www.ArgumentCenter.org - Where hard questions are answered

>> OK 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work written in the second century.

The majority of scholars agree that 2 Peter is pseudonymous, meaning that someone else wrote it and ascribed Peter's name to it. The writing style is so radically different from 1 Peter that many linguists are practically unanimous in thinking that if Simon Peter was responsible for writing 1 Peter, than he could not have written this one too. A major portion of the letter (Chapter 2) was taken from Jude. Since Jude is dated to the end of the first century, then the apostle Peter certainly could not have written it (he died around 64 CE). In fact, there is not one reference to it until 220 CE, and it doesn't seem to have been circulated widely until a century later. It was undoubtedly included in the canon because the 4th century orthodox fathers accepted its claims as being authored by Peter, and because it served their purposes of opposing false teachings. (Bart Ehrman, "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction")

"The author of 2 Peter knew the epistle of Jude, 1 Peter, the synoptic account of the transfiguration, the Johannine appendix wherein Christ predicts the martyrdom of Peter, and a collection of Pauline letters. Finally, there seems to be a literary relationship of II Peter with the Apocalypse of Peter." (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html)

This all points to a second century date for the letter, making 2 Peter pseudonymous.

< 2 Peter is not pseudonymous; the apostle Peter likely wrote it.

See the next two arguments below.

< STRONG Yes. The evidence isn't strong enough to suggest Peter isn't the true author.

The author identifies himself as Simon Peter (1:1). He uses the first person singular pronoun in a highly personal passage (1:12–15) and claims to be an eyewitness of the transfiguration (1:16–18 [see note on 1:16]; cf. Mt 17:1–5). He asserts that this is his second letter to the readers (3:1) and refers to Paul as “our dear brother” (3:15; see note there). In short, the letter claims to be Peter’s, and its character is compatible with that claim.

Although 2 Peter was not as widely known and recognized in the early church as 1 Peter, some may have used and accepted it as authoritative as early as the second century and perhaps even in the latter part of the first century (1 Clement [a.d. 95] may allude to it). It was not ascribed to Peter until Origen’s time (185–253), and he seems to reflect some doubt concerning it. Eusebius (265–340) placed it among the questioned books, though he admits that most accept it as from Peter. After Eusebius’s time, it seems to have been quite generally accepted as canonical.

In recent centuries, however, its genuineness has been challenged by a considerable number of interpreters. One of the objections that has been raised is the difference in style from that of 1 Peter. But the difference is not absolute; there are noteworthy similarities in vocabulary and in other matters. In fact, no other known writing is as much like 1 Peter as 2 Peter. The differences that do exist may be accounted for by variations in subject matter, in the form and purpose of the letters, in the time and circumstances of writing, in sources used or models followed, and in scribes who may have been employed. Perhaps most significant is the statement in 1Pe 5:12 that Silas assisted in the writing of 1 Peter. No such statement is made concerning 2 Peter, which may explain its noticeable difference in style (see Introduction to 1 Peter: Author and Date).

Other objections arise from a secular reconstruction of early Christian history or misunderstandings or misconstructions of the available data. For example, some argue that the reference to Paul’s letters in 3:15–16 indicates an advanced date for this book—beyond Peter’s lifetime. But it is quite possible that Paul’s letters were gathered at an early date, since some of them had been in existence and perhaps in circulation for more than ten years (Thessalonians by as much as 15 years) prior to Peter’s death. Besides, what Peter says may only indicate that he was acquainted with some of Paul’s letters (communication in the Roman world and in the early church was good), not that there was a formal, ecclesiastical collection of them.

- http://www.ibs.org/niv/studybible/2peter.php

< STRONG Nothing in 2 Peter requires it to have be written at a date later than in the apostle's lifetime. Therefore, it's possible that it's genuine.

2 Peter was written toward the end of Peter’s life (cf. 1:12–15), after he had written a prior letter (3:1) to the same readers (probably 1 Peter). Since Peter was martyred during the reign of Nero, his death must have occurred prior to a.d. 68; so it is very likely that he wrote 2 Peter between 65 and 68.

