Introduction

2 Peter bears the name of Simon Peter, because he wrote it.  However, throughout different points of history, and especially in modern Bible criticism, some have argued that this letter was written by an anonymous writer in the 2nd century, claiming to be Peter.  

Donald Guthrie (an advocate for Peter’s authorship of 2 Peter), points out the trend of criticism toward this letter when he writes:  “This is the most problematical of all the New Testament Epistles…the majority of scholars reject it as a genuine work of the apostle Peter” (NTI, p. 814)

However, while conducting a project on the credibility of certain Bible dictionaries, I found myself amidst a treasure trove of information that served to confirm, among other things, that Peter was indeed the author of this letter, and I thought it would be greedy of me not to share.  Thus, this paper was birthed.

note: if you know of further evidences on this subject not named here, please contact us

Why 2 Peter’s Authorship is Doubted

There are generally 3 main reasons given for rejecting Peter as the author:

1. The written Greek of 2 Peter seems to be quite different than the written Greek of 1 Peter, and therefore it is “implausible” that the same man wrote both letters.

2. The early church was slow to endorse it as a genuine work of Peter.

3. The similarity between Jude and 2 Peter has made people believe 2 Peter was written by a later author who borrowed from Jude.

Why Its Authorship Should Not Be Doubted

The primary reason we should trust that Peter wrote this letter is because God says so.  

The writing of the 66 books of Scripture happens by the Holy Spirit moving through men (2 Tim. 3:16) in such a way that it could be called the very “word of God,” and carry God’s authority (see John 10:35, for example).  That same Spirit who wrote these words, lives in all believers who have repented and believed the gospel (Eph. 1:13), and thus He can help us to ensure that the books written in the Bible are truly the books written by Him–no more, no less.  

With this in mind, the majority of legitimate believers have seen all of the 66 books as authentic, from the time of the early church even up to the present day.  Therefore, either God has massively deceived His people for this entire time (in which case, how can You trust anything He says and does?), or God is unable to show his people which books are truly His words (in which case, how can He show you anything else from His word?), or we CAN trust that these 66 books belong to Him.

It goes to follow, then, that we can confidently affirm 2 Peter to be written by God Himself (through human hands).  Furthermore, just as God “cannot lie” (Titus 1:2), everything written in 2 Peter must be true.  This means the following statements in 2 Peter are true:

  • “[Written from] Simon Peter…apostle of Jesus Christ,” (1:1, NKJV)
  • “Shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.” (1:14; compare with John 21:18)
  • “We…were eyewitnesses of His [Jesus Christ’s] majesty.  For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’  And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.” (1:16-18; compare with Matt. 17:1-8)
  • “I now write to you this second epistle” (2:1)
  • “our beloved brother Paul…has written to you” (3:15)

Putting this together, we know the writer’s name is “Simon Peter”, he is an apostle of Christ, Jesus spoke to him about his death (see John 21:18), he was an eyewitness of Jesus on the Mt. of Transfiguration (see Matt. 17:1), this is his second letter, he has warm association with Paul, and he knew that Paul wrote to them.  Only one person in history matches all of these traits together: Simon Peter, the apostle.  Thus, either this is truly Peter writing, or it is a complete fraud, and is inspired ultimately by Satan, “the father of lies” (John 8:44).

Also consider that the writer says:

  • “To those who have obtained like precious faith WITH US” (2 Pet. 1:1)
  • “His divine power has given to US all things that pertain to life and godliness…partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Pet. 1:3-4)

Therefore, he is claiming to be a genuine Christian who is being transformed into God’s likeness.  “Is it at all probable that one with such a faith and such expecttions would deliberately forge the name of Simon Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ?” (ISBE).

Even more, the writer “is unsparing in his denunciations of false teachers, corrupters of others, and perverters of the truth.  He instances the fall of the angels, the destruction of Sodom, the rebuke of Balaam, as examples of the doom of those who know the truth and yet live in shameful sin and crime.  Would a Christian and servant of Jesus Christ be at all likely to commit in the most flagrant manner the things he so vehemently condemns?  If the writer was not the apostle Peter, he was a false teacher, a corrupter of others, and a hypocrite, which seems incredible to us.” (ISBE).

Secondary Reasons to Affirm Peter As Author

Truthfully, God’s own words must be the authority on any question, and sufficient reason in themselves to believe Peter as the author.  Therefore, the rest of the reasons given should be seen as supplementary and complementary, but never as equally authoritative.

