The Second Letter of Peter in the New Testament is not actually by the apostle Peter as New Testament scholars have long realised. Despite its claim to be an eyewitness to the life of Jesus it is a forgery. Christians tend not to know this and assume, wrongly, that it is authentic. Here is an extract from the prestigious Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:
The implications of these findings are profound and disturbing. If it is ‘virtually impossible’ to believe that the apostle Peter was the author of 2 Peter then the New Testament contains a letter that deliberately sets out to deceive its readership into believing it is an authentic apostolic witness to the actual life of Jesus. But in reality this is a deception. A lie.
The trustworthiness of the New Testament is shattered.
Categories: Bible, New Testament scholarship
Devastating!
Yep.
Nope.
Yep, sorry Kendra.
Differences in style and vocabulary are there because, as in 1 Peter, he used an amanuensis (secretary with authority to put the same content in his own choice of words).
1 Peter 5:12
“through Silvanus, I have written to you . . . ”
The similarities in content and vocabulary and style to Jude probably indicate that Peter verbally dictated (from prison before his execution by Nero, around 67 AD) this letter to Jude, and then Jude wrote it for him.
Mark also wrote down Peter’s actions sermons, so there is a lot of evidence that others wrote down what Peter was preaching and testifying to.
It is partially quoted from and alluded to in earlier (earlier than Origen in 250 AD) writings, like 1 Clement (96 AD), the Epistle of Barnabas (70-150 AD), the Apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter (132-135 AD) and Irenaeus (180-200 AD).
See: Gene L. Green, Commentary on Jude and 2 Peter, Baker, 2008; pages 140-145.
Even Richard Bauckham says: “the use of 2 Peter by the Apocalypse of Peter “is sufficient to rule out a late date for 2 Peter.” (1983:p. 162) (cited by Gene L. Green on page 142)
Once was allows for those realities; then the main criticisms of it disappear.
‘Even Richard Bauckham says: “the use of 2 Peter by the Apocalypse of Peter “is sufficient to rule out a late date for 2 Peter.” ‘
Yet even Richard Bauckham, a conservative evangelical, doesn’t believe Peter wrote 2 Peter!
He doesn’t think your points make the criticisms ‘disappear’.
So even your own chosen scholars refute you Ken.
It is true that Bauckham does not think Peter actually wrote 2 Peter; but it would be interesting if he would think Jude could have, seeing that Peter used an amanuensis in both Mark and 1 Peter; and it would make sense that Peter uses an amanuensis again.
Using an amanuensis, as is the pattern for Peter, still allows for most all of the criticisms to disappear.
“The parallels between 2 Peter 3:4 and 1 Clement 23:3 and 2 Clement 11:2 are indeed strong” (ibid, Green, page 141)