EQ 73:4 (2001),291-309

Michael J. Gilmour

Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter

This article by the Assistant Professor ofNew Testament in Providence College,

Manitoba, Canada, is concerned with the general issues that arise in deter-
mining the authorship of New Testament books, using 2 Peter as a specific
example of the difficulties in doing so.
Key words: Bible; New Testament; authorship; 2 Peter.
This paper l is neither a defence of nor challenge to the apostolic
authorship of 2 Peter. Rather it is an evaluation of various arguments
used in the authorship debate on both sides ofthe issue. Uncertainty
about the origin of this epistle has been a concern at least since the
second century. What is interesting however is that those defending
the traditional view and those positing some form of non-Petri ne pro-
duction often use similar arguments to prove their case. This paper
will examine methodological issues related to authorship questions
and suggest that certain lines of argument, rather than providing
clarity, tend to cloud the issue.
Origen (ca.185-252) provides the earliest evidence that the author-
ship of 2 Peter was questioned (though it seems that he himself
accepted a Petrine origin for this epistle 2 ):
Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of
Hades shall not prevail, has left one acknowledged epistle, and, it may be,
a second also; for it is doubted. 3
Eusebius (ca.265-340) also had doubts.
Of Peter, one epistle, that which is called his first, is admitted, and
the ancient presbyters used this in their own writings as unques-
tioned, but the so-called second Epistle we have not received as
canonical, but nevertheless it has appeared useful to many, and has
been studied with the other Scriptures. 4

I would like to express my thanks to the Association of Canadian Bible Colleges for
both a research grant and a forum to discuss some of the ideas found in this paper.
An earlier version of it was presented at their annual meeting in May, 2000 (Three
Hills, Alberta). The views presented here are of course my own and are not nec-
essarily shared by members of that association.
2 Hom. in Josh. 7.1.
3 Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.7-8.
4 Hist. ecct. 3.3.1.
292 The Evangelical Quarterly

Now the above are the books bearing the name of Peter, of which I
recognize only one as genuine and admitted by the presbyters of 01d. 5
Of the Disputed Books which are nevertheless known to most are the
Epistle called of James, that of Jude, the second Epistle of Peter, and the
so-called second and third Epistles of John .... 6
Modern New Testament (NT) scholarship has continued to be sus-
picious about whether the Apostle Peter himself was responsible for
this letter. This suspicion is so firmly entrenched that it is conven-
tional in commentaries and introductions to say something like
'scholarship is almost unanimous in the opinion that 2 Peter is
pseudepigraphal.'7 Why 'almost'? There are of course a minority of
scholars who argue that the case for pseudepigraphy is not as air-tight
as it is usually made out to be. H And so the debate - familiar to Ori-

5 Hist. eccl. 3.3.4.

6 Hist. eccl. 3.25.3.
7 For confident assertions that Peter could not be responsible for this epistle, see
e.g. W. G. Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament, trans. H. C. Kee (rev. and
enlarged ed.; Nashville, 1975), 430-34, and]. H. Elliott, 'Peter, Second Epistle of,
in Anchor BiblRDictionary, ed. D. N. Freedman, et al. (New York, 1992),5:282-87. A.
Lindemann finds that 'die Kennzeichen del' Pseudonymitit sind besonders deut-
lich' (Paulus im liltesten Christentum: Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulin-
ischen Theologie in der friihchristlichen Literatur his Marcion [BHT 58; Tiibingen,
1979], 91; supported by reference to 1:16-18 and 3:1). In D. G. Meade's opinion,
• [n 10 documen t included in the NT gives such thorough evidence of its pseudo-
nymity as does 2 Peter. The arguments against authenticity are overwhelming'
(Pseudonymity and Canon: An Investigation into the Relationship of Authurship and
Authority in fewish and Earliest Christian Tradition [Grand Rapids, 1986], 179). Ray-
mond Brown finds that 'the pseudonymity of 11 Pet is more certain than that of
any other NT work' (An Introduction to the New Testament [ABRL; New York, 1997],
767). Speaking of the scholarly consensus that 2 Peter is pseudepigraphal, R.].
Bauckham observes that 'only a few recent discussions of the work still dissent' (,2
Peter', in Dictionary of the Later New Testament & Its Developments, ed. R P. Martin
and P. H. Davids [Downers Grove, 111.,1997], 924).
8 Among recent writers challenging the consensus view are]. D. Charles in his Virtue
amidst Vice: The Catalog of Virtues in 2 Peter 1 (JSNTSup 150; Sheffield, 1997).
Charles offers a spirited response to the almost unanimous consensus that 2 Peter
is a pseudepigraphal testament (esp. 49-75: cf. 128-30). He recapitulates the find-
ings of earlier scholarship and takes their arguments further, building heavily on
ethical objections to the practice of pseudepigraphy in the early church (49-75).
His conclusion in this study remains cautious: 'In the end, the testamental hypoth-
esis, which has been broadly accepted as an interpretive framework for under-
standing 2 Peter, may be judged to be possible - and this with certain highly
restricted qualifications - but by no means conclusive, in spite of arguments to the
contrary' (75). Elsewhere Charles states his view more directly: That 2 Peter, in
the end, has achieved universal acceptance (and thus canonicity) reflects acknowl-
edgment both of its apostolic content as well as apostolic authorship' (E. Waltner
and]. D. Charles, 1-2 Peter, Jude [Believers Church Bible Commentary; Scottdale.
Pa., 1999], 263). Others have argued the case for the Petrine origin of2 Peter, e.g.:
C. Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the f-pistlRs of St. Peter and St. Jude
 Reflections on the Authorship oJ 2 Peter 293

gen - continues, with arguments both for and against being lined up
side-by-side. It seems unlikely that a consensus will ever be reached.
In the following pages there is no attempt to introduce new data or
weigh in on the debate either way. What the following comments are
concerned with is methodology and the types of arguments brought into
the discussion. To show my hand from the outset, it appears to me
that many ofthe 'clues' introduced to the debate to prove one way or
the other the provenance of this document do not allow for firm his-
torical conclusions.

