THE AUTHENTICITY OF 2 PETER

___________________

A Paper

Presented to

Dr. Hall Harris

Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Course

NT 113A New Testament Introduction

___________________

by

Andrew M. Yates

March 2011

Box #805
 THE AUTHENTICITY OF 2 PETER

In this paper, I plan to address several issues related to the authenticity of 2 Peter

especially challenges to the epistle¶s canonicity, Petrine authorship, relationship to other

canonical books (especially 1 Peter and Jude) and the early church¶s view of pseudonymous

writings. Recent objections to the apostolic authorship of 2 Peter have brought not only the

epistle¶s authority under question but also raise further doubts regarding the authority of the

entire cannon.

Ö
 


 

  

 


Geisler and Nix in their helpful text2 identify five ³tests of canonicity´ used by the early
church to identify scripture. These tests demand scripture to be authoritative, prophetic
(or apostolic), authentic, dynamic and to have enjoyed a positive reception by the early
church.3 A modern claim that a document previously included in the canon has in fact
failed to meet the appropriate criterion raises questions regarding the validity of other
documents included. More specifically, if one rejects the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter4
then internal portions of the epistle correspondingly fail to reflect reality; bringing the
trustworthiness of scripture (and necessarily the Holy Spirit) into serious question. On
these grounds, an attack on the integrity of even the smallest text in the Christian cannon
cannot be dismissed as a trivial issue. Having introduced the bearing this subject has
upon cannon and the general weight of the discussion, I plan to present and investigate
pertinent evidence and submit an honest and defendable position.

1
Benjamin Franklin, ³The Electric Ben Franklin,´ ushistory.org,
http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote71.htm (accessed March 25, 2011).
2
Norman L. and Nix, William E. Geisler, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press,
1982), 137-44.
3
There is not room in a paper of this brevity to establish or defend the multiple requirements for
canonicity. Thankfully, numerous scholars have already laid them out sufficiently; those of Geisler and Nix¶s being
adequate for the purposes of this paper. Ibid. 2.
4
Wallace comments how ³The vast bulk of NT scholars adopts this second perspective (that the
Apostle Peter did not write 2 Peter) without much discussion,´ Daniel B. Wallace, ³Second Peter: Introduction,
Argument, and Outline,´ Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site, http://bible.org (accessed March 23, 2011).

1
 2

 











The strongest arguments regarding an ancient text will interact closely with first hand
sources; namely the text itself. In this first section, I will address issues representing both
proponents and opponents to Petrine authorship that are reflective of the internal
statements of 2 Peter. I will especially focus on internal attestations of authorship,
references to the writings of Paul, and references by the text to ³fathers´ (ʌĮIJȒȡ). The last
two sub-sections reflect attempts to identify the author by means of dating the epistle
relative to the Apostle Peter¶s lifetime.5 Seeing that no document exists in a vacuum, I
will attempt to postpone a direct comparison of 2 Peter and its context for the latter half
of the paper.

Internal Claims of Authorship

Firstly, the text quite clearly claims a Petrine authorship.6 John MacArthur represents

the traditional position, noting how the natural reading of these claims authenticate Simon Peter

as the author.7 For example, 2 Peter 1:17-18 mentions the transfiguration of Christ8 where Peter

was one of only three witnesses. In addition, the unique phrasing of the Lord¶s proclamation (in

contrast to the canonical gospels) seems atypical for a pseudepigraphic literature. 9 In opposition,

Raymond Brown10 represents the prevalent view11 that the high frequency12 of self-attestation

