The Epistles of Peter, Apostolic Authorities or Just Forgery?
Responding to two articles to discuss the authorship of 1 Peter and 2 Peter
Introduction
The first article I published on the Christian Bible was called “Did The Apostle Peter Write His Canonical Epistles”. I still hold to the idea that the apostle Peter did not likely write 1 and 2 Peter (also known as the Petrine epistles). However, the original article I wrote is flawed. Therefore here I want to renew my stance with this article. It would be boring to rehash that old article so instead I’ll discuss the question of authorship by responding to two articles. The first comes from Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers and relates to 1 Peter. The second comes from Simon Turpin for Answers in Genesis. I will switch between responding to them and building a positive case against the orthodox authorship
The Catholic Answer to Who Wrote 1 Peter?
“The First Epistle of St. Peter is one of those books of the New Testament whose authorship is disputed.”1
It sure is. The main issue relates to who Peter is. Peter is, as per the book of Acts, ἀγράμματοι (agrammatoi), meaning illiterate or unschooled. The historical context supports this idea. Peter was a lower-class fisherman from Bethsaida who likely would not learn how to read based on what we know from the time.
Akin begins his article by citing Pope Bennidect XVI himself. In a speech, God’s Rottweiler says:
“Peter the Apostle is speaking but the exegetes tell us: It is impossible for this Letter to have been written by Peter because the Greek is so good that it cannot be the Greek of a fisherman from the Sea of Galilee.
And it is not only the language—the syntax is excellent—but also the thought, which is already quite mature, there are actual formulas in which the faith and the reflection of the Church are summed up.
These exegetes say, therefore: it had already reached a degree of development that cannot be Peter’s.
How does one respond?”
Akin defines these as two distinct issues: firstly questions on the quality of literature and questions on the quality of thought.2 Akin begins though with a quick detour into discussing arguments from literary style. He says that Peter’s style can change over time therefore it doesn’t matter if 1 Peter and 2 Peter’s style vary. That’s true to an extent. Change of writing style does not entirely upend authorship. It does require other evidence to support the challenge.
Next Akin starts to respond to Peter’s ability to write Greek. He claims Peter would have ample time to polish the Greek that he’d learned from the Greek-speaking town of Galilee. The issue here is the assumption that Peter would have learned Greek in Galilee. What is known about Bethseida suggests it to be a monolingual Aramaic town. Further, as a fisherman even if Peter spoke Greek it’s unlikely he’d know how to write Greek. The idea that Peter learned Greek over time is a bigger claim than Akin presents it.
Akin also appeals to the idea that Sylvanus helped write 1 Peter. This idea is found in 1 Peter 5:12 which Akin cites as follows:
“By [Greek, dia] Silvanus, a faithful brother as I regard him, I have written briefly to you, exhorting and declaring that this is the true grace of God; stand fast in it [1 Pet. 5:12].”
The Pope also brings this response forward saying
“There are two important positions: First, Peter himself—that is, the Letter—gives us a clue, for at the end of the writing he says I write to you: “By Silvanus… dia Silvanus”.
This “by” [dia] could mean various things.
It may mean that he [Silvanus] brings or transmits; it may mean that Silvanus helped him write it; it may mean that in practice it was really Silvanus who wrote it.
In any case, we may conclude that the Letter itself points out to us that Peter was not alone in writing this Letter but it expresses the faith of a Church, which is already on a journey of faith, a faith increasingly mature.
He does not write alone, as an isolated individual; he writes with the assistance of the Church, of people who help him to deepen the faith, to enter into the depths of his thought, of his rationality, of his profundity.”
The idea espoused by Akin and the Pope is that Peter’s Greek issues can be bridged by Silvanus and the Church helping him.
There’s an issue with this hypothesis. When an author in Greek, says something is written “dia” someone that typically is used to carry or transmit the letter. This interpretation also makes sense within the context of 1 Peter as verse 5:12 discusses the sending of the letter.
Next Akin responds to the argument that the ideas in 1 Peter are too “mature” for Peter’s day. I don’t hold to this argument either. That being said though, the maturity of the ideas strengthens the first argument. One doesn’t just need to claim Peter spoke Greek. Rather, to support the traditional orthodox authorship it would need to be shown that Peter could write Greek well enough to write theological treatises.
That responds to all the specific arguments of Akin and Pope Bennidect XVI. There’s a wider issue with this article though. Akin frames it as asking the question of authorship with the title “Who Wrote 1 Peter?”. But he’s not truly asking the question. He never builds up a reason to support the traditional authorship. The underlying premise is that the orthodox authorship is the default stance and by refuting all challenges that brings you back to Peter as the author. However, that’s not true. With the prevalence of forgeries like the Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Preaching of Peter, there needs to be reason to separate 1 Peter from those forgeries.
Answers In 2 Peter
All the issues with 1 Peter apply to 2 Peter but with new bonus issues. Much of the letter is taken from the Epistle of Jude. There are quotes like the one found in 2 Peter 3:4 which seem to imply a generation between Jesus’s death and the author:
“Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’”
Hence why Simon Turpin calls 2 Peter “the most-contested New Testament book”3
This article differs from Akin’s in that it argues for Peter’s authorship, not just against its detractors. Turpin argues that because 2 Peter emphasizes truth and argues against false teachings it’s unlikely he was a false teacher himself. This is especially damning since Christians were anti-pseudepigraphy. This argument is not convincing. Hypocrisy exists. The author can be scrutinizing the actions of others and not his own.
Next, Turpin claims, that because Peter in 2 Peter 1:1 calls himself Συμεὼν (Simeon) a unique form of his name it is proof he is not trying to be deceptive as this is not the common title and only used one other time, in acts. The issue is as follows. Simeon is not a unique form but rather a gentile spelling. In a Roman community, Simon would be spelled like this. This fact turns Turpin’s argument into one against him. The Jewish Peter would not spell his name Simeon. This suggests a different author
Next Turpin responds to the claim Peter could not write. He reinterprets Acts to say that when Peter is called unlearned, this refers to Rabbinic training. Turpin claims this is clear based on “The context of Acts 4:13”. He does not explain why the context makes his claim clear though. The juxtaposition of “unlearned” with “common men” seems to give good reason to believe “unlearned” refers to illiteracy, as that was specifically common for laity at the time. I’ll also remind you the case for Peter’s illiteracy does not rely on Acts 4:13. Peter also would not have access to education. In response to this Turpin claims because Peter would have to do business as a fisherman in a more Hellenized region “it is not astonishing that he would be familiar with Greek philosophical terms”. However, the average fisherman does not use philosophical terms. Perhaps if 2 Peter was a business record this argument would hold more weight but it’s a philosophical text.
I’ll ignore the question of similarities and differences between the 2 Petrine epistles.
The next argument replied to is interesting. In chapter 3 Peter calls Paul’s writings scripture. This is anachronistic as Paul’s letters were not viewed as scripture until far later. Turpin cites Michael Kruger who holds that the cannon came about naturally however that does not change the fact that it was not in circulation in Peter’s time. The author is appealing to ideas coming after his pseudonym time, even if they were natural ideas. Thank you for reading.
Akin, Jimmy. “Who Wrote 1 Peter?” Catholic Answers, 13 Feb. 2013, www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/who-wrote-1-peter. Accessed 12 June 2024.
In actuality the second issue is just a means to further the first as will be shown soon.
Turpin, Simon. “Did Peter Write 2 Peter?” Answers in Genesis, 6 Jan. 2023, answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/did-peter-write-2-peter/. Accessed 13 June 2024.