Also, it should be noted that these scratch the surface of arguments and reasons given for 2 Peter’s authenticity when they are compared with other works on the subject.

Additional reasons to believe Peter truly wrote 2 Peter:

  • Objection: The early church seemed hesitant to accept 2 Peter as authentic.
    • Answered: “That resistance to an acceptance of 2 Peter was greater in some areas — among Syrian churches, for example – may be related to the fact that the spurious pseudepigraphal works bearing the apostle’s name were in circulation in these parts.  This would reasonably explain why early patristic evidence supporting 2 Peter is scant.” (Expositor’s, p. 364)
    • “Although 2 Peter is the least well-attested book in the NT, its attestation far exceeds that of any of the noncanonical books.”
  • Many early Christians did regard it as authentic:
    • Jude’s letter (written c. 70 AD) seems to use similar phrasing as 2 Peter, which shows very early recognition
    • “J. A. T. Robinson believes that 2 Peter may have been cited in 1 Clement, which has been dated as early as AD 95” (Expos. p. 363, footnote 15)
    • Clement of Alexandria (late second century), offered commentary on all the catholic epistles.  This would include 2 Peter (See Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.14).
    • “Authors of spurious Apocalypse of Peter and Acts of Peter, both second-century documents, show evidence of having known of 2 Peter’s existence” (Expos, 364)
    • Robert Picirilli’s “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,” JSNT 33 [1987]: 57-83, concludes that the epistle is probably being alluded to, though without decisive proof.   He names twenty-two possible sources, including 1 Clement, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas (Expos, 365).
    • Salmon, Warfield, Zahn and others strongly hold that such references are to be found in the writings of the 2nd century, perhaps in one or two documents of the 1st. They insist with abundant proof in support of their contention that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache, and Clement of Rome, were all acquainted with the Epistle and made allusions to it in their writings. (ISBE)
    • Origen (c. 200 AD) quotes 2 Peter six times, and has little hesitation in regarding it as canonical…”in his time the Epistle was widely regarded as canonical” (Guthrie, NTI, 815)
      • Origen writes of one ‘acknowledged’ letter of Peter and mentions a second that is ‘doubted’ (Comm. Jo. 5.3), yet he himself accepts it as one of Peter’s ‘twin epistles’ (Hom. Josh. 7.1) (Expos, 364)
  • Origen is first writer to refer to 2 Peter by name and call it Scripture (240 AD).
  • Eusebius (c. 300 AD) said: The majority accepted 2 Peter as authentic, though he had doubts himself.
  • Note: Eusebius did not classify 2 Peter as “spurious,” like he did the pseudepigraphic writing called, “Apocalypse of Peter”
  • Eusebius (Hist. eccl. 3.3) writes: though many have thought it valuable and have honored it alongside the other Scriptures, much of the church has been taught to regard it as noncanonical.  In the case of other writings attributed to the apostle (e.g., The Acts of Peter, The Apocalypse of Peter, and the gospel carrying his name), we have no reason whatsoever, according to Eusebius, to include them among the traditional, and nowhere in the church are they cited. (Expositor’s, p. 364)
  • Athanasius (c. 350 AD) thought Peter was the author.
  • Epiphanius (c. 350 AD) thought Peter was the author
  • Rufinus (c. 400 AD) thought Peter was the author.
  • Augustine (c. 400 AD) thought Peter was the author.
  • Cyril (c. 400 AD) thought Peter was the author.
  • 2nd Peter was recognized as canonical by the Church in the late fourth century.
  • Laodicean church council (c. 372 AD) recognized 2 Peter as part of the Canon and equal in authority to the other books of the N.T.
  • First formally admitted to Canon in 393 at Council of Hippo
  • Carthage church council (c. 397 AD) recognized 2 Peter as part of the Canon and equal in authority to the other books of the N.T.
