2 Peter

2 Peter 3: What It Really Says and Why the Evidence is Not What Young-Earth Creationists Want to Believe

Kevin R. Henke

August 8, 2023; January 19, 2024 updates

Introduction

As seen in their widespread use of the “evolution vs. creation” or “two model” false dichotomy (e.g., here), young-Earth creationists (YECs) generally believe that their views of Earth history are the sole “rational alternative” to modern uniformitarianism (actualism). YECs believe that if they can use the geologic record, secular geology literature and the Bible to discredit actualism then somehow their beliefs about Earth history are automatically strengthen. At this website, I previously discussed YEC strawperson misconceptions about actualism and how Mr. Oard and other YECs commonly misrepresent and misunderstand actualism, Lyell uniformitarianism and related topics (see here and here).

2 Peter chapter 3 is a YEC favorite and one of their most frequently quoted Bible passages because they believe that these verses are a literal prophecy from the apostle Peter against the “foolishness” of 19th-21st century uniformitarianism (e.g., Oard 2011, p. 54; Oard 2008c, pp. 30, 112; Oard and Reed, 2017, p. 36; Sarfati 2004a, pp. 247-248, 332; Sarfati 2014a, pp. 202; Ham 1987, pp. 39, 151; Ham 1999a, pp. 41, 47; Morris 2008b, p. 234; Snelling 2009a, pp. 7-9, 47-51, 185-186, 1039; Snelling 2009c, pp. 147-148; Wise 2002, p. 13-14). Although non-Christians are generally not impressed by quotations from the Bible, Christians consider 2 Peter to be scripture and they must take the context and actual meaning of these verses seriously.

Whether Christian or not, to really understand 2 Peter 3 and in particular verses 1-12, which are most frequently cited by YECs, the following questions must be answered:

1) What does 2 Peter 3:1-12 actually say and what does it really mean? What is the likely reason for why 2 Peter 3 was written?

2) Who wrote 2 Peter, who is the intended audience of the epistle and when was it written?

3) What is the relationship between 2 Peter and Jude?

4) What is our oldest copy of 2 Peter and what is the time span between the likely date of the oldest copy and the date of when the original was written?

5) Could 2 Peter have been deliberately or accidently corrupted during copying before the 3rd century AD (Common Era, CE)?

6) What do available records from the early Church Fathers say about the authenticity of 2 Peter and its acceptance into the New Testament canon?

7) What is the current best evidence about the origin and authenticity of 2 Peter?

8) Should anyone take the contents of 2 Peter 3 seriously in the debate over the validity of modern uniformitarianism and young-Earth creationism?

What does 2 Peter 3:1-12 say and what does it really mean?

When using 2 Peter 3 to attack uniformitarianism and promote their creationist views, YECs most commonly cite from among verses 1-12. These verses in the King James Version (KJV) state:

1This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,

12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

2 Peter 3:3 refers to “scoffers” having sinful desires, which is similar to Jude 18. Again, 2 Peter 3 is special to YECs because they believe that the verses are prophecy from the apostle Peter against 19th-21st century secular uniformitarians and uniformitarianism, and that the verses provide support for their views of Noah’s Flood and a Genesis creation. In particular, 2 Peter 3:4 supposedly summarizes the foolish beliefs of secular uniformitarians that think that “… all things continue as they were from the beginning…” In other words, these “scoffers” supposedly support the consistency of nature (uniformitarianism) rather than the unique catastrophism of Noah’s Flood. However, what does 2 Peter 3:4 really say?

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

In this verse, Ehrman (2013, p. 228) argues that the phrase the "fathers fell asleep" refers to the apostles being dead. If Peter really wrote this article, why would he refer to himself and the other apostles as being dead and in the past? Also, note the use of the past tense in 2 Peter 3:2 when referring to the commands of the apostles:

"That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:" [my emphasis]

If 2 Peter is an actual letter with commands from the apostle Peter, why would he refer to himself and his commands as something in the past?

