Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 8435
  • Darwins +884/-28

I've done research in this area with real, respected sources (pro and con), and i'm satisfied the evidence points to Peter being the author of 1st and 2nd Peter.  Have you done any research on this subject, including those who argue for Peter's authorship?
No. I was merely commenting upon your style of response.

On the broader matter, there are some writings that can be attributed with a high degree of certainty to various authors: style and vocabulary play a large part. You will be aware of how certain paintings are designated as the work, or not, of a particular artist or "of his school" or "not by him."

A writing style[1] is unique but very clever pastiches[2] are hard to detect. In making any claim to authorship, it is wisest to assume the opposite result to that which you would like to be the case and then be even-handed. In reality, we need a disinterested expert.

A lot of pro-theist research is tainted: "experts" have a financial interest in the outcome and are chosen by sponsors for their preconceived notions. (We only have to look at idiots who think they have found Noah's Ark on Mount Ararat and listen to how convinced they are: a conviction that pleases their sponsor.)

As an example of the detection of writing styles, I recommend "The Hexateuch" by W. D. Addis (published in 1893) which analyses the first 6 books of the OT. It is available on the net but download the .pdf rather than any other version.

Edit to correct footnote
 1. given enough text
 2. in which I would include deliberate forgeries
Changed Change Reason Date