article5

The Writer

Although doubts have been expressed about Simon Peter’s being the author of the two letters bearing his name, especially 2 Peter, there are no irrefutable reasons for rejecting the claims of the letters themselves to have been written by the apostle (1 Pet. 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1). From the earliest days, 1 Peter was accepted as the apostle’s work. Possibly 2 Peter 3:1 refers to it. Clement of Rome (A.D. 95)[1] appears to know it. But without question Polycarp, baptized about A.D. 69 and once a disciple of the apostle John, quotes 1 Peter as authentic. So does Papias (A.D. 60–130), who also mentions John Mark’s close association with Peter (1 Pet. 5:13).

The letter itself reflects Peter’s role as an eyewitness of our Lord’s life and ministry, and it is also reminiscent of Peter’s speeches in the Acts of the Apostles.[2]

Allusions to the Gospels include the following:

1 Pet. 1:10–12	Luke 24:25–27	prophecies fulfilled in Christ
1:16	Matt. 5:48	the divine standard
1:17	Matt. 22:16	God’s impartiality
1:18	Mark 10:45	Jesus’ death a ransom
1:22	John 15:12	love one another
3:9	Matt. 5:39	no retaliation
3:14; 4:13	Matt. 5:10	blessing in persecution
4:11	Matt. 5:16	Christian witness praises God
5:3	Matt. 20:26	no lording over others
5:7	Matt. 6:25–34	let God carry anxieties

Peter’s speeches in Acts are echoed:

1 Pet. 1:3, 21; 3:21	Acts 2:32; 3:15; 4:10	resurrection
1:17	Acts 10:34	God’s impartiality
1:20	Acts 2:23; 3:18	Christ’s death foreordained
1:20	Acts 2:17	revelation of last days
2:4	Acts 4:11	Christ the capstone (Ps. 118:22)
2:8	Acts 1:16	fate of disobedient foretold
2:24	Acts 5:30; 10:39	the cross a “tree”
3:18	Acts 3:14–15	Christ the righteous killed
3:19	Acts 2:27	triumph over Hades

Objections to the apostolic authorship of 1 Peter have also been raised on the ground that the Greek is beyond Peter’s competence. Who knows? Running a fishing consortium (Luke 5:3) in such a cosmopolitan port as Bethsaida [3] meant that Peter would need to be bilingual, even if his accent remained thick (Matt. 26:73). While he was not a graduate of Tarsus University like Paul, thirty and more years of preaching to Greek-speaking audiences would have honed his grasp of the language[4]—no doubt with the help of friends such as Silas, who may indeed have had a hand in the Greek style of the letter (see commentary on 5:12). If 1 Peter had been pseudepigraphic, a forger would surely have suggested the apostle’s long-time colleague Mark as Peter’s amanuensis, yet he is mentioned in the very next verse with no hint of being involved in the writing.

Historical objections to traditional authorship have also been put forward. The letter is addressed to persecuted Christians (1:6; 2:12, 15; 3:14, 16; 4:4, 12; 5:8–9), and in particular refers to their suffering for the name of Christ (4:14, 16). But the claim that this must mean an official government policy against Christians and thus points to a late date for the letter goes beyond the evidence.[5] In any case, persecution for “the name” was suffered by believers from the first (Acts 4:17; 5:28, 40; 9:16). The ancient world took it for granted that religion (that is, paganism) permeated the whole of society. So for Christians to refuse to take part in pagan practices (4:4) meant their being ostracized. In particular, many trades and professions involved paganism, and that made employment for Christians doubly difficult. Such everyday problems facing believers living among uncomprehending and scandalized pagan neighbors are ample explanation of the references to suffering in the letter. Persecution was localized and spasmodic, even if unpleasant at best. That aside, Peter’s exhortation to good citizenship (2:13–14) is enough to reject suggestions of official Roman policy against Christians at this date. On the contrary, it implies that Peter was writing his letter before the emperor Nero had changed from the public’s darling on his accession in A.D. 54 to the monster he became following the outbreak on 19 July 64 of the great fire of Rome, which he later tried to blame on the Christians.[6]

