The question of biblical authorship is crucial for understanding the authority of Scripture. A cornerstone of this authority rests on the assertion that the books of the New Testament were written by apostles or individuals closely linked to them, as highlighted in passages like 2 Corinthians 3:6 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:14. However, within the New Testament canon, the book of 2 Peter stands out as one of the most debated regarding its authorship. Critical scholars often propose that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, crafted by a later author in the late first or early second century who falsely attributed it to Peter.
These scholars raise several points to support their view:
- Stylistic Differences: A significant divergence in writing style and vocabulary exists between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, suggesting to some that they were penned by different individuals.
- Peter’s Literacy: The Bible describes Peter as “illiterate” in Acts 4:13, contrasting with the sophisticated Greek philosophical terminology found in 2 Peter.
- Historical Anachronisms: References within 2 Peter, such as the mention of Paul’s letters as Scripture (2 Peter 3:16), are seen as historically inconsistent with the proposed early dating of Peter’s life.
- Canonical Acceptance: 2 Peter faced challenges in gaining widespread acceptance into the New Testament canon during the early church period.
Despite these challenges, compelling arguments support the traditional view that the Apostle Peter indeed authored 2 Peter, likely between AD 64 and 68. The implication of denying Petrine authorship is significant. If Peter did not write 2 Peter, the text would be making a false claim about its origin, a notion incompatible with the concept of inspired Scripture (2 Peter 1:21). The very emphasis on truth in 2 Peter (1:12, 2:2) and its warnings against false teachers using “false words” (2 Peter 2:3) seem contradictory if the letter itself is based on a falsehood about its author. Pseudonymity was not an accepted practice among early Christians, who valued authentic apostolic authorship. The Apostle Paul himself condemned pseudonymous letters in his name (2 Thessalonians 2:2) and affirmed his own authentic writings (2 Thessalonians 3:17). Therefore, the claim that 2 Peter is pseudonymous warrants careful scrutiny.
Examining the Internal Claims of Authorship in 2 Peter
The letter of 2 Peter explicitly identifies its author as “Simeon Peter” (2 Peter 1:1). Interestingly, it uses the form “Symeōn” (Συμεὼν), which is a less common Greek transliteration of Peter’s Hebrew name, Simon, primarily used in Acts 15:14. If a later author were falsely attributing the letter to Peter, it is reasonable to expect they would use the more familiar form “Petros” (Πέτρος), as seen in 1 Peter 1:1, or another common title for Peter in the New Testament. The use of “Symeōn” can be seen as an indicator of authenticity, aligning with the nuanced historical details. Furthermore, the letter also refers to the author as “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1), reinforcing the claim of apostolic authority.
The authorial claims extend beyond the opening verse. 2 Peter includes personal details and references that align with the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter as depicted in the Gospels and Acts. The author mentions receiving direct knowledge from the Lord Jesus Christ about his impending death (2 Peter 1:14; cf. John 21:15–19), positioning himself as an eyewitness to the Transfiguration of Jesus (2 Peter 1:16–18; cf. Mark 9:2–13), and acknowledging a close relationship with the Apostle Paul (2 Peter 3:15; cf. Galatians 1:18, 2:9). These personal and specific claims would be difficult for a pseudepigraphal author to convincingly fabricate and maintain authority. Finally, 2 Peter itself claims to be the second letter written by Peter (2 Peter 3:1). This self-referential statement strengthens the internal consistency of Petrine authorship, as “the second letter does not depend in a clear fashion on 1 Peter,” making pseudepigraphy less likely in this context.
Apostle Peter depicted in a 16th-century painting, reflecting the traditional understanding of his significant role in early Christianity.
Addressing the “Illiteracy” Argument
One of the primary objections to Peter’s authorship of 2 Peter stems from Acts 4:13, where Peter and John are described as “illiterate” (agrammatoi). Critics argue that an illiterate fisherman from Galilee could not have composed the sophisticated Greek text of 2 Peter. However, this interpretation of Acts 4:13 is often taken out of context. In Acts 4, the term “illiterate” is used by the Jewish scribes (grammateis, Acts 4:5) in reference to Peter and John’s lack of formal rabbinic training in the Scriptures. The context indicates that “uneducated” (agrammatoi) meant they were not formally trained religious scholars, like those educated in the rabbinical schools, and therefore, in the eyes of the Sanhedrin, unqualified to teach publicly (cf. John 7:15). It does not necessarily imply a complete inability to read or write, especially in the common Greek language of the time.
