SPECIAL INTRODUCTION TO SECOND PETER

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION TO SECOND PETER

by Mykola Leliovskyi

Submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements

for BTS 500 - Introduction to Biblical Studies

The Master’s College

Santa Clarita, California

Ocotber 26, 2011

2

When it comes to introductory matters related to New Testament books Second Epistle of

Peter is usually singled out as the epistle with the most complicated background. In early church

history it was classified along with James, Jude, Hebrews, Second and Third John, and

Revelation as antilegomena, i.e. the disputed books. However, none of these disputed books has

been questioned as persistently as Second Peter.1 Frank Thielman sums it up well in the

following statement, “Second Peter is sometimes considered the one real embarrassment in the

New Testament canon. It is said to have an affected and ostentatious literary style, to stoop to

name-calling, to restrict the Spirit to the safety of the church’s authority, and to exchange the

Christological orientation of traditional Christian eschatology for an anthropological

orientation.”2

This paper is aimed at interacting with this unflattering description of Second Peter by

carefully analyzing the introductory material produced by conservative Evangelical scholars.

Various opinions on the introductory issues like authorship, date, recipients, opponents, form and

structure, language, literary relationships, attestation will be analyzed, evaluated and followed by

a conclusion in the final section of this paper. The approach taken in this analysis presupposes

such hallmarks of conservative Evangelical scholarship as inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture,

literal historical-grammatical hermeneutics, and the idea that God’s Word reflects the moral

character of its ultimate divine Author.

When beginning to analyze Second Peter one cannot notice a certain vacuum in relation

to studies of Second Peter in the past. In fact, it seems that only in the second half of the

1 Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible, Rev. and

expanded. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986), 299.

2 Frank Thielman, Theology of the New Testament: a Canonical and Synthetic Approach

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), 522. Hereafter, Thielman, Theology of the New

Testament.

3

twentieth century scholars returned to studying this epistle. Perhaps, the lack of scholarly effort

towards this epistle is due to its widespread reputation of an “ugly stepchild of the New

Testament.”3 This lack of desire is understandable when all attempts to find answers lead, it

seems, to even more questions. However, things have changed since John Snyder’s article that

exposed scholarly neglect in this area.4 Even though such the acclaimed and respected New

International Commentary Series has yet to feature a volume on Second Peter, there have been

plenty of excellent recent studies of the epistle as evidenced by the Michael J. Gilmour’s article.5

At the outset of the study of Second Peter one discoveries its most acute problem, i.e. the

authorship of the epistle. However, this is somewhat surprising since the epistle is not

anonymous and the author of the epistle is introduced in its very first sentence as Simeon Peter,

with an additional clarification, “a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ”6 (2 Pet 1:1). Therefore, it is

not unreasonable “to take the designation at face value and be done with it. Whatever the

problems, the inspired text says that Simon Peter wrote this work so somehow he was able to do

it” as John Calvin and others did.7 The fact is, though, that scholars who affirm Petrine

authorship of Second Peter are a minority. As Edwin A. Blum notes, there are at least ten major

objections to Petrine authorship of Second Peter.8

3 Peter H. Davids, The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, Pillar New Testament Commentary

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006), 121. Hereafter, Davids, PNTC.

4 John Snyder, “A 2 Peter Bibliography,” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological

Society 22, no. 3 (September 1979): 265-67.

5 Michael J. Gilmour, “2 Peter in Recent Research: A Bibliography,” The Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1999): 673-78. 6 All Scripture verses unless otherwise noted are cited from The Holy Bible: English

standard version (Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001).

7 Davids, PNTC, 126.

4

In order to determine whether scholars have any solid reasons to contest the clear

testimony of the epistle it is necessary to list their objections and carefully examine the validity

of their arguments. First, as early as the fourth century, Eusebius and Jerome noted the lack of a

strong tradition behind Second Peter.9 Kelly adds that “no NT document had a longer or tougher

struggle to win acceptance than 2 Peter.”10 What is the basis for such claims? It must be admitted

that Second Peter is in fact missing from the late second century Muratorian Fragment. However,

it must also noted that there is a reason why this document is known as the Muratorian Fragment,

namely the full text of the document is not extant. First Peter (which had a strong attestation in

the early church), for that matter, is also missing from this early list of canonical books.11 It is

also argued that Second Peter fails to be quoted directly by the Early Church Fathers, but at the

same time Robert Picirilli’s careful investigation of the Apostolic Fathers reveals a strong

possibility that 2 Peter is alluded to in 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas,

and Martyrdom of Polycarp.12 Michael Gilmour is correct in saying that Picirilli’s research

8 Edwin A. Blum, The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation.

Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 12. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982), 258. Hereafter,

Blum, EBC.

9 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.1-4; Jerome, Scriptorium Ecclesiasticorum 1.