Relation to Other NT Books

Parallels with Paul. Whether 1 Peter is accepted as being written by the apostle or deemed to be a later writing, it would be surprising not to find examples of similar vocabulary and thought in the letters of Paul. Here are a few striking parallels:[15]

1 Pet. 1:1	God’s elect	Titus 1:1
1:2	chosen by God’s foreknowledge	Rom. 8:29
1:2	sprinkling by Jesus’ blood	Rom. 3:25
1:3	doxology	2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3
1:5	shielded by God’s power	Phil. 4:7
1:14	do not conform	Rom. 12:2
	(syschēmatizesthai; used in NT only here)
1:18	redeemed	Titus 2:14
	(lytrousthai: Paul’s only use of verb)
2:4	chosen by God	Rom. 8:33; Col. 1:27
2:9	God’s special people	Titus 2:14
2:11	reject sinful passions	Titus 2:12
3:16	in Christ	passim

The above is only a selection of ideas or terms in 1 Peter to be noted in Paul’s letters. Such agreements do not imply literary dependence either way, but they do offer evidence that the thought of 1 Peter is in line with that of the apostolic period.

Parallels with James. Again we have an impressive list of similarities:

1 Pet. 1:1	Diaspora (“scattered”)	James 1:1
1:6	all kinds of trials	1:2
1:7	proof of faith	1:3
1:17	divine impartiality	2:1
1:23	rebirth through word	1:18
1:24	Isa. 40:6–8	1:10–11
2:1	get rid of immorality	1:21
4:8	love covers sins	5:20
5:5	Prov. 3:34	4:6
5:6	humble yourselves under God	4:10
5:8–9	resist devil	4:7

The closeness of thought suggests that the body of teaching the two writers used was traditional in the Christian circles of their day. But as to date, this takes us little further, since scholarly opinion for the writing of the letter of James has ranged from A.D. 40 to 130, depending on the identity of the name of the author in James 1:1. The majority of modern scholars, however, support an earlier rather than a later date.

In sum, although a majority of German commentators in particular reject 1 Peter’s claim to be an apostolic work, there are more English-speaking scholars in favor of the letter’s authenticity than there are against it.[16] But the division of opinion does serve to reflect the number and complexity of problems modern scholarship sees in the letter, and which have been discussed in this introduction. While certainty one way or the other about the letter’s authenticity cannot be reached, the burden of demonstration lies with those who consider the letter to be pseudonymous.

It is worth remarking that, unlike the case of some other NT writings, the early church fathers were in overwhelming agreement about the genuineness of 1 Peter. Uncertainties on this score have arisen in relatively recent times.[17]

Writer

The letter purports to be by Simon (or Symeon [18]) Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ (1:1). He alludes to the prediction of his own death (1:14–15; cf. John 21:18) and claims to have been an eyewitness of the transfiguration of Jesus (1:16–18; cf. Matt. 17:1–8; Mark 9:2–8; Luke 9:28–36).

Many modern scholars dismiss these personal references as being deliberately included by a later author to give an air of verisimilitude to a letter he wanted to pass off as apostolic. But the presumption that in ancient times personal letters were frequently published under assumed names (pseudepigraphy) has been shown to be greatly exaggerated.[19] Furthermore, the early church was very alert to the need to check the authenticity of writings purporting to be apostolic. Even when a writer was solidly orthodox, and with the best of intentions Was trying only to promote the good name of a figure like Paul by means of an innocent romantic tale, he was deposed for forgery.[20] The motives for pseudepigraphy were usually far less worthy. Writers were more often intent on spreading some heresy and sought to claim apostolic authority as a cover. There is no suggestion in 2 Peter of heretical teaching being put forward. Apart from anything else, if 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic and the reference in 2 Peter 3:1 to an earlier letter[21] is intended to mean 1 Peter, then why did the writer make virtually no use of the content of that first letter? The two epistles have little in common as far as subject matter is concerned.

