Editing Second Epistle of Peter (section)

== Authorship and date ==
{{See also|Authorship of the Petrine epistles}}
According to the Epistle itself, it was composed by the Apostle Peter, an eyewitness to Jesus' ministry. {{bibleverse|2 Peter|3:1}} says "This is now the second letter I have written to you"; if this is an allusion to [[1 Peter]], then the audience of the epistle may have been the same as it was for 1 Peter, namely, various churches in [[Asia Minor]] (see {{bibleverse|1 Peter|1:1}}).

The date of composition has proven to be difficult to determine.  Taken literally, it would have been written around AD 64–68, as Christian tradition holds Peter was martyred in the 60s by [[Nero]], and also because Peter references his approaching death in {{bibleverse|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").<ref>Bauckham, RJ (1983), Word Bible Commentary, Vol. 50, Jude-2 Peter, Waco.</ref>

The questions of authorship and date are closely related. Scholars consider the epistle to have been written anywhere between c. AD 60–150, with "some reason to favour" a date between 80 and 90.<ref name=duff>Duff, J. (2001). 78. 2 Peter, in [[John Barton (theologian)|John Barton]] and [[John Muddiman]] (ed.), "Oxford Bible Commentary". Oxford University Press. p. 1271</ref> Dates suggested by various authors include:

* c. 60 ([[Charles Bigg]])<ref>Bigg, C. (1901) "The Epistle of St Peter and Jude", in ''[[International Critical Commentary]]''. pp. 242-47.</ref>
* 63 (Giese, Wohlenberg)<ref>Giese. C. P. (2012). 2 Peter and Jude. Concordia Commentary. St Louis: Concordia. pp. 11.</ref><ref>Wohlenberg, G. (1915). Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief, pp. 37.</ref>   
* 64 – 110 ([[Peter H. Davids|Davids]])<ref>Davids, P. H. (2006). The Letters of 2 Peter and Jude. (PNTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 130-260. at. 130-131.</ref>
*Mid 60s (Harvey and Towner, [[Michael Green (theologian)|M. Green]], [[Douglas J. Moo|Moo]], [[William D. Mounce|Mounce]])<ref>Harvey and Towner. (2009). 2 Peter & Jude. pp. 15.</ref><ref>Green, M. (1987). Second Epistle General of Peter and the Epistle of Jude. An Introduction and Commentary. Rev. ed. TNTC. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. pp. 47.</ref><ref>Moo, D. J. (1996). 2 Peter and Jude. NIVAC. Grand Rapids: Zondervan. pp. 24-25.</ref><ref>Mounce. (1982). A Living Hope. pp. 99.</ref>
* c. 70 or 80 (Chaine)<ref>Chaine, J. (1943). Les Epitres Catholiques. pp. 34.</ref>  
* 75 – 100 ([[Richard J. Bauckham|Bauckham]], perhaps about 80–90)<ref>Bauckham 1983, 157-158.</ref>
* 80 – 90 (Duff)<ref name=duff />
* c. 90 ([[Bo Reicke|Reicke]], Spicq)<ref>Reicke, B. (1964). James, Peter and Jude. pp. 144 -145.</ref><ref>Spicq, C. (1966). Epitres de Saint Pierre. pp. 195.</ref>
*Late first or early second century ([[Pheme Perkins|Perkins]], [[Daniel J. Harrington|Harrington]], Werse)<ref>Perkins, P. (1995). First and Second Peter. pp. 160.</ref><ref>Harrington, D. J. (2008). “Jude and 2 Peter”. pp. 237.</ref><ref>Werse, N. R. (2016). Second Temple Jewish Literary Traditions in 2 Peter. The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Vol. 78, No. 1. pp. 113.</ref>
* c. 100 (Schelkle)<ref>Schelkle, K. H. (1964). Die Petrusbriefe. pp. 178-179.</ref>
* 100 – 110 (Knoch, [[John Norman Davidson Kelly|Kelly]])<ref>Knoch, O. (1998). Erste und Zweite Petrusbrief. pp. 213.</ref><ref>Kelly, J. N. D. (1969). Epistles of Peter and of Jude, The (Black's New Testament Commentary). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic. pp. 237.</ref>
* 100 – 125 ([[M. R. James|James]], Vogtle, Paulsen)<ref>James, M. R. (1912). Second Epistle General of Peter. pp. 30.</ref><ref>Vogtle, A. (1994). Der Judasbrief/Der 2. Petrusbrief. pp. 237.</ref><ref>Paulsen, H. (1992). Der Zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. pp. 94.</ref> 
* 100 – 140 (Callan, perhaps about 125)<ref>Callan. (2014). Acknowledging the Divine Benefactor: The Second Letter of Peter. James Clarke & Company pp 36.</ref>    
* 130 ([[Raymond E. Brown]], Sidebottom)<ref>R. E. Brown 1997, 767.</ref><ref>Sidebottom, E. M. (1982) James, Jude, 2 Peter. New Century Bible Commentary. Eerdmans Publishing Co. Grand Rapids-Michigan. pp. 99.</ref>
* 150 ([[Stephen L. Harris|L. Harris]])<ref name="Harris1980"/>