The “fathers” in 2 Peter 3:4 might also refer to the Old Testament Jewish ancestors that descended from Abraham, went through the Exodus or lived at the time of the prophets (e.g., Luke 1:72-73; Acts 3:13,25; Acts 7:11-12,32). But, does 2 Peter 3:4 really represent the words and thoughts of 19th - 21st century uniformitarians? Modern Christian uniformitarians (actualists), which include a lot of scientists, would have no reason to doubt “his coming” (i.e., the second coming of Jesus). So, when 2 Peter 3:4 quotes doubters of the second coming, the speakers must be non-Christians or at least Christian "heretics" that doubted the Second Coming. On the other hand, does 2 Peter 3:4 necessarily refer to secular uniformitarians as YEC authors often claim?

Now, would atheists or other secular uniformitarians refer to the apostles as their "fathers"? No, they would not. Would an atheist or other secular uniformitarian refer to the existence of the Old Testament fathers as if they actually had lived by using the words: “for since the fathers fell asleep…”? No, they would not. Secularists tend to view the Old Testament as largely a collection of myths, especially Genesis and Exodus. That is, secularists strongly doubt that Abraham and Moses ever existed. Even if the atheists happen to have Jewish ancestry, they would not describe their actual ancestors as descendants of Abraham and contemporaries of Moses. Although secular uniformitarians might admit that there is some history in 2 Kings and some other parts of the Old Testament, overall they are not going to refer to the Old Testament Patriarchs as historical and real. Also, Jews are not going to refer to the apostles as their "fathers." So, 2 Peter 3:4 are not the words and thoughts of a 21st century secularist.

2 Peter 3:4 also refers to the “beginning of the creation.” Secularists may refer to the Big Bang as the “creation” of our Universe, but they do not believe that God was involved and they would certainly not believe in a biblical creation. Contrary to YEC claims, 2 Peter 3 does not have anything to do with 19-21st century uniformitarianism, natural geology or natural law. The only people that would scoff at the second coming of Christ and still refer to the creation and the existence of the Old Testament Patriarchs as if they were real history would be non-Christian Jews or perhaps Christian "heretics" that didn't believe in the Second Coming. These critics might have lived in the late 1st century CE, but more likely in the 2nd century CE when 2 Peter was originally written. While 21st century actualism recognizes that meteorite impacts and other natural catastrophes could have global impacts, 2 Peter 3 is an attack on the status quo view (“…all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation…”) of Jewish skeptics of Christianity or Christian "heretics", who may have been influenced by Ecclesiastes 1, especially verse 4. Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 in the KJV states:

1 The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.

2 Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

3 What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.

6 The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

7 All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.

8 All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

9 The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

10 Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.

11 There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.

Ecclesiastes, along with the Song of Solomon, was admitted late into the Judeo-Christian canon (McDonald 2007, p. 60). However, the writer of 2 Peter 3:4 may very well have had Jewish or "heretical" Christian fans of Ecclesiastes in mind. In particular, compare Ecclesiastes 1:4:

4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

with this response from 2 Peter 3:4,10 that refers to “… all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation …” and the destruction of the Earth by fire and it not lasting forever:

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

So, Ecclesiastes 1:4 refers to the Earth lasting forever, but 2 Peter 3:10 disagrees and states that the Earth will eventually be destroyed by fire. 2 Peter 3 deals with a dispute probably between 2nd century CE proto-Orthodox Christians and their religious opponents, and has nothing to do with 19th-21st century uniformitarianism.

If a supernatural prophecy was to be written to describe the thoughts and words of modern atheistic uniformitarians, it might actually read something like this:

“The scoffers will say, ‘Where is the promise of Jesus' second coming? Where is the evidence of Jesus’ resurrection or any miracles or acts of the supernatural? Where is the evidence of the existence of God? Ever since the beginning of time, nature continues to evolve. Miracles, Moses, and Jesus are myths.”

What is the likely reason for why 2 Peter 3 was written?

Revelation 1:3, Acts 2:17, Hebrews 1:2 and even 1 Peter 4:7 clearly indicate that at the time when these New Testament documents were written, the authors expected Jesus’ second coming to be “soon”, that they were in the “last days”, and that the “end is near.” After hearing about the promised “soon” second coming of Christ for several decades and perhaps longer, we can easily imagine that by the 2nd century CE, some Jewish, "heretical" Christians and pagan opponents of proto-Orthodox Christianity (like modern day skeptics of the claims of Hal Lindsey) got fed up with the claims and called the proto-Orthodox Christians’ bluff: “Well, where is Jesus? You’ve been saying that he’s coming soon for decades. Where is he?” 2 Peter 3:1-12 is a response to these critics. 2 Peter 3 responds to skeptical ridicule by saying that the second coming is delayed because Jesus wants everyone to be saved and not thrown into the fires of Hell. Compared with 1 Peter 4:7 and other New Testament verses, 2 Peter 3:1-12 is far more cautious and very uncommitted about the timing of the second coming. 2 Peter 3:8 even quotes Psalm 90:4 and suggests that the second coming could be thousands of years into the future, which would not be “soon” by any calendar used by the writers of Acts, Revelation or even 1 Peter 4:7.

