Transcription
The authorship of Second Peter has been a point of contention unlike any other book in the New Testament. From the early days of the church to modern scholarship, questions about its origin and legitimacy have persisted.
New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman contends that the discussion surrounding Second Peter's authorship is practically non-existent within contemporary scholarly circles. He writes, "There is less debate among scholars of the New Testament about the authorship of Second Peter than any of the other books sometimes considered forgeries." Whoever wrote Second Peter, it was not S. Peter. If Ehrman and the critics are correct, it raises a puzzling question for Christians: How can a text be considered God's inspired word if it's written by someone pretending to be an apostle, essentially deceiving them?
In this video, we're going to explore the main reasons why some people doubt if Second Peter is genuine. These objections come from Bart Ehrman's book, *Forged*, which summarizes what many scholars think about the authenticity of the book. But before we explore Ehrman's arguments, why does Second Peter seem to lack early church support for its authenticity compared to other New Testament books?
At best, we can say that the evidence surrounding Second Peter from external sources presents a mixed picture. It's notably absent from the Muratorian Fragment, an old document often regarded as an early list of New Testament books. However, this list isn't complete; it also excludes other books, including First Peter, so it's not the definitive word. Furthermore, Second Peter isn't mentioned in the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria, or Tertullian, which adds to the doubts about its external support. These authors often refer to First Peter, so why the silence about Second Peter?
The earliest explicit mention of Second Peter by name is from Origen, a theologian writing in the early 3rd century. Origen quotes this letter six times. He says, "Peter has left behind one acknowledged epistle, and perhaps a second, for it is questioned." But even though there were doubts, Origen seems to think that Second Peter was just as important as First Peter. So, in Origen's view, the doubts some people had about Second Peter weren't strong enough to make him doubt whether it belonged with the rest of the New Testament.
After Origen, Eusebius, who wrote in the early 4th century, expressed doubts about Second Peter as well. He mentioned that the letter wasn't quoted by the ancient presbyters, and he also put Second Peter along with James, Second and Third John, and Jude in a group called "the disputed books." However, Eusebius noted that even though these books were questioned by some, most people in his era still knew about them. Later Church Fathers like Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine all considered Second Peter as an official part of the New Testament.
With all of this said, Second Peter was apparently alluded to or quoted several times by the early Church Fathers. In the mid-3rd century, Firmilian wrote to Cyprian. In his letter, he seems to allude to Second Peter. He writes, "Peter and Paul, the blessed apostles, who in their epistles execrated heretics and warned us to avoid them." Considering that First Peter addressed enduring hardships and persecution, Familion is very likely referencing Second Peter.
There is also debate about a line from 2 Peter 3:8, with some scholars suggesting Irenaeus might have referenced it around 188 AD. Dr. Michael J. Kruger argues that the way Irenaeus wrote it seems more similar to 2 Peter 3:8 than the passage in Psalm 94 in the Septuagint. But it could be that Irenaeus was referencing the psalm; we don't know for sure. Justin Martyr, around 150 AD, also seems to hint at 2 Peter 2:1 in his writings. In his *Dialogue with Trypho*, Justin Martyr says, "Just as there were false prophets during the holy prophets' time (referring to the Jews), now there are many false teachers among us, as the Lord warned us." 2 Peter 2:1 says something similar: "As there were false prophets among the people (referring to the Jews), there will also be false teachers among you."
Dr. Richard Bauckham highlights a rare comparison between false prophets in the Old Testament and false teachers in the church, found mainly in Second Peter and Jude. He notes that a term, *pseudoprophetēs*, appears only in these writings until Justin's time. This suggests that Justin Martyr's possible reference to Second Peter indicates its acceptance in the early 2nd century.
Furthermore, Kruger highlights strong indications that *The Apocalypse of Peter*, dated around 110 AD, heavily borrowed from Second Peter during its creation. Second Peter is a superior work, both in style and spiritual depth. Typically, lower-quality works don't inspire higher-quality ones, suggesting that Second Peter was likely written before or during the Apocalypse. This is significant, as many scholars prefer to date Second Peter to the early to mid-2nd century.
Finally, in 1 Clement 23:3, a passage is quoted without specifying its source, stating, "Wretched are the double-minded and those who doubt in their soul and say, 'We have heard these things even in our fathers' times, and see, we have grown old, and none of them has happened to us.'" This resembles the idea in 2 Peter 3:4, where it speaks of mockers saying, "Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation." Though the words differ, a similar theme exists in both passages.
