2 Peter

Peter writes this final letter on the eve of his execution (2 Pet. 1:14). He is writing to churches plagued with highly licentious false teachers. This is why he begins his letter explaining the importance and possibility of character growth (2 Pet. 1:1-15), and why he emphasizes the importance of Scripture (2 Pet. 1:16-21) in view of these menacing false teachers (2 Pet. 2-3).

Canonicity of 2 Peter

2 Peter is one of the more disputed books in the NT. Indeed, even avid defenders of the authenticity of this letter write, “If one were inclined to doubt the authenticity of any letter in the New Testament, it would be 2 Peter.” Key defenders of the authenticity of this letter are Michael Kruger (an expert in canonicity), Michael Green, Gene Green, Thomas Schreiner, and Douglas Moo. In our view, the internal evidence and external evidence support the view that Peter was indeed the author, and therefore, this is a canonical letter.

Internal Evidence

The author refers to himself as Simon Peter. The author calls himself “Simon Peter” (2 Pet. 1:1). The Greek used for “Simon Peter” (Symeōn Petros) only occurs in Acts 15:14 (~AD 49). Usually, Peter is identified with the Greek name Simōn, which is a more “Hellenized form” of Peter’s name. This supports an early, Palestinian setting. Schreiner notes, “If the letter were pseudepigraphic, we would expect him either to copy the form of address in 1 Peter or to employ one of the common expressions used to denote Peter in the New Testament. The fact that he chose an original form is a mark of genuineness—unless one adopts the view that the writer was consciously and cleverly trying to deceive his readers, but even this seems improbable since this form of Peter’s name is never used in the Apostolic Fathers or psuedepigraphic Petrine literature.”

The author repeatedly claims to be an apostolic eyewitness. The author claims to be an apostle (2 Pet. 1:1), and he states that he is an “eyewitness” of the Transfiguration (2 Pet. 1:16-18). He claimed that Jesus was giving him direct revelation about his death (2 Pet. 1:14), which presupposes divine revelation to the author. Furthermore, since this is his “second letter” (2 Pet. 3:1), this presupposes a first letter—namely, 1 Peter. Subtle indications of authenticity emerge throughout the letter as well:

The author gives an independent account of the Transfiguration. This supports the author’s claim that he was an eyewitness. While Peter’s material in 2 Peter 1:16-18 is the same in content to the Synoptic gospels, it doesn’t match the Synoptic gospels in its exact wording. A later pseudepigrapher (i.e. a false writer) would most likely have copied word-for-word from the Synoptics. Michael Green argues that if the author is pseudepigraphical, then “it is hard to see why a later author did not quote direct from one of the Gospels rather than insert the independent touches we find here… Most surprising of all, why does he omit the significant ‘listen to him’, common to all three accounts, which would have fitted the context here so well? The voice from heaven, too, occurs in a different form from any of the Synoptics (though the word order here is uncertain).”

Moreover, pseudepigraphical writing is known for its embellishment, but “embellishment is lacking in 2 Peter.” Again, Michael Green writes, “If a psuedepigrapher was at work with the Synoptics before him, why does he not tell us something about the behaviour of the disciples on the mount? Why does he make no mention of Moses and Elijah?” Instead of giving elaborate details of this spectacular event, Peter strips down the account to its bare bones.

Peter places himself on the same rank as Paul. Later writers didn’t place themselves on par with the apostles. For instance, Ignatius (AD 110) writes, “I do not issue orders like an apostle” (To the Trallians 3.3). Yet Peter affirms his own eyewitness testimony, while also affirming Paul as a “brother” and a writer of “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16).

The author also asserts that he is a friend of Paul (2 Pet. 3:15-16), and he even writes that “some things [in Paul’s letters are] hard to understand” (2 Pet. 3:16). This fits with the historical criterion of embarrassment: Namely, why would a pseudepigrapher claim that Paul’s writings were “hard to understand” if he was pretending to be the great apostle Peter? No forger would write such a thing.

External evidence

2 Peter is the least eternally attested book in the NT canon by the Church Fathers. Yet, Gene Green admits, “The evidence in favor of the letter’s authenticity… is decidedly weaker than that for any other accepted writing.” However, he adds that the evidence for 2 Peter is “stronger than for the writings rejected as spurious.” In other words, the shakiest canonical book is still far stronger than any competitive writings that exist outside the canon. Consider the external evidence that attests to 2 Peter.

Manuscript evidence. 2 Peter is found in the Egyptian document of P⁷² that dates to the third century. This demonstrates that the letter was “used in Egypt long before this.”

Clement of Rome (AD 95) cites 2 Peter 3:4 when he writes, “Far from us be that which is written, ‘…These things we have heard even in the times of our fathers; but, behold, we have grown old, and none of them has happened unto us” (1 Clem. 23.3). 2 Clement (a different author) cites this same passage, referring to it as “the prophetic word” (2 Clem. 11.2).

The Epistle of Barnabas (AD 70-135) cites 2 Peter 3:8. We read, “For a day with him means a thousand years. And he himself is my witness when he says, ‘Lo, the day of the Lord shall be as a thousand years’” (Barnabas, 15.4). Gene Green writes that “the most likely source, or his ‘witness,’ is 2 Pet. 3:8.”

The Apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter (AD 132-135) is different from the Gnostic book from Nag Hammadi that carries the same name. This book makes an allusion to 2 Peter 2:1 when it states, “Many of them shall be false prophets and shall teach ways and diverse doctrines of perdition. And they shall become sons of perdition” (Apoc. Pet. 1-2).

Clement of Alexandria (AD 200) wrote a commentary on 2 Peter that is now lost (Church History, 6.14.1).

Origen (AD 250) was the first to cite the book by name, and he cited it as Scripture six times (e.g. Homily on Joshua, 7.1).

