Who wrote Second Peter?

A summary of the debate and a pastoral response.

It may shock some readers to learn that most New Testament scholars say the canonical letter known as “Second Peter” was not actually written by the Apostle Peter. Nevertheless, Hampton Keathley observes, “most critical scholars [conclude Second Peter] to be pseudepigraphal literature.”¹

Pseudepigraphy is the attribution of a work to a writer who was not the genuine author (from pseudo, meaning false, and epigraphos, meaning superscription).

This is similar to calling something pseudonymous (from pseudo, meaning false, and onoma, meaning name) or falsely named writing.²

Falsely named or falsely attributed writings are not uncommon in the ancient world. However, the implications would be serious if any biblical texts were placed under either of these labels.

Is it Pseudepigraphical?

Laying aside the major concern for the moment, it is worthwhile to try to understand why one might consider identifying the text of 2 Peter as pseudepigraphical.

Michael Gilmour offers a helpful summary of ten reasons why Petrine authorship of Second Peter is questioned.³ Among the reasons cited, Gilmour listed:

• Second Peter shares similar language and themes with the letter attributed to Jude, suggesting that Jude may have been the author of both.

• There are differences in style between First and Second Peter, and distinctions may point to different authors for each letter.

• At least some early Christians were reluctant to accept the text as canonical because Peter’s authorship was in question during that time.

Each of these problems is worth examining, but one must not conclude too early that these are cause to jettison Petrine authorship or to accept the notion of pseudepigraphical texts in the New Testament.

First, the similarities between Second Peter and Jude may be explained by the authors of each having a close relationship to one another.

John Piper says that the Apostle Paul may have implied that Peter and Jude (Jesus’ brother) traveled together.⁴ This would be a possible explanation for the similarities found in each of their writings. Even if they didn’t copy each other’s written text, traveling partners would regularly converse and tend to gravitate towards a common vocabulary when speaking of frequently mentioned subjects. This reasonable explanation need not be proven. The mere plausibility of it demonstrates that there is an alternative explanation to that of false attribution.

Second, the dissimilarities between First and Second Peter may be explained by the use of a secretary in authoring one or both of these texts.

Borrowing from John Piper once more, he says that the explanation of stylistic and vocabulary differences may be explained by positing Jude as Peter’s scribe (or amanuensis) for his second general letter.⁵ If Peter and Jude were travel partners for some time, then it is possible that Jude may have served Peter in this way. Peter certainly used a scribe for his first general letter (a man named Silvanus), and it is reasonable to think that he may have used one for his second as well. So, Piper’s explanation is that Peter used two different scribes (namely Silvanus and Jude), one for each letter.

John MacArthur argues similarly, though he concludes something a little different. MacArthur believes the reason for the dissimilarities is that Silvanus penned the first letter from Peter’s dictation (1 Peter 5:12), but that Peter wrote the second for himself.⁶ Either way, using a scribe for one or both letters leaves plenty of room for variations in style and verbiage.

Third, Apostolic authorship of any text was and is of paramount importance, so it is not surprising that some New Testament texts were questioned longer than others.

The fact that Second Peter was not immediately recognized as canonical does not exclude it from being Apostolic in authorship, but it does demonstrate a close examination process for what texts were recognized as Scripture. It would seem that the slow and painstaking process of receiving a work as God’s holy word would lend to its credibility rather than take from it. If one work was scrutinized more than another, it does not follow that the findings are less credible.

What is at Stake?

Is this New Testament letter pseudepigraphical?

On the one hand, we may believe that this letter is authentic to the Apostle Peter. We may consider the difficulties, and we may believe that they are overcome by the reasonable explanations given.

On the other hand, we may believe that it was written by someone other than the Apostle Peter. We may find the difficulties too great to overcome, and we may believe that the most reasonable explanation is that Peter is not the author.

But (it seems to me) option number two comes with grave implications.

It is worth pointing out that the text of the letter claims Peter as the author. The very first phrase of the letter is a declaration of authorship - “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). This raises an important question: Why refer to this letter as pseudepigraphical (i.e., falsely attributed) and not pseudonymous (i.e., falsely named)?

If Simeon Peter is not the true author, then this is not a question of attribution. It was not the readers who erroneously named the author; the false author has himself taken a false name. This is the definition of pseudonymous writing.

Therefore, one is not merely looking at an anonymous document that some believe may have been written by Simeon Peter. Instead, one is forced either to recognize Simeon Peter as the true author or to acknowledge that the author is intentionally misleading the reader from the beginning. It is not hard to see that the stakes are quite high here.

The question under our consideration, then, is not only one of authorship but also reliability. Furthermore, if the author of Second Peter cannot be trusted, then there is reason enough to question the reliability of at least some other New Testament texts. Finally, if there is even one untrustworthy text in the whole of the canon of Scripture, then there is cause enough for the average person to distrust the Bible generally.

Because of these high stakes, it behooves us to ask what reason we have for throwing such contempt upon the Scriptures in this way.

• Is it because there is strong evidence to suggest that Second Peter is unreliable?

• Is it because there is something in this letter that contradicts the rest of sacred Scripture?

• Is it because someone has discovered that there was a conspiracy among the patristics that included the adoption of this text despite its pseudonymous authorship?

No, is the answer to all of these questions.

There is no strong evidence that would suggest the text is unreliable, since the difficulties are light and speculative. There is absolutely no contradiction between the text and the remainder of the Scriptures. And there is no evidence of any conspiracy among early Christians to include or exclude texts for some nefarious reason.

As a matter of fact, there is good reason to receive the text of Second Peter at face value. There is perfect harmony between this text and the other canonical books. And everything we know of the early Christians who received and affirmed the New Testament Scriptures indicates that they would have thrown out any pseudonymous text (indeed, that’s what they did!).

The bottom line is that Second Peter simply does not make sense as a pseudepigraphical or pseudonymous writing.

After weighing the words of Second Peter, John MacArthur says that it does not introduce any new doctrine or teaching; therefore, it would not make sense that a false author would attribute such an inconsequential text to Peter. A false writer would need the weight of an apostolic name only if he were intending some significant thrust in the work.

MacArthur says, “If 2 Peter were a forgery, it would be a forgery written by a fool for no reason at all.” Then he says, “This is too much to believe.” Finally, MacArthur resolves, “The conclusion to the question of authorship is that, when the writer introduced the letter and referred to himself as Peter, he was writing the truth.”⁷

I concur with Mr. MacArthur.

1. Keathley, Hampton, IV. "The Authorship of Second Peter." Bible.org. June 3, 2004. https://bible.org/article/authorship-second-peter.

2. Carson, D. A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1992. 337.

3. Gilmour, Michael J. "Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter." The Evangelical Quarterly 73, no. 4 (October 2001): 291-309. Accessed November 21, 2013. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/2001-4_291.pdf.

4. “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5; ESV). Piper, John. "Who Wrote 2 Peter?" Desiring God. April 27, 1982. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/who-wrote-2-peter.

5. Piper, John. "Who Wrote 2 Peter?" Desiring God. April 27, 1982. http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/taste-see-articles/who-wrote-2-peter.

6. MacArthur, John. "Grace To You." Second Peter. Accessed November 22, 2013. http://www.gty.org/resources/Bible-Introductions/MSB61/Second-Peter.

7. MacArthur, John. "Grace To You." Second Peter. Accessed November 22, 2013. http://www.gty.org/resources/Bible-Introductions/MSB61/Second-Peter.