Changes

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.

Given the flurry of arguments, mostly wholly speculative, that have been made against the authenticity of the letter, it is impossible to sufficiently address every point.  However, it is necessary to address the majority of them in brief.  The different styles of language between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are often cited as proof that the same author (i.e. Saint Peter) could not have written them both.  Very often these linguistic differences are overly stressed, and, even accepting such arguments, it is simply a fallacy to deduce, from such a tiny sample, a complete picture of the style and vocabulary of one author in a way that could exclude either of the letters.  But the real difficulty with this position is that it ignores the widespread practice in antiquity of employing secretaries in drafting letters at one’s behest, and it is even explicitly stated in 1 Peter that such a secretary (Silvanus, also called [[Silas]]) has been so utilized.  Moving on, other objections include a reference within the letter to the writings of Paul, which is often misinterpreted to be necessarily referring to a complete collection of all his epistles, which would not have been in circulation before Peter’s death.  However, the reference in question does not in any sense imply the existence of a complete or authorized corpus of Paul’s letters.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 824.</ref> Historically, Peter and Paul can both be located in [[Rome]] around the same time, creating a plausible opportunity for Peter to become acquainted with some of Paul’s writings - writings which, whatever the case, could have been partially in circulation before Peter’s [[martyrdom]].  The penultimate objection to be addressed is the accusation that the letter's reference to “the fathers”, interpreted as a reference to a bygone generation of [[Christian]] founders, presents a perspective that Peter himself could not have had, since he would not have been far enough removed from this generation.  Perhaps the most significant part of this point is the absurd position it puts the critics in, who are perfectly willing to accept that a forger was of such skill as to create a letter wholly unique amongst ancient forgeries on so many points, yet was able to make such an obvious blunder.  This aside, the solution to the objection is to observe the misinterpretation of the reference in question.  The phrase “the fathers” (''οι πατέρες'') is not used to refer to Christian “patriarchs”, or the first generation of Christian leaders, anywhere else in the New Testament or in the Apostolic Fathers and, given the context, is much more likely a reference to the Jewish Patriarchs of the Old Testament.<ref>R. J. Bauckham, ''Jude, 2 Peter (Word)'' 1983, p. 290; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 829.</ref>

Given the flurry of arguments, mostly wholly speculative, that have been made against the authenticity of the letter, it is impossible to sufficiently address every point.  However, it is necessary to address the majority of them in brief.  The different styles of language between 1 Peter and 2 Peter are often cited as proof that the same author (i.e. Saint Peter) could not have written them both.  Very often these linguistic differences are overly stressed, and, even accepting such arguments, it is simply a fallacy to deduce, from such a tiny sample, a complete picture of the style and vocabulary of one author in a way that could exclude either of the letters.  But the real difficulty with this position is that it ignores the widespread practice in antiquity of employing secretaries in drafting letters at one’s behest, and it is even explicitly stated in 1 Peter that such a secretary (Silvanus, also called [[Silas]]) has been so utilized.  Moving on, other objections include a reference within the letter to the writings of Paul, which is often misinterpreted to be necessarily referring to a complete collection of all his epistles, which would not have been in circulation before Peter’s death.  However, the reference in question does not in any sense imply the existence of a complete or authorized corpus of Paul’s letters.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 824.</ref> Historically, Peter and Paul can both be located in [[Rome]] around the same time, creating a plausible opportunity for Peter to become acquainted with some of Paul’s writings - writings which, whatever the case, could have been partially in circulation before Peter’s [[martyrdom]].  The penultimate objection to be addressed is the accusation that the letter's reference to “the fathers”, interpreted as a reference to a bygone generation of [[Christian]] founders, presents a perspective that Peter himself could not have had, since he would not have been far enough removed from this generation.  Perhaps the most significant part of this point is the absurd position it puts the critics in, who are perfectly willing to accept that a forger was of such skill as to create a letter wholly unlike other ancient forgeries on so many points, yet was able to make such an obvious blunder.  This aside, the solution to the objection is to observe the misinterpretation of the reference in question.  The phrase “the fathers” (''οι πατέρες'') is not used to refer to Christian “patriarchs”, or the first generation of Christian leaders, anywhere else in the New Testament or in the Apostolic Fathers and, given the context, is much more likely a reference to the Jewish Patriarchs of the Old Testament.<ref>R. J. Bauckham, ''Jude, 2 Peter (Word)'' 1983, p. 290; Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 829.</ref>

Lastly, critics often cite the lack of early attestation amongst ancient Christian sources as evidence of the letter’s late authorship, and the general hesitancy that the Church Fathers had in accepting the genuineness of the epistle.  Though there is admittedly a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, many scholars have found evidence of possible use of the epistle, or signs of its influence, in the writings of certain early Fathers.  This includes the works of [[Clement of Alexandria]] (d. ''c''. 211), [[Theophilus of Antioch]] (d. ''c''. 183), [[Aristides|Aristides the Athenian]] (d. ''c''. 134), [[Polycarp of Smyrna]] (d. 155), and [[Justin Martyr]] (d. 165).<ref>C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref>  Hence, the evidence before Origen’s time is best described as inconclusive,<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> and thus the evidence does not go nearly as far as the critics would wish to make it seem.  The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by [[Origen]] (''c''. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location.  As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as [[canonical]].”<ref> Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>  Origen himself, in another passage, would seem to have considered letter to be Petrine in authorship.<ref>M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. xix; cf. Origen, ''Homily in Josh''. 7.1.</ref>  It is unfortunate that the vague comments of Origen have been taken too far.  The first author of record to have professed his own doubts concerning the letter was [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] (''c''. 275 – 339), though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of [[Jerome]] (''c''. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1.</ref>  Hence, the evidence from the authors may best be summed in the negative: "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>

Lastly, critics often cite the lack of early attestation amongst ancient Christian sources as evidence of the letter’s late authorship, and the general hesitancy that the Church Fathers had in accepting the genuineness of the epistle.  Though there is admittedly a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, many scholars have found evidence of possible use of the epistle, or signs of its influence, in the writings of certain early Fathers.  This includes the works of [[Clement of Alexandria]] (d. ''c''. 211), [[Theophilus of Antioch]] (d. ''c''. 183), [[Aristides|Aristides the Athenian]] (d. ''c''. 134), [[Polycarp of Smyrna]] (d. 155), and [[Justin Martyr]] (d. 165).<ref>C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref>  Hence, the evidence before Origen’s time is best described as inconclusive,<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> and thus the evidence does not go nearly as far as the critics would wish to make it seem.  The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by [[Origen]] (''c''. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location.  As D. Guthrie put it, “It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as [[canonical]].”<ref> Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>  Origen himself, in another passage, would seem to have considered letter to be Petrine in authorship.<ref>M. R. James, ‘The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude’, in, ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. xix; cf. Origen, ''Homily in Josh''. 7.1.</ref>  It is unfortunate that the vague comments of Origen have been taken too far.  The first author of record to have professed his own doubts concerning the letter was [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] (''c''. 275 – 339), though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of [[Jerome]] (''c''. 346-420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1.</ref>  Hence, the evidence from the authors may best be summed in the negative: "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>