Additionally, Clement writes, "On account of hospitality and godliness, Lot was delivered from Sodom, when all the neighboring regions faced condemnation with fire and brimstone. The Lord showed that he does not abandon those who trust in him, but those who choose other paths are a sign to punishment and suffering." It's the likeness in these words and ideas that suggest Clement might have been aware of 2 Peter 2:6-9 when he wrote this letter in the latter half of the 1st century.
So, why did Second Peter face such skepticism and not gain immediate acceptance, despite being known from the first century? Well, it could be due to the many fake writings attributed to Peter floating around. Some heretical groups used Peter's name to support their wrong ideas. This made the early church extra wary about writings claiming to be from Peter. However, the fact that the early church eventually accepted Second Peter while rejecting other works claiming to be Peter's suggests that Second Peter was much different from the rest.
It's important to note that our modern assessment of Second Peter might be influenced by comparing it to well-established books in the New Testament for which we have a wealth of attestation. This comparison might make Second Peter seem lacking, but when considered in the context of standards for authenticating writings from that period, Second Peter's credibility still stands strong. It holds up much better compared to any non-canonical Christian texts that were occasionally suggested for inclusion in the canon, like First Clement or *The Shepherd of Hermas*.
Now, let's look at the internal evidence. Ehrman initially raises the issue of Second Peter possibly being based on or borrowing from the book of Jude. He writes, "This assault on his opponents, the false prophets, contains numerous verbal similarities to what can be found in the New Testament book of Jude. These parallels are so numerous that scholars are virtually unified in thinking that the author has taken Jude's message and simply edited it a bit to incorporate it into his book." So, if Peter used Jude, a question pops up: If Peter was an apostle, why would he need to borrow from the book of Jude? Plus, there's the idea that Jude was written long after Peter's death, so it's clear whoever wrote Second Peter wasn't Peter.
Ehrman's assumption that Second Peter was written late and after Jude isn't something that we can be so sure about regarding dating. Luke Timothy Johnson points out, "There is no way to date Jude accurately. There is nothing about Jude that would prohibit its being a letter written by a follower of Jesus in Palestine during the first generation of the Christian Movement." Some scholars assert that Jude and Peter were written later because of the mention of false teachers. They assume that these deviants seem like a match for a group called the Gnostics in the second century. But the description of the false teachers in the letter is somewhat vague and doesn't really match their main ideas. Some think it could be an early version of Gnosticism, but again, this is mere speculation. Others have suggested that the false teachers followed Epicureanism, rejecting divine judgment and life after death, similar to what's denied in Chapter 3 of Second Peter. Again, these are just guesses, showing how hard it is to identify these false teachers with much confidence. Back then, like today, many ideas were swirling around, so connecting them to just one group simply doesn't work. Second Peter's evidence isn't strong enough to firmly link it to second-century Gnosticism.
Now, regarding their dependence, there are three possible scenarios: either Second Peter relied on Jude, Jude relied on Second Peter, or they both drew from a shared source that's now lost to us. There is no evidence of a common source used by both Jude and Peter, so that's not a very serious consideration here. Consider the idea that Peter wrote a letter calling out false teachers in a specific group and shared its content with Jude. When Jude faced similar false teachings in his community, he might have freely borrowed relevant parts from Peter's letter. A clue supporting this idea can be seen by comparing Second Peter 3:3 and Jude 1:17-18. In 2 Peter 3:3, it talks about scoffers appearing in the last days, following their own evil desires. Jude 1:17-18 sounds a lot like a quote from 2 Peter 3:3, saying the apostles warned them that such scoffers would come.
New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie notes, "It's not absolutely conclusive, in spite of an overwhelming majority verdict in favor, that Second Peter actually borrowed from Jude." On the flip side, if Peter did borrow from Jude, it's not that big of a deal, as Craig Blomberg argues, "If Peter thought that Jude, the Lord's brother, had found a compelling series of Old Testament and Jewish analogy for the false teachers that Peter had to combat, and if, as it appears, their nature was similar to what Peter had to counter, why shouldn't he reuse a barrage of these analogies, especially if he knew that Jude's letter had been successful in its warnings?" However, these two letters might be connected; it doesn't make a very strong case against the authenticity of Second Peter.
