Authorship, Inerrancy, and Hermeneutics in 2 Peter

Kolton Ballance

Sep 1

7 min read

Introduction

There is perhaps no greater challenge to the book of 2 Peter than the challenge of authorship. Duane Warren claims that this issue dwarfs all other introductory concerns to the letter.^[1] This may strike some as odd since the letter opens with a clear claim to authorship: “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ.”[2] With such a debate raging through both ancient and modern literature, it demands answers to two questions. First, who really wrote the book of 2 Peter? Second, how does the answer to that question impact inerrancy and hermeneutics? These are precisely the two questions this brief paper will explore.

Who Wrote 2 Peter?

When it comes to authorship of 2 Peter, there are weighty arguments on both sides of the discussion. In the paragraphs to follow a brief overview of the strongest arguments on each side will be discussed.

The Case Against Petrine Authorship

There is a clear reluctance in the early church to accept 2 Peter as genuine. Eusebius, in talking about the epistles of Peter, said, “we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon, yet as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.”^[3] Eusebius seemed to put into words what much of the early church felt about the letter of 2 Peter. Namely, that it was edifying, but its authority was questionable.

The arguments, both ancient and modern, formed against Petrine authorship have been organized well by modern scholars.^[4] This paper will highlight only the most significant arguments. First, and most notable, is the difference in Greek style from the Greek style of 1 Peter. This has been recognized by both ancient and modern sources with the conclusion that Peter could not be the author of both letters.^[5] Second, and closely related to the first, is the letter seems to take the form of an ancient “testament” written after the death of a great hero in the faith by one of his followers. Scholars who proport this view would cite the claims to authorship in the book as similar to those in a pseudepigraphal work.^[6] Third, the letter seems to address second century Gnosticism rather than any first century heresies. Fourth, the early church expressed numerous doubts concerning the canonicity of 2 Peter.^[7] These are the four strongest arguments which are positioned against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter. There are other arguments which are made, but these seem to be the most prominent.

A Response

Each of these arguments have been answered by both ancient and modern critics. First, regarding the difference in Greek and style, Peter seems to have produced his first epistle through Silvanus the scribe (1 Peter 5:12) and it was known that there were other scribes associated with Peter as well.^[8] It would be logical to assume a difference in style had there been a different scribe or no scribe at all.^[9] Second, it is possible that Peter wrote this letter as a sort of last will and testament for his community which fit the mold of many ancient testaments. After all, he does refer to his impending death (2 Peter 1:14). Michael Green argues that this view of 2 Peter as a pseudograph is interestingly absent in church history until it was posed by Richard Bauckham in 1983.^[10] Thus, the weight of the argument seems frail. In fact, many ancient sources, accepted it as Petrine, even if not considered authoritative.^[11] Third, while the letters comments may address later heresies tied to Gnosticism, they also share a common warning cry with several other New Testament texts, placing them in the same vein as the rest of the first century authors (Col 2:4, 8, 16, 18-23; 2 Thess 2:1-4; 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 4:3-4; Titus 1:10-11; Jude). As Douglas Moo notes, “Nothing this letter addresses is unknown to the first century.”^[12] Fourth, it was common for the early church to express many doubts about many letters due to the circulation of non-apostolic writings which were presented as apostolic writings (2 Cor 11:13; 2 Thess 2:2) – especially those that were connected to Peter’s name.^[13]

A Case For Petrine Authorship

Perhaps the strongest case in favor of Petrine authorship comes from the internal evidence of the letter itself. This internal evidence stands in two categories: claims to authorship and arguments from authorship.

First, the letter vividly claims authorship on almost every page. The opening line claims, “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Pet 1:1). In 2 Peter 1:14, Peter alludes to a conversation between him and Jesus about the impending death of Peter.^[14] The author also claims to have been present at the transfiguration of Jesus where the voice from heaven said, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.” The author says that “we” (the apostles) were with him and heard the voice (2 Pet 1:17-18). The final allusion is in 2 Peter 3:1-2 where the author claims that this is the second letter being written by him and that they should listen to the apostolic voice. All of the internal claims in the letter point to the apostle Peter being the author. There is not sufficient evidence to doubt this claim.

