2 Peter is among the least well attested works of the New Testament from Christian antiquity, although it is found already in P 72 , ca. 300 CE, along with 1 Peter and Jude, the two canonical letters with which it is most closely associated. 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). 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] 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.

First Argument (Literary/Greek)

The grounds for considering 2 Peter a forgery are varied and numerous. The first has to do with the quality of the Greek. Even if we assume that Peter could write in Greek, an assumption I will challenge in the chapter that follows, 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. By Elliott’s count, there are proportionally more hapax legomena in 2 Peter than in any other writing of the New Testament: 58 of its 402 words (14.4 percent).

Second Argument (Clear Indications that book was written in a later period, with odd knowledge)

In addition, there are the clear indications that the book was written in a later period, after the death of the apostles. Most obviously, 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 postapostolic writings, such as Luke-Acts and the Fourth Gospel. In particular we are told that “the fathers” have “fallen asleep” (i.e., died) since the original promises of the coming end (3:4). Moreover, when the author is speaking in character, he feigns a knowledge of his own approaching death, based in part on a prediction of Jesus himself (1:12–14; see, for example the post-Petrine John 21:18–19 as well), giving this book, as widely recognized, the character of a testamentary fiction. He “knows” of his impending death and wants to give his readers his final instructions. As with all Testaments, this is a fiction put on the pen of someone already residing comfortably in his tomb. 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. By Elliott’s count, nineteen of Jude’s twenty-five verses reappear in modified form in 2 Peter. 71 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. I will be arguing in the next chapter that 1 Peter is forged; that would necessarily make 2 Peter a forgery as well.

Final Argument (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 it.)

The reference to the false teachers who emerged from the community as those who had earlier escaped suggests 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 Peter. 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. On the contrary Scripture is read in a completely presentist way. The examples cited of disobedience in Scripture are merely illustrative of how God works. And there is no injunction to follow the dictates of Scripture. Quite the contrary, it is standard, high morals, not the works of the Law, that matter to this author.

Ironies of 2 Peter

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. Moreover, this assertion of factual authority is used precisely in order to oppose the and the (2:1–3) who revile “the truth” and teach “false words”—all this in a , 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.

The Polemical Function of the Forge

More on 2 Peter from the book of Forged

1. Scholars of the New Testament have argued a great deal about who wrote the book of 2 Peter. The majority of scholars agree that the letter’s author does not claim to be apostle Peter. This conclusion can be drawn for a number of reasons. First, the author of 2 Peter asserts that he was present at Jesus’ transfiguration, which is described in the Gospels as an event in which Jesus was transformed before Peter, James, and John and began speaking with Moses and Elijah by a voice from heaven declaring, “This is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased.” 2 Peter’s author insists that he heard these words firsthand because he was there. The author’s use of the transfiguration as a means of proving his legitimacy as Peter, on the other hand, raises questions about his true identity because it seems unlikely that the real Peter would have felt the need to make such a clear claim about his own presence at this event. The similarities between the letter and the book of Jude are another reason why scholars question the authenticity of 2 Peter. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that the author of 2 Peter simply edited Jude’s message and incorporated it into his own because of the letter’s numerous verbal resemblances to Jude.
2. In addition, the situation that is described in 2 Peter, with false teachers spreading “destructive heresies” and skeptics mocking the Christian belief that Jesus will soon return, appears to be from a much later time than Peter’s time. When Peter himself passed away in the first century CE, there was still a strong belief that Jesus would soon return, and it wasn’t until later that this belief started to be questioned. Christians had to defend themselves against opponents who ridiculed their belief in the imminent return of Jesus by the time 2 Peter was written. This suggests that the letter was not written by Peter himself but rather by someone who lived in a later era. Scholars generally agree almost unanimously that someone claiming to be Peter wrote 2 Peter rather than the apostle Peter himself.

