(12 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...Now that I have provided a summary of the major themes and emphases of the letter of 2 Peter, I can move to the question of who actually wrote it. It claims, of course, to be written by Simeon (i.e. Simon) Peter, Jesus disciple. But it is widely thought in fact to be pseudonymous, more than any other book of the entire New Testament.
I’d like to give a relatively fully explanation of why, and for that reason have decided to provide here a fairly heavily edited and accessible account of my discussion in Forgery and Counterforgery (Oxford University Press).
*************
2 Peter is among the least well attested works of the New Testament from Christian antiquity, although it is found already in the manuscript called P72, ca. 300 CE, along with 1 Peter and Jude, the two canonical letters with which it is most closely associated. Still, during the first four centuries the book had an unsettled status among those interested in establishing the contours of the New Testament. The church father Origen doubted its authenticity, in words quoted by Eusebius: „Peter … left us one acknowledged epistle, possibly two – though this is doubtful.“ (H.E. 6.25.8). And the fourth century church father Eusebius himself also considered 1 Peter genuine, but rejected 2 Peter, even though, as he notes, some readers have found it valuable: “Of Peter, one epistle, known as his first, is accepted, and this the early fathers quoted freely, as undoubtedly genuine… But the second Petrine epistle we have been taught to regard as uncanonical” (H.E. 3.3.1).
Somewhat later Jerome expressed the opinion of his day: “[Peter] He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be his.” Most emphatic was Didymus the Blind, who indicated that “We must therefore not be ignorant of the fact that the epistle at hand is forged, which, even though published, is nevertheless not in the canon.”
Most critical scholars today agree with these ancient assessments of 2 Peter and often use the same faulty logic in support, that the book differs so significantly from 1 Peter that it could not have been written by the same author. (This was the view of my own teacher, Bruce Metzger; I believe 2 Peter was the only NT book that he thought was pseudonymous.) The flaw in the logic is that Peter probably did not write the first epistle either, so that variations from it say nothing, per se, about whether he wrote the second.
Nonetheless, there are compelling reasons for thinking that 2 Peter came into existence long after the death of Jesus’s disciple. It’s worth remembering that there are a number of forged books in Peter’s name: Among those that still survive are the Gospel of Peter, the Epistle of Peter to James, the Letter of Peter to Philip from Nag Hammadi, three different apocalypses of Peter – all falsely claiming to be written by the great apostle.
The grounds for considering 2 Peter a forgery are varied and numerous. The first has to do with the quality of Greek. Even if we assume that Peter could write in Greek, which, as I’ve argued, is totally unlikely, it seems highly doubtful that he could have written Greek like this. The style is widely assessed as overly elaborate, and the vocabulary is excessively rich. As Bauckham puts it, the author is „fond of literary and poetic, even obscure words.“ This is not what one would expect of an Aramaic-speaking peasant. Commentator John Elliott points out that there are proportionally more hapax legomena in 2 Peter (that is, words that occur nowhere else in the entire NT) than any other New Testament book, a surprising 58 of its 402 words (14.4%).
In addition, there are the clear indications that the book was written in a later period, after the death of the apostles. Most obviously, as we have seen it was written in order to deal with the massive delay of the parousia: there had been a long passage of time since Christians widely held to the expectation of an imminent end of all things, a problem dealt with in a variety of ways by other writings produced after the apostles had all died, such as Luke-Acts and the Fourth Gospel.
In particular the book explicitly indicates that „the fathers“ have „fallen asleep“ (i.e., died) since the original promises of the coming end (3:4).
Moreover, the author’s knowledge of earlier Christian texts indicates that he was writing after the death of Peter. Most obviously, he makes extensive use of the letter of Jude. I didn’t point this out in my earlier post, but I well could have. By Elliott’s count, nineteen of Jude’s twenty-five verses reappear in modified form in 2 Peter.
We will later see clear reasons for thinking that Jude was not produced by Jesus‘ brother, but is a forgery in his name written at a relatively late time, by someone looking back on the apostolic age. 2 Peter is, as a consequence, later still.
Moreover, the author clearly knows of 1 Peter, as seen not only in what appears to be an explicit reference („This, now, my beloved, is the second letter I have written to you“ 3:1) but also in numerous similarities, to be mentioned later. If Peter was forged after Peter’s death as I’ve argued; that would necessarily make 2 Peter a forgery as well.
