly from Peter; if a coauthor was involved, the letters would be more properly identified as coming from the coauthor under Peter's guidance or inspiration. Additionally, for the final possibility of a disciple writing in Peter's honor, any proof that such an unknown author indeed knew Peter closely, rather than simply giving his own personal views to Peter, has long since vanished.[13]
The author of theFirst Epistle of Peter identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, anapostle of Jesus", and the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number ofChurch Fathers:Irenaeus (140–203),Tertullian (150–222),Clement of Alexandria (155–215) andOrigen of Alexandria (185–253). IfPolycarp, who was martyred in 156, andPapias alluded to this letter, then it must have been written before the mid-2nd century. However, theMuratorian Canon (c. 170–200 AD) did not contain this, and a number of otherGeneral epistles, suggesting they were not yet being read in the Western churches. Unlike theSecond Epistle of Peter, the authorship of which was debated in antiquity (see alsoAntilegomena), there was little debate about Peter's authorship of theFirst Epistle of Peter until the advent ofbiblical criticism in the 18th century.
One theory is that 1 Peter was written by a secretary such asMark[16] or bySilvanus, who is mentioned towards the end of the epistle: "By Silvanus, our faithful brother, as I account him, I have written unto you briefly" (5:12). In the following verse the author includes greetings from "she that is in Babylon, elect together with you," taken for the church "in Babylon", which may be an early use of this Christian title forRome, familiar from theBook of Revelation.
Many scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death. Estimates for the date of composition range from 60 to 112 AD. Most critical scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on theSea of Galilee, actually wrote the epistle, because of the urbane cultured style of theGreek and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with thehistorical Jesus of Nazareth. The letter contains about thirty-five references to theHebrew Bible, all of which, however, come from theSeptuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle, but appropriate for aHellenized audience; thus the use of the Septuagint helps define the audience. The Septuagint was a Greek translation that had been created atAlexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of theTanakh, and forproselytes. A historical Jew in Galilee would not have heard Scripture in this form, it is argued.
| Part ofa series of articles on |
| Peter in the Bible |
|---|
 |
| In theNew Testament |
| Other |
If the epistle is taken to bepseudepigraphal, the majority scholarly view is that it should be dated to 70–90.[17][18][19]Stephen L. Harris, on the other hand, argues for an even later date, such as during the persecution ofDomitian (c. 95) or ofTrajan (c. 112).[20]
The author's use of Peter's name demonstrates the authority associated with Peter.[21] The author also claims to have witnessed the sufferings of Christ (1 Peter 5:1) and makes allusions to several historical sayings of Jesus indicative of eyewitness testimony (e.g., compare Luke 12:35 with 1 Peter 1:13,Matthew 5:16 with 1 Peter 2:12, andMatthew 5:10 with 1 Peter 3:14).[22]
TheSecond Epistle of Peter opens by identifying the author as "Simon Peter (in some translations, 'Simeon' or 'Shimon'), a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:1). Elsewhere, the author clearly presents himself as the Apostle Peter, stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (2 Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of theTransfiguration (2 Peter 1:16–18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2 Peter 3:1; cf.1 Peter), and he calledPaul the Apostle "our beloved brother" (2 Peter 3:15).
Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistlepseudepigraphical.[23] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use ofJude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayedSecond Coming (parousia), and weak external support.[24] In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2 Peter 3:15–16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2 Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2 Peter 3:2).