Furthermore, the argument regarding Peter’s supposed lack of Greek philosophical knowledge also weakens when considering the historical context of Galilee. While Peter was a Galilean fisherman, Galilee was a region significantly influenced by Hellenistic culture and the Greek language. As New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner points out, “We must remind ourselves that we should conceive of Peter as a businessman who engaged in physical labor and commerce. When we add to this the fact that Galilee was influenced by Hellenism and Greek culture, it is not astonishing that he would be familiar with Greek philosophical terms. The terms he used would not require a thorough study of Greek philosophy or classics, nor did Peter use the terms in a technical sense.” Peter’s use of Greek philosophical terms like “excellence” (aretē, 2 Peter 1:3), “divine nature” (theios physis, 2 Peter 1:4), and “hell” (tartarōsas, 2 Peter 2:4) should be understood as employing the common vernacular of the day to effectively communicate with his diverse audience, similar to how contemporary evangelists adapt their language to reach modern audiences.
Examining Stylistic Differences Between 1 Peter and 2 Peter
Critical scholars also emphasize the stylistic and grammatical differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, particularly in the original Greek, as evidence against a single author. While stylistic variations are undeniable, several plausible explanations account for these differences without necessitating different authorship. The use of scribes, or secretaries, in the writing process of the New Testament letters provides a significant insight. Romans 16:22 explicitly mentions a scribe, Tertius, for Paul’s letter to the Romans. Peter himself acknowledges the involvement of Silvanus in the writing of 1 Peter (1 Peter 5:12). It is possible that Peter employed a scribe for 1 Peter, contributing to its polished Greek style, while writing 2 Peter himself, or using a different scribe with a different style. The absence of a named scribe in 2 Peter doesn’t negate the possibility of scribal assistance.
Moreover, stylistic variations can naturally arise from different contexts, audiences, and purposes of writing. 1 Peter is addressed to believers facing persecution and focuses on encouragement amidst suffering (1 Peter 1:6, 3:14). In contrast, 2 Peter addresses the threat of false teachers and the urgency of sound doctrine (2 Peter 2). Furthermore, 2 Peter is written at a different stage in Peter’s life, likely closer to his death, functioning as a farewell address (2 Peter 1:12–15). These differing circumstances naturally influence vocabulary, tone, and style.
Despite stylistic differences, significant thematic links exist between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, suggesting a common author. These parallels, as highlighted in the table below, encompass doctrines such as the inspiration of the Old Testament, election, new birth, holiness, and eschatology.
| 1 Peter | Theme | 2 Peter |
|---|---|---|
| 1:10–12 | Inspiration of the Old Testament | 1:19–21 |
| 1:2 | Doctrine of election | 1:10 |
| 1:23 | Doctrine of the new birth | 1:4 |
| 2:11–12 | Need for holiness | 1:5–9 |
| 3:20 | Noah and his family protected | 2:5 |
| 4:2–4 | Immorality and judgment | 2:10–22 |
| 4:7–11 | Exhortation to Christian living | 3:14–18 |
| 4:11 | Doxology | 3:18 |
These thematic consistencies across both letters strengthen the case for single authorship, counteracting the stylistic objections.
An artistic representation of Saint Peter composing his epistles, emphasizing the traditional view of his literary contributions to the New Testament.
Reconciling “Historical Inconsistencies” – The Reference to Paul’s Letters
Another argument raised against Petrine authorship is the reference to Paul’s letters as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:15–16. Critics argue that the New Testament canon, and the recognition of Paul’s letters as Scripture, had not developed as early as AD 64–68, the proposed timeframe for 2 Peter’s writing. This argument often stems from a critical perspective that views the New Testament canon as a late ecclesiastical development, rather than a natural outgrowth of early Christian beliefs.
However, this perspective is contested by scholars who argue for an early and organic development of the New Testament canon. Michael Kruger, for instance, demonstrates that the canon emerged naturally from core early Christian theological beliefs: (1) the eschatological nature of early Christianity, (2) the concept of covenant, and (3) the role of the apostles. These foundational beliefs provided the framework for recognizing certain texts as authoritative from the apostolic age itself.