The writer refers to Paul as one who to the readers is, by repute if not in person, “our dear brother” (3:15), and he puts the authority of Paul’s epistles on a par with the OT Scriptures (3:16; cf. 1:21; 1 Pet. 1:11–12). By implication, the author of 2 Peter is claiming similar authority for his own present writing.

Although 2 Peter was by no means as widely known or recognized in the early days of the church as 1 Peter, it may have been quoted as authentic by the end of the first century, in 1 Clement, usually dated about A.D. 95, although that document may be dated earlier,[22] before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in A.D. 70. Even a century later, Origen (185–253) implies that some still had doubts about its authenticity, although he himself speaks of Peter blowing “on the twin trumpets of his own epistles” (Homily on Joshua 7:1). While Eusebius (265–340) classified 2 Peter among the “questioned” NT books (but not among the “spurious” writings), he says that by his day the majority of Christians accepted it as being by the apostle. It is significant that the great fourth-century Councils of Hippo, Laodicea, and Carthage all accepted 2 Peter as canonical. They must have had solid grounds for doing so, for at the same time they rejected the letter of Barnabas and the writings of Clement of Rome (1 Clement), both of which had for years been included in the church lectionaries alongside the canonical Scriptures.

The much wider agreement concerning the authenticity of 1 Peter raises the question as to whether the same writer could have been the author of 2 Peter, for the two letters are in contrast at a number of points. For one thing, their use of the OT is markedly different. First Peter enlists clear quotations and obvious allusions, whereas 2 Peter employs no direct quotations and few allusions. The literary style of one letter is unlike that of the other, although (apart from the different subject matter and occasion for writing) this could be due to whatever part Silas may have played in the writing of the first letter (1 Pet. 5:12); no hint of an amanuensis is given in 2 Peter, although one may have been used—it was common practice. Apart from anything else, we have no means of telling what facility in writing Greek the apostle Peter may have had at this stage of his life after many years of preaching in that language.

Such evidence as we have is insufficient to decide for or against accepting 2 Peter as apostolic, although the letter’s own claim cannot be said to be disproved; consequently its claim must be given full weight. Any reasons for the early hesitation about the letter’s authenticity are never spelled out. No charges of heresy were made, and the superior spiritual quality of 2 Peter, when compared with second-century “Petrine” literature (Gospel of Peter, Preaching of Peter, Acts of Peter, Apocalypse of Peter) is only too obvious, even on a casual reading. It may simply be that, in the earlier days of the Christian church, 2 Peter was not widely known, due perhaps to its limited initial circulation. Then, by the time copies of 2 Peter were being more widely distributed, the rash of pseudepigraphic Petrine works available could easily have aroused suspicions that here was another document of the same brand.

Literary Relations

Between 2 Peter and Jude. A great deal of the material in Jude appears in a somewhat similar form in 2 Peter:

2 Peter		Jude
2:1	false teachers denying Christ’s lordship	4
2:4	fallen angels imprisoned in darkness	6
2:6	Sodom and Gomorrah burned	7
2:10	slanderers of celestial beings	8
2:11	angels maintain restraint	9
2:12	blasphemers like brute beasts	10
2:15	they follow Balaam’s way	11
2:17	storm clouds	12
2:17	blackest darkness	13
2:18	boast, lust, entice	16
3:2	foretold by apostles	17
3:3	scoffers in last days	18

The frequency with which such parallels appear in the same order plainly points to some connection between the two documents that is probably not oral but literary. This can be explained in one of three ways: Jude has used 2 Peter; 2 Peter has used Jude; or both have used a common source. Most scholars accept the second solution, for it is hard to suggest any reason for publishing Jude after 2 Peter, if the former is more or less just an abstract of the latter.