The literary dependence on Jude rules this out. II Pet 1 and 3 already have a number of contacts with Jude: cf. II Pet 1:5 with Jude 3; II Pet 1:12 with Jude 5; II Pet 3:2 f with Jude 17 f; II Pet 3:14 with Jude 24; II Pet 3:18 with Jude 25. The most striking agreements with Jude are shown in the portrayal of the false teachers in II Pet 2 and also in the illustrations based on the OT and the pictures drawn from nature, agreements in the exact wording and extensive agreements in sequence. The false teachers deny the Lord Christ and lead a dissolute life (II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4), they despise and blaspheme the good angelic powers (II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 f), they speak in high-handed fashion (υπερογκα; II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16), they are blotches on the communal meal (σπιγοι συνευωχωμενοι; II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12), they are clouds tossed about by the wind, devoid of water, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved (II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 f), they are denounced for their fleshly corruption and their unrestrained mode of life (II Pet 2:10, 12 ff, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16). The sequence of examples of punishment from the OT in Jude 5 ff (Israel in the desert, fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah) is arranged in historical order in II Pet 2:4 ff and modified (fallen angels, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) because the author of II Pet needs the example of the Flood to combat the deniers of the parousia. The general statement in II Pet 2:11 makes sense only if note has been made of the concrete example mentioned in Jude 9. The image in Jude 12 f is more genuine and more plastic than the parallel in II Pet 2:17. This material shows, therefore, that it is II Pet which is the dependent factor. It is further to be observed that the quotation from a noncanonical writing (Jude 14 f = the Apocalypse of Enoch 1:9; 60:8) is lacking in II Pet, and that by omitting certain essential features the allusions to the apocryphal writings have been somewhat obscured in Jude 6 (fallen angels) and 9 (the struggle between the archangel Michael and the Devil). From this it may be concluded that II Pet is already reluctant to use this literature whereas Jude has a naive attitude toward it. II Pet betrays a literary strategem in that the false teachers who are characterized by Jude as being in the present are depicted in II Pet as future and indeed predicted by Peter (2:1 ff, in the future; 3:3, 17 προγινωσκοντεσ). But in spite of this they are also described in the present tense (2:10, 12 ff, 20), and indeed the past tense is used (2:15, 22). Consequently it is almost universally recognized today that II Pet is dependent on Jude and not the reverse. Then II Pet 3:3 ff portrays the libertines as the deniers of the parousia. In this way he representes a more developed stage, while a less developed stage is evident in Jude, who does not yet know that the false teachers against whom he directs his attention might have denied the parousia. Since Jude belongs in the postapostolic age, Peter cannot have written II Pet. The conceptual world and the rhetorical language are so strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely, nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the apostle. The Hellenistic concepts include: the αρετη of God (1:3), virtue in addition to faith (1:5); knowledge (1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20; 3:18); participation in the divine nature (θειασ κοινωνοι φυσεωσ) “in order that one might escape corruption that is present in the world because of lust” (1:4); the term εποπται comes from the language of the mysteries (1:16); placed side by side are a quotation from Proverbs and a trite saying from the Hellenistic tradition (2:22). The letter has a keen interest in opposing the denial of the Christians’ expectation of the parousia. 1:12 ff already deals with the hope of the parousia, which is based on the fact of the transfiguration of Jesus and the OT prophecy. In 3:3 ff there is a direct polemic against those who deny the parousia. These ask scornfully, “Where is the promise of the parousia of Christ?” and draw attention to the fact that since the fathers have fallen asleep everything remains as it has been from the beginning of creation (3:4). In I Clem 23:3 f and II Clem 11:2 ff too, there is adduced a writing which was obviously read in Christian circles, in which is laid down the challenge “We have already heard that in the days of our fathers, but look, we are become old and nothing of that has happened to us.” I Clem was written ca. 95, and II Clem can hardly have been written earlier than 150. We have, therefore, historical evidence from the end of the first century onward for the disdainful skepticism which is expressed in II Pet 3:3 ff. But it is the Gnostics of the second century who have opposed the parousia and reinterpreted it along spiritualistic lines. It is probably also they who are meant by the proclaimers of the “clever myths” (1:16) and of “knowledge” (see point 2). Characteristic of them are the libertinism and the insolent disrespect for spirit powers (see point 1). II Pet is therefore aimed against a movement which bears the essential features of second-century gnosis. A more exact determination is not possible, however. Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which “statements that are hard to understand” have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which include not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). In view of the difficulty in understanding “scripture,” and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that “no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation” because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of “early Catholicism.” It is certain, therefore, that II Pet does not originate with Peter, and this is today widely acknowledged. This point of view can be confirmed through two further facts. As in the case of the Pastorals, the pseudonymity in II Pet is carried through consistently by means of heavy stress on the Petrine authorship (see above, p. 430). The auther adduces his authority not only on the basis of the fiction of a “testament of Peter” but also by reference back to I Pet in 3:1 f, intending II Pet only to “recall” (1:12, 15; 3:1 f) what was said in I Pet to the extent that it corresponds to the interpretation which the author of II Pet wants to give to I Pet. This appeal to the apostolic authority of Peter and his letter is obviously occasioned by the sharpening of the Gnostic false teaching which is being combated in Jdue, as a result of a consistent denial of the parousia of the false teachers. In this way, the apostle has become the “guarantor of the tradition” (1:12 f), and as a consequence of the abandonment of the near expectation (3:8) the parousia is stripped of its christological character and functions as an anthropologically oriented doctrine of rewards. In its consistent quality the pseudonymity betrays the late origins of II Pet. In spite of its heavy stress on Petrine authorship, II Pet is nowhwere mentioned in the second century. The apologists, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about it. Its first attestation is in Origen, but according to him the letter is contested (αμφιβαλλεται). Eusebius lists it among the antilegomena. . . Even down to the fourth century II Pet was largely unknown or not recognized as canonical.