Next up, Ehrman tells us that scholars doubt the genuineness of Second Peter because it reflects a time when Christians started thinking that Jesus's return would take a lot longer than they had originally expected. He writes, "One of the big reasons for virtually all scholars agree that Peter did not actually write this letter is that the situation being presupposed appears to be of much later times. When Peter himself died, say the year 64, under Nero, there was still eager expectation that Jesus would return soon. Not even a full generation had passed since the crucifixion. It was only with the passing of time that the Christian claim that all would take place within this generation and before the disciples had tasted death started to ring hollow. By the time 2 Peter was written, Christians were having to defend themselves in the face of opponents who mocked their view that the end was supposed to be imminent. So Peter has to explain that even if the end is thousands of years off, it's still right around the corner by God's calendar; everything is still on schedule."
I have to say, this particular argument isn't nearly as invincible as it looks. Scholars such as Michael J. Kruger and D.A. Carson have both pointed out that in both the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers, "our fathers who have fallen asleep" commonly refers to Jewish Patriarchs, not the apostles. It actually fits perfectly within the context of scoffers denying the *parousia* by claiming an unchanging world since creation, even denying Noah's flood. If they're opposing Jesus's second coming by referencing the start of time, mentioning Jewish Patriarchs makes a whole lot of sense. New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham ultimately rejects Petrine authorship but admits that "those that wish to maintain that the fathers are Old Testament Patriarchs or prophets have the weight of usage on their side."
The New Testament first shows worries about Jesus not returning right away in letters like 1 and 2 Thessalonians, written only 20 years after Jesus died. If critics want to use this argument of delay to date Second Peter to the 2nd century, consistency would require them to also date Matthew and Luke to the 2nd century. Both Gospels contain parables attributed to Jesus warning the church to expect delay. As Craig Blomberg notes, "A later date for the letter is scarcely required."
Next up, Ehrman argues that in Second Peter, Paul's letters are treated like scripture, hinting that this happened after Peter and Paul's death, not while they were both still alive. He writes, "Moreover, the author of Second Peter is writing at a time when there was already a collection of Paul's letters in circulation, and these letters were being considered on par with the Old Testament scriptures. This could not have been during Paul's lifetime, and the early church tradition indicates that both Peter and Paul were killed during the reign of Nero." Is it truly unlikely that Peter would refer to Paul's letters as scriptures in the mid-60s? Well, I don't really think so.
In response to this objection, Craig Blomberg writes, "2 Peter 3:15-16 does not say how many of Paul's letters were already known as scripture by 65. Galatians 1 and 2 Thessalonians would have been circulating for 15 years, while 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans were 8 to 10 years old. Even Philemon, Colossians, Ephesians, and Philippians could have been known for 3 to 5 years. If Peter and Paul were both ministering in Rome, they could have seen each other repeatedly, and either one might have quickly recognized the inspired nature of the other's writings well before more widespread recognition in the church at large." D.A. Carson also protests, writing, "How early were the New Testament books considered to be canonical? We can't know for sure, but we do know the apostles considered their words to carry an authority tantamount to scripture. They thought of themselves as inspired by the Same Spirit who inspired the prophets. They expected their letters to be read in church along with the Old Testament. Moreover, Paul can cite a word of Jesus as scripture." Therefore, while somewhat unexpected, the description of Paul's letters as scripture, especially since this reference is elusive, is possibly by the end of Peter's life.
Furthermore, Michael J. Kruger points out that it's improbable that a false writer would depict Peter struggling to understand Paul's letters. Usually, pseudonymous writers glorify their heroes rather than admitting their weaknesses. But in this letter, he says that things that Paul writes are hard to understand. Therefore, Peter's self-criticism supports the authenticity of this letter. Overall, it's just not unlikely that Peter would view Paul's writings as equal to scripture. Therefore, Ehrman's objection on this particular point doesn't hold much weight.
Bart's main objection to Petrine authorship is the "old Peter was an illiterate fisherman" routine. Ehrman writes, "According to Acts 4:13, both Peter and his companion John, who were also fishermen, were described as *aggrammatoi*, a Greek word meaning unlettered or illiterate. So, could Peter have written First and Second Peter? There are convincing reasons to doubt that he wrote Second Peter, and some doubts about First Peter as well. However, it's highly likely that Peter couldn't write at all."
