The question of authorship is fundamental when discussing the authority of Scripture. For books within the New Testament, authenticity often hinges on whether they were penned by an apostle or someone closely associated with them, figures entrusted with conveying the teachings of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:6; 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:14; cf. Luke 1:1–4). Among the New Testament texts, the Second Epistle of Peter stands out as one of the most debated in terms of its origin. Critical scholars frequently suggest that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, crafted by an author in the late first or early second century who falsely claimed to be the Apostle Peter.
Several reasons are put forth to support this critical view:
- Stylistic Divergence: A noticeable difference in writing style and vocabulary exists between 2 Peter and 1 Peter, leading some scholars to posit different authors.
- Peter’s Literacy: The book of Acts describes Peter as “illiterate” (Acts 4:13), which seems at odds with the sophisticated Greek vocabulary and philosophical terms 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 potentially anachronistic for the purported time of writing.
- Canonical Reception: 2 Peter faced challenges in gaining widespread acceptance into the New Testament canon during the early centuries of the Church.
However, despite these scholarly objections, compelling arguments exist that strongly support the traditional authorship of 2 Peter by the Apostle Peter himself, likely written between AD 64 and 68.
Dismissing Peter as the author of 2 Peter implies that the text is built on a false premise, a notion incompatible with the concept of inspired Scripture (2 Peter 1:21). It would suggest that falsehood is divinely inspired. Furthermore, 2 Peter’s strong emphasis on truth (2 Peter 1:12, 2:2) and its warnings against false teachers who “will exploit you with false words” (2 Peter 2:3) seem incongruous with a deliberately deceptive claim of authorship. Pseudonymity was not a practice condoned by early Christians, who placed great importance on authentic apostolic authorship. The Apostle Paul himself condemned writings falsely attributed to him (2 Thessalonians 2:2) and affirmed his genuine authorship (2 Thessalonians 3:17). Thus, the weight of internal and historical evidence leans towards accepting Peter as the true author of 2 Peter, written in the mid-60s AD.
Internal Claims of Authorship within 2 Peter
The epistle explicitly identifies its author as “Simeon Peter” (2 Peter 1:1), using the Hebrew form “Symeōn” (Συμεὼν). Interestingly, this form is used for Peter in the New Testament only in Acts 15:14. If a pseudonymous author were attempting to impersonate Peter, it seems unlikely they would choose this less common form over the more familiar “Petros” (Πέτρος), used in 1 Peter 1:1, or other common titles for Peter. The use of “Symeōn” can be seen as an authentic detail, lending credibility to Peter’s authorship. Furthermore, the designation “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1) reinforces the letter’s claim to apostolic authority.
The authorial claims extend beyond a simple name. The letter presents itself as written by someone intimately familiar with Jesus’ earthly ministry. The author mentions that the Lord Jesus Christ revealed to him his impending death (2 Peter 1:14; cf. John 21:15–19), positions himself as an eyewitness to the Transfiguration of Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:16–18; cf. Mark 9:2–13), and acknowledges a close relationship with the Apostle Paul (2 Peter 3:15; cf. Galatians 1:18, 2:9). These personal and specific references are difficult to reconcile with the idea of a pseudepigraphal author writing with authority. Finally, the letter identifies itself as the second epistle written by Peter (2 Peter 3:1). This claim is significant, as “the second letter does not depend in a clear fashion on 1 Peter,” which argues against a pseudonymous author simply building upon a known genuine letter.
Addressing the “Illiteracy” Objection
Critics often point to Acts 4:13, where Peter is described as “illiterate” (agrammatoi), as evidence against Petrine authorship of the sophisticated Greek in 2 Peter. However, this interpretation misconstrues the context of Acts 4:13. In this passage, the scribes (grammateis, Acts 4:5) are the ones labeling Peter and John as “uneducated” (agrammatoi). This description should be understood in the context of formal rabbinic training in the Scriptures. The scribes recognized that Peter and John had not received formal religious education and were therefore deemed unqualified to teach publicly (cf. John 7:15). “Illiterate” in this context does not necessarily mean unable to read and write, but rather lacking in formal religious scholarly training.
Furthermore, the argument that a Galilean fisherman could not have possessed the Greek vocabulary found in 2 Peter (including philosophical terms like “excellence” (aretē, 2 Peter 1:3), “divine nature” (theios physis, 2 Peter 1:4), and “hell” (tartarōsas, 2 Peter 2:4)) overlooks the socio-economic realities of first-century Galilee. As New Testament scholar Thomas Schreiner points out, Peter, as a fisherman, was also a businessman engaged in “physical labor and commerce.” Galilee was a region influenced by Hellenistic culture and the Greek language. Exposure to Greek philosophical terms would not have required extensive academic study. Peter likely used the common language of his day to effectively communicate with his audience, much like contemporary evangelists adapt their language to reach their listeners.
Examining Stylistic Differences Between 1 and 2 Peter
The stylistic differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, particularly in Greek grammar and vocabulary, are a key argument for those who doubt common authorship. While these differences are undeniable, they are not insurmountable and can be explained in several plausible ways. The use of scribes, common in the ancient world, offers a compelling explanation. 1 Peter 5:12 explicitly mentions Silvanus as Peter’s scribe in writing 1 Peter. It is possible that Peter employed a scribe for 1 Peter but wrote 2 Peter himself, or even used different scribes with varying writing styles for each letter. While no scribe is named in 2 Peter, this doesn’t preclude the possibility.
