By Prof. A. Lopukhin
The author of the Epistle, known in the canon as the Second Epistle of the Holy Apostle Peter, from the very beginning calls himself Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ – the same names he uses in his First Epistle, with the addition of “Simon” and “servant” (1Pet. 1:1). The content of the Epistle itself has many common features with the First Epistle, as well as a number of references to the personality of the chief apostle Peter.
At the beginning (2Pet. 1:2–4) the apostle speaks of the greatness of the benefits given through the Christian faith, and of the exalted state of the Christian, favored by God’s promises – as if continuing the concluding thoughts of 1Pet. 5:12. Then he speaks of himself as an eyewitness of the greatness of the Lord Jesus Christ and the glory of His Transfiguration (2Pet. 1:16–17). And in 2 Pet. 3:1 he emphasizes that this is already the second epistle that he writes to the same readers. The spirit of the epistle and the fervor of the speech, reflecting the zeal of the Apostle Peter, also confirm his authorship.
Finally, the writer’s attitude towards the Holy Apostle Paul, whom he calls “our beloved brother” (2 Pet. 3:15), and his sorrow over the distortion of Paul’s teaching by the ignorant (2 Pet. 3:16), also testify to the apostolic spirit of Peter. In general, according to the totality of all internal testimonies, the content of the Second Epistle of the Apostle Peter represents “a reminder of what has already been written” (Blessed Theophylact), and is fully worthy of being accepted as the work of the Apostle Peter himself.
The authorship dispute in the ancient Church
Despite the internal evidence for the affiliation of the Second Epistle of the Apostle Peter precisely to the chief apostle, many researchers of the Modern Age — since Erasmus, Calvin and H. Grotius — dispute its authenticity and attribute it to an unknown disciple of the apostolic circle. The main argument for this is the lack of direct evidence for the Second Epistle of Peter until the beginning of the 3rd century, as its very apostolic affiliation has been repeatedly questioned. The Epistle is not included in the Syriac translation Peschito (2nd century), nor is it mentioned in the so-called Muratorian Fragment.
But if the entire Church really recognized it as canonical only towards the end of the 4th century, and in the previous centuries it was unknown in some churches, then this speaks not so much against its authenticity as in favor of the exceptional caution and rigor with which the Church approached the issue of establishing the New Testament canon. In addition, there is indirect evidence that the ancient church writers were familiar with the Second Epistle – this is evident from individual expressions and thoughts that are very reminiscent of corresponding places in the Second Epistle of Peter. This applies to the First Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (chap. IX – cf. 2 Pet. 1:17 and 2:5; ch. XXXV – cf. 2 Pet. 2:2), to the “Shepherd” of Hermas (Visions III, 7 – cf. 2 Pet. 2:15, 21, 22), to the composition of St. Justin Martyr “Conversation with Trypho the Jew” (chap. LXXXI – cf. 2 Pet. 3:8), as well as to the composition of Theophilus of Antioch “Epistle to Autolycus” II, 9 – cf. 2 Pet. 1:21. According to the testimony of Eusebius of Caesarea, Clement of Alexandria even wrote an interpretation of 2 Peter (Church History VI, 14, 1), which undoubtedly speaks of the deep respect for it in the ancient Church. And Origen, although he notes that some dispute its authenticity, himself recognizes it as authentic, saying, for example: “Peter speaks through the two works of his epistles” (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, vol. XII, p. 857). St. Didymus and St. Athanasius of Alexandria categorically recognized the authenticity of 2 Peter.
Disputes about authorship in modern times
In modern times, attempts have been made to challenge the authenticity of the Second Epistle of the Apostle Peter on internal grounds – by pointing out differences in content compared to the First Epistle. For example, it is claimed that in the theology of the First Epistle the concept of hope (ἐλπίς) is leading, and in the Second – the concept of knowledge (ἐπίγνωσις). The First Epistle often speaks of the nearness of the Parousia (the second coming), while the Second Epistle only mentions its suddenness, not its nearness. The First Epistle repeatedly speaks of persecutions against Christians, and the Second – of the possible or actual appearance of false teachers, against whom the apostle warns the readers. In the First Epistle, the apostle Peter often uses texts from the Old Testament, while in the Second there are almost no literal quotations; the language of the First Epistle is saturated with Hebrew expressions, while that of the Second is close to the Hellenistic Greek dialect.
But all these differences between the two epistles are often greatly exaggerated. For example, the concept of Christian hope is undoubtedly present in the Second Epistle (2 Pet. 1:4, 11; 2 Pet. 3:12), just as the idea of Christian knowledge is not foreign to the author of the First Epistle (1 Pet. 1:12, 25–26; 2:2). Some of the differences are in completely subjective or even imaginary – such as stylistic or linguistic differences, while others are completely explainable in the work of the same author, who wrote under different circumstances. When the First Epistle was composed, Christians were threatened by external persecution, while by the time of the Second Epistle, the first manifestations of false teachings had already taken shape within Christian society. Both situations find their corresponding echo in the letters of the great apostle.
Therefore, neither the external evidence of the epistle, nor its internal content features contain anything that would require a rejection of the church tradition, according to which the Second Epistle is authentic and truly belongs to the chief apostle Peter.
Time and reason for writing
The most immediate reason for writing this epistle was the desire of the senior apostle, who was already close to his death (2 Pet. 1:14–15), to leave Christians a warning and spiritual weapon against the emerging false teachings. With its descriptions of the last times, the Second Epistle of the Apostle. Peter has much in common with the Second Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Timothy (2 Tim. 3), and was most likely written at the same time. Just as Second to Timothy is the last epistle of the Apostle to the Gentiles and represents his dying testament to the Church, so Second Peter was written by the Apostle shortly before his death and also represents a prophetic testament. Both epistles were written in Rome, around 66–67 AD.
Source in Russian: Explanatory Bible, or Commentaries on all the books of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments: In 7 volumes / Ed. by prof. A.P. Lopukhin. – 4th ed. – Moscow: Dar’, 2009.
