“Yeah, pseudoepographical, written by someone other than the supped author, like many other books in the Bible.”
How do you know that?
I can’t believe you fell that nonsense promoted by skeptics, atheists and other assorted pseudo-scholars! The objections to Peter’s authorship are downright laughable.
“All we have are books and fragments from the late second century in a number of variants. Thus, all we can tell, using the method mentioned, is for example whether the long, or the short copy of Luke’s Gospel came before the other, not what was in Luke’s original work when it was first written, presumably in the first century, by an anonymous author the Catholic Church decided to name “Luke,” according to tradition.”
That’s what comes of swallowing all that mushy thinking provided by critics of the Bible. You can end up with all mush and no thinking.
Most scholars agree that they are, and that they were written by two different authors. The style of writing, the Septuagint references (remember Peter was supposed to be the apostle to the Jews, so why the Greek Septuagint and why is a Jewish fisherman writing in urbane, sophisticated Greek?); the historical events described did not correspond to events during Peter's life time; writing his name differently in 1 Peter as opposed to 2 Peter, etc.
I can’t believe you fell that nonsense promoted by skeptics, atheists and other assorted pseudo-scholars! The objections to Peter’s authorship are downright laughable.
Coming from someone who says Paul spent three years in heaven with the Lord before going to Jerusalem cannot be taken seriously.