Second Epistle of Peter
[35] Despite this effort, scholars such as Michael J. Gilmour, who consider Picirilli's evidences to be correct, disagree with classifying the work as authentic but rather as a pseudepigrapha, arguing among many other things that Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:1–2) had to warn against contemporary pseudo-Pauline writers.
[37][b][c] Richard J. Bauckham, who popularized this argument, wrote that the 'testament' genre contains two main elements: ethical warnings to be followed after the death of the writer and revelations of the future.
The significant fact about the 'testament' genre was not in its markers but in its nature; it is argued that a piece of 'testament' literature is meant to "be a completely transparent fiction.
[48] Various hypotheses have been put forward to improve or resolve this issue; one notable hypothesis is that the First Epistle of Clement (c. AD 96), by citing as Scripture several of the Pauline letters,[49] was inspired by 2 Peter because it was considered authentic.
This would mean that even the recipients of 1 Clement, the inhabitants of Corinth, would have also considered it authentic, which would indicate that the letter must have been in circulation long before that time.
According to the scholar Bart D. Ehrman, the historical Peter could not have written any works, either because he was "unlettered" (Acts 4:13) or because he was a fisherman from Capernaum, a comparatively small and probably monolingual town, in a time and province where there was little literacy.
[53] Bauckham addresses the statistical differences in the vocabulary of the two writings, using the data given by U. Holzmeister's 1949 study;[54] 38.6 percent of the words are common to 1 and 2 Peter.
Those who deny the Petrine authorship of the epistle, such as, for example, Kelly, insist that the differences show that First and Second Peter were not written by the same person.
[60] Others add that 2 Peter was a specific type of pseudepigraphy common and morally accepted at the time, either because it was a testamentary genre or because the works of the disciples could bear the names of their masters without any inconvenience.
[61][62][d] Those who defend Petrine authorship often appeal to the different amanuenses or secretaries Peter used to write each letter, as first suggested by Jerome.
[66]The scholar Simon J. Kistemaker believes that linguistically "the material presented in both documents provides substantial evidence to indicate that these letters are the product of a single author.
[3][68][69][70][34][48] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.
[77] The earliest undisputed mention of 2 Peter is by the theologian Origen (c. 185–254) in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, although he marks it as "doubted"/"disputed".
Donald Guthrie suggests that "It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical.
[79] Before Origen's time, the evidence is inconclusive;[80] there is a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, though possible use or influence has been located in the works of Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 211), Theophilius (d. c. 183), Aristides (d. c. 134), Polycarp (d. 155), and Justin (d.
[93] Eusebius (c. 275–339) professed his own doubts (see also Antilegomena), and is the earliest direct testimony of such, though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of Jerome (c. 346–420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.
[94] The Peshitta, the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition, does not contain the Second Epistle of Peter and thus rejects its canonical status.
[100][101][102] The epistle presciently declares that it is written shortly before the apostle's death (1:14), an assertion that may not have been part of the original text.
The paraenetic traditions are found in Sirach 16:7–10, Damascus Document 2:17–3:12, 3 Maccabees 2:4–7, Testament of Naphtali 3:4–5, and Mishna Sanhedrin 10:3.
[110] The letter gives a list of seven virtues in the form of a ladder; Love, Brotherly affection, Godliness, Steadfastness, Self-control, Knowledge, and Excellence.
[113] As a solution 2 Peter proposes in the following chapter tools such as penance, aimed at purging sins, and the reactualization of the eschatological hope, to be expected with attention, service and perseverance.
God is delaying to make sure that "all" have had sufficient time to secure their commitment (or return) to the gospel, including the false teachers.
The remaining verses provide details about the coming day of the Lord along with the exhortation that flows seamlessly into the conclusion of the letter.
The instruction offered here (3:11–13) echoes that of Jesus who called his disciples to await the consummation of his kingdom with attention, service and perseverance (Mt 24–25; Mk 13:3–13, 32–37; Lk 18:1–30; 21:1–38).
