The fact that he chose an original form is a mark of genuineness—unless one adopts the view that the writer was consciously and cleverly trying to deceive his readers, but even this seems improbable since this form of Peter’s name is never used in the Apostolic Fathers or psuedepigraphic Petrine literature.

Peter emphasized that he was present on the holy mountain, that he was not inventing what happened, that he was an eyewitness of what occurred, and that he also heard the words transmitted from heaven. It is difficult to see how a pseudepigraphal author could write such words with any credibility. A footnote would seem to be required by any other author to say: “Well, actually, I did not see or hear what happened on the mountain. I am speaking of what happened to Peter.” Those who support pseudonymity are hard pressed to explain how such statements are not fundamentally deceptive.

the claim here does not fit with pseudepigraphy since the second letter does not depend in a clear fashion on 1 Peter. A forger would be disposed to borrow more extensively from 1 Peter, whereas the independence of 2 Peter reveals that the same author addresses a new situation.

In a careful study Picirilli investigates allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers. He concludes that there is a strong possibility that 2 Peter is alluded to (though Peter is not mentioned by name) in 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. He thinks such allusions may also exist in the Ignatian letters and Martyrdom of Polycarp. The evidence Picirilli compiles suggests that the letter was used in the second century and perhaps even in the first.

Origen noted that some doubted the authenticity of 2 Peter (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.11), but in his own writings he cited it six times, and we can conclude from this that the doubts of others were not compelling to him. It is also likely that Irenaeus knew and used 2 Peter, though the matter is disputed.

“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.” Kruger goes on to say that these bodies rejected 1 Clement and Epistle of Barnabas, showing that they discriminated carefully between authoritative documents and those that were merely edifying.

Other pseudo-Petrine literature circulated in the early church, creating confusion about what was authentically Petrine. The church went through a process by which it sifted the authentic from the spurious. When the decision was made, 2 Peter was accepted, but other alleged Petrine writings were rejected. The early church was not inclined, therefore, to include a document just because it had Peter’s name on it. Many other “Petrine” writings were excluded, but the church recognized the legitimacy of 2 Peter. Hence, the acceptance of 2 Peter witnesses to the discrimination of the church, to their conviction that this writing, in contrast to many other alleged Petrine writings, was authentic. Kruger rightly maintains that the conclusion of the early church should not be set aside easily

Guthrie wisely remarks: “It is notoriously difficult to devise any certain criteria for the examination of style and this is particularly true where comparison is made between two short epistles. The area of comparison is so restricted that the results may well be misleading. Moreover, subjective impressions are likely to receive greater stress than is justified.”

false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them