I. An analogous debate
Who wrote the great literature attributed to William Shakespeare?
Was it in fact Shakspere9 of Stratford-upon-Avon? The author of the
plays and poems demonstrated remarkable intellect but Shakespeare
of Stratford did not, by all appearances, have the advantage of an
extensive education. Also, how could a 'commoner' have had such
command of life in aristocratic circles? Perhaps readers should look
beyond Shakespeare of Stratford, about whom so little is known, to
contemporaries like Francis Bacon or Edward de Vere, the seven-
teenth Earl of Oxford. In the case of such candidates, their education
and experience would - as the argument goes - better account for
the literature.
This type of reasoning is very familiar to biblical scholars. Attempts
to unveil an otherwise murky background of certain pieces of litera-
ture turn to clues within the text thought to reveal such things as the
identity of the author, the time and place of writing, and the

(ICC; Edinburgh, 1901), 242-47 and throughout; J. J. Lias, 'The Genuineness of

the Second Epistle ofSt. Peter', BSac70, 1913,599-606; E. A. Blum. '2 Peter', in
The Expositar's Bible Commentary, ed. F. E. Gaebelein, et al. (Grand Rapids, 1981),
12:257-61; B. C. Caffin, 'The Second Epistle General of Peter', in The Pulpit Com-
mentary, ed. H. D. M. Spence andJ. S. Exell (reprint, Grand Rapids, 1983), esp. i-
xiii; M. Green, 2 Peter andJude (TNTC; Leicester, 1987), 39 (assumed 'provision-
ally,' 39); S. Kistemaker, t:'xposition oJ the 1'-pistles oJPeter and oJ the 1'-pistll' oJjude (NTC;
Grand Rapids, 1987),213-19; D. J. Moo, 2 Peter andJude (The NIV Application
Commentary; Grand Rapids, 1996),21-26; and most recently M.J. Kruger, 'The
Authenticity of 2 Peter',jE1:<; 42, 1999,645-71. Cf.J. R. Michael's thesis discussed
below.
9 Apparently those involved in the authorship debate have conventionally distin-
guished the man 'Shakspere' (a common spelling of his name) - one among many
candidates for authorship - from Shakespeare, the one responsible for the litera-
ture in question. 'Traditionalists' of course would argue that these are one and the
same. 'Heretics' (so-called by traditionalists) disagree with this conclusion and
have put forward numerous other candidates believed to be Shakespeare. This dis-
tinction in name is not maintained here and 'Shakespeare' will be used consis-
tently from this point on.
294 The Evangelical Q!larterly

intended audience. In both English literary scholarship and the

study of 2 Peter there is also a name given in the text. Traditionalists
(supporters of William Shakespeare of Stratford and the Apostle
Peter) take the autograph in the text as a logical starting point.
Those who question the given signature are accused of appealing to
a conspiracy of sorts. Either an aristocrat or someone of high stand-
ing hid behind a pseudonym in order to avoid a scandalous associa-
tion with the theatre or, in the biblical example, a later writer had to
appeal to apostolic authority in order to have his message heard and
heeded. 1O
My interest in this analogy stems largely from John Michell's fasci-
nating summary of the Shakespeare question in his book Who Wrote
Shakespeare? His treatment is largely descriptive; recognizing that firm
conclusions are impossible, he approaches the subject with the goal
of describing and even enjoying the debate. After all, in his words,
, [e ]verything that can possibly be said by all sides has already been
said, and still the mystery remains. Unless some new, dramatically
conclusive piece of evidence turns up, the whole subject looks to be
approaching a dead end.'IJ
Will NT scholars on either side of the 2 Peter authorship debate
ever be content to say something similar? Likely not. For some, there
is too much at stake in giving up the attempt to defend or prove
Petrine authorship (the traditionalist position). Those holding the
majority view (namely that 2 Peter is not from Peter's pen) will argue
that the text can only be understood properly once its pseudonymous
nature has been recognized. Biblical and Shakespearean scholars will
certainly continue to wrestle with these authorship questions
because, in both examples, there is insufficient data to allow a final
word on the matter in favour of anyone theory. Furthermore, such
topics are endlessly fascinating. Since the debate over the origin of 2
Peter will continue, there are a few areas of methodology that need
to be considered.

11. What's the problem? Ten reasons why Petrine authorship of 2

Peter is questioned
Before proceeding, I offer a greatly oversimplified review of the types
of concerns that raise doubts about apostolic authorship of this epis-

10 This is not a perfect analogy of course. The traditionalists in Shakespeare studies

- I assume - are in the majority whereas the traditionalists in 2 Peter studies are
not. The intention here is simply to provide a heuristic device for reflection on
authorship debates.
11 J. Michell, lWw Wrote Shakespeare? (London, 1996), 10.
 Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter 295

tle in the first place. 12 For one thing, (1) 2 Peter's relation to Jude
needs to be considered. It is beyond dispute that some literary rela-
tionship exists between these letters and most commentators con-
clude that Peter is the borrower.13 A date for Jude is as difficult to
determine as it is for 2 Peter; generally it is thought to have been writ-
ten after 70 C.E. 14 which, if true, would put 2 Peter to a period after
Peter's death (which was, according to tradition, in the mid 60s
C.E.).15 It may also be important to ask whether a 'pillar' in the early
church would make use of Jude who was not an apostle. Next, (2)
connections to 1 Peter mayor may not be relevant. Differences in
style between 1 and 2 Peter suggest that these two documents were
written by different authors. 16 Furthermore, (3) reference to Paul's
letters as Scripture l7 may point to a later period of the church's his-
tory as also the reference to the apostles as long in the past (3:2,4).
This speaks against a time of writing when many of them were stillliv-
ing. (4) There is a conspicuous emphasis on Peter-as-author which, it
has been argued, indicates efforts to hide a forgery (so Lindemann;
see n.7). (5) The author seems at home in a Hellenistic religious and
philosophical context; this is far removed from the Peter known from
the Gospels. (6) There was a wide tradition of pseudonymous writ-
ings using Peter's name meaning that it would not be unusual to
understand 2 Peter as another example of this (even if it is earlier in
date than the others). (7) A concern with proper interpretation of
Scripture and a high regard for apostolic tradition suggests greater
similarity with the emerging catholicism of the second century than
with the young faith evidenced by the earliest NT writings. (8) Sec-
ond Peter is poorly attested in the second century and, related to
this, (9) the church was reluctant to accept this document into its
canon - a fact that speaks against apostolic authorship. (10) And per-

