Peter's warning about misinterpreting Paul

[Smart3]

Having studied ancient history and having 1 measly peer reviewed work on sources such as these, I laugh at some of the presumptions made that "X couldn't write Y."

One faulty assumption is that a Pauline Epistle "sounds" different than another one, he didn't write it. Yet, when I look at my own writing style, it has changed substantially in 9 years, and it's the same person behind it.

I understand that you are talking about a Petrine Epistle, but even then there is nothing about it that betrays a date past the mid 60s, and it does not have a developed 2nd century theology like we see from some of the Church Fathers.

2 Peter has near-Byzantine Greek. It doesn't resemble any other New Testament book, it has doctrines we know didn't develop until much later, and more importantly - the disciple Peter is described as an illiterate Aramaic-speaking peasant. 2 Peter is written by a very educated second or third generation Greek Christian using Peter's name to make his views authoritative. Remember, most Christians believed Paul was a heretic and blasphemer.

Paul and the Paulines are a different issue, I personally don't believe the historical Paul wrote any of them.

 

[loveableteddybear]

2 Peter has near-Byzantine Greek. It doesn't resemble any other New Testament book, it has doctrines we know didn't develop until much later, and more importantly - the disciple Peter is described as an illiterate Aramaic-speaking peasant. 2 Peter is written by a very educated second or third generation Greek Christian using Peter's name to make his views authoritative. Remember, most Christians believed Paul was a heretic and blasphemer.

Paul and the Paulines are a different issue, I personally don't believe the historical Paul wrote any of them.

Being that neither of us are greek experts and the only guy I knew who read ancient greek has no issues with 2 peter, I discount that.

What doctrines are different?

Peter is never called "illiterate." Also, in 1 Peter, he used a scribe, so he could have used another scribe.

"Most Christians believed Paul was a heretic" seems very hard to reconcile with the fact that the apostolic fathers had no issue with him and NT teaching no where contradicts him.