Changes

Perhaps no other letter has been subject to such criticism and accusations of forgery as the second epistle of Peter.  These arguments have been advanced in spite of the fact that certain unique aspects of the letter all but exclude this possibility.  Here careful analysis of these positions will be made.

Perhaps no other letter has been subject to such criticism and accusations of forgery as the second epistle of Peter.  These arguments have been advanced in spite of the fact that certain unique aspects of the letter all but exclude this possibility.  Here careful analysis of these positions will be made.

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 of Jesus]] (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 of Jesus]] (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 [[Saint Paul|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."