12 For more details, see the studies listed in notes 7 and S. Also helpful for summa-
rizing the issues related to authorship and dating is R. A. Bouchat, Dating the Sec-
ond Epistle of Peter (Ph.D. diss., Baylor University, 1992).
13 Though ef. Moo, 16-1S. The most comprehensive case for 2 Peter's priority
remains that put forward by Bigg.
14 One indication of this later date is found in w.17-1S where the author speaks of
the apostles in the past tense.
15 Cf. 1 Clnn. 5.
16 Though this does not indicate very much if, as is often the case, I Peter is also
assumed to be pseudepigraphal. On the other hand, even if Petrine authorship is
accepted for these letters, variety in style may be explained by the use of an amanu-
ensis (see I Pet. 5:12). This explanation was first suggested by Jerome (Ep. Hed.
120.9). Cf. G. K. Barr (The Structure of Hebrews and 1st and 2nd Peter', Irish Bib-
lical Studies 19, 1997, 17-31) who proposes that a common secretary may have been
associated with Hebrews, I and 2 Peter.
17 2 Pet. 3:15-16.
296 The Evangelical (btarterly

haps the most significant argument is that of genre. Second Peter has
been identified as a testament, a farewell discourse. In many
instances such literature is clearly pseudonymous in nature. 18
These familiar arguments are clearly not all of equal weight. One's
final conclusion often rests on an evaluation of the scruples involved
in pseudepigraphy and the concomitant issue of whether pseudo-
nymity is compatible with canonicity. From this sweeping overview of
the problem we now move to more specific themes that appear in the
debate.

Ill. Some dead ends in authorship debates

It is suggested that theories of authorship - both sides of the debate
- are weakened to the extent that there is dependence on any of the
following as evidence.

1. Claims arguing that authors were or were not capable of the literature
being considered
This line of argumentation is central to the Shakespeare debate as
noted already. It has been observed that the writer behind the works
attributed to William Shakespeare had extensive knowledge of such
diverse topics as sports, the Bible, English and European history, clas-
sicalliterature and languages, Italian geography, horticulture, music,
astronomy and astrology, medicine and psychology, navigation and
seamanship, Cambridge University jargon, and freemasonry, to name
but a few. Consider these general comments on this range of knowl-
edge:
As a complete, all-inclusive account of nature and humanity, Shakespeare's
works have been compared to the Bible. Their author, it is said, was a
Universal Man, certainly the greatest mind of his time, not just an inspired
poet but a master of all knowledge. Professionals in many fields have
written monographs, showing from detailed references in the plays and
poems that Shakespeare was a master of their own particular craft,
infallible in its jargon and technical language. The arts and sciences were
all within his grasp; he wrote about them fluently and gracefully; his
learning was governed by the highest philosophy and, above all else, he
was a constitutional expert with profound knowledge of the law. 19
Not surprisingly, when what little is known about William Shake-
speare of Stratford is compared with these impressive credentials,

18 E.g., The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A. Chester and R. P. Martin suggest
that the genre of 2 Peter is among the clearest indications of a post-Petrine setting
(The Theology of the Letters ofJames, Peter, andJude [NIT; Cambridge, 1994], 139).
Similarly, see Bauckham, '2 Peter', 924.
19 Michell, 17. For a more thorough list of Shakespeare's 'specialties', see ibid., 18.
 Refledions on the Authorship of 2 Peter 297

questions are raised. How can he have known all of this? At the same
time, defenders of the traditional position think the whole issue is
overstated. In one case the following response is put forward:
Because Shakespeare never went to university, much is made - too much,
in fact - of the termination of his formal schooling with grammar school.
The idea that the greatest playwright of the human race could have poured
forth such a cornucopia of genius with only the benefit of a grammar
school education does seem to stretch stupefaction past the point of
credulity. But the objection ignores both the intensely classical curriculum
of Stratford's 'grammar' school (which, unlike our modern counterpart,
stretched well into a boy's fifteenth or sixteenth year) and Shakespeare's
years of young adulthood working as a schoolmaster for a wealthy Catholic
family in Lancashire, when he had ample opportunity to expand his
reading and activate, as a teacher, his passively absorbed pupil's learning. 20
Here we have illustrated two positions, both based on guesswork.
There are too many variables involved, however, to finally reach a
conclusion: Was William Shakespeare a precocious child or not?
(How can we know?) Was William Shakespeare an avid reader or not
(assuming here that he had access to a wide range of books)? (How
can we know?)
Similar issues are raised when we turn to the biblical text. How is it
possible that the Jewish, Galilean fisherman known to us from the
Gospels was responsible for a document rich with Hellenistic con-
cepts and vocabulary? In Werner Kiimmel's words,
The conceptual world and the rhetorical language [of 2 Peter] are so
strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely [as
author], nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils
under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the
apostle. 21
Traditionalists often answer the charge by observing that there was
a considerable amount of time between our first glimpse of Peter in
the Gospels and the time 2 Peter was written (approximately 30 years;
tradition places Peter's death to the reign of Nero who committed
suicide in 68 C.E.). Moo for one writes that' [t] he Greek of 2 Peter
has an undeniably literary and even philosophical flavor, quite dif-
ferent from the Greek of 1 Peter [but] there is nothing in the letter

20 E. T. Oakes, 'Shakespeare's Millennium', First Things 98 (1999), 17-18.

21 Kiimmel, 432. Among Hellenistic concepts listed are: the arete of God (1:3); virtue
in addition to faith (1:5); the emphasis on the theme of knowledge; participation
in the divine nature theias koinonoi phuseos as an escape from the corruption in the
world (1:4); the term epoptai(I:16); and the presence ofa Hellenistic proverb in
2:22. For more detailed discussion about the Hellenism of 2 Peter, see T. Fornberg,
An Early Church in a Pluralistic Society: A Study of 2 Peter (ConBNT 5; Lund, 1972),
and Charles, Virtue amidst Vice.
298 The Evangelical QJtarterly

that Peter, after many years of ministry in the Greek world, could not
have written. '22 Also, it is possible that Peter was adapting his lan-
guage to suit the religious and cultural milieu of his readers.23 Finally,
the role of an amanuensis has often been proposed as a partial expla-
nation though this solution is not without its difficulties. 24
This line of argumentation is insufficient to support or challenge
the traditional authorship view. We know very little about Peter's life
apart from a handful of stories recorded by early Christian writers.
Regarding his educational opportunities and his intellectual abilities,
we can only speculate. 25 Galilee was indeed culturally diverse, and
there was widespread use of Greek, and so it is possible that Peter
could have produced this letter. However, it is best to admit our lim-
itations in this area.