The scholarly debate can be divided into two parts: external and internal evidence. The external evidence for its authenticity, although feasible, remains open to criticism. (There is debate as to whether 2 Peter is being quoted or the other way around.) Much of this debate derives from Professor Robert E. Picirilli's article "Allusion to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers," which compiles many of the allusions by the [[Apostolic Fathers]] of the late first and early second centuries, thus demonstrating that 2 Peter is not to be considered a second-century document.<ref name=Picirilli>{{cite journal |title=Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers |journal=Journal for the Study of the New Testament |date=May 1988 |last=Picirilli |first=Robert E. |volume=10 |issue=33 |pages=57–83 |doi=10.1177/0142064X8801003304|s2cid=161724733 }}</ref> Despite this effort, scholars such as Michael J. Gilmour, who consider Picirilli's evidences to be correct, disagree with classifying the work as authentic but rather as a [[pseudepigrapha]], arguing among many other things that [[Paul the Apostle|Paul]] ({{bibleverse||2 Thessalonians|2:1-2}}) had to warn against contemporary pseudo-Pauline writers.<ref>Gilmour, Michael. J. (2001), "Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter" EvQ 73. Pp. 298-300</ref>

The internal debate focuses more on its style, its ideology, and its relationship to the other works and stories. Some of the internal arguments against the authenticity of 2 Peter have gained significant popularity since the 1980s. One such argument is the argument that the scholar [[Bo Reicke]] first formulated in 1964, where he argued that 2 Peter is clearly an example of an ancient literary genre known as a 'testament', which originally arose from Moses' farewell discourse in [[Deuteronomy]].<ref>Reicke 1964, 146.</ref>{{Efn|Within the New Testament it is speculated that 2 Timothy, John 13-17, Luke 22:21-38, and Acts 20:18-35 are also farewell discourses or testamentary works.<ref>Collins, Raymond (2002). 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary. Westminster John Knox Press. pp. 182–83.</ref><ref>Bauckham, R. J. (2010). The Jewish World Around the New Testament. Baker Academic. p. 144.</ref>}}{{Efn|In addition to the end of Deuteronomy within the Old Testament, it is speculated that Genesis 47:29–49:33 and 1 Samuel 12 are also farewell discourses.<ref>John Reumann (1991). "Two Blunt Apologists for Early Christianity: Jude and 2 Peter"; [https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262015.003.0015 Variety and Unity in New Testament Thought]. Oxford Scholarship Online.</ref>}} [[Richard J. Bauckham]], who popularized this argument, wrote that the 'testament' genre contains two main elements: ethical warnings to be followed after the death of the writer and revelations of the future. The significant fact about the 'testament' genre was not in its markers but in its nature; it is argued that a piece of 'testament' literature is meant to "be a completely transparent fiction."<ref>Bauckham 1983, 131–33.</ref> This argument has its detractors, who classify it as a [[syllogism]].<ref>Thomas R. Schreiner, 2003, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, NAC, Nashville, [[Tennessee|TN]]: Holman Reference), pp. 266–75, at 275.</ref><ref>Green, Gene (2008). Jude and 2 Peter. Baker Academic, pp. 37–38.</ref><ref>P. H. R. Van Houwelingen (2010), “The Authenticity of 2 Peter: Problems and Possible Solutions.” European Journal of Theology 19:2, pp. 121–32.</ref><ref>J. Daryl Charles, 1997, “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, pp. 75.</ref><ref>Mathews, Mark. D. (2011). The Genre of 2 Peter: A Comparison with Jewish and Early Christian Testaments. Bulletin for Biblical Research 21.1: pp. 51–64.</ref> Others characterize the writing as a 'farewell speech' because it lacks any semblance of final greetings or ties with recipients.<ref>Reumann 1991.</ref>

