Internal Questions

We will now consider the various questions about Petrine authorship raised from the text itself. Two major areas will be considered: (1) references to the apostle Peter that may or may not be authentic and (2) the style and theological content.

Claims of Petrine Authorship

The author of 2 Peter introduces himself as Simon Peter. The inclusion of Simon is peculiar because 1 Peter does not use the double name. It is often claimed the inclusion of Simon is an attempt to impersonate the Apostle¹² by using the double name more common in the Gospels.¹³ But if a writer wanted to imitate 1 Peter, would he not use the same name as used in 1 Peter to ensure credibility? It is possible that a pseudepigraphist could slip, but it seems odd that he would do so so early. Further, the use of Hebraism Συμεών instead of Σιμών as used in the Gospels is strange because it does not appear in any of the Apostolic Fathers or in any of the other pseudo-Petrine literature of the same time period.¹⁴ The name Simon Peter argues in favor of Petrine authorship.

2 Peter 1:14 indicates that the apostle considered his death near (“I will soon be put aside”). Some have assumed that this is a clear indication of a writer after Peter’s death either trying to create the illusion that Peter knew the time of his own death or attempting to make an allusion to John 21:18. But this view not only presupposes the impossibility of a true prediction, but also supposes that an older man could not logically know he was near the end of his days and that Christians were not suffering persecution at the time of Peter. Further, there is no evidence of any literary dependence on John’s gospel by the author of 2 Peter¹⁵ which means it is more natural to assume this linkage is the result of Peter writing 2 Peter and recalling Jesus’ words to him.

2 Peter 2:16-18 contains a retelling of the Transfiguration of Christ (cf. Matt. 17:1-13; Mark 9:2-13; Luke 9:28-36). Two problems arise with this account. First, as in the previous cases, some immediately assume this is merely an attempt to add credibility to the epistle and its authorship.¹⁶ While it is acknowledged that pseudepigraphists often make references to known events, they typically embellish the stories with extra, and often fantastic, details.¹⁷ It is also perfectly natural for Peter to make a reference to an event with such enormous significance in his life. The account in 2 Peter is quite short and has no markings of pseudepigraphy unless it is already assumed. Second, the use of ἁγίῳ ὄρει (“holy” or “sacred mountain”) is considered late terminology because early Christians did not generally consider sites as “sacred.” Yet this precise fact, that early Christians did not consider venerate sites, points more clearly to Peter reflecting his experience of the event. Why would a pseudepigrapher in the second century venerate a site when no Christians in his time did so?

Lastly, 2 Pet. 3:1 clearly references a prior letter. Again, this is sometimes assumed to be evidence of forgery, but as we will see in the discussion below on theology, 2 Peter makes almost no use of any content in 1 Peter.¹⁸ On the one hand it is argued on this fact the 1 and 2 Peter must have two different authors, but on the other hand it seems strange that a pseudepigrapher would not use any content from the prior book he was attempting to imitate.¹⁹

Stylistic and Theological Concerns

There have been attempts to show that certain Hellenisms within 2 Peter preclude it from being written by a Jewish fisherman.²⁰ Kümmel considered the phrase in 2 Peter, “participate in the divine nature,” to be an idea not present in Peter’s day. But more recent research has shown this idea present in the Decree of Strationicea to the honor of Zeus and Hecate and in the writings of Philo, Stobaeus and Josephus.²¹ Other supposed Hellenisms are virtue (ἀρετή) and knowledge (γνῶσις), but virtue also appears in 1 Peter and Paul emphasizes knowledge in Colossians.

2 Peter 3:9 explains that the delay in Christ’s return is due to God’s patience and his desire that all men might come to know him. This statement is often considered to be evidence that the second century church idea was embarrassed by the delay of Christ’s return²² and that 2 Peter was written to adjust the doctrine of the second coming.²³ While this passage certainly does explain any delay of the Parousia, Jerome Neyrey argues that Peter was combating the more common heresy that God can not or will not judge the sinner.²⁴ The reference to “our fathers” (2 Pete 3:4) is made by the objector whom Peter is combating and refers not to the first Christians who are now dead,²⁵ but to all of humanity who lived and died without the punishment of God. Peter’s opponents believe they can continue doing evil with no fear of God’s judgment, but Peter insists that the delay in judgment is not due to God’s weakness, but to his patience and kindness. Rather than a second century excuse for the delayed Parousia, “the same apology can be found in Jewish sources where the delay of judgment is based on divine kindness which postpones judgment.”²⁶ 

The references to Paul in 2 Peter 3:15-16 have also been questioned. First, the author of 2 Peter calls Paul “our dear brother.” According to the Tübingen school of thought, there was a deep and bitter divide between Peter and Paul caused by their disagreement in Gal. 2. But there is no reason to assume that an early disagreement from which Peter clearly repented precludes Peter from considering Paul a dear brother. Further, a second century writer might more likely refer to Paul as an “apostle” instead of a brother.

The second noteworthy reference to Paul is the idea that Paul’s writings were on par with “other Scriptures” (2 Pet. 3:16). There are two problems here. First, the author of 2 Peter makes reference to “all of his letters,” but there is no evidence of a Pauline Corpus until after Peter’s day. Yet it is not farfetched to assume that Peter may have in fact collected and studied Paul’s writings and that “all of his letters” does not mean every letter written by Paul, only the ones that Peter had available to him. Further, Paul’s own writings indicate that he saw his writings as the Word of God (2 Thess. 2:13) inspired by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13), that they were to be shared with other churches (Col. 4:16), and that rejection of them invited excommunication (2 Thess. 3:14; 1 Tim 4:3, 6).²⁷

A third point of interest is the reference to Paul’s writings being difficult to understand. It seems odd that a second century writer would use this in his case for Petrine authorship.