Some have argued that this date is too early for the writing of 2 Peter, but nothing in the book requires a later date. The error combated is comparable to the kind of heresy present in the first century. To insist that the second chapter was directed against second-century Gnosticism is to assume more than the contents of the chapter warrant. While the heretics referred to in 2 Peter may well have been among the forerunners of second-century Gnostics, nothing is said of them that would not fit into the later years of Peter’s life.

Some have suggested a later date because they interpret the reference to the fathers in 3:4 to mean an earlier Christian generation. However, the word is most naturally interpreted as the OT patriarchs (cf. Jn 6:31, “forefathers”; Ac 3:13; Heb 1:1). Similarly, reference to Paul and his letters (3:15–16; see Author) does not require a date beyond Peter’s lifetime.

- http://www.ibs.org/niv/studybible/2peter.php

< 1 Clement, written in 95 CE, likely alludes to 2 Peter, supporting the argument that it is genuine.

"There is a likely allusion to the book in 1 Clement, which was written about AD 95.  If this is correct, then this certainly moves the date of writing into the first century and, given the use of the first person and the early date, almost certainly makes Peter the author."

- John Oakes

>> STRONG There is controversy over the dating of 1 Clement. Thus, it cannot prove whether or not 2 Peter is a genuine letter.

The dating of 1 Clement varies from the 60s of the first century to the mid-second century: 

Alvar Ellegård has argued for a date as early as the sixties of the first century for a few reasons in his Jesus: the Temple cult is mentioned in the present tense (pp. 38-39), Peter and Paul are mentioned as of "our generation" (pp. 39-40), and the letter seemed to have been written during a persecution, perhaps that of Nero (p. 40).

[However] as is pointed out with Hebrews, a mention of the Temple cult in the present does not prove that the author was writing before 70 CE. The reference to "our generation" is simply a contrast between the Christian era and the previously mentioned era of ancient Judaism. Finally, the supposed reference to persecution may be a literary device, as pointed out by Welborn. Besides, there were also persecutions under Domitian, Trajan, and other emperors.

Bart Ehrman in "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction" supports the dating of 95 CE:

The Corinthian church is called "ancient" (47:6), there are still church leaders throughout the world hand-picked by the apostles (chapter 44), Peter and Paul's martyrdoms are described as taking place in "our own time"(chapter 5), and some people are as described being faithful church members "from youth to old age" (chapter 63). Many scholars suggest it was written around 95 or 96 CE, long enough for the church to be established and yet still within the same generation as the apostles.

Laurence Welborne argues for a date ranging from 80-140 CE: 

"The account of the deaths of Peter and Paul in chap. 5 is not that of an eye-witness. The presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has passed (44:3). The church at Rome is called "ancient" (47:6); and the emissaries from Rome are said to have lived "blamelessly" as Christians "from youth to old age" (63:3). Thus the epistle cannot have been written before the last decades of the 1st century. There are references to the letter by the middle of the next century in the works of Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 3.16; 4.22; 4.23). Thus one may place the composition of 1 Clement between A.D. 80 and 140."

And evidence also points to a possible mid-second century date:

The author of 1 Clement was a distinguished Roman elder who flourished 130-140 and that this Clement was named in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision, 8:3), which is also to be dated to the mid second century...Because this source document for 1 Clement must have been written when the hope of the imminent parousia was waning, and because 1 Clement itself must have dealt with the same issue, the document can scarcely be dated to the time of the first Christian generation. Other indications of lateness include the tradition in chapter 5 that Paul traveled to the extremities of the west (i.e., Spain) and the emphasis on the appointment of "bishops and deacons" (42:1-5). Most notably, there is stated to be "a rule of succession" for bishops and deacons who have "fallen asleep" (44:2). This suggests a second century date for 1 Clement.

Because of the variation in dates, 1 Clement shouldn't be used to aid the case that 2 Peter is genuine.

- http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html