'This is the story of James. He is supposed to be the author of the first of the so-called "Catholic Letters,: but let it be noted that its authenticity is doubted, since not many of the Elders have referred either to it or the so-called "Letter of Jude," which likewise has been counted among the "Catholic Letters". Still, we are aware that these two letters, like the others, have been read aloud in most of the churches.'

1. I Peter is written in a sophisticated Greek style. But the predominantly bilingual character of Palestine and the later missionary activity of Peter in Greek-speaking areas (In Cor. 9-5; 1.12) allow the possibility that Peter was proficient in Greek as well as in his native Aramaic. However, the style of I Peter corresponds not to the oral, but to the literary Koine, which points clearly to Greek as the author's native tongue. Furthermore, the tradition in the ancient church associated with the Gospel of Mark (see above 3.4.2) presupposes that Peter had not mastered the Greek language.
2. In I Pet. 1.1 the author describes himselh as apostle, but in I Pet. 5.1 as fellow elder. One who was a member of the original Twelve, an apostle, the one to whom the risen Jesus first appeared, need hardly hahe resorted to this title that appeared late in the development of early Christian ecclesiology. It should be noted that the letter gives no personal information about its purported author. Thus references to the passion of Jesus come into view only as elements of early Christian tradition (cf. I Pet. 2.22-25); the primary testimony of an eyewitness is nowhere found in the letter.
3. The numerous points of contact between I Peter and the letters of Paul (see below 7.2.7) show that the author of I Peter takes up the tradition of the churches in Asia Minor, but does not write as an eyewitness of the life of Jesus and the misionary history of early Christianity. Thus an awareness of the problematic associated with the incident in Antioch (Gal. 2.11-14) is entirely missing from the letter.
4. The author of I Peter cites the Old Testament primarily from the LXX (exception: Prov 10.12 in Pet. 4.8).
5. The spread of Christianity presupposed in Asia Minor and the ecumenical perspective in I Pet. 5.9b,13 likewise point to a later phase in early Christian missionary history.

1. 2 Peter takes over almost the entire content of the Letter of Jude (see 7.4.7 below). Such a procedure is excluded on material and chronological grounds.
2. In 2 Pet. 3.4 the author breaks through the fictive literary world he has created: the 'fathers' have fallen asleep, so that now doubts on the parousia have arisen. Peter himself belongs to the (dead) 'fathers'!
3. Second Peter is so fundamentally different from I Peter that both letters cannot be from the same author. Evis if I Peter were taken to be authentic, 2 Peter would still have to be considered pseudepigraphical!