2. The search for a terminus ad quem

There is no doubt that 2 Peter was written before 200 c.E., this date
based on the third-century Bodmer P72 and Origen's knowledge of
this epistle. Can this date be lowered? It can if earlier texts are found
to be dependent on 2 Peter. Robert Picirilli has attempted to show
this in his study of parallels between 2 Peter and the Apostolic
Fathers. In his view, the former was likely an influence on the latter.
His conclusions remain tentative however: 'One thing has been
proved, even if negative: one cannot dogmatically affirm that there
certainly are not allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers. '26 Such
a conclusion is of limited value though because historians need to
work with probabilities, not possibilities. His study offers a variety of
parallels between this canonical and noncanonical literature but
without explicit reference to a source or lengthy passages of common
material, proof of 2 Peter's influence is impossible to find. 27 Further-
22 Moo, 24.
23 See e.g., ibid., 24, 26; D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (rev. ed.; Downers
Grove, IlI., 1990), 763-64; and Blum, 257-61.
24 Cr. 1 Pet. 5:12. Regarding the role of the amanuensis, R. N. Longenecker points
out that the extent to which secretaries had freedom in drafting personal letters is
'beyond determination from the evidence presently at hand, and may well have
varied from case to case' ('Ancient Amanuenses and the Pauline Epistles', in New
Dimensions in New Testammt Study, ed. R. N. Longenecker and M. C. Tenney [Grand
Rapids, 1974], 288). See too Charles, Virtue amidst Vire, 60-63.
25 use of the term agrammatos in the description of Peter andJohn in Acts 4:13 likely
refers to their lack of religious training, not their education in general.
26 R. E. Picirilli, 'Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers', JSNT 33 (1998), 74
(his emphasis).
27 He admits that absolute proof is not attainable, e.g., 'The possibility clearly exists
that 2 Peter is reflected in several passages in the Apostolic Fathers. There is cer-
tainly enough in common for that, even though this is not proof that conscious
quotations exist' (ibid.).
 Refoctions on the Autharship of 2 Peter 299

more, the aim of this study - searching second-century literature for

a terminus ad quem earlier than Origen (the first to refer to 2 Peter by
name) - would offer little to the authorship debate anyway. Picirilli
explicitly refers to himself as a conservative by which I assume he
means that he holds to a traditional view of authorship. His line of
argument then is an attempt to push the terminus ad quem to an ear-
lier period, thus bolstering the case for the traditional view. 2H It is not
clear, however, how this helps establish Petrine authorship. Mter all,
Peter died in the 60s and so tracing Peter's influence on Christian
writings after this time (late first, second century) does not help. A
pseudepigraphal letter could have been written at any point (even
during Peter's own lifetime) and indeed many proponents of a first-
century date for this epistle still maintain that it was not written by
the apostle (e.g., in addition to Bauckham, Bo Reicke and Robert
Bouchat).29 The limited value of seeking allusions to 2 Peter in sec-
ond-century texts as a proof of Petrine authorship was observed by
Donald Guthrie who points out that 'such evidence would not, of
course, rule out the possibility that 2 Peter was a non-authentic work,
but the nearer the attestation is traced back towards the first century,
the greater is the presumption against this. '30 I agree completely with
the first half of this sentence but not the second. Again, it is not clear
how earlier attestation in the period after Peter's death makes any
difference in this discussion. Paul expressed concern about people
writing in his name while he was still alive!31 The search for an earlier
terminus ad quem provides no evidence to support the traditional view.
At the same time, observing parallels with other literature does little
to threaten it either, and this leads into my next point.

3. The search for the milieu in which 2 Peter was written

Under this heading I treat two distinguishable themes at the same

28 This line of argumentation is common among those defending traditional author-

ship. For a recent example, see Kruger, 649-56.
29 Bo Reicke, The E.pistles of James, Peter; and Jude (AB; New York, 1964), 144-45;
Bouchat, esp. 235-38. Bauckham (fude, 2 Peter, 157-58) also finds the evidence to
indicate a first-century date 'though ... an early second-century date cannot be
entirely excluded.' He has argued that 2 Peter was a source for the Apocalypse of
Peter, a(n early?) second-century pseudepigraphon. He suggests that the Apoca-
lypse was written during the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132-35 C.E.) but before its con-
clusion. For the date of the Apocalypse see 'The Apocalypse of Peter: A Jewish
Christian Apocalypse from the Time of Bar Kokhba', Apocrypha 5 (1994),7-111. He
argues that this document was dependent on 2 Peter in '2 Peter and the Apoca-
lypse of Peter', in his The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apoca-
lypses (NovTSup 93; Leiden, 1998),290-303.
30 Guthrie, 810-11.
31 2 Thes. 2:1-2.
300 The Evangelical Qy.arterly

time, literary parallels (such as shared vocabulary and imagery~2) and

general theological perspective. What is of interest here is the attempt
to answer historical questions by observing similarities between a text
of unknown historical location and a text (or texts) of known histori-
cal location. In the two examples of authorship studies considered
here, references to parallels have been introduced as evidence. It is
often argued that observing parallels or identifying a theological per-
spective can help pinpoint a geographical or chronological context,
or perhaps even identify authorship. For example, shifting back to the
Shakespeare question:
A great deal of Baconian scholarship has been devoted to parallelisms -
thoughts, phrases, and expressions which occur in the writings of both
Shakespeare and Bacon. . .. The Baconian conclusion is that Bacon
compiled The Promus [Bacon's own manuscript notes in which many
parallels with Shakespeare can be found] as a source-book for his
Shakespearian and other writings. The Orthodox [traditionalist]
arguments against Proof by Parallel Passages are: that Shakespeare and
Bacon could have taken similar phrases from the same Biblical, classical
and other published sources; that they could have borrowed from each
other, and that many of their shared expressions were common places at
the time. 33
In this case, there is the implied assumption that if there are simi-
larities between writings there must logically be a direct correspon-
dence.
In our NT example, this type of evidence for specific locations is
frequently called upon. Common authorship has actually been sug-
gested as an explanation for the similarities between Jude and 2