10 J. N. D. Kelly, Epistles of Peter and of Jude, The (Black's New Testament

Commentary) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1993), 224. Hereafter, Kelly, Peter and Jude.

11 D.A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed.

(Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005), 662. Hereafter, Carson, An Introduction to the New

Testament.

12 Robert E. Picirilli, “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers.” Journal for the

Study of the New Testament 33 (1988): 57-83.

5

doesn’t prove Peter’s authorship without a shadow of a doubt.13 Schreiner, perhaps, captures the

impact of Picirilli’s study best when he writes, “Picirilli notes that the Apostolic Fathers cite Paul

thirty-one times but never name him.41 Hence, the failure to name Peter is hardly decisive.”14

Furthermore, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianus and Augustine, even

though in some cases expressed their doubts, all affirmed the authenticity of Second Peter.15

Therefore, it is evident that the objection based on external evidence may sometimes be

exaggerated. It is important to remember that while “no book of the Canon is so poorly attested

among the Fathers,” at the same time “no excluded book has nearly such weight of backing as 2

Peter.”16

Second, both Eusebius and Jerome also noted apparent differences in style between First

Peter (which as noted above did not provoke any doubts in the Early church) and Second Peter. It

must be noted, however, that the appeal to stylistic differences can also be overemphasized since

not all scholars come to the same conclusion. ADB says that “the Greek text and syntax of the

letter is uncertain at several places and its meaning often obscure. The many textual variants

reflect early attempts to make sense of these obscurities.”17 In his excellent, from a scholarly

13 Michael J. Gilmour, “Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter.” Evangelical Quarterly

73 (2001): 299.

14 Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC (Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Reference,

2003), 262. Hereafter, Schreiner, NAC.

15 Michael J. Kruger, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter.” The Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 42, no. 4 (1999): 650.

16 Michael Green, 2 Peter and Jude (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (IVP

Numbered)), Reprint ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: IVP Academic, 2009), 14–15. Hereafter, Green,

TNTC.

17 David Noel Freedman, ed., Vol. 5: The Anchor Bible Dictionary (Doubleday, New

York: Yale University Press, 1992), 285. Hereafter, Freedman, ABD.

6

point of view, commentary Richard J. Bauckham notes that “Second Peter’s Greek style is not to

the taste of many modern readers” and that modern scholars tend to characterize it as “‘at times

pretentiously elaborate, ‘a striving after the pompous phrase,’ ‘a somewhat artificial piece of

rhetoric,’ and ‘Baboo Greek.’”18 However, he quickly acquits it from all such accusations due to

the fact that “2 Peter must be related to the ‘Asiatic’ style of Greek rhetoric which was coming

into fashion in 2 Peter’s time, and which, with its love of high-sounding expressions, florid and

verbose language, and elaborate literary effects.”19 It is a certain fact that scholars recognize the

difference between, as Kruger put it, “‘dignified’ style of 1 Peter and the ‘high-sounding words’

of 2 Peter.”20 The heart of the issue is how they explain these differences. Those who deny

Petrine authorship of the epistle like, for instance, Kelly insist that the differences prove that

First and Second Peter were not written by the same person.21 Those who uphold Petrine

authorship typically appeal to different amanuenses or secretaries that Peter used to write each

letter, as first suggested by Jerome.22 However, Simon Kistemaker believes that “the material

presented in both documents provides substantial evidence to indicate that these letters are the

product of one author.”23 In light of such divergent interpretations what is the best approach to

18 Richard J. Bauckham, Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 50, 2 Peter, Jude (Waco, Tex.:

Word Books, 1983), 138. Hereafter, Bauckham, WBC.

19 Ibid.


Theological Society 42, no. 4 (1999): 656.

21 Kelly, Peter and Jude, 237.

22 Blum, EBC, 259.

23 Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter

and the Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Pub Group, 1987), 224. Hereafter,

Kistemaker, Peter and Jude.

7

explaining these apparent differences in style? First and foremost, one must remain cautious in

reaching firm conclusions in any direction because of the brevity of each epistle. Guthrie is

absolutely right in that, “It is notoriously difficult to devise any certain criteria for the

examination of style and this is particularly true where comparison is made between two short

epistles. The area of comparison is so restricted that the results may well be misleading.

Moreover, subjective impressions are likely to receive greater stress than is justified.”24

Furthermore, Bauckham notes that the idea of caution in reaching any verdict is supported by

several studies, for example, he writes, “A. Q. Morton’s computer analysis showed 1 and 2 Peter

to be linguistically indistinguishable;” and “Mayor, after his detailed comparison of the grammar

and style of the two letters, concluded that ‘there is not that chasm between them which some

would try to make out.’”25 Therefore, it seems best to conclude that the objections based on

differences in style between the two letters are at best ambiguous and inconclusive. It must be

also acknowledged that while they can be used to argue against Petrine authorship, there is also a

very reasonable way to reconcile the differences.26

24 Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 4th rev. ed. (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP

Academic, 1990), 832. Hereafter, Guthrie, New Testament Introduction.