One of the questions to be resolved is 2 Peter's relationship with the Pauline letters since it refers to the [[Pauline epistles]] and so must postdate at least some of them, regardless of authorship. Thus, a date before AD 60 is improbable. Further, it goes as far as to name the Pauline epistles as "scripture"—one of only two times a New Testament work refers to another New Testament work in this way—implying that it postdates them by some time.<ref name="Martin 2009"/><!-- Material like this often gets altered by people who don't want to examine the source, so I'll specify it here: search the transcript for the words "Notice what he's doing, he actually calls Paul's letters scripture. [...] But Paul didn't think he was writing scripture. [...] This guy, though, is far enough removed from Paul's own day that he can actually refer to Paul's letters as themselves part of scripture. That's one of the reasons we think this took awhile to develop. You just don't have in early Christianity, the automatic acceptance of Paul's occasional letters, because they were letters written to real situations, being elevated now to the status of holy writing, scripture. This author is living now in a post-apostolic age and a post-Pauline age [...] probably by this time he's already familiar with maybe a collection of Paul's letters that are being circulated as scripture among different churches in Asia Minor. He also may, as I said, be familiar with some Gospels that are being circulated as authoritative texts in early Christianity. He's clearly living in a later time, like I said, maybe in the second century, when these things have happened." The YouTube video has it at 39:51~42:03. --> Various hypotheses have been put forward to improve or resolve this issue; one notable hypothesis is that the [[First Epistle of Clement]] (c. AD 96), by citing as Scripture several of the Pauline letters,<ref name="Metzger">[[Bruce M. Metzger]], ''Canon of the New Testament'' ([[Oxford University Press]]) 1987:42–43.</ref> was inspired by 2 Peter because it was considered authentic. This would mean that even the recipients of 1 Clement, the inhabitants of [[Corinth]], would have also considered it authentic, which would indicate that the letter must have been in circulation long before that time.<ref>E. Randolph Richards. (1998). The Code and the Early Collection of Paul's Letters. BBR 8. PP. 155-162.</ref> The earliest reference to a Pauline collection is probably found in [[Ignatius of Antioch]] around AD 108.<ref>Duane F. Watson, Terrance D. Callan. (2012). First and Second Peter (Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament). Baker Books.</ref><ref>[[Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians]] 12:2 and [[Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans]] 4:3.</ref>

Another debate is about its linguistic complexity and its relationship with 1 Peter. According to the scholar [[Bart D. Ehrman]], the historical [[Saint Peter|Peter]] could not have written any works, either because he was "unlettered" ({{bibleverse|Acts|4:13}}) or because he was a fisherman from [[Capernaum]], a comparatively small and probably monolingual town, in a time and province where there was little literacy.<ref name="ehrman">{{Cite book|title=Forged: Writing in the Name of God: Why the Bible's authors are not who we think they are|last=Ehrman |first=Bart |date=2011|publisher=Harper One|isbn=9780062012616|oclc=639164332|page=52&ndash;77; 133&ndash;141}}</ref> Bauckham addresses the statistical differences in the vocabulary of the two writings, using the data given by U. Holzmeister's 1949 study;<ref>Holzmeister, U. (1949). Vocabularium secundae espitolae S. Petri erroresque quidam de eo divulg ati. Biblica 30:339-355.</ref> 38.6 percent of the words 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 are peculiar to 1 Peter. However, these figures can be compared with other epistles considered authentic,<ref>Bauckham 1983, 144. “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.”</ref> showing that pure statistical analysis of this type is a weak way of showing literary relationship.<ref>[[Bruce M. Metzger]]. (1972). Literary Forgeries and Canonical Pseudepigrapha. Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 91, No. 1 (Mar., 1972), pp. 3-24 at. 17.</ref><ref>[[Bruce M. Metzger]]. (1958). A Reconsideration of Certain Arguments Against the Pauline Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles. The Expository Times 1970; pp. 91-99.</ref><ref>Bauckham 1983, 144.</ref> Bauckham also notes that "the Greek style of Second Peter is not to the taste of many modern readers, at times pretentiously elaborate, with an effort at pompous phrasing, a somewhat artificial piece of rhetoric, and 'slimy Greek'"; contrary to the style of the first epistle, "2 Peter must relate to the 'Asiatic Greek.'"<ref>Bauckham 1983, 138.</ref> The crux of the matter is how these differences are explained. Those who deny the Petrine authorship of the epistle, such as, for example, [[John Norman Davidson Kelly|Kelly]], insist that the differences show that First and Second Peter were not written by the same person.<ref>Kelly 1993, 237.</ref> Others add that 2 Peter was a specific type of [[pseudepigraphy]] common and morally accepted at the time, either because it was a testamentary genre or because the works of the disciples could bear the names of their masters without any inconvenience.<ref>Bauckham, RJ. (1988). Pseudo-Apostolic Letters. Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 107, No. 3 (Sep., 1988), pp. 469-494 (26 pages). at. 489.</ref><ref>Armin D. Baum. (2017). Content and Form: Authorship Attribution and Pseudonymity in Ancient Speeches, Letters, Lectures, and Translations—A Rejoinder to Bart Ehrman. Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 136, No. 2 (Summer 2017), pp. 381-403 (23 pages). at. 389-390.</ref>{{Efn|[[Tertullian]], ''Adversus Marcionem''. 4.5.3-4; ''That which Mark edited is stated to be Peter’s [Petri affirmetur], whose interpreter Mark was. Luke’s digest also they usually attribute to Paul [Paulo adscribere solent]. It is permissible for the works which disciples published to be regarded as belonging to their masters [Capit magistrorum videri quae discipuli promulgarint]''.}}

