Did Peter write a chapter in the Bible?

Answer 1

1 Peter & 2 Peter of the New Testament == No. see related link "Christian Evidence" on left. The main argument commonly used against Petrine authorship of the two Epistles that bear his name is based on largely unproven assumptions. Since Peter was a fisherman, does not mean he was a bumbling and illiterate savage. His sermon on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 indicates otherwise, as do other times later in Acts such as his ministry to Cornelius in Acts 10 and its aftermath.

Until recent times Peers authorship of 1 and 2 Peter was unquestioned. The early church, who were much closer in time, and without an anti-biblical skeptical bias, would perhaps be more likely to know than persons in the end of the 19th Century.

There is thus no reasonable reason to doubt that Peter wrote 1 and 2 Peter, which totals eight chapters in all.

Most critical scholars are sceptical 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 letter contains about thirty-five references to the Hebrew Bible, all of which, however, come from the Septuagint translation, an unlikely source for historical Peter the apostle (albeit appropriate for an international audience). The Septuagint was a Greek translation created at Alexandria for the use of those Jews who could not easily read the Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh. A historical Jew in Galilee would not have heard Scripture in this form. If the epistle is taken to be pseudepigraphal, the date is usually cited as between 70-90 by scholars like Raymond E. Brown and Bart D. Ehrman, while a small number of scholars argue for an even later date. for full text, see "Wikipedia: First Epistle of Peter" on left The letter opens by identifying the author as "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ" (2Peter 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 (2Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of the Transfiguration (2Peter 1:16-18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2Peter 3:1; cf. 1 Peter), and he called Paul the Apostle "our beloved brother" (2Peter 3:15). Although 2 Peter internally proports to be a work of the Apostle, a number of biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, for full text, see "Wikipedia: Second Epistle of Peter" on left

Much of the late 19th Century skeptical scholarship has been dis-proven by more recent study. While at that time it may well have been a true statement that 'most critical scholars are skeptical' this is not the case today, with further study and a more balanced approach. The assumptions about the cultured language can simply be explained by Peter using a secretary, some suggesting that this was silas. However, as stated above, he was clearly not ignorant as some allege to prove their theory, and so most likely was the author as claimed.

In addition to the above, since there are no undisputed works by Peter, it is difficult to make a judgment regarding his literary style as, for example, is made with various letters of Paul.

Thus with strong internal evidence, there is no reason to doubt Peter's authorship, especially considering the track record of the 19th Century 'scholars'. == * Peter 1: Although attributed to Peter, it is widely doubted by most scholars, on the basis of the fact that the author of this book cites Greek translations of the Old Testament, instead of the Hebrew originals. This questionable book contains the fundamentalists' slogan, "born again" (1 Peter 1:23) * Peter 2: This book has even more doubtful authorship that Peter 1, so much so that it was delayed entrance into the New Testament's canon. It is generally believed that it was written by an unknown scribe around 150 AD.

Opinion: If The Books of Peter were written as late of around 150 AD, then Peter would be around 180 yrs at that time. for full text, see link "The Authorship of the Bible on left.

"Despite these clear claims (of Petrine authorship), numerous modern critics consider the work written by a pseudonymous author in the postapostolic period. The writer is supposed to have assumed Peter's name a century or so after Peter's death. Supposed differences in style between First and Second Peter are alleged to indicate that the books were by different authors. Although there are confessedly some differences in vocabulary, it has been shown by Zahn (Introduction to the O.T., 2:289ff) that there are some striking likenesses. One may also ask whether a forger would run the risk of detection by failing to pay more attention to the style and language of First Peter. Second Peter, however lacks any proved evidence of forgery. The autobiographical allusions are true to fact. No new material is added. There is nothing romantic or indisputable anachronistic about the second epistle. This is in striking contrast to the apocalyptic "Gospel of Peter" and the "Apocalypse of Peter." A claim is also made that the epistle was penned at a period when the Pauline letters were made use of by heretics to promulgate their teachings (3:15-16). This reference to Paul's letters however, does not imply that they had been already collected or even that they had already all been written. The reference may merely refer to such as Peter had come to know. It cannot be shown that Peter deals with a more advance stage of apostasy than Paul dealt with. Against the charge of spuriousness is the Apostolic tone, the Christian earnestness, the genuineness of the autobiographical allusions , and the absence of the fantastic. (emphasis mine) It ought therefore to be accepted as a genuine work of the apostle Peter."

Source: 'The New Unger's Bible Dictionary' by Merril F. Unger p994-995.