So, YEC interpretations of 2 Peter 3 are shallow, based on taking the “…all things continue as they were from the beginning…” statement of 2 Peter 3:4 out of context and divorcing the historical and textural context of the verse. Christian fundamentalists claim to be interested in the actual meaning and context of the words of the Bible, but they really need to fully look at the context and meaning of the verses in 2 Peter 3 and consider the possible influence of Ecclesiastes on 2nd century CE Judaism and "heretical" Christianity before they quote verses against actualism. Contrary to Oard (2011, p. 54), the “mockers” of 2 Peter 3 are not anti-Biblical. The individuals described in 2 Peter 3:4 believed in the Old Testament and referred to its creation and either the Patriarchs or the apostles in their criticisms of proto-Orthodox Christianity!

It also does not help the YEC agenda that 2 Peter 3:6 mentions a Flood that the vast majority of modern geologists identify as a myth. Furthermore, it does not help the YEC position when they cite 2 Peter 3:5, which refers to the Earth and heavens originating out of water (H2O). 2 Peter 3:5 more closely resembles one of the mythical four elements of ancient alchemy (earth, wind, fire, and water) rather than hydrogen gas (H2). YEC Humphreys (1984; 2005a) and his uncritical YEC supporters (e.g., Williams and Hartnett 2005, pp. 229-230 and Sarfati 2014a, pp. 210-212) have actually tried to argue that the universe was made out of water as described in 2 Peter 3:5 and that planetary magnetic fields support this claim. However, physicist Tim Thompson has shown that Dr. Humphreys’ views of planetary magnetic fields are all wet. Dr. Humphreys’ arguments are nothing more than an incoherent mixture of physics and magical aquatic alchemy (see “Dr. Humphreys' Aquatic Alchemy and Planetary Magnetic Fields ” [scroll down]).

Who wrote 2 Peter and who was the intended audience?

2 Peter 3:1 indicates that the Christian addressees of the epistle (2 Peter 1:2) are the same ones mentioned in 1 Peter. The author of the epistle is clearly identified in 2 Peter 1:1 as Simon Peter, who was the apostle Peter (Matthew 4:18; Mark 3:16). To emphasize the Petrine authorship of the letter, 2 Peter 3:1 refers to 1 Peter. 2 Peter 1:16-18 also claims that the author was an eyewitness to the transfiguration of Christ. Because conservative Christians assume on faith that 2 Peter is inerrant scripture, they simply take 2 Peter 1:1 at face value and accept Peter as the author. No questions asked. However, just because a book claims to have been written by Peter that does not mean that it was. Christians fully admit that there are hundreds of fraudulent epistles and gospels from the first four centuries of Christianity that claim to have been written by Peter, Paul or other apostles and even Jesus himself. Without the originals and far better documentation, it is impossible to know who wrote 2 Peter and to determine which of these gospels and epistles, if any of them, are the actual words of Jesus and his apostles (see “The Basic Assumptions of Protestant Young-Earth Creationism”). As discussed below, based on the evidence that we have, there are good reasons to identify 2 Peter as a forgery, most likely from the 2nd century CE.

When was the book written?

The New Testament does not provide details on Peter’s later life and death. If we are to believe John 21:18-19, these verses indicate that Peter was martyred, but no details are given on when, where and how. Based on questionable apocryphal traditions and quotations from the early Church Fathers, Peter supposedly was crucified in Rome around 64 CE, although 67 CE might also be possible (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1994; Ehrman 2012, p. 485; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Peter ; http://evidenceforchristianity.org/what-is-the-evidence-that-peter-was-crucified-upside-down-in-rome/ ). Because conservative Christians believe that the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, they would date the book as no later than 64-67 CE. Robinson (1976), who advocates early dates for the New Testament books, argues that 2 Peter was written around 61-62 CE. In contrast, atheist and New Testament expert Price (2006, p. 834) dates 2 Peter in the late 2nd century CE. McDonald (2007, p. 277) says that 2 Peter was written around 150 CE and perhaps as late as 180 CE. Without the original copy of 2 Peter and other documentation, we can only say that the book was probably written sometime between 60 and 180 CE. Even if the book was written while Peter was still alive, 2 Peter could still be a forgery. If we are to believe 2 Thessalonians 2:2-3; 3:17, this letter indicates that someone was forging letters in Paul’s name while he was still alive.