32 Parallels between biblical and non-biblical literature are frequently introduced in

research for a variety of reasons and the temptation to draw extravagant conclu-
sions from them is great. For methodological considerations regarding parallels
see M. E. Boring, K. Berger, and C. Colpe, eds., Hellenistic CommP1ltary to the New Tes-
tament, trans. M. E. Boring (Nashville, 1995), 11-32; A. Deissmann, Light From the
Ancient Near East: The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the GraecD-
Roman World, trans. L. R. M. Strachan ([1927] repr., Peabody, Mass, 1995),265-67;
T. L. Donaldson, 'Parallels: Use, Misuse and Limitations', EvQ55 (1983), 193-210;
C. A. Evans, R. L. Webb, and R. A. Wiebe, eds., Nag Hammadi Texts and the Bible
(Leiden, 1993), xviii-xxii; E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Ear(v Christianity, 2d ed.
(Grand Rapids, 1993), 1-3; B. M. Metzger, 'Methodology in the Study of the Mys-
tery Religions and Early Christianity', in Historical and Literary Studies: Pagan, Jew-
ish and Christian (Leiden, 1968), 1-24; S. Sandmel, 'Parallelomania', JBL 81
(1962),1-13; and D. Stoutenburg, With One Voice / B'QolEchad: The Sermon on the
Mount and Rabbinic Literature (San Francisco, 1996),81-87.
33 Michell, 156.
 &jlections on the Autharship of 2 Peter 301

Peter. 34 Others are concerned to find a specific historical location for

2 Peter such as a geographical setting or date of composition.
a. Literary parallels
How are literary parallels used in historical research? One example
is given here. Richard Bauckham's formulation of the Roman prove-
nance hypothesis represents an impressive attempt to locate this doc-
ument in history. He begins with a strong presentation of the case for
pseudonymous authorship, one that builds heavily on the issue of
genre. Second Peter is a farewell discourse or testament and '[i] n
Jewish usage the testament was a jictionalliterary genre. '35 From this
he attempts to determine the approximate time and place of writing,
presenting a strong case for associating this epistle with the Roman
church at the end of the first or early second century. In support of

34 J. A. T. Robinson argues thatJude's desire to write to the readers about their com-
mon salvation was interrupted by a crisis requiring a more hurried written
response (w.3-4). 'I suggest that what he was composing in the name of the apos-
tle was 11 Peter' (&dating the New Testament [London, 1976], 193) . Jude represents
the shorter, hurried work prepared to meet the immediate crisis. T. V. Smith com-
ments: 'This hypothesis [i.e., common authorship] would account very well for
both the limited amount of close verbal agreement and the close similarity of
theme and content: the writer used different words to talk about the same thing.
In addition, 2 Peter's puzzling omissions would be explained, for there would be
little need to repeat everything already contained in the first letter [i.e., Jude,
which is referred to in 2 Pet. 3: 1]. Why, however, on this hypothesis, did the author
need to write both Jude and then 2 Peter?' (Petrine Contruversies in narty Christian-
ity: Altitudes Towards Peter in Christian Writing,5 of the First Two Centuries [WUNT 15;
Tiibingen, 1985], 77).
35 Bauckham,Jude, 2 Peter, 134 (his emphasis). This is carefully defined (see esp. 131-
35, 158-62 but also throughout). Bauckham maintains that the alternation
between future and present is a deliberate attempt to demonstrate how the apos-
tolic predictions are being fulfilled with the coming of false teachers in the read-
ers' day (see e.g., ibid., 239). This indicates that Petrine authorship is a fiction that
the real author does not consistently carry through. Bauckham is not convinced
that the author would inadvertently slip from future to present tense. because this
document shows signs of being carefully written. Allowing all of this, he concludes
that Petrine authorship represents a 'transparent fiction' that readers would read-
ily recognize (the most complete argument is in ibid., 131-63, but see also the brief
summary in Bauckham, '2 Peter', 924). I. H. Marshall's review of his theory of
authorship is quite interesting. It illustrates a cautious but open-minded reaction
by one conservative: 'Various pieces of evidence indicate that the letter is not in
fact by Peter but emanates from the church at Rome and was motivated by pastoral
concern for other churches. Understood in this way pseudonymity is compatible
with canonicity since in this case the device is "not a fraudulent means of claiming
apostolic authority, but embodies a claim to be a faithful mediator of the apostolic
message" ([Bauckhaml 161f.). If this concept of a non-fraudulent use of the liter-
ary genre is defensible, then it is clear that evangelical Christians need not react
against the possibility that 2 Peter was not written by Peter' (review ofJude;2 Peter,
by R.J. Bauckham, in ElJQ57 (1985), 78).
302 The Evangelical Qytarterly

this conclusion, Bauckham notes the many similarities - parallels -

between literature associated with Rome during this period (1 and 2
Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas) and 2 Peter. 36
h. Theological outlook
Another example of this concern to locate 2 Peter on the basis of
parallels builds on perceived differences between this epistle and
Paul and affinities between 2 Peter and second-century theology and
ecclesiology. The term 'early catholicism' is a label given to texts
thought to reflect a later period of the church's development. Some
argue that features of late second-century catholicism are found in
the NT itself. 37 Among characteristics of this later stage of Christian
history often said to appear in the NT, even if in an incipient form,
are a declining expectation of Christ's imminent return, increasing
institutionalization of the church, and the reduction of the Christian
message into established forms. The term Frilhkatholizismus (early
catholicism) suggests that the process leading to these developments
is either understood as a falling away from the earliest gospel or,
more positively, as the coming to light of what was implicit in the NT
itself. 38
Ernst Kasemann (1906-1998) is often introduced in treatments of
early catholicism, especially with respect to 2 Peter. 39 According to
Kasemann various indicators point to a late date for 2 Peter. To give
but one example, an issue confronting Christians early on in the
church's history was the delay of Christ's second coming. The origi-
nal readers of 2 Peter 'were embarrassed and disturbed by the fact of
the delay of the Parousia, a fact naturally used by the adversaries to

