The Authorship of 2 Peter

The final exam in General Epistles approacheth, and it promises a mini-essay on the final exam about the authorship of 2 Peter. I told the students I would send them some notes on what points they should cover to get full points, although I am not demanding that they take any particular position on the issue. Most, I assume, will argue for literal Petrine authorship.

Here are the relevant data to consider in the essay:

1. The Greek style of 2 Peter

• Style is different from 1 Peter, often called "Asiatic"
• Would a Galilean fisherman write Greek with Homeric and classical Greek overtones?
• What if both 1 and 2 Peter were written by different secretaries, who were primarily responsible for its style and manner of presentation?

2. The likely incorporation of material from Jude

• Why would Peter borrow from Jude? If Jude is late, it would seem to preclude Peter.
• But we do not know for sure either when Peter or Jude died, when Jude as written, and of course some think Jude borrowed from 2 Peter.

3. The contrast in eschatology from 1 Peter

• 1 Peter says the end of all things is near and that the judgment has begun. 2 Peter seems to say that in the future, scoffers will ask why Christ has not come back yet.
• This difference seems quite substantial. At the very least it would seem to imply a different audience from 1 Peter. But of course this is a tension Christians affirm even today. We affirm an imminent expectation of Christ's return while living as if the world might still be here in a hundred years.

4. Alternation between present and future tense

• 3:3 says, scoffers will come. But 3:4 speaks of them in the present tense, "they forget."
• If pseudonymous, the shift surely would imply that the audience would know it was not really Peter writing, but a literary device, and thus no deception would be involved.
• Could be vivid writing, getting strongly into the heads of future scoffers; sometimes you can see what's coming, even though it's only starting

5. Possible sense that the apostles are all dead

• 3:2 could be taken to talk about the apostles and founding Christian prophets in the past tense; 3:4 could be taken to say that the fathers of Christianity will die before the scoffers come.
• If pseudonymous, surely the implication would be that a literary device is in play, since anyone would notice a document talking about its putative author in the past tense.
• Apostles could be more general than the twelve; prophets could refer to OT prophets.

6. Possible broadening of the scope of Paul's audiences

• Paul wrote to specific audiences. 2 Peter seems to be written to all Christians. 3:15 seems to imply that at least one of Paul's letters, perhaps Romans, was directed at the audience of 2 Peter, and thus all Christians. How naturally would the historical Peter have made this shift, to see Romans or Paul's letters as letters to all people rather than particular letters to particular audiences?
• If we believe in revelation, God could inform Peter of such a shift in an instant.

7. Possible collection of Paul's writings

• Would Paul's writings be available somewhat universally within 10 years of their writing?
• It is possible.

8. Consideration of Paul's writings as Scripture

• Paul's writings seem to be considered Scripture like the Old Testament writings--quite remarkable development within some ten years of their writing and by someone known to differ with Paul on various issues in the past.
• Again, God could inform Peter of such a shift in an instant.

Davids on Bauckham on 2 Peter

Came across this statement by Peter H. Davids in his 2 Peter commentary in the new Pillar series, writing about Richard Bauckham's understanding of 2 Peter as a testament. I cannot think of any basis on which to disagree with Davids:

"While Bauckham believes that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical, he also believes that it is written in a testamental form and that the genre would have been recognized by any contemporary reader as being written in the spirit of Peter rather than having been written by Peter. Thus, he argues, the document was neither intended to deceive nor did it in fact deceive its first readers. They would have thought of it as being about Peter rather than by Peter. Bauckham may be right or wrong on this, but the position he holds is fully compatible with evangelical affirmations about the trustworthiness of the canonical Scriptures in all that they truly affirm (versus what we may misread them as affirming)" (130 n.20).

2 Peter 2 (Video Commentary)

In lieu of class tomorrow, here is a quick video run through 2 Peter 2, with special reference to parallel verses in Jude.

A Tale of Two Introductions: 2 Peter

I have had my Monday and Tuesday classes engage in various blog discussions in lieu of me being away. Here is the assignment for the General Epistles class, given that they were to read three introductions to 2 Peter: 1) Doug Moo's intro in the NIV Application Commentary series, 2) Ralph Martin's intro in the New Testament Theology series, and 3) Richard Bauckham's intro in the IVP Dictionary of the New Testament.

They are to give a 200 word response to 1) a "testament" introduction to 2 Peter and 2) a "traditional" introduction. Here are the two different introductions:

Introduction 1: Testament Introduction
Although 2 Peter begins by telling us that the apostle Peter is its author, an ancient Jewish audience would have soon recognized it to be a kind of "testament." A testament was a kind of final statement someone made right before they died to help others remember what their life had stood for. They would thus suspect that Peter was in fact not the writer of this letter, but that this letter was meant to remind an audience of what Peter stood for a couple decades after his death. The mention of Peter witnessing the Transfiguration, for example, was not lying, but a literary device meant to remind the audience that Peter himself had been an eyewitness of things the audience was doubting.

A number of features are taken in evidence of a later date for 2 Peter. The style is quite different from 1 Peter and has a lot of rare biblical vocabulary. While 1 Peter expects the Lord's return to take place very soon, 2 Peter speaks of it taking place in the future after the Christian "fathers" have died. In talking about the coming false prophets, it switches from the future tense (as if Peter is speaking) to the present tense (the time it is actually being written). It considers Paul's writings as Scripture, perhaps addressed to a universal audience (which is not how he wrote them)--something unlikely to happen within Peter's lifetime.

So the reference in 3:1 to the previous letter is possibly a reference to 1 Peter, even though 2 Peter doesn't have the same audience as 1 Peter. But the pseudonymous author means to remind the audience of what Peter stood for and to renew their confidence in it.

Introduction 2: Traditional Introduction
1 Peter begins by saying that Peter is its author. As such, deception would be involved if that were not the case. All the evidence we have from the early church suggests that the early Christians considered such writings as forgeries. Further, while there are ancient examples of pseudonymous writings, including the testament genre, we have no ancient testaments that were written in the form of a letter. The claims to see the Transfiguration cannot be considered anything but a lie if the author is not in fact Peter.

None of the usual arguments against Petrine authorship preclude this conclusion. The style is different, but then again, 1 Peter implies that Silas had a hand in its writing. Perhaps we are getting Peter's actual Greek style in 2 Peter--or that of a different secretary from 1 Peter. In fact, the style has the flavor of someone who has used rhetorical exercises to learn Greek rather than a colloquial speaker.

The "fathers" who have died refers not to Christian fathers but to the OT fathers, and thus says nothing of the dating of the letter. The changes in tenses can similarly be explained with minor tweaks in interpretation.

And even though 2 Peter seems to address a universal audience, its flavor is much more that of a particular church or set of churches. In that sense, perhaps it was written to some of the churches 1 Peter addresses, like those in Galatia. On the other hand, the letter referred to in 3:1 might be a completely different letter from 1 Peter.

Since Paul wrote the Galatians, perhaps that is what Peter means when he says, "as Paul writes you." And who is to say that Peter did not come to recognize that he had been wrong and that in fact Paul was right when he wrote Galatians? It is thus possible that Peter might have come to view Paul's letter to the Galatians--as well as those to other churches--as Scripture just like the Old Testament was. Or perhaps Peter is talking about a completely different letter like Romans, which Peter believed to be inspired.