In an interesting article defending the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter, Michael Kruger, under the heading of “The Problem of External Attestation,” we read the following. Note how it refutes the naïve view that a meaningful criterion for accepting a book as canonical is that of early external attestation of it being apostolic in nature (cf. Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura):
2 Peter and the Early
Church. Origin (c. 182-251) is the first to cite 2 Peter by name at the
beginning of the third century and thus often finds himself as the pivotal
church father in discussions over the epistle’s authenticity. If one assumes
that the date of the first explicit citation is roughly concomitant with a book’s
composition, then Origen’s late citation certainly casts the only and
deciding vote against 2 Peter. However, the date of the first explicit citation
is hardly the only data that proves to be relevant.
Despite the fact that
Origen recognizes that some had doubts about the epistle (“Peter has left
behind one acknowledged epistle, and perhaps a second for it is questioned”
[Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 6.25.11). He quoted the epistle six times and
clearly regarded it as Scripture ( [Origien, Numer. Hom. 2.676). It is
evident that he considers 2 Peter as equal in authority with 1 Peter by saying
that “Even Peter blows on the twin trumpets of his own Epistles” (Origen, Hom.in
Josh. 7.1). It seems quite difficult to believe that an epistle that that
Origen treated in such a manner could have been just recently composed in his
own day. Indeed, the fact that he quotes it so thoroughly as Scripture in his
writings suggests that it may have been accepted widely as canonical by this
time.
Interestingly, Origen
fails to indicate the reason for the doubts some of his contemporaries
maintained, nor does he discuss their extent or location. It seems fair,
therefore, to suggest that Origen did not seem those doubts to be of any
serious nature or at least not enough to question 2 Peter’s scriptural status.
In addition, considering the fact that Origen was one of the sharpest literary
critics in the ancient world, his silence on 2 Peter’s literary style seems
quite conspicuous. Perhaps he was not persuaded that the epistles were fundamentally
all that different. In light of these and the aforementioned considerations the
fact that Origen is in fact to cite 2 Peter by name in no way argues
conclusively against 2 Peter’s authenticity.
Eusebius (c. 265-339)
makes it clear that the majority of the church accepted the epistle as authentic
although he himself had certain reservations about it. He mentions that his
doubts stem from the fact that writers he respected did not affirm its
canonicity and that it was not to his knowledge quoted by the “ancient
presbyters” (Hist. Ecc. 3.3.1). But it is interesting to note that
despite his reservations he lists 2 Peter along with James, Jude, 2 and 3 John
as “the Disputed books which nevertheless are known to most.” So even Eusebius
does not place 2 Peter in with the “spurious” writings such as the Apocalypse
of Peter.
Church Fathers
subsequent to Origen, such as Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianus and
Augustine, all acknowledge the canonicity of 2 Peter. Even though Jerome was a
main proponent of 2 Peter’s authenticity, he recognized the significant
stylistic divergence with 1 Peter. He sought to account for this divergence by
suggesting that Peter used a different amanuensis. After Jerome’s time, there
was no further doubts concerning 2 Peter’s place in the NT canon.
As far as canonical
lists are concerned, we find 2 Peter absent from the Muratorian Fragment (c.
180), one of the earliest extant lists in church history. Although this may
seem to be substantial evidence against the epistle’s authenticity, it is
important to note that 1 Peter, James, and Hebrews were also not included.
Furthermore, although this lists omits 2 Peter, by no means does it
regard it as spurious; silence does not equal rejection. 2 Peter was recognized
as fully canonical by the Canons of Laodicea and by the time of the church
councils of Hippo and Carthage of the fourth century. It is significant that
these latter church councils were the very ones that rejected the Letters of
Barnabas and Clement of Rome—which were both very respected writings in the
early church and often used alongside Scripture—indicating that these church
councils exhibited careful analysis of all documents and rejected all they
considered sub-apostolic.
2 Peter’s full
acceptance into the canon of the church by the fourth century is confirmed by
its appearance in various early manuscripts of the New Testament. The Bodmer papyrus,
designated p72, is a papyrus dating to the third century and
contains the oldest copies of 1 and 2 Peter. In addition, 2 Peter finds a firm
canonical home with its appearance in some of the most important textual
discoveries: Codex Sinaiticus (4th century),
Codex Vaticanus (4th century), and Codex Alexandrinus (5th century).
In our quest to
determine the authenticity of 2 Peter we cannot overlook the fact that 2 Peter,
despite the reservations of some, was finally and fully accepted by the church
as canonical in every respect. The fact that 2 Peter faced such resistance—resistance
coupled with the incessant competition of pseudo-Petrine literature—and still
prevailed proves to be worthy of serious consideration. It is so easy to
dismiss the conclusions of Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzen,
Epiphanius, Athanasius, Augustine, Rufinus, Jerome, and the church councils at
Laodicea, Hippo and Carthage. If the epistle of 2 Peter held such a form position
in the fourth-century canon, then perhaps the burden of proof should fall
on those who suggest it does not belong there. (Michael J. Kruger, The
Authenticity of 2 Peter, JETS 42:4 [December 1999]:645-71, here, pp.
649-51, emphasis in bold added)