1. “Except for the epistolary greetings in 1, 1-2, 2 Peter does not have the features of a genuine letter at all but is rather a general exhortation cast in the form of a letter,” the notes in the Catholic NAB state. Furthermore, it is only so clearly not a letter. Regarding the epistolary greeting, which is addressed “to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ,” it even suggests that this is not correspondence. I certainly hope that St. Peter would have given the courier better instructions, but he might have taken a page from Paul’s letter, which he writes “to the holy ones who are faithful in Christ Jesus,” which a later scribe graciously explained as residing in Ephesus. Or, it’s possible that Jude, James’ brother and Jesus Christ’s slave, passed on this bad habit to Peter. Jude writes, “to those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept safe for Jesus Christ.”
2. The external evidence strongly suggests that II Peter is not genuine. If II Peter is true, then both letters are true because they both addressed the same church and were sent around the same time (during Peter’s time in Rome). As a result, it is reasonable to assume that the two genuine Peter epistles would have been distributed concurrently. However, the external evidence shows that a number of the early writers only knew about I Peter, which refutes the authenticity of II Peter.

Numerous allusions to NT epistles can be found in Polycarp to the Phillipians, suggesting that the author had access to some sort of collection. Online, you can find a list of NT parallels. First Peter, however, appears to have been the one epistle that the author preferred to use the most. These examples demonstrate the use’s obviousness.

Irenaeus of Lyons had a collection of canonical works that he quoted. Among these works/writings were 1 Peter.

However, a second Peter’s epistle is not quoted or mentioned anywhere in Irenaeus’ collection. This is strange because it contains so much juicy material that Irenaeus would not hesitate to use against his heretical opponents. If it were a genuine Peter letter, Irenaeus would have used II Peter on numerous occasions in his extensive refutations. I’ll briefly discuss the points made by Wallace. Polycarp and Irenaeus demonstrate, in contrast to Picirilli’s optimistic allusion-hunting, that II Peter was more well-known than I Peter in the church of the second century. The author’s self-description as “Symeon Peter” provides no support for either theory. According to Kummel earlier, II Peter does in fact exhibit signs of hellenization, and Jewish Christians were not exterminated around 70 CE. The notion that “our God and Savior Jesus Christ” presents a christology that is significantly inferior to “our Savior and God Jesus Christ” is absurd. The terms Savior and God, which both refer to Christ, make the christological expressions equivalent. In point of fact, critical scholarship acknowledges that Jesus’ claim to be God or Savior dates back to the second century. As a result, the argument that II Peter is to be firmly dated to the second century gains even more support. The statement that there are things in the collection of Paul’s letters that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction elicits “a humility, a pathos” from Wallace. The pseudipigrapher’s affectation is the only evidence of such. In order to explain the comment in II Pet 1:14, Wallace relies on the supposition that the redactor of John 21 stated that the apostle Peter was actually informed of his martyrdom by the risen Christ. Wallace even suggests that the selection of canonical books under the direction of the Holy Spirit supports II Peter’s authenticity. Therefore, it is evident that II Peter must be regarded as false for any scientific approach to the NT to be successful.

