Some Ways To Argue Against A Papacy

It's useful to think of ways to concisely address a subject. That helps when we don't have much time in a particular context or we're looking for brief way to start a conversation on the topic, for example. In a post a few years ago, I summarized nine lines of evidence to consider when evaluating the papacy:

Regarding the evidence against the papacy outside of Matthew 16, think of the many contexts in which a papacy could have been mentioned early on, but wasn't: there's no reference to a title for a papal office (in contrast to "apostle", "deacon", etc.); the qualifications for holding other offices, like apostle and elder, are mentioned in places like Acts 1 and 1 Timothy 3, whereas there's no such discussion of the qualifications for being a Pope; passages discussing the structure of the church, like 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4, say nothing of a papacy; the imagery used for the church in Ephesians 2 and elsewhere doesn't make any effort to portray a papal office; the imagery used for the apostles in Matthew 19 and elsewhere (e.g., twelve thrones, twelve foundation stones) doesn't make any effort to portray a papal office; in passages in which the apostles are anticipating their departure in some sense (Paul departing from the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, Paul and Peter anticipating their deaths in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter), there's no reference to a papal office, looking to the bishop of Rome as the foundation of the church, looking to the bishop of Rome as the center of Christian unity, or anything like that; the earliest sources to comment on the Roman church and its importance (Paul in Romans, Luke at the end of Acts, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, etc.) give a variety of non-papal reasons for the Roman church's significance; the early opponents of Christianity, including ones who addressed the religion at as much length as Trypho and Celsus did, showed no awareness of a papacy. Furthermore, passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28 (mentioning "apostles" as the first order in the church) and Galatians 2:9 (grouping Peter with other apostles and naming him second) make more sense if there was no early belief in a papacy than if there was a belief in it.

Some of the arguments don't have enough significance to use in isolation. They should be part of a cumulative case instead. But some of them could be used in isolation. You could choose one or more to start with, then move on to others if warranted.

A Reminder Of The Importance Of Josephus' Comments On Baptism

Josephus is an important source on some baptismal issues, but he often gets overlooked or underestimated. He refers to how John the Baptist's baptism wasn't meant to be a means of obtaining justification. Dismissing Josephus as a non-Christian isn't an adequate objection, since the significance of his earliness and his knowledge of recent Jewish history don't depend on his being a Christian. You can be a non-Christian, but still be right about something. And if the advocate of baptismal regeneration wants to acknowledge that John's baptism wasn't justificatory, then he needs to address some implications that follow. John's baptism is discussed and practiced alongside the earliest form of baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples (John 3:22-4:2), and that overlap between the two makes more sense if there was more rather than less continuity between the two. In all likelihood, both John's baptism and the earliest baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples were non-justificatory. So, that gives us a double precedent for non-justificatory baptism. That's another problem the advocate of baptismal regeneration has to address. Furthermore, Peter uses language about baptism similar to the language used by Josephus, which adds further evidence for the conclusion that Peter rejected baptismal regeneration. See here for further discussion of that issue. So, Josephus' comments are relevant to multiple baptismal issues and provide multiple lines of evidence against baptismal regeneration.

The Number Of Resurrection Experiences Peter Had

The numbers are significant for other individuals as well, but I want to focus on Peter here as an example. He probably was part of at least three of the appearances mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:5-8, and there's a good chance that he was part of four of them. For a discussion of the potential for his participation in the appearance to more than five hundred in 1 Corinthians 15:6, see here. He also witnessed the appearances in John 21 and Acts 1. And he's reported to have witnessed the empty tomb and the condition of Jesus' grave coverings at the time (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-7).

Such a large number of experiences would tend to involve a large amount of variety as well, and we see that with what Peter experienced. He was alone on one occasion, but with one or more other individuals on other occasions, only with John on the occasion of seeing the empty tomb and with varying larger groups on other occasions. The experiences are reported to have ranged across multiple weeks (John 20:26, Acts 1:3), from seeing the empty tomb on Easter day to seeing Jesus at the time of the ascension.

That sort of number and variety of experiences should be kept in mind. It wasn't just one event or one set of circumstances. Peter is the most significant example in this context, but the same point can be made to a lesser extent about other resurrection witnesses.

Does baptism save?

Obviously (1 Peter 3:21). It's remarkable that so many Evangelicals deny it or try to avoid saying it. What they ought to do, instead, especially when it's so evident what the people asking them the question are up to, is say something like, "Yes, baptism saves, but in the sense of sanctification, not justification." That's the context in which Peter was writing. The surrounding context is primarily about sanctification, such as "good behavior in Christ" (3:16) and "suffering in the flesh" as Christ did (4:1). There's a reference to a good conscience in 3:16, which is about sanctification, and verse 21 refers to a good conscience, which makes more sense if both passages are addressing sanctification. The context discusses how believers should approach opposition from non-Christians. Baptism involves a public commitment to God that sets the Christian apart in front of the surrounding culture, including those in the culture who are hostile to Christianity. Peter occasionally mentions justification in his letter, much as he occasionally mentions other topics, but he's primarily addressing post-conversion issues. That context favors a non-justificatory interpretation of "saves" (as in Matthew 8:25, 1 Timothy 4:16, Hebrews 5:7, 9:28, 1 Peter 3:20, etc.). Noah was already saved in the sense of justification when the flood occurred. His salvation in the flood context was of a different nature, as Peter's readers were saved through baptism in a non-justificatory manner. The parallel with Noah and the flood is vague under either reading, but makes somewhat more sense if Peter's focus is on sanctification rather than justification.