36 On this, see especially hisJude, 2 Peter, 149-51.

37 For a thorough discussion of the issue see]. D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the
New Testament: An Enquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (2d ed.; London,
1990), ch. 14.
38 Ibid., 341. For a presentation of the latter perspective and for further discussion of
the twentieth-century interest in this issue, see]. H. Elliott, 'A Catholic Gospel:
Reflections on "Early Catholicism" in the New Testament', CBQ31 (1969),213- 23.
39 A recent tribute to Ernst Kiisemann provides a fascinating introduction to the life
and thought of this important NT theologian and is highly recommended (P. F. M.
Zahl, 'A Tribute to Erns! Kiisemann And a Theological Testament", Anglican Theo-
logical Review 80 [1998], 382-94). The term 'early catholicism' did not originate
with Kiisemann. Use of the term FriihkatholizismU.! actually goes back to F. C. Baur
in the nineteenth century (R. P. Martin, 'Early Catholicism', in Dictionary of Paul
and His Letters, ed. G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin [Downers Grove, Ill., 1993],
223) though some suggest it was first used by W. Heitmuller or E. Troeltsch (K. H.
Neufeld, "Fruhkatholizismus' - Idee und Begriff, ZKT 94 [1972], 1-28 [this ref-
erence taken from Martin]). The study in which Kiisemann presents his position
on 2 Peter is his 'An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology', in r-ssays on New
Testament Themes, trans. W.]. Montague (Philadelphia, 1982), 169-95.
 Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter 303

bolster up their argument', and in fact this letter was intended to pro-
vide a defence of the primitive hope. 40
Two examples have been given. The first proposed a geographical
provenance for 2 Peter and an approximate date on the basis of lit-
erary parallels with the extant writings of the Roman church pro-
duced in the late first through the mid second century. The second
was more theological in nature, building on assumptions about the
development of the early church. For various reasons though, such
attempts to locate texts on the basis of affinities with and divergence
from other literature may be deceptive. For one thing, it is easy to
overlook the role of the author as a creative, original thinker. It is not
necessarily true that an author is a mirror image of his or her envi-
ronment. Naturally a writer speaks the language of the intended
audience and as much as possible will make contact with experiences
familiar to them in order to gain a hearing41 but it does not neces-
sarily follow that everything written automatically represents the
views held by the intended community or the cultural background of
the author. To illustrate, if a Jewish author chose to write to a Gentile
audience (as traditionalists would argue is the case for 2 Peter), it is
not surprising that the writer would attempt to 'speak their lan-
guage.' We need only think of Paul's Areopagus address to see this
phenomenon illustrated in the NT.42
Furthermore, there is often inadequate attention given to the pos-
sibility that a document may have contributed to the shape of the envi-
ronment in which it is said to be located. For example, are similari-
ties between the thought of 2 Peter and second-century (early
catholic) tendencies to be explained as 2 Peter belonging to that con-
text, or was that context shaped in part by (the earlier) 2 Peter?
Finally, authors may deliberately seek to blur an obvious link to a
given context for various reasons: they may attempt to create the
impression that their writing derives from a different setting (see any
example of historical fiction); they may depict their environment as
they wish it was (e.g., apocalyptic literature with its depiction of jus-
tice for the oppressed); they may provide a description of their con-
temporary setting that is only partially correct and mixed with exag-
gerations in order to create satire; they may deliberately distort
aspects of their context as a polemic, and so on.
It is extremely difficult to measure such variables as these. Apart
from the limited information available about the early centuries of
the church, it would appear that one of the greatest weaknesses in

40 Kasemann, 170.
41 See 2 Pet. 1:1, 12-13; 3:1.
42 Acts 17: 16-34.
304 The Evangelical QJtarterly

attempts to locate texts on the basis of parallels or perceived differ-

ences between texts is the idiosyncrasies of authorship. Rarely do
writers conform to the expectations placed on them so completely
that individuality is lost.

4. Arguments from silence (the absence of paralkls)

Why is it that virtually nothing is known about Shakespeare of Strat-
ford? Public records that are reasonably expected have not been
found. People one would expect to mention the man and his works
do not do so (e.g., Philip Henslowe [owner and manager ofthe Rose
and other playhouses], Edward Alleyne [Henslowe's son-in-law and
business partner who mentions every notable actor and writer in
Shakespeare's time, but not Shakespeare himself], Michael Drayton
[an author who often mentioned other contemporary literary fig-
ures, but not Shakespeare]). Here again is an argument against the
traditional view of authorship. How could William Shakespeare's bril-
liance not have been recognized? The reason is that the true author
was hiding behind a pseudonym. This is of course an argument from
silence.
But when, if ever, is the absence of parallels (or topics) significant
in historical arguments? This question needs to be asked as it is often
introduced in attempts to locate 2 Peter. Notice how the following
examples from 2 Peter studies use arguments from silence to reach
opposite conclusions:
[in 2 Peter1 traces of the second century are absent at those points where
theymight have been confidently expected to occur ... 43
... I am impressed by the absence of any suggestion of chiliasm in 3:8
when quoting the very verse used by Barnabas, Justin, 2 Clement,
Methodius and Irenaeus to support it .... I am impressed by the absence
of interest in church organization (one of the main preoccupations of
second-century works like the Didache and the Ascension of Isaiah) ... 44
To infer from the absence of any allusion to chiliasm that the epistle must
be very old, is doubly erroneous; for (i.) chiliasm was not universal in the
second century, (ii.) nor was the quotation from Ps 90:4 its starting-point,
as Apoc 20:4f. is enough to show. 45
The letter gives no hint of a second-century environment or of problems
such as the monarchical bishop, developed Gnosticism, or Montanism. 46
Indeed if this is the sort of thing that was being produced in the first half