It's important to note that the book of First Peter is authored by someone highly educated, proficient in Greek, and deeply knowledgeable about the Jewish scriptures in their Greek translation. Acts 4:13 reports the opinions of the snobbish scribes describing Peter and his crew as "a band of uneducated Galileans with funny accents who are not formally trained." This does not necessarily reflect Luke's viewpoint; it's frustrating how often this passage is abused. Additionally, 1 Peter 5:12 explicitly states that Peter had a scribe named Sylvanus helping him. Thus, the more polished language and style differences in First Peter are more of a reflection of Sylvanus than Peter. Despite some of the writing style differences, we do see many themes repeated in both letters, like the second coming of the Lord, Noah's salvation from the flood, the connection between Noah and Christ's preaching, God's longsuffering and repentance, and a concern with prophecy. While no scribe is mentioned in Second Peter, as in First Peter, that doesn't dismiss the possibility of someone else aiding Peter. Sometimes scribes' names make it into letters, like when Paul's scribe Tertius sends his greetings, but we also know that Paul used scribes to write other letters, and their names didn't appear in those.
Secondly, there's a mistaken belief that individuals raised as fishermen are just incapable of learning or being skilled when they transition to becoming an apostle. D.A. Carson writes, "While certainly distinctive, the Greek of Second Peter is not as distinctive as many scholars have suggested." Several scholars note that the author may be consciously imitating the so-called "Asiatic style," a form of rhetorical speech that was becoming popular at the time. Could not Peter, seeking to create as much common ground as possible with his readers, have adopted such a style? The claim that a Galilean fisherman could not have written the Greek of the letter cannot stand without knowing much more than we do about how that Galilean fisherman spent the next 30 or more years between abandoning his nets and the date of this letter. Ministry in Asia Minor, Greece, and Rome might have very well furnished Peter with a Koine Greek and even a rhetorical style similar or even superior to that to be had in a classroom.
While Ehrman acknowledges that this is theoretically possible, he doesn't find the idea that Peter learned later in life very convincing. However, contrary to Ehrman's view, there is compelling evidence that Peter did speak at least some Greek. Dr. Peter J. Williams points out that in the Gospels, Jesus travels through numerous towns and villages in Galilee, including Caesarea Philippi, a place heavily influenced by Greek culture. His disciples served as traveling preachers, itinerant teachers, often had to adapt to the languages of the people they addressed. Interestingly, among Jesus's disciples were Andrew and Philip, both with Greek names. Andrew, Peter's brother, bore a relatively uncommon Greek name and often accompanied the three innermost disciples. The fact that Peter's parents gave his brother a Greek name is suggestive in itself. Also, in John's Gospel, there is a moment where Greeks approach Philip, who then confers with Andrew before approaching Jesus. This suggests Philip and Andrew might have been comfortable communicating with Greek speakers. In another passage in John, the crowd speculates whether Jesus might teach the Greeks, implying they might have believed that Jesus was capable of speaking Greek. If Jesus spoke Greek, it's not all that unlikely that Peter did too.
Furthermore, Acts 6 also suggests that within the Jerusalem community of believers, there were both Aramaic-speaking widows and Hellenistic widows who spoke Greek. So, with all this in mind, there's a very strong possibility that Peter spoke at least some Greek. Ehrman's objection doesn't come close to proving that Second Peter is highly unlikely to have been written by Peter. None of his objections have.
Finally, Dr. Michael J. Kruger points out a weak spot in the argument against Second Peter. Normally, fake writings attributed to famous figures aim to support heretical beliefs. Like *The Gospel of Peter* or *The Gospel of Thomas*, linked to groups with unusual ideas, but Second Peter doesn't promote any controversial views or argue against accepted teachings. Unlike other writings linked to Peter, it doesn't jump into debates from the 7th century or include exaggerated miracles found in other apocryphal stories about Peter. The bottom line is that objections against Peter's authorship aren't very convincing, and there's no strong evidence that their writer is lying. The confident assertion that Second Peter is clearly a fake shows how sometimes scholars push too far and that often what scholarly consensus says should be taken with a grain of salt. Despite doubts, Second Peter deserves our trust, reminding us that the New Testament's canon construction wasn't magical; it came together through a complex historical process.
I hope you found this particular video helpful. Thank you to my patrons who make content like this possible, and thank you so much for watching.