  • Note: “At a period when the orthodox were on the alert to test the validity of all literary productions, it is difficult to see how an earlier pseudepigraphic production would have gained currency after a considerable interval of time, especially against marked suspicions.” (Guthrie, 848)
  • Jerome included it in the Vulgate (395-400AD)
  • Jerome’s uncertainty surrounded the different styles between 1 and 2 Peter.
  • Objection: The writing of 2 Peter differs from the writing of 1 Peter.
    • Answered: “The Greek of 1 Peter runs more idiomatically and smoothly than the rugged, intense diction of 2 Peter” though not as much as some have made out (Archer, EBD, p. 426)
    • Silvanus scribed 1 Peter (1 Pet. 5:12).  2 Peter was probably written by Peter in Roman jail, so more intense and rugged style.  
    • Additionally, Peter was an uneducated fisherman (see Acts 4:13), and presumably Silvanus would have been educated, thus the different writing style could reflect this difference.
    • As another possibility, Jerome suggested a different secretary wrote 2 Peter (Epist. 120.11), thus accounting for different style of 1 and 2 Peter.
  • Though 1 and 2 Peter have different tones, so do Milton’s prose essays compared to his pastoral poems, yet both are written by Milton (Archer, EBD, p. 426).  2 Peter (stern warning against heretics) had different purpose than 1 Peter (comfort and encouragement in face of persecution)
  • Though 2 Peter is different enough from 1 Peter that some have claimed different authors, there are also many similarities between the two that would suggest common authorship: (1) centrality of Christ and certainty of 2nd coming, (2) importance of Noah’s ark and Flood, (3) pivotal significance of prophetic word of Old Testament (see also Acts 2:14-36), (4) common concern with importance of Christian growth
  • “There are not a few instances in which words rarely found in the other Biblical books are common to the two Epistles. Some examples are given in proof: “precious” (1Pe 1:7,19; 2Pe 1:1) (a compound), occurring often in Rev, not often in other books; “virtue” (1Pe 2:9, the King James Version margin; 2Pe 1:3), found elsewhere only inPhp 4:8; “supply” (1Pe 4:11; 2Pe 1:5), rare in other books; “love of brethren” (1Pe 1:22; 2Pe 1:7 margin), only in three places besides; “behold” (1Pe 2:12;3:2 (verbal form); 2Pe 1:16) (eyewitnesses), not found elsewhere in the New Testament; “without blemish,” “without spot” (1Pe 1:19; 2Pe 3:14) (order of words reversed); also positive side (2Pe 2:13), “spots and blemishes”; the words do not occur elsewhere; “ungodly” (1Pe 4:18; 2Pe 2:5; 3:7) occurs in but three other places, except Jude, which has it three times.” (ISBE)
  • “There are many striking similarities in thought and diction in the two Epistles. Two instances are given. In the First the saved are described as the “elect” (1Pe 1:1), and as “called” (1Pe 2:21). In the Second, the two great truths are brought together (2Pe 1:10). Likewise, in both stress is laid upon prophecy (1Pe 1:10-12; 2Pe 1:19-21). Now, all this tends to prove that the writer of the Second Epistle was well acquainted with the peculiarity of diction employed in the First, and that he made use purposely of its uncommon terms” (ISBE)
  • Objection: 2 Peter was influenced by Jude.
    • Answered: “a careful comparison between the two authors [Jude and Peter] offers little support to the theory that one borrowed directly from the other–or even that one influenced the other.” (Archer, EBD, 1982, p. 426)
    • “It is noteworthy that in the earlier times objections were not urged because of its relation to Jude—its borrowing from Jude, as is often charged in our days” (ISBE)
    • “Jude appears to quote from 2 Peter. The question of the priority of the two Epistles is by no means settled. Many recent writers give the precedence to Jude, others to Peter. One of the highest authority, by Zahn (New Testament, II, 238 ff), argues with great force in support of the view that Peter’s is the older and that Jude cites from it.” (ISBE)

