| The Authenticity of the SecondEpistle of Peter |
There is a difference of opinion among Bible scholars as to whether or notthis epistle was written by the Apostle Peter. This has been a question since the time of theearly church. I have quoted opinions from four reference books and fifteen versions of theScriptures. (My sources are only those in my personal library.) Most of the versions in mycollection make no comment.
The purpose of my essay is not to support or to refute any viewpoint. It isto show that no one knows for sure and that even the experts do not agree completely, withsome disagreeing completely.
| Versions Compared |
| 2Peter |
| ANT | This letter, claiming to be a second letter by Peter, is certainlypseudepigraphic. Both the external and even more the eternal evidence is against the book'sgenuineness as the work of the Apostle. The writer has assumed Peter's identity in order toreinforce the message of Jude, which to some extent he has attempted to copy. His manner ofreferring to Christ, his acceptance of Paul's letters as Scripture, his allusions to theenvoys, and his response to those who through the passage of time had become skeptical aboutthe Second Advent, all reveal his late date. It has been held that the author was acquaintedwith the Antiquities of Josephus, and as the letter was also subsequent to that of Jude,its composition prior to the beginning of the second century is impossible. |
| BNT | It has to be said that a very great many scholars, from John Calvin onwards, have beenvery doubtful if Peter really is the author of this letter. There are three main reasons forthis doubt. First, the style of this letter is so different from the first letter which bears Peter's namethat it is next to impossible that the same man could have written both. This is one of themost florid, rhetorical and flamboyant pieces of style in the New Testament. Second, in 3: 15, 16, the writer writes to his readers as if the letters of Paul were wellknown to them. This seems to imply that the letters of Paul had been collected and publishedand were part of the literature of the church. But Paul's letters were private letters, andthey were not collected and edited and published for all to read until at least A.D. 90. Inthe early sixties, when Peter died, it would hardly have been possible to write like this. Third, he talks of the people who said that the Second Coming was not going to happen, becausethings have been just the same 'since the fathers fell asleep' (3: 4). This seems to mark outthe readers of this letter as at least second generation Christians, whose fathers, who hadfirst heard the Christian message, are now dead. It may be that the writer of this letter was someone who knew well what Peter had said in hispreaching and his writing, and who knew well what he would say in the present situation, andwho wrote in his great teacher's name. |
| CTNT | The last book of the New Testament to win recognition. The evidence for it in the firstthree centuries is slight and scattered. Origen and Eusebius question its genuineness. It wasonly after long struggle that it became accepted as a part of Scripture. One passage in it, 2 Peter 2: 1-19, presents a very close resemblance to Jude 3-16. |
| DRB | In this Epistle St. Peter says, (chapter 3), Behold this second Epistle I write toyou: and before (chapter 1: 14), Being assured that the laying away of this mytabernacle is at hand. This shows, that it was written a very short time before hismartyrdom, which was about thirty-five years after our Lord's Ascension. |
| MSNT | It is impossible to speak with any certainty as to either the date or the authorship of thisLetter. From the beginning there have been doubts as to its genuineness and canonicity, andthese are represented to-day in the differing judgements of critics equally able and sincere. It has, however, unquestionably had a place in the canon of the New Testament since the Councilof Laodicea in 372 A.D., and there is certainly no such decisive evidence against it as towarrant our omitting it from the New Testament. It would appear that the writer, whoever he was, had seen the Letter from Jude, and bore it inmind in this his plea for such character and conduct on the part of believers as were worthy oftheir faith and would prepare them for the Coming of the Lord. |
| NAB | In both content and style this letter is very different from 1 Peter, which immediatelyprecedes it in the canon. Acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with greatresistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in theearly third century. While he himself accepted both Petrine letters as canonical, he testifiesthat others rejected 2 Peter. As late as the fifth century some local churches still excludedit from the canon, but eventually it was universally adopted. The principal reason for thelong delay was the persistent doubt that the letter stemmed from the apostle Peter. Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., onewritten by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary conventionpopular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolicperiod than 1 Peter; indeed, many think that it is the latest work in the New Testament andassign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century. |
| NBV | Date of writing: c A.D. 66-67. |
| NJB | A large section, 2: 1 - 3: 3, coincides closely with the letter of Jude and is probablydependent upon it. The letter may well be the latest writing of the NT, and is widely accepted as dating fromthe 2nd century, well after Peter's death. It is given the authority of Peter by a literaryconvention. |
| PRS | The authenticity of this letter was sharply disputed by the early Church, and it is stillviewed with suspicion by many. This is partly because one section appears to be copied fromthe letter of Jude, partly because the general character is different from the first letter ofPeter, and partly because competent scholars consider there are references in it to eventswhich happened after Peter's death in approximately 64. It is of course, possible that we havehere parts of a genuine letter of Peter with considerable later additions. |
| RCB | Reese dates the epistle at A.D. 67. Klassen dates it at about A.D. 41. |
| TBR | Because the author refers to Paul's letters as if they were already a published collectionand equal to "the other scriptures" -- details that developed after Peter's death -- manyscholars think that a secretary or disciple of Peter published it under Peter's name,presenting Peter's point of view, according to an accepted convention of the time. |
| TCNT | The resemblance of this Letter to the 'Letter of St. Jude,' and to the writings of theJewish historian Josephus, are most remarkable; and so, too, are the apparent references topassages in the writings of the Alexandrian Philosopher, Philo. Both Philo and Josephus wrotein the first Century of the Christian era. |
| TJB | 2 Peter seems to date from later than Peter's death, though the writer may have had someclaim to represent Peter and was possibly a disciple of his. One possibility is that he filledout one of Peter's writings by adopting the letter of Jude to make a chapter. |
| WAS | From ch. 1: 14, we learn that this epistle was written but a short time before the close ofthe apostle's life; and the contents of the letter agree with this thought. ... . A portion ofch. 2 has a striking resemblance to a part of Jude's epistle. |
| WNT | The author is usually thought to be the apostle Peter, although many scholars either denyit or doubt it. |
| Other References |
The Bible Almanac:
The different Greek styles of Peter's two letters are to be explained as belonging to twodifferent penmen whose skills Peter used.