Moreover, stylistic variations can arise naturally from different contexts, purposes, and audiences. Stylistic objections can be subjective and often overlook these contextual factors. 1 Peter is written to encourage believers facing persecution (1 Peter 1:6, 3:14), while 2 Peter addresses the threat of false teachers (2 Peter 2). Furthermore, 2 Peter is likely written later in Peter’s life, as he anticipates his imminent death and delivers a farewell message (2 Peter 1:12–15), which could naturally influence the tone and style.
Despite the stylistic variations, significant thematic links exist between 1 Peter and 2 Peter, pointing towards a shared authorial hand. The table below highlights some of these thematic parallels:
| 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 connections provide further evidence for a common author, suggesting that the stylistic differences do not negate Petrine authorship.
Addressing “Historical Inconsistencies” and the Canon
Another objection raised by critical scholars concerns 2 Peter 3:15–16, which refers to Paul’s letters (plural) as Scripture. Critics argue that the New Testament canon was not developed as early as AD 64–68, the proposed timeframe for 2 Peter’s writing. This argument stems from a view of the New Testament canon as a late, ecclesiastical construct, rather than a natural outgrowth of early Christian beliefs. However, this perspective is increasingly challenged by scholarship demonstrating the early development of the New Testament canon.
New Testament scholar Michael Kruger argues that the New Testament canon emerged naturally from core early Christian theological convictions: (1) the eschatological nature of early Christianity, (2) the concept of covenant theology, and (3) the central role of the apostles. These theological foundations provided the framework for the early recognition of certain texts as authoritative.
In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter acknowledges a collection of Paul’s letters circulating among the churches (cf. Colossians 4:16). He assumes his readers are familiar with Paul and his writings, indicating Paul’s established apostolic authority. Crucially, Peter places Paul’s letters on par with “the other Scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16), clearly referencing the Old Testament. This suggests an early recognition of Pauline writings as possessing scriptural authority.
Furthermore, 2 Peter 3:2 urges 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 points to the nascent development of a “bicovenantal canon.” Given that “predictions of the holy prophets” undoubtedly refers to written Old Testament texts, it is highly probable that “commandment of the Lord . . . through your apostles” also denotes written apostolic texts. This is reinforced by the immediate context, as Peter references 1 Peter (2 Peter 3:1) and Paul’s writings (2 Peter 3:16) as authoritative. As an apostle himself (2 Peter 1:1) with validated apostolic credentials (2 Peter 1:16–18), Peter’s inclusion of his own writings within this framework implies their equal authority to Paul’s and the Old Testament.
Thus, 2 Peter provides valuable early evidence for the recognition of both Petrine and Pauline writings as authoritative Scripture by the mid-60s AD.
The Canonical Journey of 2 Peter
“Many other ‘Petrine’ writings were excluded, but the church recognized the legitimacy of 2 Peter.”
It is well documented that 2 Peter faced a more challenging path to canonical acceptance than most other New Testament books. This 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 some early doubts about 2 Peter’s authenticity, as some church fathers questioned whether Peter truly wrote it. The early church was discerning and did not readily accept pseudonymous works, prioritizing genuine apostolic authorship.
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.”
Eusebius (AD 263–339), the early church historian, noted that while 2 Peter was disputed, it was also recognized by many (Hist. eccl. 3.25). Irenaeus (AD 130–202) appears to have been familiar with 2 Peter, as his writing in Haer. 5.23.2 closely resembles 2 Peter 3:8 (“with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”). Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215) also seems to have accepted 2 Peter as Scripture (Eusebius Hist. eccl. 6.14.1, 3.25.3).
Eventually, the church widely affirmed 2 Peter, with figures like Jerome, Athanasius, and Augustine, as well as the councils of Laodicea (c. 360) and Carthage (c. 397) formally recognizing its canonicity.
Despite initial hesitations, there is no compelling reason today to question the canonical status of 2 Peter.
In conclusion, while critical scholars raise various objections to the authenticity of 2 Peter, these objections are ultimately unconvincing when weighed against scriptural and historical evidence. Both internal and external evidence strongly support the traditional view that the Apostle Peter is indeed the author of 2 Peter, a vital and authoritative book within the New Testament canon.
References
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from the ESV.
[2] For critical views, see, for example, D. C. Arichea and E. A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on the Second Letter from Peter (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 25–27.
[3] For a helpful discussion, see Charles E. Hill, “What Distinguishes Authentic Writings from Spurious Christian Writings?,” in Theological Guide to Christian Apologetics, ed. Paul M. Gould and Richard Brian Davis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 361–80.
[4] For a defense of Petrine authorship, see Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2003), 15–53.
[5] D. Edmond Hiebert, Second Peter and Jude: An Expositional Commentary (Greensville, SC: BJU Press, 1989), 19.
[6] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 46.
[7] For example, see Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, vol. 50, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, Incorporated, 1990), 156–57.
[8] Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 214.
[9] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 48.
[10] Ibid., 41–42.
[11] For a helpful list of parallels, see Peter Davids, Second Peter, 35–36.
[12] For a discussion, see Kruger, Canon Revisited, 17–31.
[13] Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 63–78.
[14] Kruger, Canon Revisited, 79–94.
[15] Kruger, Canon Revisited, 95–112.
[16] For further discussion, see Linda L. Belleville, 2 Corinthians, IVP New Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 270.
[17] Kruger, Canon Revisited, 198.
[18] Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, 52.
[19] J. Daryl Charles, “2 Peter,” in Ephesians, James, Peter, John, ed. Chad Brand, Charles Draper, Archie England, Steve Harmon, E. Calvin Beisner, and J. Daryl Charles, Holman Apologetics Commentary (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 440.