Also…

  • The author of 2 Peter “associates himself with the other apostles (2Pe 3:2), is in full sympathy with Paul and is acquainted with Paul’s Epistles (2Pe 3:15,16), and he holds and teaches the same fundamental truth. An apostolic spirit breathes through this document such as is generally absent from spurious writings and such as a forger does not exhibit. He is anxiously concerned for the purity of the faith and for the holiness and fidelity of believers. He exhorts them to give “diligence that ye may be found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight,” and that they “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2Pe 3:14,18). All this and much more of like devout teaching is apostolic in tone and betokens genuineness and reality.” (ISBE)
  • When books of ancient times are claimed to be written by someone other than the actual author, they are called pseudepigraphic.  The problem with claiming this for 2 Peter is that it is not written in the style of other work that is known to be pseudepigraphic:
  • “There are no close parallels to 2 Peter, if this Epistle is pseudepigraphic.  The normal procedure was to adopt a fairly consistent first person style, particularly in narrative sections.” (Guthrie, 828)
  • Those who believe 2 Peter to be pseudepigraphical claim the unknown author was modeling 1 Peter to “authenticate” this letter.  However, this is implausible, because:
    • The author calls himself Simon Peter (perhaps “Simeon”), a name that never appears in 1 Peter.
    • “2 Peter opens with the positive statement of Peter’s authorship: “Simon [“Symeon,” Nestle, Weymouth] Peter, a servant …. of Jesus Christ.” The insertion of “Symeon,” the old Hebrew name, in the forefront of the document is significant. If a forger had been writing in Peter’s name he would have begun his letter almost certainly by copying the First Epistle and simply written, “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ.” Note also that “servant” is introduced into the Second Epistle, but absent from the First. He designates himself as a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. “Although several pseudonymous writings appear in early Christian literature, there is no Christian document of value written by a forger who uses the name of an apostle” (Dods, SBD). If this important statement is accepted at its full worth, it goes far to settle the question of authorship. Both “servant” and “apostle” appear in the opening sentence, and the writer claims both for himself.” (ISBE)
  • Those who believe 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical claim the author borrowed stories from the gospels and other established Christian works to “authenticate” this letter.  However:
  • In recounting the transfiguration, the author of 2 Peter includes some differences (not contradictions) with the gospel accounts of this story.  These differences, though, are not embellishments to the story, nor is there any seeming reason for a writer claiming to be Peter to introduce the story or these differences (so he couldn’t have borrowed from them).  It makes much more sense to assume them to be authentically written by Peter.
  • In 2 Peter 3:16, the author claims to not understand some of Paul’s letters.  This makes sense if it comes from the honest pen of Peter, but seems unlikely for a forger to write this when he is claiming he is “the great Peter”, and should be listened to.
  • Certain words used in 1 and 2 Peter are words that are used specifically by Peter in the book of Acts.
    • 2 Peter “Reads much like Peter’s plain way of speaking of himself at the Council of Jerusalem, ‘Ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe’ (Ac 15:7).” (ISBE)
  • A comparison of 2 Peter with known pseudepigrapha claimed to be written by Peter shows that this letter alone has clear inspiration and excellence.
  • When forgeries have been written, there are always motives.  For instance, someone wanting to brandish an unusual teaching or wants people to listen to him, and so they would write a forgery claiming the letter came from a great Christian leader.  However, in the case of 2 Peter, no one can find a  good theory of motive on why someone would need to introduce it as forgery of Peter.  
  • It is implausible that 2 Peter was written in the 2nd century, because:
    • By the 2nd Century, there were single bishops who were given the highest authority in the local churches (a development that was not found in 1st Century Christianity).  But, in 2 Peter, there are no references to church officeholders.  In fact, the flock is admonished to guard itself (cf. 2 Pet. 3:17), which would be inconsistent with 2nd Century ecclesiology. (see Expositor’s, p.363)
    • “The assumed need for ecclesiastical control over doctrine does not manifest itself in 2 Peter the way that ‘early Catholic’ exegetes have maintained…Not an institution , not an office, but the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is at work in the people of God (1:21b).” (Expositor’s, p. 363)
    • The letter borrows very little from Paul’s letters.  But if it was an anonymous writer of the 2nd century who was familiar with Christian writings, and wanted to authenticate his message, it seems likely that he would include more content from Paul.
  • Note: He does recognize Paul and allude to his writings in 3:15 (cf. Rom. 2:4; 9:22), but this makes sense if Peter was in Rome a few years later than Paul, as his Roman readers would expect him to comment on the work and achievement of his predecessor.
  • “To ‘Peter,’ Paul is a ‘beloved brother’ [cf. 2 Pet. 3:15]; to Polycarp, several generations removed, he is ‘the blessed and glorious Paul.’  In the second century one tended to view Paul either as an arch-villain (given the maturity of heretical teachings) or as the apostle par excellence; it is, however, highly dubious that Paul would have been referred to as a ‘dear brother’ by later generations.” (Expositor’s, p. 363)

Sources:

  • NTI = Donald Guthrie’s, New Testament Introduction, 4th American Printing, 1974
  • Expositor’s = The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, 2006 
  • EBD = Gleason Archer’s, Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties, 1982
  • ISBE = International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1915