The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus:
Eusebius: As to the writings of Peter, one of his epistles called the first isacknowledged as genuine. For this was anciently used by the ancient fathers in their writings,as an undoubted work of the apostle. But that which is called the second, we have not, indeed,understood to be embodied with the sacred books, yet as it appeared useful to many, it wasstudiously read with the other Scriptures. (Page 83)
Eusebius: Among the disputed books, although they are well known and approved by many,is reputed, that called the Epistle of James and Jude. Also the "Second Epistle of Peter," andthose called "The Second and Third of John," whether they are of some other of the same name.(Page 110)
Origen: But Peter, upon whom the church of Christ is built, against which the gates ofhell shall not prevail, has left one epistle undisputed. Suppose, also, the second one wasleft by him, for on this there is some doubt. (Page 246)
Halley's Bible Handbook:
The epistle specifically claims to be the work of Simon Peter. The writer represents himselfas having been present at the Transfiguration of Christ; and of having been warned by Christof his impending death. This means that the Epistle is a genuine writing of Peter, or that itwas the work of some one who professed himself to be Peter.
Though it was slow in being received into the New Testament Canon, it was recognized by theearly Church as a genuine writing of Peter, and has, through the centuries been revered as apart of Holy Scripture.
Some modern critics regard it as a pseudonymous work of the late second century, written bysome unknown person who assumed Peter's name, a hundred years after Peter's death. To theaverage mind this would be just plain common forgery, an offense against civil and moral lawand ordinary decency. The critics, however, over and over aver that there is nothing at allunethical in thus counterfeiting another's name.
Smith's Bible Dictionary:
This epistle presents questions of difficulty. Doubts as to its genuineness were entertainedby the early Church; in the time of Eusebius it was reckoned among the disputed books, andwas not formally admitted into the canon until the year 393, at the Council of Hippo. Thesedifficulties, however, are insufficient to justify more than hesitation in admitting itsgenuineness. A majority of names may be quoted in support of the genuineness and authenticityof this epistle. (It is very uncertain as to the time when it was written. It was written nearthe close of Peter's life -- perhaps about A.D. 68 -- from Rome or somewhere on the journeythither from the East.)
| Commentary |
The comments in these references range from adamantly supporting Peter as theauthor of the epistle to adamantly refuting Peter as the author. In between are those who seethe possibility that Peter wrote some of it, but that someone who may have known Peter wrotethe rest of it, or that this person wrote all of it. Although the critics see similarities withother writers of the time, not one advocates that the epistle should be removed. The differenceof opinion is over who actually wrote the epistle. Many versions make no comment, thus takingfor granted that Peter is the author.
Let us examine the criteria for including this or any other writing in theNew Testament. Two sources are quoted here.
Smith's Bible Dictionary (page 105):
"The complete canon of the New Testament, as commonly received at present, was ratified at thethird Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), and from that time was accepted throughout the LatinChurch. The books of Scripture were not made canonical by act of any council, but the councilgave its sanction to the results of long and careful investigations as to what books werereally of divine authority and expressed the universally-accepted decisions of the church."
New American Bible (1979, page xxvii):
"How were the present New Testament books finally selected? There were various factors to beconsidered: apostolic origin, the importance of the community addressed, the centrality of thedoctrine contained. In the final analysis, however, it was the church's awareness, under theguidance of the Holy Spirit, that certain books were an authentic and necessary reflection ofher own life and faith. The community of believers saw their own faith in these books as in amirror."
The most important criterion for any Scripture is the message. How does itcompare with what has already been revealed? Considering what a church accepts as right is aweak criterion. Paul warned churches, as did John in the Revelation, that they were goingastray. The New Testament was compiled in the same century that Christianity was made popularin the heathen Roman Empire.
Were the church leaders who were involved in the final selection reallyinspired? In view of the disputes over the Epistles of James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and alsothe Revelation, one would wonder.
If the apostolic criterion be important, the early date for 2 Peter is moreprobable. If the later date be correct, a problem arises for those Christians who quoteRevelation 22: 18 against later Scripture being given. Since 2 Peter is considered the lastbook written and also the last accepted, it should not be included according to this argument.The only way around it is if Peter actually wrote it prior to A.D. 70.
The problem is that Bible scholars disagree on the authorship of the SecondEpistle of Peter. Each has a way to defend his particular stance. One or none of them may beright. Who knows which ones were inspired by Yahweh? A few writers in the Old Testament areobscure, but their messages are important. The same applies to the New Testament. One cannotalways rely on experts, as they, like any human, can be mistaken. Neither can one be adamantin what one believes about the contents of the Bible or any particular version as someday itmay be shown that this adamant belief is wrong.
My conclusion from this study is that the importance of the Second Epistle ofPeter is not who wrote it but what message the writer has for his readers. This factor shouldapply to all the books of the Bible and to all writings pertaining to spiritual matters. Weneed the assistance of the Holy Spirit as we interpret and evaluate them.