Authorship, Inspiration and other Challenges with 2 Peter

I want to start by saying that I would be extremely cautious about sharing this information in a Bible class setting. We have to be on guard for each other spiritually. And sometimes there are issues in the Bible that we don't have clear answers for and really don’t have to address. This information fits into that category. Anytime we challenge long-held traditions about the Bible we have to be careful; because, even if it is accurate, it could be damaging to peoples’ faith. Some of this information might fit into that category.

There is some strong internal evidence that suggests that the Apostle Peter did not write 2nd Peter and that it was written well after Peter had been martyred. The evidence points to the conclusion that it is pseudepigrapha – which is just a fancy name for a category of ancient books that have another persons’ name attached to it to give it more authority. You may have heard of the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.

We'll take a moment to point out some of that evidence. But the main idea to consider is whether or not this impacts how we treat the Bible. For example, let’s assume that Peter didn’t write this text, does it mean that 2nd Peter is not inspired? Does it mean that it shouldn’t be in the Bible? These are questions that I want to consider.

Let’s look at some of the evidence:

2 Peter 3:15-16
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

This text speaks of “all his letters,” referring to Paul’s letters. This does not have to be a reference to each of the letters that we have of Paul today. But it does indicate a familiarity with at least a few of Paul’s letters. It is possible that because of his status, Peter could have had copies of Paul’s letters. However, the writer here speaks of them as if the audience was quite familiar with these letters. This is not chronologically feasible. If this letter was written by Peter prior to his death around AD 64-67, it seems doubtful that enough time could not have elapsed for sufficient copies of Paul’s letters to have been made and circulated to this extent.

There is another question raised from this text. What does “the other scriptures” refer to? Is this a reference to the Old Testament? Probably not, because it seems that the letter was written to an audience made up primarily of Gentiles. They wouldn’t really care much about the OT. If it wasn’t the OT, then it must be referring to other NT letters or Gospels. This comment makes it sound as if there was a collection of books that were accepted as authoritative to the point that they were called scripture. This means that they had to have been circulated long enough to have developed this acceptance. This brings up the same issue mentioned before. If Peter did write this in the early to mid 60s, there would not have been enough time for any of the writings to have developed authoritative to that extent.

2 Peter 1:14
Since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me.

This verse is commonly regarded as an allusion to John 21:18 when Jesus tells Peter that he will die by crucifixion. I think that is probably correct. The problem is that the Gospel of John was probably not written prior to the early 80s. That would mean that 2 Peter would have had to have been written after John was written. It is clear that Peter was martyred by Nero in the mid 60s. That creates a problem with naming Peter as the author.

However, there is a good explanation for this. If Peter is the author then he would not have gotten this information from the Gospel of John but from Jesus himself. So that would not be a problem. This evidence is probably best seen as corroborative.

There are other issues with the Petrine authorship. For example, the writing style between 1st and 2nd Peter is completely different. Also, 2 Peter and Jude have many similarities. So much so that it is probable that one used the other as a reference when writing. If this were the case, there would have to be some time gap between the two. Otherwise, one of the authors would not have had occasion to become familiar with the other letter to the extent that he would use it as a reference. The most common dating for Jude is late 60s to early 70s. If 2 Peter is written in the mid 60s there is not enough of a time gap. We’ve got to remember that the world then was completely different. There was no mail service. Letters had to be hand carried, which usually meant travel by boat or donkey or foot. It took time. Also, we can’t forget that getting a copy of a letter assumed literacy or money. Neither of which was common then. Assuming all this to be the case, either Jude or 2 Peter is dated much later. The evidence points to 2 Peter.

There are many different ways to respond to reading some of this information. You may have been able to reason away each of these evidences. And you may be correct. Or you may accept each of these evidences. Let’s say for the sake of discussion that there is validity to these arguments; and that 2 Peter was probably not written by the Apostle Peter. Does that influence your feelings about the text? Should it influence your feelings? Does it mean that the text isn’t inspired? Was there a mistake somewhere along the way and someone circumvented God’s will and inserted this letter in when it shouldn’t have been? These are all legitimate questions that we’ll address in the next post.