Most scholars today believe Peter did not write 2 Peter. They believe that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphical—which is a fancy way of saying they believe someone else wrote 2 Peter and stuck Peter’s name on it either to honor the apostle or in order to gain a bit more authority. In the first few centuries there were several books floating around with Peter’s name on it. This, according to modern scholars, is what 2 Peter was—a book claiming to be written by Peter but really not.

There are a few main reasons why these scholars do not accept Peter as the author. First, the Greek in 2 Peter is so much different than the Greek of 1 Peter. Second, it looks like Peter did a cut & paste job using Jude. What apostle would do that? Third, the author says things in 2 Peter which seem to date it after Peter’s death. For instance, he refers to Paul’s writing as “Scripture”. Wouldn’t this mean Paul’s writings would have to be compiled? Most believe that didn’t happen until a decent time after Peter’s death. Fourth, he refers to himself as Simeon Peter—which is different than how he refers to himself in 1 Peter. And lastly, if you look at the history of 2 Peter it was even a bit suspect in the early church. Many have had questions about it since conversations about canon even started happening. Given all these reasons isn’t it obvious that Peter didn’t actually write 2 Peter?

I don’t buy it.

I’ll admit up front that I have a presupposition about history. I don’t buy into chronological snobbery. I don’t necessarily believe that we are smarter than the folks who lived 2000 years ago. They weren’t morons. And so when I think about history like this I try to think about it in story form and see if its plausible.

In order for 2 Peter to not be written by Peter, I must believe a few things. First, that someone who is not Peter wrote this letter and fleeced the early church. He did such a good job that even though other books with Peter’s name got thrown out, somehow 2 Peter made the cut. And it did this in a time when all things written with the name Peter on it were highly suspect.

It would be one thing to carry a bomb onto a US plane on September 10, 2001. It’s quite another to do so on September 12, 2001. Likewise, accepting a letter as written by Peter would be a bit easier in a time when they weren’t dealing with Gnostic forgeries. It would have likely been harder during this time for 2 Peter to make the cut than at any other point in history. And they were not ignorant to some of the same arguments we have today. This is why even as early as Origen the hypothesis was put together that the different writing style between 1 Peter and 2 Peter is owing to a secretary.

All of the objects against Peter’s authorship can easily be explained. You have a problem with Peter saying Paul’s writings are Scripture only if you don’t believe the Holy Spirit inspired both. And the problem with Jude is only a problem if you assume Jude came first AND if you assume such a cut and paste job is a problem (see Colossians and Ephesians).

The late attestation of 2 Peter really ought to cause us to believe Peter wrote it rather than deny it. The fact that it was so heavily scrutinized and still passed the test ought to give us pause. Even accepting something like Richard Bauckham’s theory that it was testament genre doesn’t fly. If everyone knew it wasn’t Peter and it was accepted that it was meant to honor the apostle—why didn’t this come up a couple hundred years later when discussing canonicity? Wouldn’t that too have been preserved…at least somewhere?

For me the most plausible argument is that an aged Peter did what was so common in that day; namely, he spoke his message to a secretary who (using his own style) wrote what Peter asked him to write. Simple as that.