5
I conservatively accept the date of ³around 64 C.E.´ submitted by Bart Ehrman as the martyrdom
date of ³Jesus¶ companion Peter.´ See Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early
Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 1996), 390 & 394.
6
Cf. 1 Pet 1:1, 14, 16-18; 3:15 to name the most explicit.
7
John MacArthur, Jr., Second Peter and Jude -New Testament Commentary (MacArthur New
Testament Commentary Series) (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2005), 4.
8
Cf. Mk 5:37 and related.
9
NET Bible, note on 2 Peter 1:17 (Biblical Studies Press, 2005), Computer File.
10
Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library) (New
York: Doubleday, 1997), 767.
11
Bart Ehrman represents the popularity of his position in stating; ³For a variety of reasons, there is
less debate about the authorship of 2 Peter than any other pseudepigraphon in the New Testament. The vast majority
of critical scholars agree that whoever wrote the book, it was not Jesus¶ disciple Simon Peter.´ Bart D. Ehrman, The
New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press,
USA, 1996), 394-395.
 3

seems excessive and unnatural. Daniel Wallace (holding the Petrine perspective) admits that the

style of self-attestation found in 2 Peter has ³parallels in kind in the pseudepigraphic literature of

the time.´13 Wallace however goes on to explain that,

Not only is there really nothing of substance in these personal allusions to

deny authenticity, but they strike one, upon closer investigation«. as highly
subjective, especially since it is the very lack of such that has caused some
scholars to reject 1 Peter.14

A second observation that has been made by both proponents and opponents of Petrine

authorship is the author¶s self-identification as Simeon15 Peter. Scholars16 note that this is a

Hebraic title that is used only one other time in the New Testament17 to refer to the Apostle Peter.

Proponents of Petrine authorship will admit that at best this is a ³subtle argument´18 due to 1
Peter¶s lack of the Hebraic name and the high probability for a pseudepigraphal author to use a

personal rendition of a name in order to further establish authenticity.

Arguments Involving the Writing(s) of Paul19

A common argument against Petrine authorship is presented by C. Milo Connick;

who asks, ³Why would he [the author of 2 Peter] refer to Paul¶s letters (which did not circulate

as a group until about 95 A.D.) as µscripture¶ and allude to their abuse by the µignorant and

12
The author of 2 Peter explicitly refers to himself many more times (see: 1:1, 14, 16-19; 3:1, 15) than
is common in the general epistles. For example, there are twice as many occurrences of self-identification in 2 Peter
than there are in 1 Peter, even though 2 Peter is significantly shorter.
13
Ibid. 4.
14
Ibid.
15
or ³Simon´ (Ȉȣȝİ Ȟ)
16
Numerous examples could be listed. For examples, see: NET Bible, note on 2 Peter 1:1 (Biblical
Studies Press, 2005), Computer File. and Ibid. 7.
17
Acts 15:14
18
Ibid. 16.
19
Most of the discussion surrounds 2 Peter 3:15-17 especially.
 4

unstable¶ (3:16)? Clearly II Peter is a postapostolic pseudonymous writing.´20 It seems, however

that Connick has fallen to a presuppositional fallacy in that he assumes that the author of 2 Peter

is referring to ³a group´ 21 of letters as a canonized whole rather referring to a specific set of

writings. In the next verse the author goes on to compare ³all the letters´ of Paul with the

³writings´ mentioned previously, further suggesting that the recipients do not posess the entire

Pauline corpus. Furthermore, 2 Peter¶s mention of the ³ignorant and unstable´ refers to ³other

scriptures´ not exclusively those of Paul. 22 This argument largely depends upon the

presuppositions one brings to the discussion and I suspect that Connick¶s late dating23 of the

epistle has influenced his exegesis.

Another scholar, Simon Kistemaker24 points out that some of the early epistles penned

by Paul reject pseudepigraphal writings. 25 He goes on to question whether a non-Petrine author

would appeal to an authority which condemns falsehood and forbids his audience from being

³shaken in mind or alarmed´ by ³a letter seeming to be from us.[apostolic authority]´26

20
See: C. Milo Connick, The New Testament: An Introduction to Its History, Literature, and Thought,
Second Edition. ed. (Encino, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, 1972), page 363. and Ibid. 10. for a
similar argument by Ehrman.
21
Ibid.
22
as ³a collection´ or otherwise.
23
He dates 2 Peter as 150 A.D. Ibid. 13, at 364.
24
Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the
Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House Company, 1987), 218.
25
See especially 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3; 3:17. (Arguably the earliest epistle of Paul!)
26
2 Thessalonians 2:1-3
 5