Yet the third explanation, that both writers have employed a common written source, seems more probable, for while the same topics are touched upon in the same sequence, the differences in treatment are palpable (see commentary). Jude, as will be noted in the Introduction to that book (p. 16), makes great use of threesomes, unlike 2 Peter. To take one instance, Jude denounces the godless infiltrators as men who are copying the conduct of the three examples of Cain, Balaam, and Korah (Jude 11), whom he names without expanding on their misdemeanors. Jude evidently assumes that his readers know the OT background well enough to appreciate the point. By contrast, the parallel reference in 2 Peter 2:15 is limited to the single example of Balaam, but with much more about what he did. This scarcely suggests direct borrowing by one writer from the other, but it does fit the proposal that both authors individually adapted a common source.

There may also be some significance in the fact that Peter arranges his material (regarding judgments on the godless) in chronological order, whereas Jude does not. Compare the following:[24]

	2 Peter	Jude
1.	—	Israel in wilderness
2.	fallen angels	fallen angels
3.	Noah and Flood	—
4.	Cities of Plain (and Lot)	Cities of Plain (Lot not mentioned)
5.	—	Cain
6.	Balaam	Balaam
7.	—	Korah

Between 2 Peter and 1 Peter. Most scholars are of the opinion that the author of 1 Peter could not have written 2 Peter and consider that ideas in the second epistle that can be traced in the first argue against the authenticity of 2 Peter. The assumption is that such common ideas indicate borrowing. Others would claim that the similarities are to be expected if one author is behind both letters. Both conclusions, of course, depend upon one’s presuppositions.

Doctrinal differences between the two letters have been put forward as evidence for a different author. Most of the major themes in 1 Peter (the cross, resurrection, ascension, baptism, prayer) do not occur in 2 Peter. The Parousia appears in both letters, and indeed 2 Peter majors on this topic.

But any contrasts in subject-matter may well be due to the different situations addressed by the two letters—which reveal a considerable change in atmosphere. There is a calmer and more deliberate manner evident in the composition of 1 Peter, whereas 2 Peter was plainly composed with much greater urgency.

For all the contrasts noticed in these two letters, the differences can be exaggerated. There are an impressive number of similarities in vocabulary and ideas that could indicate that the same mind is behind their composition:

2 Peter	1 Peter
1:1 “precious”	1:19
1:2 lit. “grace and peace be multiplied”	1:2
1:3 God’s “goodness” (aretē)	2:9 God’s “praises” (aretas)
1:4 doctrine of new birth	1:23
1:5 “add” (epichorēgēsate)	4:11 “provide” (chorēgei)
1:7 “brotherly kindness” (philadelphia)	1:22 “love for your brothers” (philadelphia)
	3:8 “love as brothers” (philadelphoi)
1:10 doctrine of election	1:2; 2:2
1:16 “eyewitnesses” (Gk. noun epoptai)	2:12 “see” (Gk. verb epopteuontes)
1:16 second coming	1:7, 13; 4:13; 5:4
1:19–20 stress on prophecy	1:10–12
2:1 divine purchase	1:18
2:2 “shameful ways” (aselgeiai)	4:3 “living in debauchery” (aselgeiai)
2:4 angels in prison	3:19
2:5 Noah	3:20
2:10–22 immorality and judgment	4:2–4
2:19 freedom	2:16
3:6 Flood	3:20
3:10 end of the world	4:7
3:14 “spotless, blameless” (aspiloi, amōmētoi)	1:19 “without blemish or defect” (amōmos, aspilos)
3:14–18 exhortation to Christian living	4:7–11
3:18 doxology (last clause)	4:11

As in the case of the first letter, scholars who reject apostolic authorship for 2 Peter have to produce persuasive evidence for pseudonymity. The hesitations about 2 Peter that were voiced in the early church were based not on suggestions of unorthodox doctrine, the usual objection to pseudonymous works, but on other factors, the nature of which can be but conjectured. While the many differences in tone, style, and content between 1 Peter and 2 Peter can be identified, no factor unquestionably excludes Petrine authorship, and perhaps this is as far as one can go.

