Did The Apostle Peter Write His Cannonical Epistles
An analysis of the question of Authorship of the cannonical writings of Peter
The Apostle Peter is perhaps one of the most important figures in the New Testament and early Christianity. As the father of Apostolic succession, it only makes sense that some of his writings would be canonized. This occurred with the epistles 1 Peter and 2 Peter (Also known as the Petrine Epistles). The first was addressed to various Roman provinces in Asia Minor dealing with persecution. Second Peter is taught to have been released later as a response to people doubting the return of Jesus. However, more modern biblical scholars have been doubting this origin story of the Petrine Epistles. More specifically they doubt the fact that Peter wrote these epistles.
The main piece of evidence that led to this idea is the question of Peter's literacy. Acts 4:13 describes Peter and John as “unschooled, ordinary men'' (NIV). The Greek word for “unschooled” here is ἀγράμματοι (agrammatoi). This typically translates to illiteracy. It is true however that it can mean uneducated/unschooled. However, in antiquity, the effect of being unschooled is illiteracy. Some scholars interpret the word to mean uneducated in rabbinic teaching, however, Peter's upbringing supports his illiteracy. Peter was a fisherman from a lower-class family who likely couldn’t afford education. As such is the case, literacy wouldn’t be necessary. Beyond, perhaps, some simple bookkeeping, Peter had no need to write for his fisherman job, and it’s therefore doubtful his family would pay the hefty fee even if they could afford it. To expand upon the cost we must understand the village Peter was in, that being Bethsadia. The village was a small fishing town on the Sea of Galilee in what is now the Golan Heights (Then Gaulantis, sea on the map below). Due to the size, there was no school, so Peter's family would have to find a private tutor. One further proof relates to the role of children at the time. Children in antiquity worked; when they were sent to school, beyond the cost of education, the family lost a worker.
The response to this is what’s known as the secretary hypothesis. Perhaps Peter didn’t directly write it, but in some form told a secretary to write down what he was saying, meaning Peter only learned spoken Greek. This seems more likely, however, two issues arise. This still requires a leap in education, as Bethsadia was a monolingual town. Furthermore, 1 Peter quotes the Old Testament about 35 times. In all of them, he quotes the Septuagint Greek translation implying knowledge of Greek reading. Another version of this hypothesis sees Peter dictating in Aramaic and a secretary translating. This gets around the education gap. However, some scholars claim that the Petrine Epistles uses Greek Idiom, speech patterns, and style therefore it couldn’t be direct transcription. The last version of this theory claims the secretary did not directly transcribe what Peter said, but rather took the ideas while writing the words on their own. This is far more plausible.
Scholars also cite various pieces of textual evidence that point away from the Orthodox stance. Firstly, 2 Peter contains various references to other epistles. It appears from the text that the author has knowledge of the Epistle of Jude. However, given that even by Christian teaching, Jude is dated to the mid 60’s, this is highly unlikely. Furthermore, it’s written in 2 Peter 3:4, “and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’” This verse implies that there was a generation between the audience and the death of Jesus. Not only that, but the “ever since” shows that they’re not currently dying. One last piece of evidence comes from the spelling of Peter's original name, Simon. 2 Peter 1:1 opens “Simon Peter, a servant, and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:” In Greek, the first word is “Συμεὼν”, or Simeon (take note of that ε/epsilon). This is the only text(other than one verse in Acts) where Simon is spelled that way. In John 13:9m which says, “Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head” it’s spelt “Σίμων '' or Simon (no epsilon). Matthew 4:18 matches John, albeit with an extra alpha, due to Greek grammatical rules, as does Mark 3:16 (with an extra ι for grammar). I find it unlikely that Peter would spell his own name wrong, therefore casting doubt on the Orthodox view.
There is some evidence to suggest that Peter wrote these epistles. Michael Kruger mentions that Peter's quotes are similar to those in the gospels and Acts. This implies that he may be recalling from memory. In addition to that he addresses Paul as “Our beloved brother” which some say suggests a more personal relationship. For these reasons, some hold up the Orthodox stance.