Arguments Relating to ³Our Fathers´

Another argument made against Petrine authorship by Connick is the reference in 2

Peter 3:4 regarding ³the fathers´ (ʌĮIJȒȡ)27 Connick questions, ³Why would he [the Apostle

Peter] imply that he belongs to a generation of Christians to whom the church founders are

known by tradition (3:2, 4)?´28 I believe that Connick has fallen for the same presuppositional

fallacy as before. Wallace believes that the author is prophesying a future statement that

³scoffers´ will say, not a present reality.29 Furthermore, the text nowhere describes a ³tradition´

as Connick seems to refer. Additionally, Kistemaker responds to the non-Petrine argument by

identifying the use of ³fathers´ (ʌĮIJȒȡ) as representative of Old Testament characters in Acts

3:13, Romans 9:5, and Hebrews 1:1 where he argues a possible use here.30 Suffice it to say that

the exegete is not limited to an interpretation of ³fathers´ (ʌĮIJȒȡ) to mean exclusively the

³apostolic fathers´ and it is worth considering that 2 Peter may (at least in part31) be referring to

the Old Testament ³fathers.´ In either case, these are the words of ³mockers´ and the author does

not submit them as accurately reflecting reality.

 










Having briefly presented portions of the discussion focusing on internal evidence, the
following section will address arguments for and against Petrine authorship of 2 Peter
from its broad context. These topics will introduce a comparison of 2 Peter with other

27
See: (ʌĮIJȒȡ), 2 Peter 3:2, 4.
28
See: C. Milo Connick, The New Testament: An Introduction to Its History, Literature, and Thought,
Second Edition. ed. (Encino, California: Dickenson Publishing Company, 1972), 363. In addition, Ehrman does not
closely defend this position, though he does suggest that he would be in agreement with Connick. See: Ibid., at 10.
29
In Connick¶s defense, there is as mixture of aorist and future tenses relating to ³scoffers.´ Wallace
describes this as a mixture of the present continuous nature of scoffers and the future coming of people who will
scoff. While this position is helpful in explaining Connick¶s exegesis, it does not excuse his disregard of the multiple
occurrences of the future tense. See: Ibid. 4.
30
Simon J. Kistemaker, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Epistles of Peter and the
Epistle of Jude (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House Company, 1987), 217.
31
I did not encounter a response to Kistemaker¶s suggestion for multiple authorities (in 2 Peter 3:2-4)
in the literature.
 6
texts, arguments involving theological and philosophical considerations, discussion
regarding ancient pseudepigraphal forms and reception of 2 Peter by the ancient church.

Arguments Involving Style

Nearly every commentator32 is quick to note differences between 1 and 2 Peter

relating to both style and vocabulary. Michael Green (a proponent of a 2 Peter Petrine author)

concisely summarizes the view stating:

There is a very great stylistic difference between these two letters [1 and 2 Peter].
The Greek of 1 Peter is polished, cultured, dignified; it is among the best in the
New Testament. The Greek of 2 Peter is grandiose; it is rather like baroque art,
almost vulgar in its pretentiousness and effusiveness. Pedantic words« and
cumbersome phrases« abound. The rich variety of connecting particles, a feature
of 1 Peter, have almost disappeared. Many of 1 Peter¶s favorite words« are also
missing, while others« are replaced by synonyms in 2 Peter.ïï

This simple observation likely stands as the greatest argument for a pseudepigraphal 2

Peter. In defense of a Petrine authorship, MacArthur is quick to point out how 1 Peter was

written with the assistance of an amanuensis34 and 2 Peter is silent to the method of

composition.35 He further suggests that if the apostle Peter is the author of 2 Peter then he likely

penned it towards the end of his life and was likely in prison or at least under conditions that

were probably very different from the circumstances surrounding the writing of 1 Peter.36

