I don’t believe this is a helpful comparison. “Mark Twain” wasn’t a real person whose reputation or authority Samuel Clemens sought to use for his own purposes.

Apologies for the delay—I just now saw this thread. I believe Peter wrote the epistle. I was attempting to make a point about theological methodology rather than feature an argument for Petrine authorship.

(I just now saw this response. Sorry)

According to Karen Jobes, writing under a pseudonym (and apparently even under the name of a famous person) was an acceptable literary genre during the Ancient Roman period around the time that 1st Peter was written. She claims that this literary genre was especially acceptable when the author used the name of a famous person who was known to have died several centuries earlier (e.g., Solomon or Enoch). She then argues that possibly the Holy Spirit inspired an unknown author to use this widely accepted genre of the time. If so, she argues, then the fact that 1st Peter was not written by the Apostle Peter does not threaten either the traditional doctrine of inspiration or the doctrine of inerrancy.
Camden argues that even if Jobes is correct that writing under another person’s name was a widely accepted genre in the 1st century, it does not follow necessarily that God could have inspire a biblical author to use that genre. This is because the use of that widely accepted genre could be immoral. And Camden seems to be correct in this. The fact that a literary practice was culturally acceptable does not imply that that literary practice could have been used by God to write Scripture. As Camden writes, “What is ‘compatible’ with God’s character is not determined by what the culture or even the church determines is acceptable. Regardless of whether the culture accepts pseudonymous literature, we should question whether or not that is a practice that would be superintended and inspired by the God who cannot lie (Heb 6:18; cf. 2 Peter 1:19–21).”
My implicit question to Camden in my initial reply was: why should we think that pseudonymity CANNOT be superintended and inspired by the God who cannot lie? My example of Samuel Clemen’s use of the pseudonym ‘Mark Twain’ was intended to show that the use of a pseudonym is not an immoral practice per se. So, it cannot be the case that God CANNOT superintend and inspire a pseudonym per se.
The issue – as you rightly point out – is whether God could superintend and inspire someone to write under another person’s name. Could the imaginary author Felix have been inspired by God to write 1st Peter under the Apostle Peter’s name – a name that bears much weight and importance for apostolic Christianity? I think that under certain circumstances God might be justified in doing that. One of those conditions being that 1st Peter’s original audience would have to have known that, in fact, Felix wrote 1st Peter and used Peter’s name as a pseudonym. Karen Jobes’ comments are helpful in showing how that first condition might have been met in the first few years of 1st Peter’s existence.

It seems to me that God, therefore, was able (and has) preserved His words WITH inspiration in a particular translation. If you say, it is just a translation – I can say your “Greek” manuscript is just a error filled handmade copy of the Original. Which don’t exist on this earth anymore.

As for your discussion of “pseudonymous” – if the Author said it was penned by the Apostle Peter – then it was penned by Peter!

Cedric says:It seems to me that pseudonymity is immoral only in cases when it is used in order to unjustifiably deceive a person or group. Accordingly, for pseudonymity to pose any real threat to Scriptural inerrancy, it would have to be argued that the pseudonymous author of 1st Peter was unjustifably deceiving people in his or her use of a pseudonym.
You don’t find that a written work who’s very first introductory phrase is Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,. A phrase that is clearly expected to give direct apostolic authority to all that follows. You don’t find that if the mind that actually composed both the phrase and the subsequent work it is designed to undergird is NOT Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, that that is NOT deceptive. That a work overtly claiming to be written by one of the very closest personal associates of Jesus of Nazareth. Who proclaimed the direct revelation that “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”. The man who walked on water? Who endured fierce persecution and gave his life in the service of his Lord? One who held the hand of the only begoten incarnate Son of the only true and living God?

A pseudonymous author who is NOT actually that man, but claims to be, poses no problem for you? I jist wanna make sure I got that right.

BTW, Twain and Clemens were the same person. Your analogy is foundationally and hence disastrously flawed. Unless you mean to say that Simon actually wrote it as Peter?

Pseudonymity does not appear to be an immoral practice per se. It doesn’t appear to me that Samuel Clemens was doing anything immoral by writing under the pseudonym Mark Twain. And if some people didn’t/don’t know that ‘Mark Twain’ was a pseudonym, that does not make Clemens’s use of a pseudonym immoral.
It seems to me that pseudonymity is immoral only in cases when it is used in order to unjustifiably deceive a person or group. Accordingly, for pseudonymity to pose any real threat to Scriptural inerrancy, it would have to be argued that the pseudonymous author of 1st Peter was unjustifably deceiving people in his or her use of a pseudonym. That would seem to be a hard argument to make. But, in fact, if you hold to a traditional theory of divine inspiration and believe that 1st Peter was written under a pseudonym, then you have every reason to think that the pseudonymous author was not unjustifiably deceiving people. So, I don’t see why inerrantists should be concerned about pseudonymous authorship of biblical books.