Equally striking, as I noted in the previous post, is the fact that this author already knows of a collection of Paul’s letters (not just one or two in isolation), and that he is living at a time when Christians were already considering these letters to be Scripture (3:15-16). It is hard to imagine any such situation before the end of the first century, at best.
Finally, nothing that we know about the historical Peter as a Jewish missionary to Jews who
continued to uphold the Law is true of this letter (e.g., Galatians 2). There is, in fact, nothing Jewish about the letter. The reference to the false teachers who emerged from the community as those who had earliest escaped ritual polutions to suggest they started out as pagans, not Jews (2:20). And the use of Scripture bears no relation to what we would suspect of a law-abiding believer like Pet
It is true that he speaks of the prophecy of Scripture (1:20); but even if he is referring to Jewish Scripture (as opposed to the writings of Christians that, like Paul’s letters, are considered Scripture), there is nothing to suggest that the Law continues to be in force. There is no injunction to follow the dictates of Scripture (circumcision, kashrut, festivals, sabbath, etc.). Quite the contrary, it is standard, high morals, not the works of the Law, that matter to this author.
It became common in other forgeries in Peter’s name to relate first hand experiences with Jesu (e.g., the Apocalypses of Peter) s, a ploy that makes considerable sense: why else claim to be Jesus’ right-hand man, if you cannot appeal to the authority that experience provides? The ironies in the case of 2 Peter in particular are nonetheless striking. This author insists that he was present at the transfiguration precisely in order to validate the status of his authority: his views , he avers, are not based on fictions (as opposed to the false teachers he opposes) but on facts and personal experiences (1:16-18).
Yet this claim itself is a fiction written by a forger who has invented the tale of the personal experience, as recognized by J. Frey.”511 Moreover, this assertion of factual authority is used precisely in order to oppose the “false” prophets and the “false” teachers (2:1-3) who revile “the truth” and teach “false words” – all this in a “false writing (pseudepigraphon) a writing that is “inscribed with a lie” written by someone who deceives his readers about his own authoritative credentials. Rarely in early Christian texts do we find irony so exquisite.
It appears then that 2 Peter was written long after Peter’s death, and for a number of reasons scholars have typically considered it to be the final book of the New Testament, written around 120 CE or so.
Authors who wrote claiming to be Peter always did so for a reason, but almost always the reason has be inferred; normally the content of the letter is all we have to go on. In this case, given the emphases on the need for Christians to stop living immoral lives because the end is coming soon, even though it sure doesn’t look like it, one plausible explanation is that the author chose to appeal to Peter’s authority to urge his message for Christians to turn away from unethical behavior and devote themselves more fully to God, and used the letter as a way to discount those who were denying that the End was coming soon.
If so many respected early ‘experts’ on early Christian writings (Origen, Jerome, etc.) were so suspicious of 2 Peter, it is remarkable that it still became part of the canon. The general trend of the 2nd century seemed to be that, if a writing ‘might’ have been by an apostle, that was good enough. The burden of proof was nearly non-existent. Yet it was not so long after the canon became established that a burden of proof was almost impossible to meet for changing any of the canon. Is there a certain time or event that fixes the moment that criticisms to the contents of the current canon became too difficult (or too dangerous) to consider? One reason would certainly be that some respected church father’s statements would have to be refuted in some manner with any canon changes.
Greetings Bart; it’s good to be back reading the Blogs! I really enjoy reading your blogs and explanations on why certain New Testament books could not have been written by the names assigned to them. You often take us back to the first century to explain the culture and how people lived, were they well educated? Why the disciples most likely couldn’t have written these books that make up the New Testament. My wife has been trying to teach me Greek for quite awhile, incredibly difficult, but not impossible. I have found it’s doable for hailing a cab or ordering food etc, much much harder to write polished literature. My question has always been- What motivates these highly educated forgers? To control people? To enrich themselves with money and power? So many of these forgeries seem to express opinions that some would say oppress women or give power to the higher priest of churches in a different religion or faith. I believe in God and Jesus, especially the golden rule. However I struggle with the judgement and control that many of today’s churches show today.