In an attempt to identify consistencies between 1 and 2 Peter, Green proposes37 that there

are at least two significant similarities, citing frequent Hebraisms and a habit of verbal repetition

as examples. Green places so much weight on these points that he understands them to force

32
Numerous examples could be listed. For both pro and non Petrine positions see John MacArthur,
Jr., Second Peter and Jude -New Testament Commentary (MacArthur New Testament Commentary
Series) (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2005), page 6. In addition, Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical
Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 1996), 394.
33
Michael Green, The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude: An Introduction and
Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), Rev Sub ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Send the Light, 1987),
16-17.
 7

Joseph Mayor (an opponent to Petrine authorship) to admit that ³there is not that chasm between

1 and 2 Peter which some would try to make out.´38

Macarthur suggests a simple stylistic defense of the Petrine position; namely that a

pseudepigraphic author would unlikely vary style and grammar of a second letter39 so radically

from that of a first.40 41

Relationship of 2 Peter and Jude

Several have recognized that for as many differences exist between 1 and 2 Peter,

nearly as many commonalities can be identified between 2 Peter and Jude. Macarthur evidences

this in stating that, ³nineteen of Jude¶s twenty-five verses find parallels in 2nd Peter.´ 42 This

commonality leads scholars to address two primary issues; one pertaining to apostolic authority

and the other relating the dating of 2 Peter.

34
See 1 Peter 5:12.
35
Ibid., 7 at 11-14.
36
MacArthur¶s argument is made not only from chronological assumptions involving Peter¶s death but
also from 2 Peter 1:14-15. Ibid., 7 at 11-14.
37
Where he cites (perhaps cryptically) the dated work of Bigg, see Charles Bigg, A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary On the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude (Madison: C. Scribner¶s Sons, 1901), 224-32.
38
Joseph B. Mayor, The Epistles of Jude and II Peter, 1ST ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1979),
lxviii-cv.
39
The author of 2 Peter clearly demonstrates his knowledge of a prior letter. see 2 Peter 3:1.
40
Ibid. 7, at 12.
41
Again we are presented with the same data being used to argue both ways. The literature does not use
much evidence in addition to logic and the burden of proof seems to rest more heavily upon the pro-Petrine camp.
For a complete discussion, see Wallace. Ibid. 14.
42
Ibid. 7 at 146.
 8

Firstly, if the author of 2 Peter was the apostle, would he have copied from a non-

apostolic source?43 Green challenges the validity of this concern stating,

«is there any reason to suppose that Peter would have been unwilling to draw
from the work of a brother of his Master, should it probe to be the case that the
Epistle of Jude was written first? It is simply naïve to say, with Kümmel, µPetrine
authorship is forbidden by the literary relationship with Jude.¶44 Peter could well
have taken up and used either a traditional sermon or tract devised by the early
church to meet the ravages of false teaching, or alternatively the short fiery letter
of µJude the brother of James¶, had he deemed it appropriate to his purpose. The
ancients had no law of copyright. In short, the questions of the relation ship of 2
Peter to Jude has no bearing whatever on the authenticity of 2 Peter.45

Secondly, if 2 Peter has taken from Jude and Jude can be dated post-64 A.D.46 then 2

Peter could not have been written by the apostle. Kistemaker posits three options to account for

the blatant similarities47. Either 2 Peter has taken from Jude, Jude from 2 Peter, or both from a

common source (similar to ³Q´). If Jude has taken from 2 Peter,48 and similarly if both draw

from the same source,49 there is no bearing on the Petrine debate. Unfortunately, if 2 Peter has

taken from Jude, precious little information remains regarding the date and location of Jude.50