The assumed theology and intellectual background is also markedly different from both 1 Peter and references to Peter elsewhere: 2 Peter features a "markedly gentile Christian theology, which is in dialogue with views of Greek philosophical cosmology," with no references to Judaism.[25]
A minority of scholars have disagreed with this position and put forward reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship. They argue that the letter did not fit a specific pattern of what they consider pseudepigraphy. The Transfiguration lacks the embellishment which E. M. B. Green argues was common inapocryphal books.[26] Michael Kruger argues that the voice of God in the Transfiguration is similar but not identical to thesynoptic gospels, as if Peter was recalling from memory, and notes that the epistle uses similar language to Peter's speeches in Acts.[27] An uncommon title, "our beloved brother," is given to Paul, where later literature used other titles.[28]
2 Peter shares a number of passages with theEpistle of Jude, 1:5 with Jude 3; 1:12 with Jude 5; 2:1 with Jude 4; 2:4 with Jude 6; 2:6 with Jude 7; 2:10–11 with Jude 8–9; 2:12 with Jude 10; 2:13–17 with Jude 11–13; 3:2f with Jude 17f; 3:14 with Jude 24; and 3:18 with Jude 25.[29] Because the Epistle of Jude is much shorter than 2 Peter, and due to various stylistic details, the scholarly consensus is that Jude was the source for the similar passages of 2 Peter.[29][30]
Other scholars argue that even if 2 Peter used Jude, that does not exclude Petrine authorship.[31] On remaining points,Ben Witherington III argued that the text we have today is a composite, including points taken from the Epistle of Jude, but that it contains a genuine "Petrine fragment", which he identified as2 Peter 1:12–21.[32] Finally, some scholars have proposed that differences in style could be explained by Peter having employed differentamanuenses (secretaries) for each epistle, or if Peter wrote the second letter himself, while usingSilvanus (Silas) as an amanuensis for the first.[33]
Most scholars believe that 1 Peter and 2 Peter were not written by the same author(s). 1 Peter is essentially traditional, drawing on keyPsalms, key chapters ofIsaiah, and wisdom sayings, some of which are found elsewhere in the New Testament. 2 Peter, however, favors a moreallusive style and is dependent on more obscure sources.[1]
The great majority of scholars agree that Peter has not written this letter.[34] For example, textual criticDaniel Wallace (who maintains that Peter was the author) writes that, for most experts, "the issue of authorship is already settled, at least negatively: the apostle Peter did not write this letter" and that "the vast bulk of NT scholars adopt this perspective without much discussion".[35] Werner Kümmel exemplifies this position, stating, "It is certain, therefore, that 2 Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged",[36] as doesStephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter."[37] Evangelical scholarsD. A. Carson andDouglas J. Moo wrote that "most modern scholars do not think that the apostle Peter wrote this letter. Indeed, for no other letter in the New Testament is there a greater consensus that the person who is named as the author could not, in fact, be the author."[38] Despite this broad denial by the majority of modern scholars, other scholars view the arguments of the majority to be largely inconclusive.[39] Likewise,Stanley Porter points to the fact that 2 Peter's acceptance to the canon by early Christians presumes that they were sure that Peter wrote it.[40] In the end, Carson and Moo point to the controversy reflective of this issue, stating, "We are therefore left with the choice of accepting the letter'sprima facie claim to have been written by the apostle Peter or viewing it as a forgery hardly deserving of canonical status."[41]
Various works ofNew Testament apocrypha are attributed by Peter. In early Christianity, Peter's authority on matters of doctrine was unquestionable, so attributing favored theological views to Peter was reasonably common as a way to buttress arguments that the writer's version of Christian doctrine was the correct one.[25] That said, the form of an epistle was a fairly rare one to attribute to Peter. There are only two other extant epistles attributed to Peter in early Christian writings: theLetter of Peter to Philip (part of the GnosticNag Hammadi library) and the Letter of Peter to James (part of theClementineHomilies). These other three epistles may well have been created only due to the popularity of 1 Peter elevating the idea of Peter as a letter writer within early Christianity.[15] Some other (non-letter) works attributed to Peter include theApocalypse of Peter, theGospel of Peter, theGnostic Apocalypse of Peter, theArabic Apocalypse of Peter, and the lostKerygma of Peter which survives only as quoted fragments.[25] For these, there is no debate: both scholars and traditionalist Christians believe that none of them were written by Peter.
For a number of reasons, most scholars think that 2 Peter was written by a different author to that of 1 Peter and their use of scripture would support such a conclusion. Scripture in 1 Peter is essentially traditional,
Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.
Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
Despite the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholarship in rejecting Petrine authorship [...]
the consensus of modern scholarship is that this letter cannot have been written by Peter himself
In recent years, however, the emerging consensus is that the letter had its origin in a Petrine circle that revered the teaching and memory of Peter.2
Most scholars flat out reject Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, while a goodly number doubt 1 Peter.
However, authentic Petrine authorship is widely disputed, with most scholars agreeing that Peter likely did not actually write either of the letters named for him in the New Testament—especially II Peter.
Almost all non-evangelical scholars claim Peter did not write the letter, and some who identify themselves as evangelicals agree.
It is widely held today that the book was not written by Simon Peter. Boring claims that this is the general opinion among critical scholars, outside the ranks of those who disallow forgery in the New Testament on general principle.5
Although most scholars seem to suspect that both 1 and 2 Peter are pseudonymous, 1 Peter receives more kindness from interpreters in general.