Changes

The opening verse of the letter states that it has been written by “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).  In many places, the author clearly presents himself as Peter the Apostle, stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (2 Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of the [[Transfiguration]] (2 Peter 1:16-18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2 Peter 3:1; presumably a reference to the First Epistle of Peter), and he called [[Paul]] the Apostle “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).

The opening verse of the letter states that it has been written by “Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).  In many places, the author clearly presents himself as Peter the Apostle, stating that the Lord revealed to him the approach of his own death (2 Peter 1:14), that he was an eyewitness of the [[Transfiguration]] (2 Peter 1:16-18), that he had previously written another epistle to the same audience (2 Peter 3:1; presumably a reference to the First Epistle of Peter), and he called [[Paul]] the Apostle “our beloved brother” (2 Peter 3:15).

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.  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>   

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 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>

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>

==See also==

==See also==

== Notes ==

== Notes ==

[[Category:New Testament Books]]

[[Category:New Testament Books]]