Those who defend Petrine authorship often appeal to the different [[amanuenses]] or secretaries Peter used to write each letter, as first suggested by [[Jerome]].<ref>Jerome, Letter 120 [to Hedibia]: Therefore Titus served as an interpreter, as Saint Mark used to serve Saint Peter, with whom he wrote his Gospel. Also we see that the two epistles attributed to Saint Peter have different styles and turn phrases differently, by which it is discerned that it was sometimes necessary for him to use different interpreters.</ref><ref>Blum. "2 Peter" EBC, 12: 259.</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20031209164253/http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/2petotl.htm ''Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline'']. Archive date: 9 December 2003. Access date: 19 August 2013.</ref> [[Thomas R. Schreiner]] criticizes people who regard arguments in favor of the authenticity of 2 Peter as mere arguments of religious conservatives who impotently try to invent arguments to support authenticity. People of this mindset, according to Schreiner, object to the claim that different secretaries may have been used but then claim that the corpus of the two letters is too small to establish stylistic variation. Schreiner states: 
{{blockquote|When we examine historical documents, we are not granted exhaustive knowledge of the circumstances in which the document came into being. Therefore, we must postulate probabilities, and in some cases, of course, more than one scenario is likely. Moreover, in some cases the likely scenarios are not internally contradictory, but both constitute plausible answers to the problem posed. Suggesting more than one solution is not necessarily an appeal to despair, but can be a sign of humility.<ref>Schreiner 2003, pp. 266.</ref>}}

The scholar [[Simon J. Kistemaker]] believes that linguistically "the material presented in both documents provides substantial evidence to indicate that these letters are the product of a single author."<ref>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</ref> However, this view is very much in the minority. Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphal.<ref name="Brown, Raymond E. 1997"/><ref name="Erhman 2005 31">{{cite book|last=Erhman|first=Bart|title=Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why|year=2005|publisher=Harper Collins|isbn=978-0-06-182514-9|page=31|quote= Evidence comes in the final book of the New Testament to be written, 2 Peter, a book that most critical scholars believe was not actually written by Peter but by one of his followers, pseudonymously.}}</ref><ref name="moyise">{{cite book|first=Steve|last=Moyise|title=The Old Testament in the New|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TCSOK_Q4D1sC&pg=PA116|date=9 December 2004|publisher=A&C Black|isbn=978-0-567-08199-5|page=116}}</ref><ref name="Harris1992">{{cite book|author=Stephen L. Harris|title=Understanding the Bible|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a64SAQAAIAAJ|year=1992|publisher=Mayfield|isbn=978-1-55934-083-0|page=388|quote=Most scholars believe that 1 Peter is pseudonymous (written anonymously in the name of a well-known figure) and was produced during postapostolic times.}}</ref><ref name="Harris1980">{{cite book|author=Stephen L. Harris|title=Understanding the Bible: a reader's guide and reference|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TGJKeHOmGhwC|year=1980|publisher=Mayfield Pub. Co.|isbn=978-0-87484-472-6|page=295|quote=Virtually no authorities defend the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, which is believed to have been written by an anonymous churchman in Rome about 150 C.E.}}</ref><ref name="Martin 2009">[[Dale Martin (scholar)|Dale Martin]] 2009 (lecture). {{YouTube|XJ9Gt_R5a-k|"24. Apocalyptic and Accommodation"}}. [[Yale University]]. Accessed 22 July 2013. [http://www.cosmolearning.com/video-lectures/apocalyptic-and-accommodation-6817/ Lecture 24 (transcript)]</ref><!-- A Yale professor stating that the majority of scholars reject the Petrine authorship is a valid source for the statement that the majority of scholars reject the Petrine authorship. EVERY OTHER REPUTABLE ACADEMIC SOURCE says the same thing. DO NOT ALTER THIS SENTENCE TO SAY SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO WHAT THE SOURCE SAYS AGAIN. --> Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of [[Epistle of Jude|Jude]], possible allusions to second-century [[gnosticism]], encouragement in the wake of a delayed [[Second Coming|parousia]], and weak external support.<ref>Grant, Robert M. [http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1234  ''A Historical Introduction To The New Testament'', chap. 14] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100621102730/http://religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1116&C=1234 |date=2010-06-21 }}.</ref>