Changes

The internal claim to have been written by “Simeon Peter” is unique.  “Simeon” is an archaic Hebrew form of the standard "Simon", and out of all the ancient literature it appears only in Acts 15:14, and then just as “Simeon” (not “Simeon Peter”).  “Simeon” is not used in any other place in the New Testament, in any of the Apostolic Fathers, or in any pseudepigraphic (forged) literature.<ref> M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. 9; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>  The First Epistle of Peter uses simply the name “Peter”, and it is unlikely that a later writer attempting to feign an original letter would use a different name than one used in the genuine text, especially an archaic and obscure naming convention like "Simeon Peter."   

The internal claim to have been written by “Simeon Peter” is unique.  “Simeon” is an archaic Hebrew form of the standard "Simon", and out of all the ancient literature it appears only in Acts 15:14, and then just as “Simeon” (not “Simeon Peter”).  “Simeon” is not used in any other place in the New Testament, in any of the Apostolic Fathers, or in any pseudepigraphic (forged) literature.<ref> M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. 9; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>  The First Epistle of Peter uses simply the name “Peter”, and it is unlikely that a later writer attempting to feign an original letter would use a different name than one used in the genuine text, especially an archaic and obscure naming convention like "Simeon Peter."   

This is not the only characteristic that distinguishes the letter from the known forgeries of antiquity.  First, the common convention in ancient forgeries, when attempting to add a sense of realism to their claims to authoritative authorship (by an apostle or the like) was to adopt a first-person narrative style.  However, 2 Peter nowhere employs this convention, even in the passage concerning the Lord's Transfiguration, where it would be most expected.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>  Furthermore, the account of the Transfiguration differs in certain details from the accounts in the Holy Gospel – something unexpected of a forger attempting.  Additionally, forged documents, which are later in date than the apostolic texts, tend to added embellishments to the gospel accounts, a feature completely lacking in this letter.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'', p. 27.</ref>  Also unusual is the description of Paul as “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).  Later literature referred to Paul as “the blessed Paul”, “the blessed and glorious Paul”, and “the sanctified Paul right blessed”, and thus the subdued usage in the letter is more fitting of genuine Petrine use than of a later forgery.<ref>J. B. Major, ''The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter'' (1907), p. 166; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 826; references to quotes from antiquity are 1 Clement 47.1 and Polycarp, ''Ad Phil.'' 11; Polycarp, ''Ad Phil''. 3; Ignatius, ''Ad Eph''. 12.2.</ref>  Lastly, the statement that the author finds Paul’s letters difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16) runs counter to the tendency of forgers to enhance the heroic qualities of the alleged author.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 827.</ref>  Hence, Donald Guthrie concluded that, if the letter were pseudepigraphy, it would be in many respects unparalleled with other such literature, so much so that it would be “of its own class”.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>   

This is not the only characteristic that distinguishes the letter from the known forgeries of antiquity.  First, the common convention in ancient forgeries, when attempting to add a sense of realism to their claims to authoritative authorship (by an apostle or the like) was to adopt a first-person narrative style.  However, 2 Peter nowhere employs this convention, even in the passage concerning the Lord's Transfiguration, where it would be most expected.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>  Furthermore, the account of the Transfiguration differs in certain details from the accounts in the Holy Gospel – something unexpected of a forger.  Additionally, forged documents, which are later in date than the apostolic texts, tend to added embellishments to the gospel accounts, a feature completely lacking in this letter.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'', p. 27.</ref>  Also unusual is the description of Paul as “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).  Later literature referred to Paul as “the blessed Paul”, “the blessed and glorious Paul”, and “the sanctified Paul right blessed”, and thus the subdued usage in the letter is more fitting of genuine Petrine use than of a later forgery.<ref>J. B. Major, ''The Epistle of St Jude and the Second Epistle of St Peter'' (1907), p. 166; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 826; references to quotes from antiquity are 1 Clement 47.1 and Polycarp, ''Ad Phil.'' 11; Polycarp, ''Ad Phil''. 3; Ignatius, ''Ad Eph''. 12.2.</ref>  Lastly, the statement that the author finds Paul’s letters difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16) runs counter to the tendency of forgers to enhance the heroic qualities of the alleged author.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 827.</ref>  Hence, Donald Guthrie concluded that, if the letter were pseudepigraphy, it would be in many respects unparalleled with other such literature, so much so that it would be “of its own class”.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 820.</ref>   

