Is it realistic to think that Peter was able to write (or even dictate) the two epistles that bear his name? As a Galilean fisherman he would be functionally illiterate and would communicate in Aramaic (not Greek)? What are some good arguments for traditional authorship?
View all comments
Language is not necessarily a problem. Greek in that era was what used to be called a lingua franca, as English is in the modern world, a slightly more universal language of communication. If a local society like Galilee is using two languages, then a child of that society could grow up speaking both languages even without education.
Being able to speak a language is not literacy. Literacy rates in Palestine 2000 years ago were around 3% and it wasn’t among day laborers.
Being able to speak a language allows dictation. The language issue is not a strong enough argument. You need to start again and make your case in other ways.
I’m not making a claim. You are saying that Peter could speak Greek and dictated a letter. What outside evidence do we have for that claim?
I'm not saying that he could. I'm saying there is a possibility that he could. The cultural history of the era is sufficient evidence for the possibility.
I agree it’s possible although if I had to weight it I would say it’s less than 10% probable. In the case of 1st Peter it seems odd that he would weight so long to communicate important thoughts and in the case of 2nd Peter there are several outside sympathetic sources that doubt its provenance. It falls short of reasonable standards of evidence.