25 Bauckham, WBC, 149.

26 The debate regarding grammar and style of the 1 and 2 Peter can get very technical

with opponents using arguments like “illiterate use of the anarthrous noun,” etc.; and then

appropriate them according to their own view (as is the case with Bauckham who uses the

argument to support his view of “the probable Roman origin of 2 Peter”). So for the purposes of

this paper it will suffice to say that a number of decent and respectable scholars (aside from

appealing to different amanuenses argument) reconcile these differences by reasonably noting

the differences in purpose of each letter. But above all Thomas Schreiner puts in the perspective

when he writes, “Some who doubt the authenticity of the letter view arguments defending its

authenticity as special pleading. They object that, on the one hand, we say that perhaps different

secretaries were used. And then we say, on the other hand, that the corpus of the two letters is too

small to establish stylistic variation. Is it the case that conservatives tack this way and then that,

searching desperately for any answer to preserve their preformed theory? It may seem that way,

8

Third, the fact that a number of apocryphal Gnostic works also bear Peter’s name is used

to reject Petrine authorship of Second Peter. In his commentary Bauckham includes a list of such

works: Apocalypse of Peter, the Gospel Peter, the Kerygma of Peter (Preaching of Peter), the

Acts Peter, and the Epistle of Peter to Philip.27 Still, while it is entirely possible that the existence

of these pseudepigraphical and Gnostic works hindered the circulation of Second Peter, the fact

remains that “the early church accepted 2 Peter in spite of the circulation of spurious works

bearing the apostle’s name shows that it recognized a difference in character between the two

epistles and the other works bearing his name.”28 Again Guthrie offers a useful insight:

Other pseudo-Petrine literature circulated in the early church, creating confusion about what was

authentically Petrine. The church went through a process by which it sifted the authentic from the spurious.

When the decision was made, 2 Peter was accepted, but other alleged Petrine writings were rejected. The

early church was not inclined, therefore, to include a document just because it had Peter’s name on it. Many

other “Petrine” writings were excluded, but the church recognized the legitimacy of 2 Peter. Hence, the

acceptance of 2 Peter witnesses to the discrimination of the church, to their conviction that this writing, in

contrast to many other alleged Petrine writings, was authentic.29

Fourth, there is an objection based on the limited geographical distribution of the letter.

Blum offers a very concise and reasonable explanation of this, “it could be that persecution, the

brevity of 2 Peter, or its remote destination resulted in its not being widely circulated in the first

hundred years of the church.”30

but in reality suggesting more than one answer to a problem often represents good scholarship.

When we examine historical documents, we are not granted comprehensive knowledge of the

circumstances in which the document was birthed. Hence, we must postulate probabilities, and in

some cases, of course, more than one scenario is probable. Furthermore, in some instances the

probable scenarios are not internally contradictory but both constitute plausible answers to the

problem posed. Suggesting more than one solution is not necessarily a resort to desperation but

may be an indication of humility—a recognition that the evidence only takes us so far”

(Schreiner, NAC, 266).

28 Blum, EBC, 259.

29 Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 809.

30 Blum, EBC, 260.

9

Fifth, literary dependence on the Epistle of Jude is often considered a significant

argument against Petrine authorship of Second Peter. In his superb study of literary relationships

of Second Peter with other works Bauckham notes that “the resemblances are largely between

Jude 4–13, 16–18 and 2 Pet 2:1–18; 3:1–3.”31

Table 1. Text comparison between parallel passages in the Epistles of Jude and Second Peter.

Jude 2 Peter

4–13: For certain people have crept in

unnoticed who long ago were designated for

this condemnation, ungodly people, who

pervert the grace of our God into sensuality

and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus

Christ. Now I want to remind you, although

you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved

a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward

destroyed those who did not believe. And the

angels who did not stay within their own

position of authority, but left their proper

dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under

gloomy darkness until the judgment of the

great day—just as Sodom and Gomorrah and

the surrounding cities, which likewise

indulged in sexual immorality and pursued

unnatural desire, serve as an example by

undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. Yet

in like manner these people also, relying on

their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority,

and blaspheme the glorious ones. 9 But when

the archangel Michael, contending with the

devil, was disputing about the body of Moses,

he did not presume to pronounce a

blasphemous judgment, but said, “The Lord

rebuke you.” But these people blaspheme all

that they do not understand, and they are

destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning

animals, understand instinctively. Woe to

them! For they walked in the way of Cain and

abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to

Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s

rebellion. These are hidden reefs at your love

2:1-18: But false prophets also arose among

the people, just as there will be false teachers

among you, who will secretly bring in

destructive heresies, even denying the Master

who bought them, bringing upon themselves

swift destruction. And many will follow their

sensuality, and because of them the way of

truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed

they will exploit you with false words. Their

condemnation from long ago is not idle, and

their destruction is not asleep. For if God did

not spare angels when they sinned, but cast

them into hell and committed them to chains

of gloomy darkness to be kept until the

judgment; if he did not spare the ancient

world, but preserved Noah, a herald of

righteousness, with seven others, when he

brought a flood upon the world of the

ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and

Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to

extinction, making them an example of what

is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he

rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by

the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as

that righteous man lived among them day after

day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over

their lawless deeds that he saw and heard);

