Authorship of 1&2 Peter

[Mattjolley]

So, does the Church teach that St. Peter wrote these letters? Because the CTS New Catholic Bible says in its introduction to these letters that this idea is highly doubtful because the style is too elequent for that of a Fisherman. COME ON! I thought we believed that the authors of scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and this is one of the twelve who spoke all sorts of different languages at Pentecost thanks to the Holy Spirit. As a believer, it isnt a huge stretch to think that Peter really wrote those letters. I mean, just look at the elequence with which Peter addresses crowds in Acts.

This is the first qualm I’ve had with the CTS New Catholic Bible I guess they’re trying to present the latest critical thinking, but this is a Catholic Bible, and therefore ought to convey the teaching of the Church on authorship of books and letters, right? If the notes aren’t Catholic, only the text is, since its Jerusalem and Grail translations.

 

[peregrinus_sg]

Absolutely not. Only the divine authorship of Scripture pertains to the Tradition and faith of the Church. The human authorship of the books of Scripture do not pertain to the deposit of faith, i.e. the Church does not teach that we must believe that 1 Peter is written by St Peter. Thus, you would not find any statement on the human authorship in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nor, if I recall correctly, Trent’s Roman Catechism.

The Catholic Church also does not teach that biblical inspiration obliterates the individual style/contributions of the human authors. God expresses his divine message through the styles, figure of speech, language, cultural view and historical knowledge, which the human author has full freedom to use. Scripture itself is an expression of the living Tradition of the Church and must always be read in light of the Tradition. Inspiration is not the same as a trance. Thus, even the synoptic Gospels can describe the same event in 2 different ways.

So the CTS Bible is well within orthodoxy to question the human authorship of individual books of the Bible. It might be imprudent or unwise from the point of view of biblical scholarship, but no one can be considered a heretic for believing that 2 Peter is not written by St Peter.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Personally it really bothers me when Peter’s authorship is not only questioned but even doubted. This is very similar to those who reject the authorship of Daniel, Jonah, and even the miracles of the Bible. It’s a pattern that I find dangerous in many ways. I highly promote the traditional beliefs about authorship of the Bible.

 

[garysibio]

So, does the Church teach that St. Peter wrote these letters? Because the CTS New Catholic Bible says in its introduction to these letters that this idea is highly doubtful because the style is too elequent for that of a Fisherman. COME ON! I thought we believed that the authors of scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and this is one of the twelve who spoke all sorts of different languages at Pentecost thanks to the Holy Spirit. As a believer, it isnt a huge stretch to think that Peter really wrote those letters. I mean, just look at the elequence with which Peter addresses crowds in Acts.

This is the first qualm I’ve had with the CTS New Catholic Bible I guess they’re trying to present the latest critical thinking, but this is a Catholic Bible, and therefore ought to convey the teaching of the Church on authorship of books and letters, right? If the notes aren’t Catholic, only the text is, since its Jerusalem and Grail translations.

Denying the Petrine authorship of these letters is absurd. People who do so reject it because of the difference in style between 1 Pet and 2 Pet. Apparently they were paying so much attention to the style, they forgot to look at the actual content. Look at 1 Pet 5:12.

I write these few words to you through Silvanus, who is a trustworthy brother, to encourage you and attest that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it!

Peter dictated 1 Peter to Silvanus who obviously cleaned up Peter’s grammer.

Peter wrote 2 Peter without any help. Since he was not exactly a Greek scholar and they didn’t have Rosetta Stone at the time, his grammer was less than perfect.

Gary

 

[David_Zampino]

Absolutely not. Only the divine authorship of Scripture pertains to the Tradition and faith of the Church. The human authorship of the books of Scripture do not pertain to the deposit of faith, i.e. the Church does not teach that we must believe that 1 Peter is written by St Peter. Thus, you would not find any statement on the human authorship in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nor, if I recall correctly, Trent’s Roman Catechism.

The Catholic Church also does not teach that biblical inspiration obliterates the individual style/contributions of the human authors. God expresses his divine message through the styles, figure of speech, language, cultural view and historical knowledge, which the human author has full freedom to use. Scripture itself is an expression of the living Tradition of the Church and must always be read in light of the Tradition. Inspiration is not the same as a trance. Thus, even the synoptic Gospels can describe the same event in 2 different ways.

So the CTS Bible is well within orthodoxy to question the human authorship of individual books of the Bible. It might be imprudent or unwise from the point of view of biblical scholarship, but no one can be considered a heretic for believing that 2 Peter is not written by St Peter.

Imprudent or unwise – quite possibly, but certainly not outside the bounds of orthodoxy. The Church historian Eusebuis, writing in the AD 320’s, listed a number of books about which the legitimate authorship was widely debated. It is certainly not a new phenomena. And II Peter was one of the books widely debated. (Petrine authorship for I Peter is attested at a very early date.) The crux of the matter is this: The Church teaches that II Peter is part of the Inspired Word of God. For me, that ends the question!