More Discussion Of The Problems With The Eliakim Argument For The Papacy

John Cranman and Jeremy Kidd recently produced a video that makes a lot of good points about the argument for a papacy based on Eliakim in Isaiah 22. (I came across the video by means of a link from The Other Paul on Twitter.)

Protestants Are More Consistent With Matthew 16

Peter isn't just singled out in verses 16-19, which Catholics highlight. He's also singled out in verses 22-23. No other apostle is called Satan. Does it follow that Peter was uniquely Satanic, more evil than anybody else or any other apostle or something akin to that? No. For one thing, Peter can be singled out in verses 22-23 without having any relevant sort of primacy. It could be, and it probably was the case, that Peter was singled out in verses 22-23 because he singled himself out by speaking up. It wouldn't make sense for Jesus to respond to Peter by talking to Thomas. It doesn't follow that Peter was singled out because of being more Satanic than anybody else or some such thing. Since we know in the abstract that something like being singled out in verses 22-23 in the manner in which Peter was singled out doesn't imply primacy in any relevant sense, and the evidence as a whole suggests Peter didn't have the primacy in question (e.g., the evidence we have that Judas was more Satanic than Peter), we conclude that a Satanic primacy most likely isn't being referred to. The passage could be referring to such a primacy, but that possibility isn't a probability. Just as Peter's personality, such as his outspokenness, can explain, and seems to best explain, his being singled out in verses 16-19 without the involvement of something like an additional church office, the same is likely true in verses 22-23.

Protestants apply the same sort of reasoning to verses 22-23 that they apply to verses 16-19. Catholics, on the other hand, are less consistent.

Does Peter's name suggest papal authority?

Catholics sometimes make claims like the ones I came across in a recent discussion about the papacy: "He spoke to Peter first, and changed his name and gave him the authority specifically. At no other point does God change someone's name and it does not denote new authority and responsibility."

Petrine Primacy Isn't A Papacy

A good passage of scripture to bring up in discussions of the papacy is Matthew 11:11. We're told that nobody born of women is greater than John the Baptist. We don't conclude that he therefore was a Pope or that nobody, including Peter, could have had any authority over John. He could be unsurpassed in one sense without being unsurpassed in another sense. Similarly, when Jesus goes on in the same verse to say that he who is the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John, it doesn't follow that some sort of jurisdictional primacy is in view. Matthew 11:11 illustrates the fact that there are multiple ways in which somebody can be considered to have a primacy. Somebody like John can simultaneously be unsurpassed in one context without being unsurpassed in another. And the placement of the passage in Matthew 11 is significant, since Peter's primacy in 10:2 is often cited as evidence that he was a Pope, as are the comments about him in chapter 16. As I told a Catholic I had a discussion with earlier this year, do a search on terms like "greatest" and "first" in Matthew's gospel and see what conclusions you end up with if you interpret all of those passages as referring to papal authority. We use categories and language of primacy often in our everyday lives without thinking of a papacy or something equivalent to it. One person will be a leader among a group of friends (making certain decisions for the group, taking the initiative more often than anybody else, etc.) without having any equivalent of papal authority. We speak of who the greatest military leader was, the greatest American president, or whatever without having any equivalent of a Pope in mind.

You can believe in a Petrine primacy, as I and many other non-Catholics do, without believing in a papacy. I also believe in a primacy of John the Baptist, a Pauline primacy, and primacies of other Biblical figures. Peter is the greatest among the Twelve in some ways, and my sense is that he's probably the greatest among the Twelve overall. (You could argue that John the son of Zebedee is the greatest, because of his influence on later history through his gospel and because of other factors, but my sense is that Peter is the more significant of the two overall.) However, I'd place Paul ahead of Peter if you go beyond the Twelve. That Pauline primacy doesn't involve a papacy, just as Peter's primacy doesn't.

If a papacy had existed in early Christianity, we probably wouldn't have to go to passages like Matthew 10:2 and 16:18-19 to find unverifiable, possible allusions to it. Go here for a discussion of how the papacy is absent across many contexts where we'd expect to see it mentioned if the office existed early on. And go here for a collection of resources on the papacy more broadly.