then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly

from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under

punishment until the day of judgment, and

especially those who indulge in the lust of

defiling passion and despise authority.

Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they


10

feasts, as they feast with you without fear,

shepherds feeding themselves; waterless

clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees

in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; wild

waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their

own shame; wandering stars, for whom the

gloom of utter darkness has been reserved

forever.

blaspheme the glorious ones, whereas angels,

though greater in might and power, do not

pronounce a blasphemous judgment against

them before the Lord. But these, like irrational

animals, creatures of instinct, born to be

caught and destroyed, blaspheming about

matters of which they are ignorant, will also

be destroyed in their destruction, suffering

wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They

count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They

are blots and blemishes, reveling in their

deceptions, while they feast with you. They

have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin.

They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts

trained in greed. Accursed children! Forsaking

the right way, they have gone astray. They

have followed the way of Balaam, the son of

Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, but

was rebuked for his own transgression; a

speechless donkey spoke with human voice

and restrained the prophet’s madness These

are waterless springs and mists driven by a

storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness

has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts

of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the

flesh those who are barely escaping from

those who live in error.

16-18: These are grumblers, malcontents,

following their own sinful desires; they are

loud-mouthed boasters, showing favoritism to

gain advantage. But you must remember,

beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our

Lord Jesus Christ. They said to you, “In the

last time there will be scoffers, following their

own ungodly passions.”

3:1-3: This is now the second letter that I am

writing to you, beloved. In both of them I am

stirring up your sincere mind by way of

reminder, that you should remember the

predictions of the holy prophets and the

commandment of the Lord and Savior through

your apostles, knowing this first of all, that

scoffers will come in the last days with

scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

As seen shown in Table 1 and noted by Schreiner, “in a number of verses the two letters have

remarkable parallels.”32 He further adds that “the parallels would be even clearer if cited in

Greek.”33

32 Schreiner, NAC, 415.

11

Logically there are five possible explanations of their literary relationship: (1) Jude is

dependent on 2 Peter; (2) 2 Peter is dependent on Jude; (3) dependent on a common source; (3)

common authorship of both epistles; and (5) literary independence. The last one is typically not

even mentioned in any discussion, including the one presented by Bauckham. It seems like most

modern scholars, especially the ones who oppose Petrine authorship, agree that 2 Peter is

dependent on Jude. However, it is hard to see any substantial difficulty raised by this objection in

ascribing the letter to Peter. Schreiner suggests that “the real objection is that Peter as an apostle

would not have used a nonapostolic writing as a source.”34 His reply to this objection is also

helpful; “how do we know this is the case?” he writes. “We must beware of assuming what an

apostle would do.”35 Still, the issue of literary dependence remains unresolved. Neither side has

produced enough convincing evidence in their favor. In any case, Blum is absolutely right when

he observes that it would “pose a problem for Petrine authorship of the letter only if (1) the

dependence of 2 Peter on Jude were conclusively proved, (2) the composition of Jude were

definitely dated later than a.d. 64, or (3) it could be shown that an apostle such as Peter would

not have used so much material from another writer.”36 He then summarizes,

The special problem of the relation between Jude and 2 Peter or their relation to some common source

remains unsolved. The adoption of a particular position—viz., Jude as prior, 2 Peter as prior, or both Jude

and 2 Peter used an earlier source—does not necessarily affect the authenticity, authorship, or inspiration of

these letters. Any of the three views is compatible with an evangelical theology, and conservative scholars

generally leave the question open.37

33 Ibid.

34 Ibid, 267.

35 Ibid.

36 Blum, EBC, 264.

37 Ibid.

12

Sixth, “the conceptual and rhetorical language is too Hellenistic for a Galilean

fisherman.”38 Again, this presupposition seems too farfetched. Not much is known about Peter’s

life, and that what is known about him can likewise be used to support Petrine authorship of

Second Peter. Blum is argues that “the extent of Hellenistic influence Peter had in his life is not

known. He lived about five miles from the region of the Greek league of ten cities known as

Decapolis. We do not know whether he was bilingual or how much he learned between the