43 Bigg, 242.
44 Green, 39.
45 J. Moffatt, An Introduction to the Literature of the Nrw Testament (International Theo-
logical Library; New York, 1911), 362 n.
46 Blum, 261.
 Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter 305

of the second century [referring to the Apocalypse ofPeter] it is the strongest

possible argument for not placing II Peter there. 47
To commentators, the use of the double name Symean Petros seems strange,
as it occurs elsewhere only in Acts 15.14. It is noteworthy that 'Simon
Peter' does not occur in any pseudo-Petrine writings of the second
century.48
· .. it should be noted how the predictive character of the testament genre
is used in 2 Peter. Nothing in the letter reflects the situation in which Peter
is said to be writing; the work is addressed to a situation after Peter's
death. 49
· .. pseudepigraphic literature is normally connected to heretical groups.
· .. [2 Peter] has no evident heterodoxical agenda, bears no clear
resemblance to any other pseudo-Petrine literature, and exhibits no
references to any second-century doctrinal controversies. 5O
Arguments based on the silence of the text can be used in diverse
ways as can be seen from the examples given above. These illustrate
how the absence of parallels is used to support opposite conclusions
- 2 Peter is a second-century document and 2 Peter is not a second-
century document. In these statements the authors are in each case
correct in their observations. But what can these observations prove?
Modern readers are not in the position to assert what an ancient
writer could or could not do, would or would not do. 51

5. Composite authorship theories

One final strategy for overcoming authorship questions is noted
here. Composite authorship theories reduce the urgency to explain
how a single writer can be responsible for diversity in literature. In
the case of our English example, various candidates for the author-

47 Robinson, 178 (his emphasis).

48 Charles, Virtue amidst Vice, 130.
49 Bauckham, '2 Peter', 924.
50 Kruger, 670.
51 A further example often cited in studies of 2 Peter involves the comparison with
Jude. Much is made of the fact that 2 Peter does not include pseudepigraphal
material to the same extent thatJude does. In fact, the author of 2 Peter seems to
excise traces of this material quite deliberately Gude 6 cf. 2 Pet. 2:4, 9; Jude 9 cf.
2 Pet. 2:11; Jude 14-15 cf. 2 Pet. 2:17). Does this say something about 2 Peter's
intended audience? Maybe they were not familiar with these Jewish traditions, sug-
gesting therefore a (primarily) Gentile readership. Or, does it say something about
the date of composition? Perhaps it signals a later stage in the church's develop-
ment when there was a reluctance to use pseudepigraphal writings (the Assump-
tion of Moses, 1 Enoch). However, such reasoning reflects an oversimplified view
of the early church. It is equally possible that parts of the church were uncomfortable
with this literature (2 Peter) while other parts of the church felt free to make use of
it Gude).
306 The Evangelical QJtarterly

ship of the plays and poems would nicely account for those specific
areas of expertise thought to lie outside Shakespeare's ken. For this
reason a variety of group theories have emerged. These provide an
effective solution to the problem: Take all the candidates who have
claims to some part of Shakespeare, and make them into a group
with whoever you like as leader'.52 The attraction of such theories is
obvious - play around (pun intended) with enough names and you
will eventually find a combination that will answer all the questions
presented by the text. And so, as Michell points out, group theories
provide an ideal answer to those doubting traditional authorship yet
unable to support any of the other candidates put forward. However,
... when it comes to specitying the group members, and rejecting other
claimants, confusion sets in. Everyone has their own ideas about who
should be allowed in or excluded, and no one has shown how even a small,
dedicated group could have maintained such long-lasting secrecy. 53
Consensus will never be achieved in such a scenario.
This is not a perfect analogy but similar theories appear in biblical
studies, perhaps most often as some form of school hypothesis. In NT
studies the Johannine literature especially has been treated in this
way, but it has been applied to the Petrine literature as well. 54 Marion
Soards points to literary similarities and dissimilarities in the docu-
ments which, he argues, are best explained if these texts were all writ-
ten in and/or used by different people in one community. Along
with liturgical features found in 1 Peter, 2 Peter and Jude, and simi-
larities in theology and use of the OT, he also notes the shared use of

52 Michell, 241. Michell provides a sampling of 14 examples of such group theories

(see 241-46 for full discussion).
53 Ibid., 245.
54 E.g., E. Best speaks of a Petrine school in his study of 1 Peter: 'We conclude that
the epistle was pseudonymous but emerged from a Petrine school' (1 Peter [NCB;
London, 19711,63). Presumably 2 Peter was also a product of this school as it knew
and used 1 Peter (63; cf. 44-45). Chase is also open to the school hypothesis; in his
discussion of the similarities between 2 Peter and the Apocalypse of Peter he lists
this as a possible explanation: 'Are the two documents the work of two writers who
belonged to the same school, whose thoughts moved in the same directions, and
to whom the same expressions and words had grown familiar? ... The fact that
there is a similarity between the two writings, not only in words or in definitely
marked ideas, but also in general conceptions ... seems to be an argument of
some strength in favour of the view that the two documents are the product of the
same school' (F. H. Chase, 'Peter, Second Epistle of, in A Dictionary of the Bible, ed.
J. Hastings [Edinburgh, 1898-1904], 3:816). Chester and Martin find that '2 Peter
carries marks of having been composed by members of the ·school of Peter" ...
at a time when Peter's memory was cherished and his aegis claimed for teaching
required to repel rival teachers' (145) and again '[t1he author of 2 Peter was a
devoted member of the Petrine school' (139; cf. 90-94). Brown maintains that the
production of this text in Rome, in a Petrine school, is 'plausible' (768).
 IUjlections on the Autharship of 2 Peter 307

pseudepigraphy and source material (among other things) .55 While

this is an intriguing hypothesis, there are some questions that
remain.
First, it is not clear if Peter represents a teacher with a special con-
nection to this community of readers or if he was just one of the
authoritative apostles, or more generally, one of many pastors con-
cerned for the flock. Soards does not prove that the name Peter had
special significance for this school or community. David Henry
Schmidt did not find this to be the case in his 1972 doctoral disserta-
tion on the Petrine writings (specifically 1 and 2 Peter, the Apocalypse
of Peter, and the Gospel of Peter). In his opinion the evidence did not
support this, noting among other things that (a) although they all
draw from sources they do not appear to have made use of the same
ones;56 (b) each writing addresses a particular concern, but these
problems and their way of dealing with them are varied;57 and (c) the
choice of the name 'Peter' does not seem to have been made for any
reason that would link these texts. Thus 'there is no evidence of any
common overriding factor which caused the Peter writings to be writ-
ten under Peter's name. Instead we must find individual reasons
behind each writer's attraction to identify with Peter.'58
Second, Jude and perhaps also 1 Peter were direct influences on 2
Peter, and if this is taken into account, the cumulative effect of simi-
larities between these texts is not remarkable. And third, it may be
that the idea of a school is inappropriate altogether at a more fun-
damentallevel with respect to the Petrine writings. Bauckham points
out that those who postulate schools are attempting to explain theo-
logical and literary similarities between texts that are not believed to
come from the same author. In the case of 1 and 2 Peter, 'there are
no such similarities to be explained. '59
Another form of group theory is found in]. Ramsey Michael's thesis.

