2 Peter

2 Peter presents a clear dilemma for the reader. You can either believe the author is truly an eye witness to the supernatural events of Jesus, or you can realize that people were lying to push a new religion. I found the following information at earlychristianwritings.com and it is powerful. I am writing in my own words, and based on my understanding of the text.

​

Kummel presents the following information in his Introduction to the New Testament (pages 430-4) that makes all critical scholars recognize that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphic (written under the name of a false author/an anonymous author pretending to be Peter). If you can admit that the evidence shows people being dishonest about being an eyewitness, then that should open your mind to the likelihood that Christianity is a man-made religion built on lies. 

​

1. It can be shown that 2 Peter uses Jude as a model, and since Jude is dated to the post-apostolic age, it would be impossible for Peter to have been the author. I will share some of the examples with you here:

a. II Pet 1:5 with Jude 3 - contend for the faith

b. II Pet 1:12 with Jude 5 - let me remind you

c. II Pet 3:2 f with Jude 17 - remember what the Apostles said

d. II Pet 3:14 with Jude 24 - be found spotless and without defect

e. II Pet 3:18 with Jude 25 - to him be glory forever

f. II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4 - false teacher warning

g. II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 - they rejecting authority

h. II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16 - boasting in themselves

i. II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12 - spots, blemishes, defects

j. II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 - clouds without rain, wells with no water

k. II Pet 2:10, 12, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16 - all our enemies will be destroyed

​

2. The conceptual world and rhetorical language of 2 Peter is so strongly influenced by Hellenism (Greek culture) that it rules Peter out as a possible author.

​

3. The polemic against those who deny the parousia is an attack on second century gnostics, which also rules Peter out as a possible author.

​

4. 2 Peter makes a reference to the letters of Paul, which also eliminates Peter as the author, since Paul's letters were not known until the second century.

​

5. The constant appeal to Petrine apostolic authority, betrays authorship during the life of an Apostle. This is clearly the style of pseudepigraphy. An Apostle would certainly appeal to his authority and claim to be an eye witness, but an Apostle would not leave so much evidence that he is copying from other writings and dating himself in the wrong century.

​

6. 2 Peter is never even mentioned by any second century Christian apologist. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Canon are completely silent about it. 2 Peter is largely unknown or not accepted even as late as the fourth century. 

​

There is more information on earlychristianwritings.com but I think this is a sufficient summary to conclude that 2 Peter is not the testimony of an eyewitness, as it claims to be. A religion built on lies, should be exposed for what it is.