Perrin suggests dating (The New Testament: 263 of An Introduction): Since he is probably the most recent writer of the New Testament, a date around 140 A.D. would be appropriate.” Most scholars agree that the event occurred sometime in the second century, most likely in the second quarter. The synoptic account of the transfiguration, the Johannine appendix in which Christ predicts Peter’s martyrdom, and a collection of Pauline letters were all known to the author of II Peter. Finally, there appears to be a literary connection between II Peter and Peter’s Apocalypse. Loisy believed that II Peter was dependent on the Apocalypse, but some scholars today believe that the dependence is the other way around. I don’t know of any data that could help or hinder this problem.

1. «There is little historical or literary evidence to connect the author of this letter either to Simon Peter or to the author of 1 Peter.» «Such pseudepigraphical attribution is frequent in the Bible.»

«There is no body of literature against which we can test this claim of authorship nor sufficient information about Peter to indicate whether or not he could have written the letter.»

«The author wrote in the name of Peter not to transmit a particular form of Petrine tradition, but to convey the common apostolic tradition of the church. »

«The recension of Lucian of Antioch did not contain 2 Peter, and classic Antiochenes like John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia made no use of it.»

1. «Origen noted that there was some doubt concerning the true identity of the author of 2 Peter» «Eusebius listed 2 Peter, as antilegomena, books whose canonicity was under dispute» «Eusebius noted that no long line of church tradition seemed to support the acceptance of 2 Peter»

Judging pseudonymity is more about probabilities than “definitive” proof, but it has such a strong case for pseudonymity that few critical scholars accept it as a genuine Petrine epistle. Richard Bauckham in his WBC volume gives a very detailed analysis of the evidence, favoring an earlier date than most scholars but still firmly post-apostolic. The clearest evidence for its lateness occurs in ch. 3. The author’s reference to the letter as the δευτέραν ἐπιστολήν (3:1) requires a date subsequent to 1 Peter (which is often dated to the post-apostolic period as well). The next verse refers to the words spoken beforehand by the apostles (τῶν προειρημένων ῥημάτων ὑπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων), which implies that the apostles lie in the past and may no longer be speaking. This impression is confirmed in v. 4 with the scoffers criticizing the lateness of the parousia referring to the death of the fathers (οἱ πατέρες ἐκοιμήθησαν), i.e. the passing of the first Christian generation with no realization of the promised parousia. A similar concern appears in Matthew (c. 80-90), which revises the Markan Olivet discourse to address the issue of delay, but here it is clear that the first Christian generation has not yet passed away (16:28, 24:34). So the situation addressed in 2 Peter may be later than that of Matthew. Also the wording in this verse is similar to the apocryphal scripture (probably Eldad and Modad) quoted in 1 Clement 23:3-4 and 2 Clement 11:2-3 and paralleled otherwise in Hermas. This points to a post-apostolic date c. 90-120 when these other books were written.

Finally, and most decisively, there is the reference to a collection of Pauline epistles (ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς) that is classed as scripture alongside the OT (τὰς λοιπὰς γραφὰς), which practically demands a post-apostolic date, as this implies not only collation and widespread distribution of the letter collection throughout the churches but its ranking as scripture, an attitude inconsistent with how Paul himself probably regarded his letters (1 Corinthians 7:25, 40, 8:10, 2 Corinthians 11:16-21).

2 Peter has a special relationship with 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and Hermas, such that 2 Peter has a closer affinity with these post-apostolic writings than anything in the NT. Richard Bauckham notes that of the 57 hapax legomena in 2 Peter, 16 are found in these three books and 15 are not attested anywhere else in the apostolic fathers, and of the additional 38 words that occur only once or twice in the NT, 17 appear in these three books with 10 absent in the rest of the apostolic fathers (p. 150). One example is μεγαλοπρεπής and the related noun μεγαλοπρέπεια; this was a favorite expression of 1 Clement (occurring in 1:2, 9:1-2, 19:2, 45:7, 60:1, 61:1, 64:1), and it occurs in 1 Peter 1:17 (its only occurrence in the NT) in the phrase τῆς μεγαλοπρεποῦς δόξης which has a parallel in 1 Clement 9:2 (τῆ μεγαλοπρεπεῖ δόξη αὐτοῦ). It is unlikely for the author of 1 Clement to adopt μεγαλοπρεπής as a favorite expression from a single use in 2 Peter and the longer phrase appears both in the LXX of Psalms and in later liturgy. Bauckham suggests that such vocabulary commonalities between 2 Peter and 1 Clement are due to a “shared Christian language milieu,” as “they are not of the kind which literary dependence could explain, nor is common authorship conceivable” (p. 150).

