Jude and 2 Peter. Andrew M. Mbuvi

Grotius in the seventeenth century dated the book to the period of the Roman Emperor Trajan (98–117 CE), and altogether eliminated the possibility of it having been written by Simeon Peter (the apostle who died under Nero in 64 CE, as it claims in its salutation).54

      Over time, primary concerns raised about (and responses to) authenticity issues in 2 Peter have included the following:

1. Stylistic and theological differences with 1 Peter (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 3. 3. 1, 4; 3.25.3, 4)—At least from the time of Jerome (ca. 345–420), it has been adduced that 1 Peter’s Greek is excellent and dignified while that of 2 Peter is flamboyant and cumbersome. Yet Peter in the Gospels and Acts is presented as uneducated lowly fisherman (Matt 4:18–19; Acts 4:13). A common response given is that each letter could have been written by a different secretary giving the distinctive styles.55 While a linguistic analysis shows that 2 Peter follows an “Asiatic style of writing” with an Aramaic thought background,56 it is generally agreed that the sizes of both letters are not large enough to warrant sufficient proof of difference.57 These make reasonable explanation to the differences between the letters.

2. Dependence on Jude whose earliest plausible date is 60–70 CE. The earliest the letter of Jude would have been completed is between 60 CE and 70 CE. Thus, 2 Peter must be later since it contains a majority of Jude. And if Jude’s provenance is Palestine and 2 Peter’s is Rome, we must allow for a period of time for Jude to get to Rome for the author of 2 Peter to be familiar with it. A plausible response here is that 2 Peter was written not too long after Jude’s letter which 2 Peter’s audience were not familiar with. So the author of 2 Peter would have a copy of the letter, but his audience would not know that it exists and that is why he finds no problem both quoting it extensively and also altering its content for his audience. However, a further objection would be, if this is Peter’s letter why does he find the need to copy Jude’s letter so extensively? If as many scholars are now convinced, Jude’s letter is authentic from Jesus’ brother, then it would explain why Peter would consider it significant enough to replicate in his own letter.58 And as has been shown, 2 Peter does not simply copy Jude, but has consciously utilized Jude and integrated Jude into his own arguments.59

3. Reference to the first Christian generation as “fathers” falling asleep (3:4), probably indicating they had already died by the time of its writing, and thus unlikely to have been written by Peter. The term “fathers,” however, was more commonly used in reference to biblical ancestors rather than apostles (Heb 1:1; Rom 9:5).60 Support of this understanding also comes from the author’s response by referring to the flood as an example of God’s intervention in history—it would not make sense if the history envisioned here is that of the Church.61 The term, therefore, can easily have referred to the OT prophets who had prophesied the initial parousia of Jesus.

4. Reference to a delayed “parousia (revelation) of the Lord” referring to the second coming of Jesus (Matt 24:3; 1 Thess 2:19; 4:15), indicating that some long time had passed since the time of the apostle initial ministry to the audience. In response, Webb has argued, it is not simply the denial of the second coming that the opponents represent in their questioning but the concept of parousia at any period in time.62 M. Green also points out that the greatest disappointment of the delayed parousia would have been reflected more prominently in mid first century than in the second century where the effects of the shock had waned.63

5. Reference to Paul’s letters as a “collection” and to the author’s equating them to other “scripture” (3:15–16).64 The tradition or copying and sharing of Paul’s letters in the early Church may have been encouraged by Paul himself (Col 4:16) and so should not be a surprise if the author of 2 Peter is familiar with Paul’s writings. But nothing in the passage here assumes a “Collection” of corpus, as proponents of this argument assume.65 Furthermore, in the Council of Jerusalem, Peter and Paul are united against the instigators (Acts 15:7–11).

6. Reading 2 Peter (and Jude) as if it is responding to the second-century threat of Gnosticism. While 2 Peter does favor the term “knowledge” (gnosis) from which we get the term Gnosticism (a form of early philosophy that emphasized “special secret knowledge” as the means to salvation), 2 Peter’s use of the term does not fully conform to Gnostic thinking. Recent rhetorical studies of the letter however have shown that, rather than focusing on fending off Gnosticism, 2 Peter’s primary concern is with ethics as reflected in the list of virtues (1:5–7), and the pointed inquiry in 3:11 (“Given that all things will dissolved, what kind of lives ought you to live?”), driven by eschatological concerns.66

7. Identifying 2 Peter as a “Testament” genre, has been used as grounds on which to argue that it is pseudepigraphical just like other Testamentary writings.67 While this argument has been well developed by Bauckham and is widely accepted by scholars, it has significant weaknesses. In fact, as I will argue below in the commentary, you can have testamentary material in a piece of writing, without converting the entire document into a “Testament.”68 Also, 2 Peter does not follow all the conventions of a Testamentary writing.69 A strong argument against pseudeipgraphical authorship is the early church’s vigilant censorship of the canonical writings as they determined what to include in the Bible. Writings deemed to be inauthentic were eliminated from contention, irrespective of their teachings. We know for example other writings written in the name of Peter, such as Gospel of Peter, were rejected as pseudepigraphical.70 For example, the authorship of the apocryphal Acts of Paul and Thecla (ca. 160) was questioned and eventually its author, a presbyter in the Church, admitted writing it not in an attempt to mislead, but in admiration of the apostle Paul. But this was not sufficient argument to the Church leaders who proceeded to condemn and defrock him for writing in the name of the apostle. Given that this issue of morality seems to have loomed large when dealing with apostolic writings, it makes it rather challenging for one to concede Bauckham’s otherwise well crafted argument that the authorship of this letter would have come from the hand of a Petrine sympathizer.71

Arguments against Petrine authorship have continued to persist, but comprehensive (if not fully convincing) answers to each objection have been provided. The alternative theory of pseudepigraphy also has its own gaping holes making each side’s position, on the one hand plausible and, on the other, still inconclusive. Of all the concerns for the pseudepigraphy arguments, I still believe the moral issue is probably the most challenging to account for. Nonetheless, as Witherington III points out, our modern notion of authorship may be too narrow to accommodate the plausible fact found in his own proposal of 2 Peter as a form of “sapiental literature” where scribal editing of writings was done communally allowing for a composite writing to be crafted by scribes, from original kernels and other sources.72 This would allow for aspects of the letter to have originated with the Peter but with subsequent accretions over time, much in the same way that 2 Peter itself has incorporated the letter of Jude.