43
As Neyrey (a conservative, pro-Petrine scholar) insists and assumes in order to maintain apostolic
authority. See Jerome Neyrey, 2 Peter, and Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Anchor
Bible) (New York: Anchor Bible, 1993), 120.
44
Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 14th ed., trans. A.J. Mattill, Jr. (New
York: Abingdon Press, 1966), 303.
45
Green finds many parallels from the discussion surrounding the synoptic question. Ibid. 32, at 24.
46
Ibid. 5.
47
Ibid. 24, at 221-223.
48
As MacArthur argues. He posits that Jude quotes (Jude 18) as scripture a passage that can only be
taken as 2 Peter 3:3. He further notes that the word translated ³mockers´ or ³scoffers´ ( ȝʌĮȓțIJȘı) appears in the
New Testament only in these two sections. Ibid. 7, at 146.
49
As Green suggests based upon a theory of a very early written or oral tradition. Ibid. 32, at 63
50
Possibly due to a very close relationship with 2 Peter?
 9

Therefore, any guess regarding the time for the author of 2 Peter to draw from Jude is largely

speculation51 and almost completely influenced by presuppositions. Naturally, the respective

parties assume their own preference to be the case52 without explanation.

A common theme between 2 Peter and Jude is the rejection of false teachers. One

significant difference is present tense found in Jude and a mixture of future and present tense in 2

Peter. This has been used by Wallace53 and other proponents of Petrine authorship to argue for a

prophetic future expectation in 2 Peter and a present fulfillment in Jude. While this is a

significant argument for dependence of Jude on 2 Peter, it is by no means a proof for authorship.

To conclude this sub-section, little can be definitively said either for or against

Petrine authorship based upon the relationship of Jude and 2 Peter.

Theological and Philosophical Arguments

Proponents for the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter are quick to admit differences

between the theological emphases found in 1 Peter.54 While several commonalities exist55, the

differences (they argue) are motivated by the changing needs of its recipients, not by a religious

51
see Wallace, Ibid. 4.
52
For examples of proponents of Petrine Authority, see Ibid. 24. In addition, Ibid. 32. For examples of
Opponents of Petrine authority see James M. Efird, New Testament Writings ([Atlanta]: John Knox Press, 1980),
182-185. In addition, Ibid. 11, at 394-95.
53
Ibid. 4.
54
Ibid. 32, at 21.
55
MacArthur points out several: : Gods prophetic word spoken in the OT (1 pet. 1:10-12; 2 Pet. 1:19-
21), the new birth (1 pet. 1:23;2 pet 1:4) Gods sovereign choice of believers (1 peter 1:2; 2 peter 1:10) the need for
personal holiness (1 peter 2:11-12; 2 peter 1:5-7), God¶s judgment on immorality (1 peter 4:2-5; 2 peter 2:10-22),
the second coming (1 peter 4:7, 13; 2 peter 3:4) and others. Ibid. 7, at 12.
 10

agenda as is otherwise proposed.56 As Wallace points out, this argument carries little weight

because there is no doctrinal contradiction between 1 and 2 Peter.57

Some opponents to a Petrine author have had difficulty believing that the apostle

Peter would have been capable of writing 2 Peter. Ehrman states, ³As was the case with 1 Peter,

this author [of 2 Peter] is a relatively sophisticated and literate Greek-speaking Christian«.´58

The Petrine camp will concede that the level of education59 demonstrated by both authors does

not seem to reflect what one might expect from a ³simple Galilean fisherman.´60 This argument

has fallen in favor by the pseudepigraphic camp due to modern research demonstrating

significant influence of Hellenism upon Jewish culture,61 making an educated Peter more

reasonable. Furthermore, it is worth noting that Hellenistic terminology is by no means foreign to

the other authors of the New Testament.62

56
Ironically, Ehrman states (after assuring the reader of 2 Peters certain invalidity); ³It was no doubt
included in the canon because the orthodox fathers of the fourth century accepted the claims of its author to be Peter
and because it served their purposes in apposing those who promote false teaching.´ Ibid. 11, at 394.
57
Ibid. 4.
58
Ibid. 11.
59
Ibid. 4.
60
Ibid. 7, at 6.
61
One example from the text that has been frequently cited to reflect Hellenistic familiarity has been 2
Peter 2:4. The author has chosen to use a word (IJĮȡIJĮȡȩȦ) not found elsewhere in the New Testament or
Septuagint; instead having origins in Greek mythology as early as the fifth century B.C.. It has been clearly
demonstrated that this term was not uncommon in first century Jewish apocalyptic literature. See Walter Bauer, A
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, rev. and ed. Frederick W.
Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 991.
62
See John¶s use of ³word´ (ȜȩȖȠȢ) in John 1:1 ff. and Paul¶s use of ³Soul´ (ȥȣȤȒ) through the Pauline
corpus; especially Romans 2:9. See: Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature, rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 598-
601 and 1098-1100.
 11