There are a number of other commonalities. 1 Clement has a paraentic section and includes Lot who is inserted into the material that 2 Peter copies from Jude (1 Clement 11:1, 2 Peter 2:6-7). There is also a strong similarity between 2 Peter 3:3-4 and the lost apocryphal work quoted in 1 Clement 23:3-4 and 2 Clement 11:2-4; this material is also paralleled in the epistle of James and Hermas, with James citing a noncanonical scripture (James 4:5-9) and Hermas citing the book of Eldad and Modad (Hermas, Vision 2.3.4), which was probably the common denominator between all these writings (for a full synoptic comparison between the parallels between James, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and Hermas. That the author of 2 Peter was familiar with this apocryphal work is also suggested by another parallel in 2 Peter 2:8 with ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας occurring both here and in the quote from the apocryphon in 2 Clement 11:2; similarly προφητικὸν λόγον in 2 Peter 1:19 occurs in 2 Clement 11:2 as well. So again, it looks like 2 Peter and 1 and 2 Clement belong to a shared milieu, with many of the parallels between the works arising from the common use of a apocryphal work, probably Eldad and Modad. Another striking parallel is the description of the end of the world in 2 Peter 3:10, 12 and 2 Clement 16:3. Bauckham notes that the version in 2 Clement is more original, as the wording more closely reflects Malachi 3:19 LXX and Isaiah 34:4 LXX, so it isn’t an allusion to 2 Peter, and it looks like a quotation, so Bauckham argues that this is another use of the same apocryphal work quoted earlier.

There are actually several cases of pseudepigrapha in Peter’s name from the second century:

The style is strikingly different from that of 1 Peter being written in the florid, baroque “Asiatic” style of Greek. This has implications about the audience:

1. Most modern scholars do not think the apostle Peter was the author of 2 Peter. (Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2nd ed (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 421. Examples of the scholars who reject Petrine authorship are Mayerhoff, Credner, Hilgenfeld, Von Soden, Hausrath, Mangold, Davidson, Volkmar, Holtzmann, Julicher, Harnack, Chase, and Strachan. Scholars who support Petrine authorship are in the fringe minority and are outdated, they include Luthardt, Wiesinger, Guericke, Windischmann, Bruckner, Hofmann, Salmon, Alford, Zahn, Spitta, and Warfield. some scholars could not reach a conclusion, they include Huther, Weiss, and Kuhl. See Louis Berkhof, New Testament Introduction (Eerdmans-Sevensma Co., 1915), 310.)

1. 2. They believe it is pseudonymous writing that was well accepted in the early church as Scripture.
   Bauckham was one of the leading scholars that promote this idea, see Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, Tex: Word Books, 1983), 134.
2. [1:23 AM]
   3. Many critical commentaries are written with the presupposition that Peter was not the author.
   For example, Jerome simply stated It is a commonplace of contemporary NT criticism that 2 Peter is pseudonymous. See Jerome H. Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, vol. 37C, Anchor Yale Bible (Yale University Press, 2008), 128.
3. The critics argued that 2 Peter was pseudonymous because the external evidence is wholly insufficient (James Hastings, et al., eds., A Dictionary of the Bible: Dealing with Its Language, Literature, and Contents Including the Biblical Theology, Volumes I–V (New York; Edinburgh: Charles Scribner’s Sons; T. & T. Clark, 1911) V3, p816). First, it is missing in the Muratorian canon (AD180- 200). Second, it is not quoted before Origen of Alexandria (184-253AD), and he disputed it [Raymond E. Brown and Marion L. Soards, An Introduction to the New Testament, Abridged edition, The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016), 174]. Third, many church fathers, including Eusebius (265-339AD), had doubts and rejected it as canonical. [Ehrman, The New Testament, 421.] Fourth, besides Jerome (347-420AD), [Jerome accepted its canonical, but recorded others had doubts based on its styles: “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 by him.” See Jerome and Gennadius, Lives of Illustrious Men, 1.] no church fathers positively identify it as written by Peter [Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, 308]. Fifth, it was accepted as canon in the 4th century because it served the purposes of opposing false teachers, not because it is an authenticate letter from Peter [Ehrman, The New Testament, 421]. Finally, during the Reformation, Erasmus, Luther, and Calvin all looked down on it to some degree [Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, 309].
4. Many words in 1 Peter are not found in 2 Peter and vice versa. For example, 2 Peter used a different word for Christ return, ἀποκάλυφις in 1 Peter and παρουσία in 2 Peter. (See: They also claimed that conjunctions (ἵνα, ὅτι, οὖν, μέν) that are found frequently in 1 Peter are rare in 2 Peter. Instead, 2 Peter uses τοῦτο or ταῦτα (1:8,10;3:11,14). While in 1 Peter there is a free interchange of preposition, 2 Peter uses repetition of the same preposition. That is, διἀ is found three times in 1:3-5 and ἐν seven times in 1:5-7. Different words are used to express the same idea. That is, ἀποκάλυψις, 1 Pt. 1:7, 13; 4:13 with παρουσία, 2 Pt. 1:16; 3:4;—ῥαντισμός, 1 Pt. 1:2 with καθαρισμός, 2 Pt. 1:9;—κληρονομία, 1 Pt. 1:4 with ἁιώνος βασιλεία, 2 Pt. 1:11. See Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, 308, Ehrman, The New Testament, 421.) 361 words in 1 Peter was not found in 2 Peter, and 231 words in 2 Peter are not found in 1 Peter. See Berkhof, New Testament Introduction, 308.