What is the relationship between 2 Peter and Jude?

Copying between the authors of the various books of the New Testament is not unusual. The Greek in Matthew and Mark is very similar, and in places nearly identical, which indicates extensive copying. In places, the Greek in Jude and 2 Peter are also nearly identical. A conservative Christian might argue that the Holy Spirit miraculously gave Jude and Peter the same words, but the best and most reasonable explanation is that one author simply copied the other. The same non-miraculous reasoning applies to the similarities between the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon. So, which came first, Jude or 2 Peter? Either Jude summarized 2 Peter, 2 Peter is an expanded version of Jude, or perhaps the authors of both letters worked together to compose the two similar epistles at the same place and time. I will argue that 2 Peter was written after Jude and that 2 Peter also borrows ideas from 1 Peter, the letters of Paul and at least one gospel.

In verses 17-18, Jude refers to the apostles in the third person, which indicates that he is admitting that he is not an apostle. Jude 17-18 states:

17 But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;

18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.

By referring to apostles in verses 17-18, Jude recognized the importance of backing up his statements with apostolic authority. However, while Jude 18 quotes some apostles, the letter never mentions Peter by name. It’s interesting that Jude quotes apocryphal works and mentions the archangel Michael, Moses, Cain, Balaam, Enoch, and Adam by name in his brief letter, but not Peter. If Jude had a copy of 2 Peter in front of him and if he believed that Peter really wrote this letter, why would Jude bother making reference to some statement said by an unnamed group of apostles if Peter with his apostolic authority had already made relevant statements in a letter that Jude could quote and share with his readers? Similarly, if Jude was sitting next to Peter and Peter was sharing his thoughts while writing 2 Peter, why wouldn’t Jude mention this important source to back up his arguments? These observations strongly suggest, but cannot definitively prove, that Jude was unaware of 2 Peter and that 2 Peter was written after Jude. That is, the author of 2 Peter copied Jude and the author of Jude did not copy 2 Peter.

As mentioned earlier, we can easily imagine that by the end of the 1st century CE and certainly by the middle of the 2nd century, a number of Jewish, pagan and Christian "heretics" would be asking where Jesus was and why his “soon” second coming was not so soon. 2 Peter 3 then conveniently shows up to respond to the critics by expanding upon and supporting the claims of Jude, providing the apostolic authority that Jude desired, attacking the skeptics, and reassuring believers that Jesus would come again, but maybe not right away.

What is our oldest copy of 2 Peter and what is the time span between the likely date of the oldest copy and the date when the original was written?

We do not have any of the original documents of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. Instead, we have copies of copies of copies… The oldest copy of 2 Peter is P72 and this manuscript can only be dated to around 300 CE (Ehrman 2013, pp. 222-223), or anywhere from about 120 to 240 years after the original was written.

Could 2 Peter have been deliberately or accidentally altered during copying?

Because the original copy of 2 Peter is lost and our earliest copy was written long after the original, we simply have no way of knowing whether the contents of this manuscript and later copies are close to the original or not. That is, without the original, we do not know whether or not the copyists largely altered the document to suit their agendas. The production of forgeries and the manipulation of manuscripts were not unknown in the early church. Again, if 2 Thessalonians 2:2; 3:17 is correct, someone in the early church was forging Paul’s letters during his lifetime. As another example, Church Father Tertullian (c. 150 – c. 240 CE) claimed that an individual confessed to forging an Acts of Paul manuscript (Ehrman 2013, p. 379). In terms of altered manuscripts, the Masoretic version of Jeremiah (which is the basis of most Protestant English versions, including the KJV) is about 17% longer than the much older Septuagint and Dead Sea scroll versions (Tov, 2001, pp. 319-327). If extensive alterations, additions or omissions were made to 2 Peter, they were probably done early before any copies with contents close to the original could be produced in large numbers and widely distributed. However, if 2 Peter happens to be a forgery then accurate copying of this epistle over the centuries does not help to make it authoritative.

