Is 2 Peter a forgery, or was it written by the apostle? (blog)

Throughout the history of the church, there has been debate about who wrote which books. Some were obvious and welcomed immediately. Others were—or have been—disputed.

One of them is 2 Peter.

The reason for this post is because we are currently in a teaching series on 1-2 Peter called "Rocky" and I didn’t want to take up Sunday morning teaching time with the background issues related to this question. My hope, therefore, is to share a few of my thoughts about the authorship of 2 Peter as a blog and podcast episode for any who want to explore the issue further.

In verse 1, the letter itself says that it was written by Peter. So, what’s the issue? Some scholars have suggested that the letter is a forgery. They claim that the language and grammar of 2 Peter doesn’t sound enough like the language and grammar of 1 Peter. In addition, skeptics also say that 2 Peter sounds a lot like the letter of Jude in a few places. Is it possible that someone borrowed material from Jude and then published it under the name of Peter because that would give the letter more clout?

To answer these questions, let’s back up a little bit.

Peter

First, Peter himself is a colossal figure in the New Testament. He was the fisherman-turned-apostle and often acted as a spokesman for the rest of the disciples. He walked and talked with Jesus, was commissioned after the resurrection to tend his flock (John 21:15-19), and gave famous speeches that resulted in the conversion of thousands (i.e. Acts 2:14-41). He emerged as one of the principal leaders in the early church movement. Peter died by martyrdom in Rome in the 60’s under the bloody reign of Emperor Nero.

Documents

Second, the early church began using core documents that testified to the Messiahship and resurrection of Jesus. These became what we know today as the “New Testament.” For reasons I won’t expand upon here, I believe the apostles were aware that they were fulfilling Jesus’ command to go out and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 29:18-20) when they wrote down his teachings and stories. They knew they were writing what we now call holy Scripture, and they did so with divine intervention—the help of the Holy Spirit as promised by Jesus himself in John 14:26.

Specific books

But what books did the church come to use?

This is a big topic and deserves more space than I am giving here. However, let me provide some highlights. The four Gospels became authoritative and widely used because they were based upon the divinely-inspired eyewitness testimony. Matthew was an apostle, Mark worked with Peter who was an apostle (and so Mark’s Gospel is a collection of the stories told to him by Peter), Luke also got his information from eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2), and John was an apostle too.

Other Gospels exist. However, they were not considered authoritative because they were deemed to not genuine—i.e. they did not come from actual apostles. The “Gospels” of Thomas, Peter, Mary, and Judas all fall into this category. I have copies of them in my personal library if you are interested and want to take a look.

When it comes to the letters that are in the New Testament, many were known to be genuine from the earliest days. These included Paul's letter to the Romans, Galatians, etc. Others, however, were disputed.

2 Peter

Professor Michael J Kruger is an expert on this subject. In his book, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books, he says: “Perhaps no other book has had a more difficult journey into the canon than 2 Peter.”[i]

But why was that the case? Modern skeptical scholars cite the reasons I already listed above, like the fact that the language is different from 1 Peter, and also the overlapping themes from the book of Jude.

In addition, they say that Peter calls Paul’s words “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:15-16, something they think he would never have done in his own lifetime. They also argue that Peter’s letter seems to be designed to combat a heresy called “gnosticism,” something which didn’t really become an issue in the Christian community until the second century after Peter had already died.

However, I think these arguments against the authenticity of 2 Peter don’t hold up. Here’s why.

Language

First, in terms of the differences in language, the plain fact of the matter is that people use language differently as time passes. I recently looked at one of my sermons from several years ago—my style, and even the language I use, has certainly evolved. Might the same have been true for Peter?

Further, Peter may have been using a scribe in one (or both) of his letters. For example, in 1 Peter 5:12 he references a man named Silvanus who may have been his scribe. It was certainly within normal practice for scribes to shape the grammar of their letters, even while they conveyed the correct meaning of their teacher’s message.

Citing Paul as Scripture

Second, as I already mentioned, the apostles were aware that they were writing Scripture as they fulfilled their mandate from Christ. So why wouldn’t Peter refer to Paul’s writings as Scripture? This argument from skeptics doesn’t hold.

Gnosticism?

Third, the argument that says 2 Peter was written to respond to a heresy (gnosticism) that didn’t take root until after Peter died is simply speculative. I’ve read 1-2 Peter many times. I’m currently studying them again in-depth as I teach them to the congregation. Although Peter’s teachings could certainly be used in later battles against gnosticism, they stand on their own merit. 2 Peter is in no way dependent on the existence of a second century heresy.

The letter itself claims to be by Peter

Fourth, the letter itself claims to be written by Peter (2 Peter 1:1). He calls himself an “apostle” (2 Peter 1:1) and an “eyewitness” (2 Peter 1:16). He even talks about what he experienced with Jesus when he was with him during the transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18), a story recorded in three of the four Gospels!

Despite what is sometimes claimed, leaders in the early church community frowned upon forgeries. Norman Hillyer writes: “the early church was very alert to the need to check the authenticity of writings purporting to be apostolic.”[ii] Hillyer goes on to give the example of a book called “The Acts of Paul and Thecla” which, when determined to be well-intentioned but inauthentic, was rejected. The author was “deposed for forgery.”

My point is this. The early community valued authenticity and the genuine eyewitness testimony from the apostles themselves. That it would endorse a forgery from none other than Peter is highly unlikely.

The testimony of the early church

Lastly, the early church came to affirm that 2 Peter was authoritative. Let's remember that they were much closer to the events than we are. As summarized by Michael J Kruger, the letter was known and used by 1 Clement (c.96); Justin Martyr alluded to it; Irenaeus appeared to cite it; and Hippolytus seemed to be aware of it; Clement of Alexandria wrote a commentary on it; and Origen cited it many times and clearly considered it Scripture. These are influential figures in the early years of the church.

Summary

Kruger summarizes: “Despite some initial hesitancy toward 2 Peter from some quarters of the church, in the end it was widely received by such figures as Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nanzianzus, and Augustine.”[iii]

In my view, we can be confident that 2 Peter is what it says it is—eyewitness testimony from a fisherman-turned-apostle who walked and talked with Jesus. As Peter himself says, God has “granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness” through the knowledge of Christ (2 Peter 1:3). Let’s do so with Peter’s own assistance, and to the glory of God.

---------------

[i] Norman Hillyer, 1 & 2 Peter, Jude—Understanding The Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 9.

[ii] Michael J Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton: Crossway, 2012), 271.

[iii] Ibid.