Second Peter and the Authorship Question

Second Peter presents itself as the apostle’s farewell testament — written, he says, in the knowledge that “the putting off of my body will be soon” (2 Pet 1:14) — and defends, against false teachers and scoffers, the certainty of the Lord’s coming. It is also the most disputed book of the New Testament canon: doubted in antiquity, judged pseudonymous by the great majority of modern critical scholars, and yet received by the Church as canonical and apostolic Scripture. This file presents both the letter’s content and, as a structured [Disputed] matter, its authorship and its path into the canon.

Tradition: Pan-Orthodox (Apostle)

The Letter as Testament

Second Peter is cast as Peter’s last words. The author writes “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours” (2 Pet 1:1), recalls the gift of “his precious and very great promises” by which believers “become partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4 — a verse foundational to the Orthodox doctrine of theōsis, deification), and then states his purpose: “I intend always to remind you of these qualities… since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things” (2 Pet 1:12–15). The reference to the Lord’s making clear his coming death (cf. John 21:18–19; see The Restoration) frames the whole as a testament: an apostle’s final exhortation, to be remembered after he is gone.

The Transfiguration and the Word of Prophecy

The author grounds his authority in eyewitness testimony to the Transfiguration: “For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,’ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Pet 1:16–18; cf. Matt 17:1–8, where Peter, James, and John witness the Transfiguration). On this eyewitness ground the letter affirms “the prophetic word more fully confirmed” and teaches that “no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation… but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:19–21) — a classic text on the inspiration of Scripture.

False Teachers, Scoffers, and the Day of the Lord

The body of the letter (ch. 2) is a sustained denunciation of false teachers who “secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them” (2 Pet 2:1), promising freedom while themselves slaves of corruption (2 Pet 2:19). Chapter 2 runs closely parallel to the Epistle of Jude, a literary relationship discussed below. The third chapter answers the “scoffers” who mock the delay of the Lord’s return — “Where is the promise of his coming?” (2 Pet 3:4) — with the assurance that “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day,” that the Lord is “patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish” (2 Pet 3:8–9), and that “the day of the Lord will come like a thief,” when “the heavens will pass away with a roar” (2 Pet 3:10). It closes with the striking notice that “our beloved brother Paul” wrote “according to the wisdom given him,” in letters containing “some things… hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures” (2 Pet 3:15–16) — a passage that already groups Paul’s letters with “the other Scriptures.”

The Authorship Question

[Disputed: the authorship of 2 Peter is one of the most contested questions in New Testament scholarship. (a) The great majority of modern critical scholars judge 2 Peter to be **pseudonymous** — written in Peter's name by a later author, probably in the late first or early second century — and it is frequently regarded as the latest book of the New Testament. The principal arguments: its Greek style and vocabulary differ markedly from 1 Peter (already noted by Jerome, *De Viris Illustribus* 1, who reports the stylistic difference and the resulting doubts); chapter 2 appears to depend on the Epistle of Jude; 2 Pet 3:15–16 refers to a collection of Paul's letters as "Scripture," suggesting a later date; and the "scoffers" who mock the delay of the *parousia* fit a later generation. Representative scholarship: Richard Bauckham, *Jude, 2 Peter* (WBC 50, 1983), who reads it as a pseudonymous "testament" of Peter; and the broad consensus surveyed in the standard introductions. (b) The early Church itself doubted it: **Origen** (in Eusebius, *HE* 6.25.8) notes that Peter "left one acknowledged epistle, and possibly a second, for it is disputed"; **Eusebius** lists 2 Peter among the *antilegomena*, the disputed books (*HE* 3.3.1–4; 3.25.3); and it is absent from some early canons. (c) A minority of scholars defend Petrine authorship or authorship by Peter's circle, appealing to the use of an amanuensis (as Silvanus for 1 Peter, 1 Pet 5:12) to account for the differing style. (d) Decisively for this collection: whatever its human authorship, the **Church received 2 Peter as canonical and apostolic Scripture**. After its disputed early history it was accepted into the canon (included in Athanasius's *Festal Letter* 39 of 367 and ratified by the councils of the late fourth century), and it has been read as the inspired and apostolic word in the Orthodox Church ever since. The Orthodox tradition does not resolve the historical-critical question by dogma; it receives the letter as Scripture while acknowledging, with Origen and Eusebius, the genuine ancient and modern dispute over its authorship.]

The Relation to Jude

The close parallel between 2 Peter 2 and the Epistle of Jude is one of the surest data in the discussion. The two share their denunciation of the false teachers, their examples (the fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah, Balaam, Korah), and much wording. The majority view is that 2 Peter depends on Jude, adapting and abbreviating it (and notably softening Jude’s appeals to the non-canonical 1 Enoch and the Assumption of Moses); a minority hold the reverse, or a common source (Bauckham 1983 surveys the question and argues for 2 Peter’s dependence on Jude). This literary relationship is part of the case for dating 2 Peter after Jude and bears on the authorship question above.

The Path into the Canon

The honest history of 2 Peter’s canonization is itself instructive (per METHODOLOGY §2–3). Unlike 1 Peter, which was acknowledged from the start, 2 Peter is nowhere certainly cited in the second century, was doubted by Origen and classed by Eusebius among the disputed books (HE 3.25.3), and won universal acceptance only gradually, being firmly fixed in the canon in the late fourth century (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, A.D. 367; the African councils). The Orthodox tradition takes this not as a scandal but as a window onto how the Church discerned its canon — by the slow reception of the believing community across the centuries, not by a single decree (on the canon, see Holy Scripture). That a book once disputed is now read as the inspired and apostolic word of God is precisely the work of Holy Tradition in receiving Scripture (see Holy Tradition).

References

The Holy Bible — 2 Peter 1:1–21; 2:1–22; 3:1–18; Jude; Matthew 17:1–8; John 21:18–19. Cited by book chapter:verse.
Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History 3.3.1–4; 3.25.3; 6.25.8. Trans. in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. 1. (2 Peter among the disputed books; Origen’s note.)
Jerome. On Illustrious Men (De Viris Illustribus) 1. Trans. NPNF II/3. (The stylistic difference between the two epistles and the resulting doubts.)
Athanasius. Festal Letter 39 (A.D. 367). Trans. NPNF II/4. (2 Peter in the canon of 27 books.)
Bauckham, Richard J. Jude, 2 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary 50. Waco: Word, 1983. (Pseudonymous testament; dependence on Jude.)
Bockmuehl, Markus. Simon Peter in Scripture and Memory. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012.