Resurrection and his martyrdom.”39 Therefore, Schreiner is right in that “the Hellenistic

character of 2 Peter can be overemphasized, for he could simply have used terminology that

spoke effectively to his readers.”40

Seventh, another objection is related to the theology of Second Peter, and its treatment of

the concept of Parousia (which is considered a second century problem). However, Green

convincingly argues that the delay of the Parousia was not the hot topic exclusively in the

second century; therefore, this is not a reason to move the date of the epistle into the second

century.41 Also, in his commentary Bauckham is trying to make the case that the death of the

fathers in 3:4, should be understood as the death of the apostles; which, in turn, means that the

concept of Parousia was not realized in their time.42 That is the real reason why the false

teachers are scoffing at this doctrine of the apostles and that is why a pseudonymous author is

38 Ibid, 259.

39 Ibid, 260.


41 Green, TNTC, 39-40.


13

defending it. This theory would be somewhat convincing if not for one simple fact. Schreiner is

absolutely right that “the word ‘fathers’ nowhere clearly refers to the first generation of

Christians but invariably refers to the Old Testament patriarchs. Hence, the verse does not

constitute evidence that Peter or the apostolic generation was deceased.”43

Eighth, the fact that 2 Peter 3:15–16 refers to a collection Pauline Letters means that the

letter could not be written earlier then the second century, since that is when such a collection

was brought together. Yet there are no valid grounds to suppose that the fact that Peter refers to

Paul’s letter implies the existence of a fixed tradition.44 All that is implied by this passage is that

the “author of 2 Peter knew a collection of Pauline letters, though we cannot tell how large a

collection, and regarded them as ―scriptures, i.e. inspired, authoritative writings, suitable for

reading in Christian worship alongside the OT.”45

Ninth, Bauckhman notes that “in a famous essay which contains a full-scale theological

attack on 2 Peter, Käsemann calls it ‘from beginning to end a document expressing an early

Catholic viewpoint,’ and ‘the clearest possible testimony to the onset of early Catholicism.’”46

What have we to say about a Church, which is so concerned to defend herself against heretics, that she no

longer distinguishes between Spirit and letter; that she identifies the Gospel with her own tradition, and

further, with a particular religious world-view; that she regulates exegesis according to her system of

teaching authority and makes faith into a mere assent to the dogmas of orthodoxy?47


44 Carson, An Introduction to the New Testament, 662.


46 Ibid, 151.

47 Käsemann, “Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology,” 195, in Schreiner, NAC,

253.

14

Bauckham applies “the three alleged features of early Catholicism” to Second Peter to test the

validity of Käsemann’s accusations.48 They are: (1) the fading of the Parousia hope and a lack of

any Christological orientation; (2) increasing institutionalization; and (3) the crystallization of

the faith into set forms.49 It is safe to say that Second Peter does not fit any of these criteria.

Bauckhman is right to say that the author of Second Peter is confident that “both his opponents

and his readers will experience the Parousia (1:19; 2:12; 3:14);” “[does] not insist on an

authoritative interpretation of Scripture by officeholders who alone possess the Spirit;” and

“Second Peter’s characteristic terms for Christianity are the ‘way’ phrases… [that] characterize

Christianity not as a body of belief but as an ethical way of life.”50

Tenth, “if Peter wrote it, why is there all the doubt about it and reluctance to accept it?”51

That is a really good question, indeed. Aside from the acknowledgement of the Church Fathers

noted earlier, it cannot go unnoticed that “2 Peter was recognized as fully canonical by the

Canons of Laodicea and by the time of the church councils of Hippo and Carthage of the fourth

century.”52 These councils “rejected 1 Clement and Epistle of Barnabas, showing that they

discriminated carefully between authoritative documents and those that were merely edifying.”53

How come the conclusion of the early church is set aside so easily by some? Furthermore,

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid, 152.

50 Ibid, 153.

51 Blum, EBC, 258.


Theological Society 42, no. 4 (1999): 645–71.


15

textual evidence testifies to the authenticity of 2 Peter, since it is found in the Bodmer papyrus,

Codexes Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.54

Still the most convincing evidence in favor of Petrine authorship is the internal testimony

of the letter. The book opens with the claim about its author. If one refuses to take it at its face

value prima facie, then why shouldn’t everything else in it be questioned? The whole purpose of

the letter is destroyed. However, oftentimes this is the main purpose of liberal higher critical

studies in the field of Bible Introduction, i.e. to destroy the authority and the message of God’s

Word.

