The NT document historically known as 2
Peter claims to be from “Simon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ”
(1:1), and the author goes on to acknowledge this as the “second letter I am
writing to you” (3:1).1 As would be expected, there are multiple allusions
in 2 Peter to events recorded in the Gospels (e.g. 1:14, 16-18). Nevertheless, many
modern-day scholars deny that the document was actually written by the apostle
Peter.2 Here are the main reasons:
1. In the opening address a
number of manuscripts read Sumeōn
(“Simeon”), the Hebraic form of the Greek Simōn
(“Simon”), which indicates the work of a pseudepigraphical writer.
2. A comparison of 1 Peter
and 2 Peter shows that the same author did not write both books: (a) The
writing styles are different, with 2 Peter being more solemn, repetitive, and
cumbersome than 1 Peter, and about 60% of the vocabulary of 2 Peter is not
found in 1 Peter. (b) There are several OT quotations in 1 Peter but
practically none in 2 Peter. (c) In reference to the Lord’s return, the word apokalupsis (“revelation”) is used in 1
Peter, whereas parousia (“appearance”)
is used in 2 Peter.
3. Second Peter seems to have
been written after the apostolic generation had died (cf. 3:4) and expectations
of the Lord’s imminent return had been disappointed (3:7-15).
4. The writer’s knowledge of
a collection of Paul’s letters, particularly viewed in the context of “scripture”
(3:15-16), presupposes a much later date.
5. If 2 Peter uses Jude as a
source (as is commonly believed by a number of critical scholars) and if Jude
was not written until the end of the 1st century, then 2 Peter must have been
composed several decades after the apostle Peter’s death.
6. No NT book is as weakly
confirmed among the patristic writers or was as slowly accepted into the NT
canon as 2 Peter.
Responses to these objections
1. In the opening verse of 2
Peter there is textual variation among extant manuscripts between the Hebraic Sumeōn and the Greek Simōn; the “weight of external support
for the two readings is almost equally divided” (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 629). The
former has been adopted by the NRSV, ESV and NEB, whereas the latter by the ASV,
NASB, N/KJV, NIV, and RSV. If Sumeōn
is original, it is more likely to have come from Peter himself rather than
someone pretending to be the apostle (cf. Acts 15:14). A forger would have
surely copied the more common form instead of using such an obscure form.
2. Any variations in style
and vocabulary can easily be explained by the unique circumstances under which
each document was written, the differences in subject matter, and the
contribution of Silvanus to the first letter (1 Pet. 5:12) and his absence from
the second.3 Moreover, any attempt to conclusively evaluate a
hypothetical “Petrine style” or “Petrine vocabulary” is precluded by the
brevity of these writings. While there are a number of OT allusions in 2 Peter
(cf. 2:1, 4-8, 15-16; 3:2, 4-6, 9-13) and at least two OT quotations (2:22:
3:8), the theme of suffering in 1 Peter apparently called for more scripture
references than the theme of false teachers in 2 Peter. Since the apostle Paul
employs both apokalupsis and parousia in reference to the Lord’s
return in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians,4 what would be so
unusual about the apostle Peter using both words on different occasions?
3. The allusion to hoi pateres (“the fathers”) in 3:4 does
not necessarily refer to first-generation Christian patriarchs (which is
nowhere else used as such) but rather to Jewish patriarchs. Further, the
teaching of the Lord’s return in 2 Peter is not inherently suggestive of a much
later date and is in fact comparable to 1-2 Thessalonians.
4. If Paul kept copies of his
letters (which was customary among contemporary authors) and/or these copies
were included among the “scrolls” and “parchments” that Timothy was requested
to bring to Rome (2 Tim. 4:13), the entire collection could have easily been
shared with Peter while the two apostles were in Rome, especially since Mark
and Silvanus were colleagues of both of them (2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:12-13). Nonetheless,
Peter’s reference to Paul’s “letters” does not in itself imply the entire
corpus (though historically possible), and recognition of these writings as “scripture”
does not pose a problem for those who accept the self-claims of divine inspiration
(e.g. 1 Cor. 2:7-13; 14:37; Eph. 3:1-5).
5. Questioning 2 Peter
because of its literary affinity with Jude is based on the twofold assumption
of Jude’s priority and Jude’s late date, neither of which is proven or
universally conceded (see The Epistle of Judas).
6. The apparently weak
support of 2 Peter in the early church is a fair concern, although M. Green
also notes that “no excluded book has nearly such weight of backing as 2 Peter”
(The Second Epistle of Peter 13). The
weakness of attestation should not be exaggerated, since several 2nd-century
writings seem to betray an influence from 2 Peter (cf. R. J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter 162), and Eusebius, while
acknowledging its disputed status, affirms its usefulness in study along with tō allōn graphōn (“the other scriptures”)
(Eccl. Hist. 3.3.1).
While its absence from the Muratorian
canon may very well be attributable to the fragmentary state of the text, D. A.
Carson and D. J. Moo sensibly observe: “there is a good explanation for the
neglect of 2 Peter. So many Petrine forgeries were in existence that the
Fathers moved very cautiously in separating out 2 Peter from these other
spurious books…. 2 Peter is not mentioned often by the fathers of the church—probably
because it is short and so focused on false teaching that it makes little
significant theological contribution” (An
Introduction to the NT 662, 664).
There are no close parallels to 2 Peter
among the pseudepigraphical writings, and the 2nd century witnessed a whole body
of pseudepigraphical literature attributed to Peter that was rejected from the
NT canon.5
Conclusion:
No argument against the Peterine
authorship of 2 Peter can decisively stand on its own. Even collectively, when evaluated
in light of all the potential variables and available evidence, a convincing
case is not made. Unless one is predisposed to doubting the integrity of NT
writings, there is no legitimate reason to deny 2 Peter’s self-claim of
authorship.
--Kevin L. Moore
Endnotes:
1 Unless otherwise noted,
scripture quotations are the author’s own translation.
2 R. E. Brown contends that 2
Peter is a “pseudonymous work” that was in all likelihood “chronologically the
last NT book to be written …. Indeed, the pseudonymity of II Pet is more
certain than that of any other NT work” (An
Introduction to the NT 761, cf. 766-68); see also B. D. Ehrman, The NT: A Historical Introduction
421-24; R. E. Van Voorst, Reading the NT
Today 504-505. For a good refutation of the arguments, see D. Guthrie, NT Introduction 828-48.
3 Jerome (340-420) noted: “the
two epistles, which circulate as Peter's, are also different in style among
themselves and in character, and in word structure; from which we understand
that he used different interpreters as necessary” (Ad Hedibiam 120).
4 On the Pauline authorship of
2 Thessalonians, see The Thessalonian Letters, and Biblical Authorship Part 3 and Part 4.
5 E.g., Acts of Peter, Apocalypse of
Peter, Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Martyrdom of Peter, Martyrdom
of Peter and Paul, the Gnostic Letter
of Peter to Philip, and the Gnostic Apocalypse
of Peter (see C. R. Holladay, A
Critical Introduction to the NT 511).
Related Posts: Authorship of Ephesians, Authorship of 1 Peter
Image credit:
https://www.wacriswell.com/sermons/1960/the-sure-word-of-god/
