Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Întâia epistolă a lui Petru" in Romanian language version.
Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.
Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.
Here I venture to a somewhat contrarian opinion, while aware that many colleagues whom I esteem highly do not share it.
Despite the overwhelming consensus of biblical scholarship in rejecting Petrine authorship [...]
the consensus of modern scholarship is that this letter cannot cannot have been written by Peter himself
In recent years, however, the emerging consensus is that the letter had its origin in a Petrine circle that revered the teaching and memory of Peter.2
Most scholars flat out reject Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, while a goodly number doubt 1 Peter.
However, authentic Petrine authorship is widely disputed, with most scholars agreeing that Peter likely did not actually write either of the letters named for him in the New Testament—especially II Peter.
Almost all non-evangelical scholars claim Peter did not write the letter, and some who identify themselves as evangelicals agree.
Arguing for or against Petrine authorship has lost its importance for most students of this letter.
It is widely held today that the book was not written by Simon Peter. Boring claims that this is the general opinion among critical scholars, outside the ranks of those who disallow forgery in the New Testament on general principle.5
Although most scholars seem to suspect that both 1 and 2 Peter are pseudonymous, 1 Peter receives more kindness from interpreters in general.