In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter mentions a collection of Paul’s letters already circulating among the churches (cf. Colossians 4:16). He assumes his readers are familiar with Paul and his writings, indicating Paul’s established authority. Crucially, Peter places Paul’s letters on par with “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16), a clear reference to the Old Testament. This implies an early recognition of certain apostolic writings, including Paul’s, as possessing scriptural authority alongside the established Old Testament.
Furthermore, 2 Peter 3:2 reinforces this understanding by urging readers to remember “the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles.” Peter distinguishes between the “prophets” of the Old Covenant and the “apostles” of the New Covenant, presenting them as equal sources of divine revelation. This suggests the nascent stages of a “bicovenantal canon.” Since “predictions of the holy prophets” clearly refers to written Old Testament texts, it is highly probable that “commandment of the Lord…through your apostles” also alludes to written apostolic texts. This interpretation is strengthened by the immediate context, as Peter has already referenced his own previous letter (1 Peter in 2 Peter 3:1) and proceeds to mention Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:16). As an apostle himself (2 Peter 1:1), Peter’s validation of his apostolic credentials (2 Peter 1:16–18) and his exhortation to heed apostolic commandments (2 Peter 3:2) imply that his own writings, along with Paul’s, carry comparable authority.
Therefore, 2 Peter provides significant evidence that both Peter’s and Paul’s writings were considered authoritative Scripture as early as AD 64–68, challenging the notion of a late canonization process and supporting the authenticity of 2 Peter.
Addressing the Canonical Struggle of 2 Peter
It is well-documented that 2 Peter faced more resistance to canonical acceptance than other New Testament books. This hesitancy was partly due to the proliferation of pseudonymous Petrine writings in the second century, such as The Gospel of Peter, The Acts of Peter, and The Apocalypse of Peter. Ironically, the very existence of these forgeries contributed to skepticism about 2 Peter’s authenticity, as some early church fathers questioned whether Peter truly wrote it. However, this initial hesitation ultimately underscores the early church’s commitment to authentic apostolic authorship as a criterion for canonicity. They were discerning in their acceptance of texts and did not readily embrace writings simply because they bore Peter’s name.
As Schreiner notes, “The church went through a process by which it sifted the authentic from the spurious. When the decision was made, 2 Peter was accepted, but other alleged Petrine writings were rejected. The early church was not inclined, therefore, to include a document just because it had Peter’s name on it. Many other ‘Petrine’ writings were excluded, but the church recognized the legitimacy of 2 Peter. Hence, the acceptance of 2 Peter witnesses to the discrimination of the church, to their conviction that this writing, in contrast to many other alleged Petrine writings, was authentic.”
Early church historian Eusebius (AD 263–339) acknowledged that 2 Peter was disputed but also recognized by many in his Ecclesiastical History (3.25). Irenaeus (AD 130–202), Bishop of Lyon, appears to have been familiar with 2 Peter, as his writings contain wording very similar to 2 Peter 3:8. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215) also seems to have accepted 2 Peter as Scripture. Eventually, 2 Peter gained wider acceptance, affirmed by influential figures like Jerome, Athanasius, and Augustine, as well as church councils such as Laodicea (c. 360) and Carthage (c. 397).
While initial doubts existed, the eventual widespread acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon, after careful scrutiny and discernment, strengthens its claim to authenticity.
Conclusion: Affirming Petrine Authorship of 2 Peter
Despite critical scholarly objections, the evidence, both internal and external, strongly supports the traditional view that the Apostle Peter authored 2 Peter. The internal claims of authorship within the letter, the personal details aligning with Peter’s life, the thematic connections with 1 Peter, and the early evidence for the recognition of Paul’s letters as Scripture all contribute to a compelling case for Petrine authorship. The objections based on stylistic differences, Peter’s literacy, and historical inconsistencies are adequately addressed when considering the historical context, scribal practices, and the nuanced development of the New Testament canon. The initial canonical struggle of 2 Peter ultimately highlights the early church’s commitment to authentic apostolic writings and their eventual affirmation of 2 Peter’s place within the Scripture. Therefore, there is no valid reason today to doubt that 2 Peter rightfully belongs in the canon and stands as a testament to the enduring legacy of the Apostle Simon Peter’s contribution to the Bible.