1. Myths in 1:16 and the false teachings in chapter 2 are second-century Gnosticism [Ehrman, The New Testament, 422, Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 659]. The author promoted mountain veneration (1:18), a 2nd-century concept. 2 Peter stressed that scriptures interpretation is not one’s own interpretation (1:20) but had to be interpreted by authoritative teachers like Peter, therefore paved the road to Romans Catholicism [Brown and Soards, An Introduction to the New Testament, 174]. The reference to “your apostles” (3:2) excludes the author as one of them. The reference to prophets and apostles is a characteristic of 2nds-century writers when referring to Scriptures [Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 815]. The author wrote that the fathers (3:4) fell asleep, which is viewed as referring to the first generation Christians; therefore, the author could not be Peter. The author equated Paul’s epistles as scriptures (3:16), but the critics think the church had not recognized all Paul’s epistles as scriptures in the 60AD [Ehrman, The New Testament, 422].
2. Pseudepigraphy was a widespread practice in the ancient world and the church naturally adopted the practice. Bauckham wrote: “The pseudepigraphal device is therefore not a fraudulent means of claiming apostolic authority, but embodies a claim to be a fa ithful mediator of the apostolic message.” They claimed 2 Peter is a “testamentary” letter known to have come from the Petrine circle in Rome, and the readers would not have thought Peter actually wrote it [Carson and Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 660]. They also think 2 Peter should be considered as in the same category as Gospel of Peter and Apocalypse of Peter. For example, Ehrman pointed that just as the Apocalypse of Peter, both claimed the author was with Jesus in his transfiguration. [Ehrman, The New Testament, 421. See Allan Menzies, ed., The Ante-Nicen Fathers, The Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, 5th ed., vol. 9, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1897), bk. The Apocalypse of Peter]. They reasoned that the author’s eagerness to identify himself as Peter is suspicious. He identified himself as Simeon Peter (1:1) instead of just Peter as in 1 Peter. He identified he would die soon (1:14), borrowed from John 21 :18, a gospel written after the death of Peter. They think of 2 Pet 1:15 as the author’s self-conscious attempt to identify himself as the source for the gospel of Mark [Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, 813]. He witnessed Christ’s transfiguration ( 1:16 -18). He identified he wrote the first letter (3:1); this was a technique used by pseudopigraphists [Guthrie, 815] . The critics also argued that the author inadvertently put himself outside of the group of apostles, “…καὶ τῆς τῶν ἀποστόλων ὑμῶν…”.

1. Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which “statements that are hard to understand” have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which include not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). [gnostics] In view of the difficulty in understanding “scripture,” and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that “no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation” because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of “early catholicism.”
2. “Of the twenty-seven NT books II Pet had the least support in antiquity. In the Western church (unlike Jude) II Pet was either unknown or ignored “until ca. 350, and even after that Jerome reported that many rejected it because it differed in style from I Pet. In the Eastern church Origen acknowledged disputes about it. Bodmer P72 (3d century) shows that II Pet was being copied in Egypt; yet in the early 4th century Eusebius did not treat it as canonical, and most of the great church writers of Antioch ignored it. Nevertheless, during the 4th century II Pet was making its appearance in some Eastern and Western church lists (Athanasius, III Carthage); and by the early 6th century even the Syriac-speaking church was accepting it. ” pg. 1855 Raymond brown
3. “A comparison of I Pet and II Pet shows that the same writer did not compose both works, as noted already by Jerome in the 4th century. For instance, there are OT quotations in I Pet but not in II Pet; some 60 percent of the vocabulary of II Pet is not found in I Pet;15 the style of II Pet is more solemn, even pompous and labored; and the mind-set about issues like the second coming is quite different. That, plus factors to be discussed under dating below, makes it clear that II Pet is pseudonymous, written presumably by someone in the Petrine tradition.”