Arguments Involving Ancient Pseudepigraphal Forms

In addition to the prior discussion involving pseudepigripha, at least one significant

point remains to be made. While it was common for ancient writers to claim the authority of a

higher source in order to enhance credibility, it has been aptly pointed out by Green that there is

little (if any) unique doctrine presented in 2 Peter compared with other canonical writings. He (as

do others63) strains to identify the motive of an author who would go to great lengths to write

under a false pretense and then fail to utilize that authority to his advantage64.

Arguments Involving the Reception of 2 Peter by the Early Church.

Even the earliest remaining documents that refer to 2 Peter show evidence of debate

regarding its authorship. Origen in the third century is the first to explicitly mention 2 Peter by

name65 although it has been suggested that in many locations the early church fathers allude to 2

Peter. 66 Both Origen and Jerome mention doubts surrounding the authenticity of 2 Peter (which

pseudepigraphal proponents will eagerly cite67) yet in the overwhelming majority the church

fathers admit neither a personal conviction nor consensus against the epistle. 68 MacArthur goes

63
Cf Ibid. 7,32, 52 and similar.
64
Green goes on to demonstrate how other pseudepigraphic literature involving the apostle Peter (The
Gospel of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter, Letter of Peter, Travels of Peter, Kerygmata Petrou and Acts of Peter) all
demonstrate a clear motive. He summarizes in that, ³It [2 Peter] contains no secret tradition claiming Peter for its
fountain-head. As a pseudepigraph it has no satisfactory raison-d¶être.´ See Ibid. 32, at 32.
65
Ibid. 7, at 5.
66
Albeit in a non-explicit style, Robert Picirilli makes a strong argument for the external evidence;
dismissing the vagueness of the allusions as common in the ancient texts. (He especially finds parallels between 2
Peter and the works of Clement of Alexandria, Theophilus of Antioch, Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus. ) See
Robert E. Picirilli, ³Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,´ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 33
(1988): 57-83.
67
At times this reminder seems to be made at the extreme expense of context. Ibid. 20.
68
In the example of Jerome, Kistemaker quotes him to say, ³many people doubt(ed) the authenticity of
II Peter because of the variation in style with I Peter.´ It is my observation that ³many people´ does not necessarily
include the opinion of Jerome himself. Ibid. 24, at 231-232. Green notes in regards to Origen that, ³though recording
the existence of doubt in some quarters [regarding the authorship of 2 Peter], he himself accepts it.´ See: E.M.B.
 12

so far as to claim that in regards to the church fathers, ³«2 Peter was never rejected as

spurious« nor was it attributed to anyone other than Peter. [Emphasis mine]´69

In support for Petrine authorship, 2 Peter enjoys wide inclusion in what is arguably

the strongest early Papyri70 as early as the 3rd Century. Largely on this point, Macarthur dates the

early church¶s canonization of 2 Peter as early as the mid-second Century.71

Conclusion

Having presented a brief overview of common arguments for and against Petrine

authorship of 2 Peter, there is still much that could be said on behalf of both parties. While there

is much that contributes to this debate, argument on the basis of external evidence are far from

conclusive.72 Likewise, an honest approach to internal arguments cannot help but to be largely

influenced by presuppositions. Granting a personal bias towards a conservative interpretation, I

personally am convinced that the internal argument is slightly in favor of a Petrine author. I view

the arguments from both parties regarding stylistic differences as equally subjective. The

question of motive combined with an early Church recognition convinces me of 2 Peter¶s

authenticity. Furthermore, it is my understanding that this epistle is the best example for the need

to trust the cannon established by the early church. Aside from a high confidence in their