I give a lengthy answer to that in my book Forged, and an either lengthier one if you want to get into the weeds, in Forgery and Counterforgery. When it comes to Christian writings, whether in the canon or not, the reason is never to “make money.” The dominant reason is because they author has something they want others to know/believe and they themselves have no “authority” — and so by writing in the name of a famous apostle, they can get their view across. To some extent that would be “control,” but it’s not necessarily a negative thing. We can’t know what was in their minds, but it appears they simply have something important to say and would like others to hear it.
Thanks Bart; I’ve had this belief that religious organizations just want money and power over people, especially given the suffering and pain large organizations have imposed on women and minors. I read your book Forgery several years ago. Reading Forged moved me on this path of learning about Christianity in the first century. Additionally though, I see a lot of suffering in this world. Thanks for what you do, the books, the blogs, charity, teaching.
off topic question. according to matthew, the soldiers are given money to spread false stories :
So they met with the elders and agreed on a plan to give the soldiers a large amount of money.
what is “large amount” to spread lies? how would the soldiers have gone into different areas to spread lies? why would the soldiers need to do this? the elders just had to say that the soldiers didn’t check the tomb since according to matthew the tomb was guarded after :
the tomb was not guarded from the moment the body was placed inside. The request for and placement of the guard occurred on the following day, Saturday. This means that the body would have been unguarded from the time it was placed in the tomb on Friday afternoon until sometime on Saturday.
Seems to have been a tradition inherited from the Old Testament books.
I don’t much like the idea that 2 Peter is authentic. Ideas about destruction and things like Noah’s flood are pretty disturbing. JS Spong has outlined just how much water it would take to cover the entire Earth. The quantity is fantastic and flat-out impossible. And then what? Does everyone marry their cousins? This is all really, really creepy and out of sorts.
I’m wondering, however, how much Greek Peter could have come to know?
My mother, her parents, and siblings came to the US shortly after WWII, speaking no English. They took no courses in English; they just all picked it up. They were, of course, surrounded by English-speaking people and in an English-speaking culture. Within 7 years, they were all fluent, including in reading and writing. The only one who had some problems was my grandfather.
I’m told that it is much easier for a person to pick up a language if they are surrounded by it and living with it.
Was Peter surrounded by Greek-speaking people and Greek culture for some time after the resurrection?
Could he have learned some Greek, even if he didn’t write the two Petrine letters that we have in the New Testament?
Dr Ehrman – completely unrelated to this post: what is going on with Mark’s retention/transmission of certain Aramaic phrases? How and why did these particular sayings/utterances/phrases of Jesus find themselves in an otherwise Greek document? Are they evidence of a pre-Mark Aramaic collection, and if so, why aren’t any teachings in Aramaic? Or are they evidence of oral transmission, thus suggesting that these particular stories are among the oldest layers of Jesus tradition? Has anyone written on this – that’s relatively accessible? Thanks.
Dr. Ehrman,
I think the matter of the issue here is one of scribal culture and presuppositions.
The scope of determining whether the epistle(s) of Peter were developed as part of the apostolic school and represented his thoughts, teachings, or as a literary composition/commissioned work depends on how doubtful or relatively considerable you are to the circulation of sacred scripture in the early Jesus movement.
I think it is reasonable to consider the work to be a product of the school and community which carried Peter’s authority. This is because I generally consider the circulation of epistles in Greco-Roman culture to be tied to some form of association.
However, if you tend to be more doubtful and untrusting of this then you will doubt it was associated with Peter’s school.
The primary data can’t support any of these claims. Thus our conclusions are based on how we relate the history and plausibility of the relation of testimony of authorship and also the reality that is their actual circulation in the early church communities.
It is reasonable these letters were associated and tied to genuine Petrine communities which came from the historical Peter.
Felski, Rita. 2015. The Limits of Critique. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Pt. 2
The primary data of course cannot be ignored.
There are genuine reasons to critically engage in examining/questioning Petrine authorship for internal reasons you have given.
First, it is of obvious importance to address the fact that Peter did not speak Greek. This is most likely a given. Barring the possible rare exception he may have learned later in life, this is not a license to outright deny his authorship.