Nonetheless, some like Bauckham take a rather unusual stance. In his commentary he

presents, at first glance, a convincing case for the pseudoepigraphal character of Second Peter

while at the same time maintaining that this practice was widespread in the first century and the

intention of the real author was not to deceive his audience. Students of Scripture who turn for

help to his commentary are told that the author of Second Peter composed it as a sort of

“transparent fiction” in accordance with the cultural practice of his era. How should Bauckham’s

approach be evaluated? Is it really as harmless as it seems? First of all we must agree with

Gempf who says, “We must conclude that if pseudonymous works got into the canon, the church

fathers were fooled by a transparent literary device that was originally intended not to fool

anyone”55 Second, Blum asks the question: “Did the first-century Christians adopt the practices

of the pagan world as to pseudonymity, or did their concern for truth cause them to repudiate

it?”56 The answer was obvious then and is obvious now. Pseudonimity, being a form of

54 Ibid.

55 Conrad Gempf, “Pseudonymity and the New Testament,” Themelios 17, no. 2 (1992):

9.

56 Blum, EBC, 261.

16

deception, was neither acceptable among early Christians (as evidenced by Tertullian’s story of

the presbyter who wrote the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla pseudonymously and was

deposed), nor by Evangelical Christians today.57 And while it is true that there are many apparent

difficulties related to the authorship of Second Peter, it is also true that it is more reasonable to

believe the testimony of the inspired Word of God, then to attempt inventing another

explanation.

It must be noted that even though the main thrust of arguments revolves around the

authorship of the epistle and was analyzed above, there are still some introductory issues

concerning Second Peter that need to addressed.

Genre of the book has also drawn significant attention. Bauckman’s view is that Second

Peter combines the elements of both a letter and a testament. As noted above this approach

serves his purpose of establishing pseudonymity of the book. While his ultimate conclusion is

not preferred in this paper his argumentation of the genre demands a closer look. The fact that

Second Peter is a letter is not disputed and doesn’t require much explanation. Bauckman is

correct when he says, “Second Peter is also a genuine letter in that it was written and sent to

specific addressees: a church or group of churches which had been (among) the recipients of 1

Peter (3:1) and to which one or more letters of Paul had been addressed (3:15).”58 Next, he states

that “it is equally clear that 2 Peter belongs to the genre of ancient Jewish literature known to

modern scholars as the ‘farewell speech’ or ‘testament.’”59 Common examples of such works are

The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, The Testament of Moses, The Testament of Job as well

57 Ibid. 58 Bauckham, WBC, 132.

59 Ibid.

17

as parts of other writings, such as 1 Enoch, Tobit, 2 Baruch, Jubilees.60 The characteristic feature

of this genre of Jewish literature is, according to Bauckman a combination of ethical admonitions

and revelations of the future.61 The rest of the argument is not hard to predict. As Van

Houwelingen observes, “the reasoning usually followed is an invalid syllogism such as this:

‘Some Jewish letterform testaments are fictional; II Peter is a Jewish letter-form testament; ergo,

II Peter is fictional.’ It is fallacious, to draw conclusions about a particular letter from general or

typical characteristics of a genre with which it may have some affinity.”62 Van Houwelingen is

correct in that “the overarching genre category to which 2 Peter belongs is the letter,” since it is

in fact defined so by the author in 3:1.63 The testamental genre of Second Peter is also questioned

by Schreiner, Green and Charles.64 Due to the fact that there is anything but a consensus in

scholarly circles, perhaps, it is best remain cautious about embracing Bauckman’s approach since

it was always understood to be a letter by those who read it since the Early Church.

The next important introductory issue is the date of Second Peter. Obviously, the way one

determines the date of the epistle is closely tied with one’s opinion on authorship. Bauckman

notes, “Even within the last twenty years, commentaries and reference books have placed 2 Peter

in almost every decade from 60 to 160 a.d. (only the decade 70–80 seems to be

60 P. H. R. Van Houwelingen, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible

Solutions.” European Journal of Theology 19:2 (2010): 121.


62 P. H. R. Van Houwelingen, “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible

Solutions.” European Journal of Theology 19:2 (2010): 121.

63 Ibid.

64 Schreiner, NAC, 275; Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 37–38; and J. Daryl Charles, “Virtue

amidst Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1,” Journal for the Study of the New Testament

Supplement 150, (Sheffield, ENG: Academic Press, 1997), 75.

18

unrepresented).”65 However, depending on one’s view of the author, there seems to be three

main views regarding the date. First, Kistemaker notes that “scholars who dispute the apostolic

authorship of II Peter face a dearth of historical facts and therefore are forced to choose an

arbitrary date somewhere in the first half of the second century.”66 Those who think that it was

written by someone from the so-called “Petrine circle,” i.e. possibly a disciple of Peter or a

member of the church in Rome, choose a late first century date, e.g. Bauckman believes it was

written somewhere in 80-90 AD.67 The evidence presented in this paper supports Petrine

authorship, therefore, Peter must have written the letter shortly before his death. A fairly reliable

tradition suggests that Peter was martyred in Rome during emperor Nero’s persecution.68

Consequently, the epistle was composed between 64-68.69

Not much is known about the recipients of the letter. However, since the preference is

given to Petrine authorship, according to 2 Pet 3:1 and 1 Pet 1:1, the letter is addressed to

believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia.70

Much more is written about Peter’s opponents. As it is often the case with other New

Testament epistles it is hard to put an exact label on the group. In his helpful sketch of the false-

teachers Bauckham correctly emphasizes two distinct features of their heresy: (1) eschatological


66 Kistemaker, Peter and Jude, 231.

67 Ibid; Bauckham, WBC, 159.

68 Douglas J. Moo, 2 Peter, and Jude, NIVAC (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997),

24.