What do available records of the early Church Fathers say about the authenticity of 2 Peter and its acceptance into the New Testament canon?

The views of the 4th century CE and earlier Church Fathers on the authenticity of 2 Peter is far from unanimous. Church tradition often only accepted 1 Peter as authentic (Ehrman 2013, p. 223). There is no clear evidence that 2 Peter was quoted by the Church Fathers before the 3rd century CE (McDonald 2007, footnote 89, p. 277; Ehrman 2012, p. 485). So, before the 3rd century, we don’t know if the Church Fathers knew about the epistle and, if they had, what they thought about it. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260 – 340 CE) quotes Origen (c. 184 – c. 254 CE) as doubting the authenticity of 2 Peter (Ehrman 2013, p. 223). Eusebius also referred to 2 Peter as a “disputed book” and rejected its authenticity (McDonald 2007, pp. 309, 396; Ehrman 2013, p. 223). Didymus the Blind of Alexandria (c. 313 – 398 CE) referred to 2 Peter as a forgery (Ehrman 2013, p. 223). Although Jerome (c. 347 – 420 CE) accepted 2 Peter as scripture, he mentions that many of his colleagues did not (Price 2006, p. 833). Even after doubts about the authenticity of 2 Peter began to wane with the publication of Athanasius’ Thirty-ninth Festal Letter in 367 CE, the Syrian churches questioned it until the sixth century CE and Martin Luther had his doubts (McDonald 2007, p. 396). As discussed in “The Basic Assumptions of Protestant Young-Earth Creationism”, the development of the New Testament canon was often based on the subjective biases and irrational dogmatic traditions of the Church Fathers. Once the Emperor Constantine became sympathetic to orthodox Christianity in the early 4th century CE, he used his power to encourage the publication of orthodox scriptures and burn non-orthodox manuscripts (McDonald 2007, pp. 314, 316). The actions of Constantine and his Christian successors in the Church and government helped to promote the doctrines and scriptures of orthodox Christianity and destroy alternative, and perhaps more historically accurate, Christian doctrines and scriptures.

Currently, what is the best evidence about the origin and authenticity of 2 Peter?

Based on the content and Greek grammar and vocabulary of the epistle, secularists would generally argue that the author of 2 Peter was a liar and nothing more than a 2nd century CE forger. Even if the apostle Peter wrote 2 Peter, secularists see no evidence of the apostles having divine inspiration. For them, 2 Peter is nothing more than religious opinion, like the Book of Mormon. In contrast, Christians must seriously deal with 2 Peter because the Church Fathers that believed that the epistle was divinely inspired eventually won and got it into the New Testament canon. Conservative Christians tend to assume that the Holy Spirit successfully kept forgeries out of the New Testament and that every book in their scriptural canon, and only their canon, is the inerrant word of God. However, differences in the scriptural canons of Jews, Mormons, Ethiopian Christians, and Muslims demonstrate that simply believing that “God created and protected our scriptures from error and everyone else’s canon is false” is not a monopoly of one religion. This belief is simply not a trustworthy assumption for anyone.

Most Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant scholars agree that 2 Peter was not written by Peter. Although a strong advocate of the Virgin Birth and other conservative Christian doctrines, the Roman Catholic The New Jerusalem Bible (p. 1995) refers to 2 Peter as a “forgery” and as having a “doubtful Petrine authorship.” When discussing modern scholarship, Ehrman (2013, p. 222) states that 2 Peter is widely viewed as a forgery even among scholars that are hesitant to admit that there is any “pseudonymous works” in the Bible. Many other modern church leaders are simply reluctant to use the word forgery. They prefer to describe 2 Peter as a “pseudograph”, which is nothing more than a “religiously correct” euphemism for a forgery.

Numerous Roman Catholic, liberal Protestant and secular sources discuss the Greek grammar and vocabulary, textural, historical and other evidence that is used to dispute the authenticity of 2 Peter. Some of this information is summarized in Ehrman (2013, pp. 222-225), McDonald (2007), Price (2006), and their references. Readers can review these arguments and judge their validity for themselves.