Eusebius called 2 Peter a “disputed” letter—yet he also stated that it was “known by most.” This is a tacit admission that the letter was widely circulated. Jerome thought the “style and character and structure” were markedly different from 1 Peter, and these stylistic differences are “the only explanation offered by any ancient author” as to why it was disputed. Let’s consider this difficulty in some detail.

What about the language differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter?

Several observations can be made in response to this objection. For one, Peter wrote these two letters to two different historical situations. The first letter was written to encourage Christians facing suffering, while the second letter was written to Christians facing false teachers.

Second, Peter may have written through a scribe (or amanuensis) in both letters (or either one letter or the other). This could explain the differences in vocabulary, style, and syntax. In the ancient world, a scribe (or amanuensis) would communicate the content of the writer, but he would use his own grammar and vocabulary.

Third, these letters are quite small, and statistical probabilities are only reliable with a higher word count. Indeed, the statistician G.U. Yule stated that statistical analysis of this sort needs at least 10,000 words, and thus, the sample size for the Petrine letters is simply too small to form any certain conclusions.

Fourth, Kruger shows many similarities between the two letters that point to common authorship.

Fifth, the notion that the early church was eager to accept pseudepigraphical letters is false. The early Christians showed an abundance of caution when accepting letters into the canon. This is precisely because they wanted to exclude false letters. Thus, Porter writes, “The general, if not invariable, pattern was that, if a work was known to be pseudonymous, it was excluded from any group of authoritative writings.” Likewise, Donelson writes, “No one ever seems to have accepted a document as religiously and philosophically prescriptive which was known to be forged. I do not know a single example.”

Why wasn’t 2 Peter accepted earlier?

False teachers liked to hijack Peter’s name for their books and letters, using his name in the title of their works (e.g. Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, and the Revelation of Peter). Eusebius states that these other books were known and “no orthodox writer of the ancient time or of our own has used their testimonies” (Church History 3.3.2). Therefore, in addition to the stylistic differences, there may have been some “guilt by association” involved as well.

Eusebius considered 2 Peter to be a “disputed book,” and yet “the letter was never classified as spurious.” Gene Green aptly observes, “Second Peter keeps good company in Eusebius’s list of disputed books since all these documents were finally received into the canon.”

Who wrote first: Jude or 2 Peter?

Jude and 2 Peter share a lot of content. Though the exact “verbal agreement is rare,” 15 out of the 25 verses of Jude appear in 2 Peter (everything except Jude 1-3 and Jude 19-25).

But who copied from whom? Some scholars hold that both authors drew from a common source. We find ourselves regularly frustrated at how NT scholars appeal to additional, unknown, and hypothetical documents like this. It is purely speculative, and Ockham’s razor would slice away this gratuitous theory.

Did 2 Peter copy from Jude? Bauckham and Gene Green hold that 2 Peter copied from Jude. Indeed, this is the “judgment of most modern scholars.” Bauckham argues that Jude must have been first, because (1) he uses carefully crafted language and (2) he uses rapid fire allusions to the OT. These data imply that Jude was the original, refined letter. By contrast, 2 Peter was a rougher version that was copied from this original. Yet, in our estimation, this isn’t a convincing case.

First, the longer and more elaborate version is typically secondary. Usually, a later author will elaborate on an earlier, shorter manuscript. Indeed, it is unusual for later authors to shorten longer accounts. Bauckham himself admits this when he writes, “There are cases where a more complex literary work is based on a simpler one, and a priori that might even seem a more likely procedure, but consideration of this particular case seems to indicate that it must be one in which the more complex work is prior.”

Second, Jude seems to cite directly from 2 Peter 3:3, which he considers an apostolic letter. Jude cites the words “spoken beforehand by the apostles.” Then, he cites 2 Peter 3:3.

(Jude 17-18) “You, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, ¹⁸ that they were saying to you, ‘In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts.’”

(2 Pet. 3:3) “Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts.”

We agree with scholar R. Laird Harris who writes, “In Jude vs. 17 and 18 there is a passage where there is a quotation of another book. The relation between other verses in Jude and 2 Peter 2 has been much discussed as to which depended on the other, but Jude 17 and 18 give the words of 2 Peter 3:3 almost verbatim and claim that it was foretold by apostles. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Jude was quoting 2 Peter as the authoritative word of an apostle.”

Scholars who deny Petrine authorship seem to prefer Jude’s priority. Otherwise, this citation of 2 Peter 3:3 would imply that Jude considered this letter to be truly apostolic. Since most modern scholars (Bauckham included) deny Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, it seems that they resist this conclusion (see “Introduction to 1 & 2 Peter”). We affirm that Peter wrote 2 Peter. Therefore, this only supports our perspective.

Consulted Commentaries on 2 Peter

We consulted many commentaries for individual passages, but we read these specific commentaries below thoroughly.

Edwin A. Blum, “2 Peter,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 12 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1981).

Blum’s commentary is short and to the point. But we recommend Michael Green’s work as more insightful than Blum.

Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 18, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987).

Michael Green’s writing is a pastoral commentary that gives excellent insights into the text. We quote it extensively below, and we found his work very insightful.

Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003).

Schreiner is a top-notch commentator. However, we disagree with him on 5-point Calvinism and his emphasis on Lordship Theology.

Gene L. Green, Jude and 2 Peter, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008).

Gene Green’s work is a technical commentary. Therefore, it probably offers far more information than what an average reader would desire. Moreover, we disagree with Green that Jude wrote before 2 Peter. That being said, this was an excellent commentary. He affirms Petrine authorship (contra Bauckham), and he has an excellent command of external Jewish, Greek, and Roman literature that often sheds light on the text. Green’s commentary is quite good.

Commentary on 2 Peter

Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).