55 M. L. Soards, 'I Peter, 2 Peter and Jude as Evidence for a Petrine School', ANRW
2.25.5,1988,3828-44. Cf. his summary statement (3828). He also points to P72 as
'a kind of physical evidence that this interpretation is not merely a cleverly devised
myth' (3840). This papyrus codex from the third century includes only 1 Peter, 2
Peter, and Jude from the NT as well as two Psalms and six noncanonical docu-
ments. 'Thus, one sees concrete proof that the three letters which are viewed
together in this study were held together, apart from other NT writings, by some
early Christian(s)' (3840).
56 Matthew, he notes, appears to have been reflected in each of these texts, 'but the
popularity of this gospel limits the significance that this usage might have' (D. H.
Schmidt, The Peter Writings: Their IUdactors and Their IUlationships [Ph.D. diss.,
Northwestern University, 1972], 199; cf. further 187-89).
57 Ibid., 199; cf., 190.
58 Ibid., 2()()'()1.
59 jude, 2 Peter, 146.
308 The Evangelical Qy,arterly

Noticing a 'double time perspective' in 2 Peter, by which is meant the

contrast between the lifetime of Peter ('as long as I am in this body,'
1:13) and future provision (,after my departure,' 'at any time,' 1:15),
he proposes that a follower of the apostle composed this document.
This seeming paradox could be explained if Second Peter were regarded
as a compendium or anthology of genuine Petrine material put together
in testamentary form by one or more of the apostle's followers after his
death. The relation of Second Peter to the historical Peter would then be
somewhat analogous to the relation between the Gospel writers and Jesus,
who promised that after his death the Holy Spirit would bring to their
remembrance the things he had taught them (John 14:26 [cf. 2 Pet. 1:15]).
Such an approach would recognize some truth in the critical assertion that
Second Peter brings the apostle's authority to bear upon certain problems
that became more acute after his death. 60
In making this proposal, Michaels is careful to remove any guilt
from the later author arguing that there was no intent to deceive. On
the contrary, by placing Peter's name to what was in fact Petrine
material, this writer showed integrity by giving proper credit to the
apostle. It remains beyond proof or disproof however, and again,
consensus will not be reached.

IV. Some conclusions

Did Peter write 2 Peter? In the end it must be admitted that, on purely
historical grounds, we don't know - not that he couldn't have, not
that he must have. The arguments for and against have been
repeated time and again but the fact remains that there is simply not
enough evidence to achieve a consensus. For many (most?) evangel-
ical scholars, theological presuppositions are an important consider-
ation. 61 This is appropriate as long as these are clearly stated. I find in

60 G. W. Barker, W. L. Lane, and J. R. Michaels, 77le Nw Testament Sppaks (New York,

1969),352.
61 As an example of faith presuppositions touching on historical critical matters, con-
sider the following evaluation of pseud epigraphy as it relates to inspiration and
canon: 'if the Pastorals are Scripture, their claim to authorship, like all other asser-
tions, should be received as truth from God; and one who rejects this claim ought
also to deny that they are Scripture, for what he is saying is that they have not the
nature of Scripture, since they make false statements.... [and] if we are to regard
2 Peter as canonical we must regard it as apostolic also' (]. I. Packer, 'Fundamen-
talism' and the Wind of God [London, 1958], 184-85; full discussion 182-86). Here
there is no attempt to prove the point on historical grounds. This is both a theo-
logical statement and faith statement. Worth attention is S. E. Porter's interesting
examination of NT pseudepigraphy in relation to the canonization process
(,Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: Implications for Canon', BBR 5
[1995], 105-23; cf. R. W. Wall, 'Pauline Authorship and the Pastoral Epistles: A
Response to S. E. Porter', BBR 5 [1995], 125-28).
 Reflections on the Authorship of 2 Peter 309

Michell's conclusion regarding the Shakespeare question a helpful

summary of the situation NT scholars find themselves in.
There are [many theories about authorship] ... and there is nothing to
prove that anyone of them is entirely wrong, or absolutely right. The only
honest answer that can be given to someone who wants to know who wrote
Shakespeare is that it is a perfect mystery, dangerously addictive, but very
worthwhile looking into. 62
The 2 Peter authorship question remains a mystery as well and one
quite worthy of our continued attention. In our zeal to answer it,
however, we need to be careful not to create evidence along the way
that is simply not there.

Abstract
Authorship debates commence when the named author of a writing
is thought to be incapable of producing that document. This assumes
that enough is known about the author in question to make such a
judgment. This paper is a plea for caution. It argues that there are
often too many variables involved in such historical questions - espe-
cially with respect to earliest Christianity - to make dogmatic asser-
tions. A better way is to admit openly our limitations. Five specific
examples of potential ambiguity in authorship debates are discussed.

62 Michell, 261. Cf. M. J. Gilmour, 'How to Approach a Strange Manuscript: A

Novel(ist's) Look at the Historical Task', ARC 27 [1999], 104-05.

The New International Dictionary of The New International Dictionary of

New Testament Theology Old Testament Theology & Exegesis
Editor: Colin Brown A major achievement in Old
Testament studies, this comprehensive
A four volume set offering concise dis- five-volume dictionary is an invaluable
cussions of all the major theological study aid for all involved in the analysis
terms in the New Testament against and exposition of the Old Testament.
the background of classical and koine
Greek, the Old Testament, Rabbinical 'When dictionaries and encyclopaedias
thought and different usages in the are multiplying, NIDOTTE looks set to
New Testament. become the standard work in this field
for all who respect the Bible.'
0-85364-432-2/4 Volumes, total 3506pp Alan Millard (Rankin Professor of
/ hb / 240xl65mm / £I 19. 99 Hebrew and Semitic Languages,
University of Liverpool)
0-85364-834-4 (5 volume set) / £I 69.99

Paternoster Press, PO Box 300, Carlisle, Cumbria CA3 OQS, UK