1. Oxford Annotated Bible, page 1783: Canonical Status: The earliest list of New Testament documents, the Muratorian Canon (late second century ce), does not include 2 Peter. Likewise, Irenaeus and Tertullian, writing at about the same time, do not mention 2 Peter. Sometime later, Origen (ca. 253) puts 2 Peter in the category of doubtful writings. The earliest surviving copy of 2 Peter is in Papyrus 72, dating from about 300 ce. Copies of 2 Peter are also included in the biblical Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, written about fifty years later. Athanasius (367) includes 2 Peter in his canon list. Since that time, 2 Peter has been accepted by Greek- and Latin-speaking Christians as part of the New Testament, but it was not accepted by Syriac-speaking Christians until the sixth century.
2. Authorship/Dating: Nevertheless, most New Testament scholars do not think Peter is the actual author of 2 Peter. A possible explanation for the composition of the letter by someone other than Peter is that 2 Peter is a testament in letter form. In a testament, a leader says farewell to his followers and gives them ethical advice and/or revelations about the future to guide the followers after the leader’s death. Such testaments are usually composed in the leader’s name by someone else. Second Peter may have been written about 125 ce. That date is suggested by the reference in 3.16 to “all” of Paul’s letters that ignorant people misunderstand the way they do the “other scriptures.” This implies that at the time 2 Peter was written, there existed a collection of letters of Paul that were regarded as scripture. This might have been true about 125 ce. Second Peter is probably the last writing of the New Testament to have been composed. The author of 2 Peter has used the letter of Jude as a source. Specifically, 2 Pet 2.1–3.3 is a revision of Jude 4–18, using Jude’s language but ordinarily avoiding direct quotation. However, 2 Pet 2.17b quotes Jude 13b, and 2 Pet 3.2–3 quotes Jude 17–18 with several changes.

1. “Of the twenty-seven NT books II Pet had the least support in antiquity. In the Western church (unlike Jude) II Pet was either unknown or ignored “until ca. 350, and even after that Jerome reported that many rejected it because it differed in style from I Pet. In the Eastern church Origen acknowledged disputes about it. Bodmer P72 (3d century) shows that II Pet was being copied in Egypt; yet in the early 4th century Eusebius did not treat it as canonical, and most of the great church writers of Antioch ignored it. Nevertheless, during the 4th century II Pet was making its appearance in some Eastern and Western church lists (Athanasius, III Carthage); and by the early 6th century even the Syriac-speaking church was accepting it. ” pg. 1855 Raymond brown
2. “A comparison of I Pet and II Pet shows that the same writer did not compose both works, as noted already by Jerome in the 4th century. For instance, there are OT quotations in I Pet but not in II Pet; some 60 percent of the vocabulary of II Pet is not found in I Pet;15 the style of II Pet is more solemn, even pompous and labored; and the mind-set about issues like the second coming is quite different. That, plus factors to be discussed under dating below, makes it clear that II Pet is pseudonymous, written presumably by someone in the Petrine tradition.”
3. Also indicative of the second century is the appeal to a collection of Pauline letters from which “statements that are hard to understand” have been misinterpreted by the false teachers, and to further normative writings which include not only the OT but also the developing NT (3:16). [gnostics] In view of the difficulty in understanding “scripture,” and its ambiguity, II Pet offers the thesis that “no prophetic scripture allows an individual interpretation” because men have spoken under the power of the Holy Spirit (1:20 f). Since not every Christian has the Spirit, the explanation of Scripture is reserved for the ecclesiastical teaching office. Accordingly we find ourselves without doubt far beyond the time of Peter and into the epoch of “early catholicism.”

John A.T. Robinson in his book ‘Redating the New Testament’ has it that virtually everyone will agree that 1 and 2 Peter cannot be written by the same hand, same with gJohn and Revelation as the differences of style.