19

skepticism; and (2) licentious lifestyle.71 Some have traditionally tried to identify them as

Gnostics or proto-Gnostics, but as Schreiner correctly notes, “Gnostic thesis is unpersuasive…

We see no evidence of cosmological dualism in 2 Peter, nor is it clear that the false teachers

propounded a realized eschatology or even that their ethical libertinism stemmed from such

dualism.”72 More recently, however, they are seen as Epicureans.73 Davids summarizes the

Epicurean theory as follows: “(1) God does not intervene in the world, and (2) therefore there is

no reward for good or punishment for evil, (3) including no resurrection o f the dead, and (4) no

final judgment.”74 Yet, Schreiner is correct again, “it is unlikely that the opponents were full-

fledged Epicureans. It is difficult to see how the false teachers could be Christian in any sense of

the word if they embraced Epicurean thought. Any notion of Jesus as the Christ would be

precluded by Epicureanism.”75 Hence, it is more appropriate for sound scholarship to express

certain reservations in regard to identifying the heretics, rather than dive into speculations.

Perhaps, Schreiner said it best,

New Testament scholars have a penchant for attaching a name and a full-fledged theology to opponents so

that they can be classified precisely. But in this instance we are limited to a rather sketchy outline of the

theology of the false teachers. We face our distance from the original events here since the letter was

written to Peter’s churches, who knew the false teachers very well, and not to us.76



73 Freedman, ABD, 286; Davids, PNTC, 133-136.



76 Ibid.

20

Kistemaker offers a somewhat more factual and practically useful description of the false-

teachers:

1. They reject Jesus Christ and his gospel (2:1). 2. They repudiate Christian conduct (2:2). 3. They despise

authority (2:10a). 4. Arrogantly they “slander celestial beings” (2:10b). 5. Their lives are characterized by

immorality (2:13–14). 6. Although they teach freedom, they are slaves of depravity (2:19). 7. They ridicule

the doctrine of Christ’s return (3:4). 8. They refuse to acknowledge the coming judgment (3:5–7). 9. They

distort the teachings in Paul’s epistles and live in sin (3:16).77

The issue of literary relationships was already mentioned in the discussion of authorship

of Second Peter. Yet, only its relationship with the Epistle of Jude was discussed. In his

commentary Bauckham offers a useful survey of other literary relationships of Second Peter.78

They include: Old Testament; Jewish pseudepigrapha (only if literary dependence of Jude is

assumed); Other Jewish writings (e.g. Josephus and Philo); Pauline letters; Gospel traditions; and

other Petrine pseudepigrapha.79 In relation to First Peter, Bauckham cites an interesting study by

Holzmeister, which revealed that “38.6 percent are common to 1 and 2 Peter, 61.4 percent

peculiar to 2 Peter, while of the words used in 1 Peter, 28.4 percent are common to 1 and 2 Peter,

71.6 percent peculiar to 1 Peter.”80 Bauckham adds “These percentages do not compare badly

with those for 1 and 2 Corinthians: of the words used in 1 Corinthians, 40.4 percent are common

to 1 and 2 Corinthians, 59.6 percent are peculiar to 1 Corinthians; of the words used in 2

Corinthians, 49.3 percent are common to 1 and 2 Corinthians, 50.7 percent are peculiar to 2

Corinthians.”81


78 Bauckham, WBC, 140-151.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid, 144

81 Ibid.

21

Another distinguishing feature of Second Peter, which has yet to be mentioned in this

paper, is language. 2 Peter has fifty-seven hapax legomena (words not found elsewhere in the

NT), which is the highest proportion in any New Testament book.82 Of these fifty-seven only

twenty-five occur in the LXX.83 Out of the thirty-two words not found elsewhere in biblical

literature, fifteen are used in the works of Hellenistic Jewish writers such as Philo and

Josephus.84 Out of the fifty-seven hapax legomena seventeen appear in such apostolic fathers as

First and Second Clement, and the Shepherd of Hermas.85 This makes it easier to understand

why some suggested the Second Peter came out of either Hellenistic Judaism or Apostolic