The grammar, writing style and content of 2 Peter are unlike 1 Peter. Critics of 2 Peter argue that if the same individual wrote both letters, their contents, grammar and writing style should be similar. Critics also ask how an illiterate fisherman from Palestine could have written the elaborate Greek found in 2 Peter. Although Ehrman (2013) argues against the following possibilities, conservative supporters of the authenticity of 2 Peter might argue that Peter had about 30 years to learn Greek and that two different ghost writers with different writing styles, including perhaps Silvanus (1 Peter 5:12), may have composed 1 and 2 Peter with the supervision and approval of the apostle. That is, the thoughts in 1 and 2 Peter are from Peter, but the Greek words are from the scribe.

As noted above, the “end times” views of 1 and 2 Peter are different. 1 Peter in 4:7 goes along with other New Testament books and argues that the writer was living in the “last days.” Although 2 Peter 3:3 also makes reference to the “last days”, 2 Peter 3:8 quotes Psalm 90:4 and suggests that rather than arriving and ending “soon”, the “last days” could refer to a long period of time based on God’s calendar.

Even if the author of 2 Peter was an eyewitness to the transfiguration of Christ and not quoting from a gospel, he had an extensive library of Christian literature, which included at least 1 Peter, Jude, and the letters of Paul. By itself, a large number of Christian references does not rule out Peter as the author, but it fits well with an author that was an educated mid-2nd century Christian that knew Greek and the Christian literature.

Unlike Jude, 2 Peter does not quote from 1 Enoch and the apocryphal account of Michael and the devil arguing over Moses’ body, which could be from the Assumption of Moses. Some opponents of the Petrine authorship of 2 Peter might argue that by the 2nd century CE, the Old Testament canon was better defined and these apocryphal works used by Jude had fallen out of favor with proto-orthodox Christians. Thus, they were omitted from 2 Peter. However, the absence of citations of these apocryphal works from 2 Peter could mean nothing. For whatever reason, the writer of 2 Peter may simply have not liked these apocryphal works. By itself, this argument is weak in dating 2 Peter and Jude, but together with other evidence, it’s consistent with a post-Jude, 2nd century CE origin for 2 Peter.

Marcion, a prominent 2nd century CE Christian “heretic”, built his theology on the teachings of the apostle Paul. We have no copies of his New Testament, but descriptions by his critics (Irenaeus and Tertullian) indicate that Marcion rejected the inspiration of the Old Testament. His scriptures only included 10 of the Pauline epistles (excluding the Pastoral letters, which he may not have known about) and a shorter version of Luke (McDonald 2007, pp. 367-368). Based on what we know about Marcion’s proto-Orthodox opponents, 2nd century CE proto-orthodox Christians certainly wanted to embrace Paul’s letters as scripture, but they also wanted other New Testament books and the Old Testament to be considered scriptural. So, how would 2nd century CE proto-orthodox Christians respond to Marcion and his followers’ use of Paul’s letters? 2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV) provides a convenient answer when it refers to Paul’s letters as scripture, but yet “hard to understand” and distorted by “unlearned and unstable” people:

15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Conservatives that believe in a Petrine authorship might argue that there were individuals during Peter’s life that were seriously misquoting and misusing Paul’s letters. Although this is possible, we don’t know the identities of these 1st century individuals if they existed. While there is no conclusive evidence that 2 Peter is specifically condemning Marcion and his followers, these verses are consistent with that conclusion. Now, conservative Christians might also invoke the supernatural and claim that Peter not only foresaw the evil rise of uniformitarianism when he wrote 2 Peter, but also the coming of Marcion and his fellow “heretics.” However, why invoke the supernatural when natural explanations are far more likely and plausible? That is, 2 Peter 3:15-16 may be referring to 1st century opponents of proto-orthodox Christianity or the letter is a 2nd century CE forgery referring to Marcion.

Considering the valid questions about the authenticity of 2 Peter going back to the earliest Church Fathers, if YECs want to accept 2 Peter as authentic, then why shouldn’t they embrace other controversial books that also claim to have been written by Peter, such 3 and 4 Peter, the Gospel of Peter or the Muratorian Apocalypse of Peter? In particular, the Muratorian Apocalypse of Peter had considerable support in the early Church (Price 2006, p. 851), and may have only missed entering the canon because of its utterly repulsive descriptions of Hell. So, how does a conservative Christian objectively justify 2 Peter in the canon and keep out 1 Enoch, the Gospel of Peter, or the Muratorian Apocalypse of Peter?