It is entirely possible and i would argue likely that he wrote throigh a scribal secretary. An amanuensis did more than merely dictate words, they edited and stylized the work. Many times they expanded the text or contributed to the rhetorical character of the work as Tiro with Cicero. However even if 2 Peter was pseudepigraphic, it very likely carries the force of his teachings, however for reasons already stated it may not even be separate from Peter’s commission.
Howley, Joseph.
Imagining Tablets and Unseeing Secretaries: Logistics of Roman Literary Production. Columbia University
Richards, E. Randolph. 2019. The Secretary in the Letters of Paul. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
Roller O. 1933 Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer).
Williams, T. B. (2023). The Amanuensis Hypothesis in NT Scholarship: Currents in Biblical Research, 22(1), 7-82.
Pt.3
Thus the mutual exclusion/binary distinction between connecting Peter to his attributed epistles and recognizing critical features of the text which betray a surface level assessment of stylistic integrity need not be maintained on the account of a third option, that he may have employed scribal secretary(ies) to write his letter which woukd have been a collaborative process.
With that being said, it would be an argument over the semantics about the relationship between authorship and editing. Can you consider someone who commissioned a work and provided the vision the author despite being facilitated and edited, and possibly expanded by an individual?
I personally would say yes. But I would do so with nuance to emphasized that whoever did compose the work is also a legitimate author. This was within the realm of the role of the intepretes spoken by Jerome, and Pliny, Cicero, etc.
Although Peter’s epistles could have been forgeries, I believe the evidence doesnt call for that level of doubt, given the context of ancient scribal culture. In reality things are usually much more complicated than they seem
Thank you for letting me engage in good faith. Best regards
– Josiah
If Jesus is understood within the framework of messianic and apocalyptic Judaism, how likely is it that he himself was aware of a Davidic lineage? Would this have been comparable to how many Americans today claim descent from the Mayflower—something known within families but not necessarily verifiable? And beyond his immediate family, would others in Galilee have been aware of such a claim, perhaps even viewing him as a kind of local mini-celebrity because of the connection, even BEFORE he began his ministry?
So…the earliest canonical text of the Christian NT, 1 Thessalonians, concerns questions about the delay of the Parousia. The last canonical text of the NT, 2 Peter, concerns the delay of the Parousia. In between these, some of the Pauline forgeries seem to have been produced at least in part to address issues arising from the delay of the Parousia.
Prof Ehrman, are you familiar with any book written by a critical scholar that takes as its central theme the effect on the early church and its formation of the delay of the Parousia?
Off topic, but I have to ask it. The New Testament claim that Jesus said he was anointed for his own burial probably isn’t historical because the historical Jesus probably didn’t think he would die for human sins at the upcoming Passover. The historical Jesus probably felt that the son of man would arrive and set him up as king of Israel prior to any death that he himself might have. That means Judas Iscariot’s motive for betraying Jesus couldn’t have been because Jesus allegedly predicted his own death.
So, what would count as valid scholarly, historical critical, real and plausible reasons for Judas Iscariot betraying Jesus? I remember hearing somewhere that 70 percent of domestic homicides are motivated by infidelity. Betraying somebody to death could be motivated by money but it would have to be a large amount; not the paltry sum the New Testament claims.
Betraying Jesus to prevent the slaughter that would happen from an insurrection is one possible motive. But another motive could be jealously over women. Perhaps Jesus was having intimate relations with some of the many women in his caravan and Judas had jealously over it. What do you think?
What does the word “destruction” mean in the NT as we have it translated into English?
I can understand the end of/”destruction” of worldly ways, or a mean, negative world. – That is of a mindset and ways of going about things that are awful, lousy, or highly dysfunctional.
I can understand that if a person is mean, lying all the time, or are themselves harmful and destructive, that this harms and “destroys” them psychologically and mentally.
This is different than some kind of cosmic destruction, or a person going off to some kind of physical destruction.
The Mormons have it that for a while, people were all kind and loving and living just like the bible says, and then they all started fighting and bickering again. – Then they were somehow all shipped off to the US. I’m not much into Mormonism, but that’s what they say.
It would be nice to think that things and Jesus’s message did work for a while.
I’m just like, is it the end of the world that people were predicting, or the end of the world as we know it?
If a person becomes a new person in Christ, is the person that they were “destroyed”, or something like that?
Scholars have recently found irrefutable evidence that Peter was a rich fisherman! They based it on his “net” income