Fathers. In his useful study of the language of Second Peter Bauckham includes the following

observation, “the list of hapax legomena includes enough extremely rare words to show that the

author is widely read, and fond of rather literary and poetic, even obscure words. They do not on

the whole seem to be used arbitrarily where common words would suffice as well, but contribute

to the author’s literary and rhetorical effects.”86 He also adds that “the language is employed with

the uneasy touch of one who has acquired the language in later life.”87

In terms of structure of Second Peter it is safe to say that no one has cast any significant

doubt on the unity of the letter.88 A fairly popular academic approach of rhetorical criticism was


83 Ibid.

84 Ibid.

85 Ibid.


87 Ibid.


22

applied to the epistle by Duane Watson.89 He “has analyzed the letter in terms of Greek rhetoric,

seeing an Epistolary Prescript (1:1–2), an Exordium (1:3–15), the Probatio (1:6–3:13), and the

Peroratio (3:14–18).”90 Schreiner is right, however, that Watson’s case for Second Peter is not

very convincing and he is also correct to note that “at some points rhetorical analyses are helpful

because New Testament writers were effective communicators, and hence they inevitably used

elements of Greek rhetoric. Nevertheless, it is quite another thing to argue that the letters were

consciously structured in accord with such rhetoric.”91

So what should be said of Second Peter at the conclusion of this paper? As this study has

hopefully shown, this New Testament book hardly deserves the reputation assigned by some and

described by Thielman at the outset of the paper. Certainly, it offers some unique challenges in

the area of Bible Introduction; however, none of them are insurmountable in regard to

authenticity, authorship and character of the letter. It certainly does not take one to sacrifice his

intellect to accept Petrine authorship.

A major objective of this analysis is to provide scholarly support and a firm foundation of

trusting God’s unchanging Word and taking it at its face value in the world of ever-changing

scholarly opinions. Of course, new perspectives and innovative approaches are always welcomed

and appreciated even in the field of biblical studies. Yet they must be aimed at providing

assistance in Bible exegesis and exposition and not at undermining the authority and the message

89 Duane F. Watson, Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and

2 Peter. Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series 104. (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), in

Schreiner, NAC, 281.

90 Ibid.

91 Ibid.

23

of Scripture. This study of special introduction to the Second Epistle Peter allows exegetes to

confidently proceed to a more difficult task of faithfully expounding the truth communicated by

its Author to His church. The sincere hope underlying this study is that when expositors of

Scripture approach Second Peter, they will be aided and not hindered in their exposition by the

introductory material and encouraged to faithfully carry out their responsibility to shepherd and

nourish their flocks according to the truth of Scripture. In order to do so they must know that

“Second Peter is far from an embarrassment to the New Testament canon. It provides an

exemplary attempt to emphasize an important theological principle in the face of specific attacks

on it, and to do so in a way that is sensitive to the culture in the face of specific attacks on it, and

to do so in a way that is sensitive to the culture of those whom it addresses.”92

92 Thielman, Theology of the New Testament, 535.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauckham, Richard J. Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 50, 2 Peter, Jude. Waco, Tex.: Word

Books, 1983.

Blum, Edwin A. The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Hebrews through Revelation. Edited by

Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 12. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982.

Carson, D.A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 2005.

Davids, Peter H. The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude, PNTC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B.

Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2006.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Doubleday, New York: Yale

University Press, 1992.

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Rev. and

expanded. ed. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1986.

Gempf, Conrad, “Pseudonymity and the New Testament,” Themelios 17, no. 2 (1992): 8-10.

Gilmour, Michael J. “2 Peter in Recent Research: A Bibliography.” The Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 42, no. 4 (December 1999): 673-78.

______ “Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter.” Evangelical Quarterly 73 (2001): 291–309.

Green, Michael. 2 Peter and Jude (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (IVP Numbered)).

Reprint ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: IVP Academic, 2009.

Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 4th rev. ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic,

1990.

Kelly, J. N. D. Epistles of Peter and of Jude, The (Black's New Testament Commentary). Grand

Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1993.

Kistemaker, Simon J. New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the

Epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Pub Group, 1987.

Kruger, M. J. “The Authenticity of 2 Peter.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

42, no. 4 (1999): 645–71.

25

Moo, Douglas J. 2 Peter, and Jude, NIVAC. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC. Nashville, Tenn.: Holman Reference, 2003.

Snyder, John. “A 2 Peter Bibliography.” The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22,

no. 3 (September 1979): 265-67.

Picirilli, Robert E. “Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers.” Journal for the Study of the

New Testament 33 (1988): 57-83.

Van Houwelingen, P. H. R. “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions.”

European Journal of Theology 19:2 (2010): 119–129.

Wall, Robert W. “The canonical function of 2 Peter.” Biblical Interpretation 9 (2001): 64-81.

Walvoord, John, and Roy Zuck. Vol. 2, The Bible Knowledge Commentary An Exposition of the

Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.

SPECIAL INTRODUCTION TO SECOND PETER

Documents

Transcript of SPECIAL INTRODUCTION TO SECOND PETER