Authorship of the Petrine epistles
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.
More generally, Peter is agreed to be a fisherman from Capernaum, a comparatively small and likely monolingual town.
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.
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.
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 raised possibility is that a Greek-writing associate of Peter was summarizing his general thoughts yet essentially writing the letter themselves.
However, the Muratorian Canon of c. 170 did not contain this, and a number of other General epistles, suggesting they were not yet being read in the Western churches.
Most critical scholars are skeptical that the apostle Simon Peter, the fisherman on the Sea of Galilee, actually wrote the epistle, because of the urbane cultured style of the Greek and the lack of any personal detail suggesting contact with the historical Jesus of Nazareth.
The Septuagint was a Greek translation that had been created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh, and for proselytes.
[23] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed Second Coming (parousia), and weak external support.
[25] A minority of scholars have disagreed with this position and put forward reasons in support of genuine Petrine authorship.
[34] For example, textual critic Daniel 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 does Stephen L Harris, who states that "[v]irtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter.
[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's prima facie claim to have been written by the apostle Peter or viewing it as a forgery hardly deserving of canonical status.
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.