Literary Relations

Between Jude and 2 Peter. The puzzle over the many parallels in subject-matter between Jude and 2 Peter has been discussed in the Introduction to 2 Peter (see pp. 13–15). The answer probably lies in the use by Jude and Peter of a third document which denounced false teaching, then widespread in the early church, with each writer probably independently adapting the material for the purpose of his own letter. The variation in vocabulary is considerable, with but a single clause (in Jude 13 and 2 Pet. 2:17) being virtually identical. An examination of the parallel passages reveals that of the 256 words in Jude’s version and 297 in 2 Peter’s, only 78 are common to both letters. This means that some 70 percent of the vocabulary is different.[30] The suggestion, therefore, that Jude copied from 2 Peter, or vice versa, and made such a large number of vocabulary changes in the process, seems unlikely. There were no copyright laws in those days to encourage such fastidious attention to details of this sort.

Apocryphal Works. Jude freely uses several Jewish apocryphal writings; this may have prompted later hesitations about the canonicity of his letter. The main apocryphal passages Jude quotes are from 1 Enoch (dated ca. 170 B.C., with parts added later) and the Assumption of Moses (dated ca. 4 B.C.–A.D. 30).[31] These works were highly popular among both Christians and Jews during the first century, but Jude’s use of them is not to be taken as an endorsement of their inspiration. His citations are such as a present-day preacher might make from a well-known novel to illustrate a biblical point.[32]

1:1, 17; 2:11	pilgrim life
1:4	inheritance (promised land)
1:14–15; 2:9–10, 16; 3:15; 4:2	change of master[13]
1:18	redemption (cf. 3:20)
2:5	new priesthood
2:10	“not a people”
2:16	servants (slaves); newly acquired freedom
4:9	grumbling in the wilderness
5:6	mighty hand of God

1 Pet. 1:1	apostle (i.e., “one sent”); elect (cf. “beloved,” Gen. 22:2)
2	obedience (Gen. 22:18)
2	sacrificial blood (Gen. 22:2)
3	living hope (Gen. 22:5)
3	resurrection (Gen. 22:13; cf. Heb. 11:19)
4	inheritance assured (Gen. 22:18)
5	kept through faith (Gen. 22:12)
6	trials (Gen. 22:1)
7	faith proved through fire (Gen. 22:7)
8	God unseen, yet loved (Gen. 22:8; cf. Isa. 41:8)
9	receiving goal of faith, salvation (Gen. 22:17–18)

1 Pet. 1:16	Lev. 11:44
1:24–25	Isa. 40:6–8
2:6	Isa. 28:16
2:7	Ps. 118:22
2:8	Isa. 8:14
2:22	Isa. 53:9
3:10–12	Ps. 34:12–16
3:14	Isa. 8:12
4:8	Prov. 10:12
4:18	Prov. 11:31
5:5	Prov. 3:34
5:7	Ps. 55:22

1 Pet 1:7	Job 23:10; Mal. 3:3
1:17	Ps. 89:26; Jer. 3:19; Mal. 1:6
1:18	Isa. 52:3
1:19	Exod. 12:5
2:3	Ps. 34:8
2:4	Ps. 118:22
2:9	Exod. 19:5–6
2:10	Hos. 1:6, 9; 2:1, 23
2:11	Ps. 39:12
2:17	Prov. 24:21
3:6	Gen. 18:12
3:20	Gen. 7:7, 17
3:22	Ps. 8:4–6; 110:1
4:14	Isa. 11:2
4:17	Jer. 25:29; Ezek. 9:6
4:18	Prov. 11:31
4:19	Ps. 31:5
5:7	Ps. 37:5

Jude 1	called, loved, kept (readers)
2	mercy, peace, love (prayer)
3, 17, 20	“dear friends” (readers)
4	godless, antinomian, deniers of Christ (infiltrators)
5–7	Israel, angels, Sodom and Gomorrah (OT examples)
8	self-polluting, rebels, slanderers (“these dreamers”)
11	Cain, Balaam, Korah (OT examples)
12	blemishes, brazen, selfish
19	disrupters, sensuous, unspiritual