Who Wrote 1 & 2 Peter?

Who Wrote 1 & 2 Peter?

“Symeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of equal value to ours” (2 Peter 1:1 NAB). The opening verse of 2 Peter attributes its writing to the apostle Peter.

“This is now, beloved, the second letter I am writing to you” (2 Peter 3:1 NAB). He clearly says this is the second letter he is writing, which implies that 1 Peter is his first.

“We had been eyewitnesses of his majesty . . . We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain” (2 Peter 1:16-18 NAB). The writer counts himself as present at Jesus’ transfiguration. The gospel writers Matthew, Mark and Luke place Peter at the Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-11; Mark 9:2-11; Luke 9:28-36).

First and Second Peter both claim writership by Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1,17-18), and “a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1). The early church unhesitatingly received 1 Peter as authentic. Some examples are as follows:

  • Papias (60- 135 CE) noted that “Mark is mentioned by Peter in his first epistle” (Eusebius, History, 2.15).
  • Clement of Rome (30-101 CE); The Didache (an anonymous, early-second-century A.D. work dealing with a variety of doctrin­al and practical matters of import to the early Christian church); and Polycarp  (69-156 CE), all quoted from 1 Peter.
  • Irenaeus (130-200 CE) cited 1 Peter, using the apostle’s name [Against Heresies, 4.9.2; 4.16.5).
  • Eusebius summarized the canonical discussion by placing letters in four categories [History, 3.25):

The early Church viewed literary works which claimed to be written by an apostle, or one of their close associates, or which claimed to be scripture, in several ways:

  1. Those recognized as genuine by all Christians (for example, 1 Peter);

2. Those that, though disputed by some, were still recognized as authen­tic by the church as a whole and were familiar to most Chris­tians (for example, 2 Peter);

3. Non-canonical works that made no claim to being canonical;

4. Those that were generally acknowledged as outright heretical.

“For our Lord Jesus has shown me that I must soon leave this earthly life”—2 Peter 1:14 NIV

Second Peter was written late in Peter’s life, probably in the mid-60’s, as evidenced by the above. This deflates the critics claims that: (1) there could not have been first and second generation Christians by this time, nor “scoffers” about the seeming delay of the Lord’s return (2 Peter 3:2-4); and (2) Paul’s letters were not yet collected and viewed as scripture, as 2 Peter 3:15,16 says they were.

Despite strong historical evidence supporting Peter as the writer of both of the two letters that bear his name, some commentators hesitate to accept Peter’s writership for several reasons:

  • Nero’s persecution of Christians in Rome (Tacitus, Annals, 15.44) set a precedent for Roman officials in all the provinces to consider Christians as criminals. First Peter includes several references to the persecution of Christians outside Rome (1:6; 2:15; 3:15-16; 4:12-13; 5:8-9). Since all scholars agree that Peter died during Nero’s reign (A.D. 64-68; cf Eusebius, History, 2.25), and since persecution outside of Rome began after Nero’s reign, many New Testament commentators hold that both 1 and 2 Peter are pseudonymous works (falsely attributed to Peter). Their language, however, does not necessarily refer to a large-scale, official persecution and thus does not demand a date subsequent to Nero’s reign. The suffering Peter referred to was local and sporadic rather than universal and under imperial mandate. lndeed, Peter spoke more of Christians suf­fering verbal abuse and social ostracism than he did of martyrdom.
  • The enormous geographical area represented by the audi­ence addressed in 1 Peter 1:1 (for example, believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia) suggests to many scholars that these epistles were not composed until well after the 60s. They argue that enough time would have had to elapse after Paul’s missionary journeys to allow for the growth of Christianity in these areas (especially since we have no record that Paul even visited Pontus, Cappadocia or Bithynia). As reflected in the book of Acts and in Paul’s letters, however, Christian churches were often founded in short periods of time, and Peter may have first met some of his readers when they came to Jerusalem at Pente­cost (Acts 2:9-10).
  • First and Second Peter both demonstrate a refined vocabulary and rich literary style. Since Peter and John are called “unschooled, ordinary men” in Acts 4:13, many think it unlikely that Peter would have possessed the skill to write these epistles. However, the Greek word used in Acts 4:13 (agrammatos) most likely means something like “without an advanced education” rather than “illiterate.” The Jews prided themselves upon the education of their children (cf. Josephus, Against Apion, 1.12; 2.26). Peter evidently lacked the Talmud or “college” level of training. However, as a businessman in the fishing industry, he would have had to know how to read, and probably would have been fluent in Greek, the international language of common, public discourse at that time. The picture of Peter that is frequently put forth today in popular expositions of Scripture—the notion that he was something of a buffoon—is most certainly not true. Also, 1 Peter 5:12 tells us that Silas assisted in the writing of the letter. “I have written and sent this short letter to you with the help of Silas” (NLT). This indicates that Peter was not above seeking assistance to make certain his letters read well.

The weight of evidence is in favor of the authenticity, that is, Peter’s writership, of these two letters. In addition, the early church did not, on principle, approve of books written under false names. For example, the church father Tertullian  (On Baptism, 17) indicated that the elder who wrote the pseudonymous Acts of Paul in order to augment “Paul’s fame” was defrocked, and the so-called Gospel of Peter was criticized as false (Eusebius, History, 6.12). Moreover, pseu­donymous materials tend to be drastically different from 1 and 2 Peter.

There are actually great similarities in the vocabulary of 1 and 2 Peter. In fact, there there is no other extant writing that is as similar to 1 Peter as 2 Peter. The differences that exist between the two letters can be explained by the differences in subject matter, the time, circumstances and purpose of writing, and the use of a scribe (1 Peter 5:12) or the lack thereof.

ONE SOURCE: NIV ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY BIBLE

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com