Second, the entire argument of this letter hinges on the apostleship of the author. The introductory line introduces Simon Peter, the apostle, as the author (2 Pet 1:1). From this introductory statement concerning his apostleship, Peter builds his entire argument for the book. He argues that divine power has granted “us” (the apostles) everything pertaining to life and godliness, has called “us” (the apostles) by Christ’s own glory and excellence, and granted “us” (the apostles) with precious promises, so that by those promises “you” (the reader) may become partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:3-4). He picks up this same line of reasoning again later when he describes how “we” (the apostles) did not follow cleverly devised tales but rather were eyewitnesses of the transfiguration where “we” (the apostles) were with Christ and heard the voice from heaven (2 Pet 1:16-18). His admonition is for “you” (the reader) to pay attention to the prophetic word from these apostles (2 Pet 1:19). Then in chapter two the reader learns why it is important to pay attention to the apostolic voice: because false teachers have arrived secretly introducing heresy and denying the Lord Jesus (2 Pet 2:1). Peter returns to his apostleship in the third chapter when he says, “This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you in which I am stirring up your sincere mind by way of reminder, that you should remember the words spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles” (2 Pet 3:1-2 – emphasis added). The entire argument of the letter hinges on the authors apostleship. If Peter is not the author, the urgent plea of the letter to heed the apostolic message falls flat.

The internal evidence not only points to Petrine authorship through the claims it makes, but the letter demands Petrine authorship for coherence of argument. This naturally leads into the second question of this paper: How does authorship impact inerrancy and hermeneutics in 2 Peter?

How Does Authorship Impact Inerrancy and Hermeneutics?

Biblical inerrancy is undermined when the words on the page can no longer be trusted. If the reader cannot trust the claim that Simon Peter (2 Pet 1:1), the apostle who had a conversation about his death with Jesus (2 Pet 1:14), who was present at the transfiguration and heard the voice from heaven (2 Pet 1:17-18), who is also writing his second letter to the churches (2 Pet 3:1), then nothing in the letter can be trusted. Biblical inerrancy has fallen apart because the claim of the letter is erroneous.

Furthermore, interpreting the letter becomes a challenge. As was already mentioned, if Peter is not the author of 2 Peter the entire argument of the letter falls apart. The entirety of the letter hinges on apostolic authority (2 Peter 1:1-4; 1:16-19; 3:1-2). If the letter is not from Peter, then it lies in the words of a fraud. Furthermore, as Warren stated, there is a “self-conscious deceit” of the author if it is not Peter.^[15] Without Peter, this book loses all authority, loses its argumentative power, and stands as nothing more than a fraudulent warning from an anonymous source whom Christian may or may not need to listen to. Thus, hermeneutics begin to crumble when authorship is undermined. With all of this in view, any readers seeking to draw an interpretation from the letter must filter their reading through the inerrant, divinely revealed, apostolic authority of Peter the apostle of the Lord Jesus, as it is written in the letter of 2 Peter.

Conclusion

Authorship of 2 Peter is a hotly debated subject in both ancient and modern literature. While there are some strong arguments against Petrine authorship, each one of them has a clear and logical answer providing reasons to accept the authorship given at face value. Furthermore, the internal claims of Petrine authorship, as well as the argumentation of the letter demand Peter the apostle as the author. Denying this truth in the text is to deny Biblical inerrancy and forfeit a trustworthy hermeneutic.

Footnotes

^[1] Duane Warren, “1 & 2 Peter and Jude,” Truth for Today Commentary: An Exegesis & Application of the Holy Scriptures, edited by Eddie Cloer (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 2009), 297.

^[2] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references are from the New American Standard Bible, (NASB) (La

Habra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1995).

^[3] Eusebius, The Church History of Eusebius, 3.3.1.

^[4] For a good summary of the arguments, see Thomas R. Schreiner, “1, 2 Peter, Jude,” The New American Commentary, volume 37, edited by E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 256-259. See also Douglas J. Moo, “2 Peter and Jude,” The NIV Application Commentary: From biblical text…to contemporary life (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 24.

^[5] For a modern source see Richard J. Bauckham, “Jude, 2 Peter,” Word Biblical Commentary, volume 50 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1983), 158-164. For an ancient source see Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 1. For a summary of ancient perspectives on style, see William Barclay, “The Letters of James and Peter,” The Daily Bible Study Series, revised edition (Philadelphia, PA: The Westminster Press, 1976), 285-288.

^[6] Bauckham, “Jude, 2 Peter,” Word Biblical Commentary, 158-164.

^[7] Eusebius, The Church History of Eusebius, 6.25.8. See also, John Calvin, Commentaries on The Catholic Epistles, translated and edited by John Owen.

^[8] Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, 7.17.

^[9] Michael Green, “2 Peter and Jude: An Introduction and Commentary,” Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, volume 18, edited by Leon Morris (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1987), 23-30

^[10] Ibid., 43-48.

^[11] Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, 1. See also Eusebius, The Church History of Eusebius, 3.3.1.

^[12] Moo, “2 Peter and Jude,” The NIV Application Commentary, 24.

^[13] Schreiner, “1, 2 Peter, Jude,” The New American Commentary, 262-264

^[14] This conversation is recorded by the apostle John around 95AD in John 21:18ff. This reference in 2 Peter 1:14 is the only other reference in scripture to that conversation.

^[15] Warren, “1 & 2 Peter and Jude,” Truth for Today Commentary, 297.