Should anyone take the contents of 2 Peter 3 seriously in the debate over young-Earth creationism and modern uniformitarianism?

The answer to this question is clearly no. Although YECs believe that the verses of 2 Peter 3 are a powerful spiritual weapon against uniformitarians, a careful review of the verses in context indicates that they have nothing to do with modern geology. This is true even if 2 Peter is genuine and was written by the apostle Peter. So, YEC efforts with 2 Peter 3 are superficial and have “petered out.” Anyone can pretend to have “powerfully fulfilled prophecy” if they’re willing to ignore the context of the verses and the history and language of a book. Doomsayers and other false preachers have been doing that for centuries.

Considering all of the evidence, including the doubts of many early Church Fathers that encountered a lot of forgeries, 2 Peter was probably written by a Christian apologist posing as the apostle Peter in response to 2nd century CE “heretics”, pagan and Jewish skeptics. In other words, 2 Peter is a forgery along with 3 Peter, 4 Peter, and hundreds of other manuscripts written in the 1st-4th centuries CE that used the names of the apostles and even Jesus to gain respectability for their lies. If we are to believe 2 Thessalonians, individuals were even forging Paul’s letters during his lifetime.

References

Ehrman, B.D. 2012. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, 5th ed., Oxford University Press: New York, 536pp.

Ehrman, B.D. 2013. Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, Oxford University Press: New York, 628pp.

Ham, K. 1987. The Lie: Evolution, Creation Life Publishers, Master Books: El Cajon, California, USA, 168pp.

Ham, K. 1999a. Did Adam Have a Bellybutton? And Other Tough Questions about the Bible, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, 192pp.

Humphreys, D.R. 1984. “The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields”, Creation Research Society Quarterly, v. 21, n. 3, December, pp. 140-149, http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html

Humphreys, D.R. 2005a. “Helium Evidence for a Young Earth Remains Crystal Clear”, at True.Origin website: http:/www.trueorigin.org/helium01.asp

McDonald, L.M. 2007. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, Hendrickson Publishers: Peabody, Massachusetts, USA, 549pp.

Morris, H. 2008b. “Neocreationism: A More Accepted Creationism?” in Bigalke, R.J. Jr. (ed.). The Genesis Factor: Myths and Realities, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 221-236.

Oard, M. 2008c. Flood by Design: Receding Water Shapes the Earth’s Surface, Master Books: Green Forest, AR, USA, 130pp.

Oard, M.J. 2011. Dinosaur Challenges and Mysteries: How the Genesis Flood makes Sense of Dinosaur Evidence including Tracks, Nests, Eggs, and Scavenged Bones, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 175pp.

Oard, M.J. and J.K. Reed. 2017. How Noah’s Flood Shaped Our Earth, Creation Book Publishers: Powder Springs, GA, USA, 197pp.

Price, R.M. 2006. The Pre-Nicene New Testament, Signature Books: Salt Lake City, Utah, USA, 1209pp.

Robinson, J. A. T. 1976. Redating the New Testament, Westminster Press: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 369 pp.

Sarfati, J. 2004a. Refuting Compromise: A Biblical and Scientific Refutation of “Progressive Creationism” (Billions of Years) As Popularized by Astronomer Hugh Ross, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, GA, USA, 411pp.

Sarfati, J. 2014a. The Greatest Hoax on Earth? Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, Creation Book Publishers: Atlanta, GA, USA, 333pp.

Snelling, A.A. 2009a. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & The Flood: Volumes 1 and 2, Institute for Creation Research: Dallas, TX, USA, 1102 pp.

Snelling, A.A. 2009c. “How Old Does the Earth Look?” in Ham. K. (ed.). The New Answers Book 3: Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, pp. 143-150.

The New Jerusalem Bible. 1985. Doubleday: New York.

Tov, E. 2001. Textural Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd revised edition, Fortress Press: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 456 pp.

Williams, A. and J. Hartnett. 2005. Dismantling the Big Bang: God’s Universe Rediscovered, Master Books: Green Forest, Arkansas, USA, 346pp.

Wise, K. 2002. Faith, Form, and Time: What the Bible Teaches and Science Confirms about Creation and the Age of the Universe, B&H Publishing Group: Nashville, TN, USA, 287pp.