Green, ³2 Peter Reconsidered,´ Biblical Studies, http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/2peter_green.pdf (accessed

March 23, 2011). An additional example is submitted by Green who recognizes how Eusebius (while classifying 2
Peter in a category of µcontested¶ books) describes the text as µdisputed, but reckoned authentic by most people¶. See
Ibid. 32, at 14.
69
Ibid. 7, at 6.
70
Referring to the Bodmer papyrus P72 specifically.
71
Ibid. 7, at 6.
72
Green describes that evidence as ³incomparably better « than the best attested of the excluded
books.´ Ibid. 32, at 13.
 13
capabilities and motives, it is practically impossible to definitively conclude one position or the
73

other. While the text does not exclusively introduce new doctrine per se, the Christian

community has enjoyed a long history of encouragement and admonishment through 2 Peter and

I believe that current arguments against its authority are not as significant as once postulated. It

is only prudent for the Church to follow the author¶s final instructions;74 taking care not to be

carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace

and knowledge of out Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day

of eternity. Amen.75

73
Especially in light of their comparative closeness to the text.
74
Whom I am confident is in fact the apostle Peter, the friend of Jesus, called Christ.
75
2 Peter 3:17-18. Taken from the English Standard Version.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

³The Electric Ben Franklin.´ ushistory.org.

http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote71.htm (accessed March 25,
2011).

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. Revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker. 3rd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.

Bigg, Charles. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On the Epistles of St. Peter and
St. Jude. Madison: C. Scribner¶s Sons, 1901

Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference

Library). New York: Doubleday, 1997.

Connick, C. Milo. The New Testament: An Introduction to Its History, Literature, and
Thought. Second Edition. ed. Encino, California: Dickenson Publishing
Company, 1972.

Dallas Theological Seminary Thesis Style Committee. ³Supplement to Kate L.

Turabian, A Manual for Writers of Terms Papers, Theses, and Dissertations,
7th ed.´ Dallas, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2008.

Efird, James M. New Testament Writings. [Atlanta]: John Knox Press, 1980.

Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian
Writings. New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 1996.

Green, E.M.B. ³2 Peter Reconsidered.´ Biblical Studies.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/2peter_green.pdf (accessed March 23,
2011).

Green, Michael. The Second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude: An Introduction
and Commentary (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries). Rev Sub ed.
Grand Rapids, Mich.: Send the Light, 1987.

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

Peter and the Epistle of Jude. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House
Company, 1987.

14
 15
Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. 14th ed. Translated by
A.J. Mattill, Jr. New York: Abingdon Press, 1966.

MacArthur, John, Jr. Second Peter and Jude -New Testament Commentary
(MacArthur New Testament Commentary Series). Chicago: Moody
Publishers, 2005.

Mayor, Joseph B. The Epistles of Jude and II Peter. 1ST ed. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1979.

NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press, 2005. Computer File.

NET Bible. http://net.bible.org (accessed Mar 3, 2011).

Neyrey, Jerome. 2 Peter, and Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary (Anchor Bible). New York: Anchor Bible, 1993.

Nix, Norman L., and William E. Geisler. A General Introduction to the Bible.
Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Picirilli, Robert E. ³Aiiusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers.´ JSNT 33 (1988):

57-83.

Picirilli, Robert E. ³Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers.´ Journal for the
Study of the New Testament 33 (1988): 57-83.

Strunk, William, Jr. and E. B. White. The Elements of Style, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon, 1999.

Turabian, Kate L. A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses and Dissertations.
Revised by Wayne C. Booth, Gregory G. Colomb, and Joseph M. Williams,
7th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.

Wallace, Daniel B. ³Jude: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.´ Bible.org - Worlds

Largest Bible Study Site. http://bible.org (accessed March 23, 2011).

Wallace, Daniel B. ³Second Peter: Introduction, Argument, and Outline.´ Bible.org -

Worlds Largest Bible Study Site. http://bible.org (accessed March 23, 2011).