One of the main points cited by critics is the textual evidence that the author incorporated elements of the Epistle of Jude, and from this it has been conjectured than an apostle would not himself use another source (often in such arguments the authenticity of Jude is also disparaged).  Before any refutations are elaborated it is worth observing that such speculation need not be accepted as definitive.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'' (1961), p. 10-11; ibid., ‘The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude’, in ''Tyndale New Testament Commentary'' (1987).</ref>  Donald Guthrie stated simply that it was “a fallacious supposition” to assume that an apostle would not have made use of an earlier source, and that, though it might be unexpected, it would be equally or more unexpected for a forger to do so.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 831; on a reason for the use of Jude, see E. H. Plumptre, ‘The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude’, in ''The Cambridge Bible of School and Colleges'' (1879), p. 80.</ref>  But, besides this, another possibility is that the textual evidence can be interpreted to point the other way, namely that the Epistle of Jude used 2 Peter.  In this interpretation, Jude would have extracted information from 2 Peter and added a doxology, perhaps being motivated by the recent fulfillment of the prophetic statements of 2 Peter.<ref>S. T. Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' II p. 250; F. Spitta, ''Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas'' (1885), pp. 145-146; C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901).</ref> Lastly, the opinion of Ben Witherington III should be noted.  The scholar argued that 2 Peter, as we have today, is a composite document including points taken from the Epistle of Jude but containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as (2 Peter 1:12-21).<ref>Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, ''Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers'' (1985), pp. 187-192.</ref>  Hence, even if credence is given to some points of the critical scholarship, from this it in no sense follows that the text’s claim of Petrine authorship is an error.

One of the main points cited by critics is the textual evidence that the author incorporated elements of the Epistle of Jude, and from this it has been conjectured than an apostle would not himself use another source (often in such arguments the authenticity of Jude is also disparaged).  Before any refutations are elaborated it is worth observing that such speculation need not be accepted as definitive.<ref>E. M. B. Green, ''2 Peter Reconsidered'' (1961), p. 10-11; ibid., ‘The Second Epistle General of Peter and the General Epistle of Jude’, in ''Tyndale New Testament Commentary'' (1987).</ref>  Donald Guthrie stated simply that it was “a fallacious supposition” to assume that an apostle would not have made use of an earlier source, and that, though it might be unexpected, it would be equally or more unexpected for a forger to do so.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 831; on a reason for the use of Jude, see E. H. Plumptre, ‘The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude’, in ''The Cambridge Bible of School and Colleges'' (1879), p. 80.</ref>  But, besides this, another possibility is that the textual evidence can be interpreted to point the other way, namely that the Epistle of Jude used 2 Peter.  In this interpretation, Jude would have extracted information from 2 Peter and added a doxology, perhaps being motivated by the recent fulfillment of the prophetic statements of 2 Peter.<ref>S. T. Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' II p. 250; F. Spitta, ''Der Zweite Brief des Petrus und der Brief des Judas'' (1885), pp. 145-146; C. Bigg, ‘The Epistles of St Peter and St Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901).</ref> Lastly, the opinion of Ben Witherington III should be noted.  The scholar argued that 2 Peter, as we have today, is a composite document including points taken from the Epistle of Jude but containing a genuine “Petrine fragment”, which he identified as (2 Peter 1:12-21).<ref>Ben Witherington III, “A Petrine Source in 2 Peter”, ''Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers'' (1985), pp. 187-192.</ref>  Hence, even if credence is given to some points of the critical scholarship, from this it in no sense follows that the text’s claim of Petrine authorship is an error.