We can think of a series of steps involved in sorting through these issues. For example, if a passage like Matthew 10:2 or John 21:15-17 is cited in support of a papacy, is a papacy implied by the text in question? None of the passages cited by Catholics (in scripture or in the earliest sources outside of scripture) logically lead to a papacy. We can go on to ask whether we'd expect a papacy to be mentioned in certain places if the office existed at the time (e.g., the many New Testament passages on church government issues, the early patristic comments on why the Roman church is significant). We can also ask if any of the relevant sources seem to deny the concept of the papacy. You can read my material linked above for examples of all three of these questions being addressed. But we don't need to go through all of these steps to be justified in not believing in a papacy. The insufficiency of the arguments for a papacy are enough to justify not accepting the concept, even if we thought that no early source contradicts the concept or have never even considered whether any early source does so. We take the same approach with any other matter involving some type of primacy (Matthew 11:11, the unique name given to James and John in Mark 3:17, the unique language applied to Paul in the context of Acts 9, the focus on Paul in Acts, Paul's having written more books of scripture than any other apostle, John's being referred to as "the elder", etc.).

"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister....For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome" (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-2)

More About The Arguments For Pauline And Petrine Papacies

The Other Paul and Geoff Robinson just produced a good response to the video by Trent Horn and Suan Sonna on a Pauline papacy.

Since Luke 22, John 21, and Jesus' singling out of Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane have been getting a lot of attention, I want to point out how unusually weak Peter is in the gospel accounts leading up to Jesus' death. While all of the disciples are referred to as being unfaithful to Jesus in that context, and Judas is obviously the worst of them, the degree to which Peter falters is often underestimated. As I said in my initial response to the video by Trent and Suan, Peter boasted louder and fell harder. Before we even get to his triple denial of Christ:

Some Undesigned Coincidences Related To Peter's Names

Jesus gave Simon the name Peter (Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, John 1:42), yet Jesus often refers to him as Simon (Matthew 16:17, 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 1:42, 21:15-17). In fact, Jesus refers to him as Simon more often than he refers to him as Peter in the records we have in the gospels. Why would Jesus give Simon a new name, yet keep reverting to the original name?

Only two of the gospels report that Jesus had a brother named Simon (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3), but his having a brother with that name makes his interest in the name Simon, even when he had given the individual a new name, more coherent. And his use of the name Simon occurs in Luke and John as well, not just in the two gospels that name Jesus' brothers. Even in Matthew and Mark, the reference to a brother named Simon is brief and occurs in passing, and that brother didn't have the sort of later prominence that James and Jude had. So, Jesus' ongoing use of the name Simon in those two gospels has some significance accordingly. Jesus' tendency to keep using the name Simon, even after giving him a new name, seems best explained as something the historical Jesus did. Not only is it reported by all of the gospels, but his having a brother named Simon makes the ongoing use of that name more coherent.

It's also noteworthy that James referred to Peter as Simeon (Acts 15:14). Scholars often date Paul's letter to the Galatians close to the time of the events of Acts 15. Contrast how Paul never refers to the disciple as Simon in Galatians, but instead keeps referring to him as Cephas or Peter, with James' choice to refer to him as Simeon in Acts 15. So, we need to explain both Jesus' preference for Simon, even though Jesus is the one who gave that disciple his new name, and James' preference for Simeon, even though James was speaking at a time in church history when Peter was the more common way of referring to the disciple, as we see in Galatians. If both Jesus and James were drawing a connection to the name of one of their brothers, that's an efficient explanation for the use of that name by both Jesus and James when they address Peter.

One potential reason why the name Simon would stand out to Jesus and James is that Simon was their youngest brother. He's mentioned last in Mark 6:3, which may be because he was the youngest, though his being mentioned third instead of last in Matthew 13:55 complicates the situation. Youngest children often get treated differently because of their status as the youngest. Jesus may have had more affection for his brother Simon accordingly. And that may have been a factor not only in Jesus' referring to Peter as Simon so much, but also in his choosing Simon to begin with, giving him such a prominent position among the disciples, and giving him a second name.

It's also striking that the angel who appears to Cornelius in Acts 10 not only refers to Peter as Simon (verse 5), but does so in a context in which there was another Simon from whom Peter had to be distinguished (Simon the tanner). The angel refers to Peter as Simon, only to go on to add a qualifier to distinguish him, which could have been avoided by just referring to him as Peter. The angel didn't have a brother named Simon, as Jesus and James did. But who would have sent the angel? God, perhaps Jesus in particular. And an angel might have deference for Jesus' preferred way of referring to Peter even if Jesus hadn't been directly involved in the sending of that angel.

The situation is somewhat reminiscent of Jesus' frequent references to himself as the Son of Man, a title rarely applied to him by the New Testament authors. Those authors, with the exception of James, also seem to have not had as much interest as Jesus had in referring to Peter as Simon. The difference isn't as pronounced as in the Son of Man context, but there is a significant difference in both contexts.

The Widespread Absence Of A Papacy

One of the reasons for rejecting the papacy is the lack of justification for it. There are apparent contradictions of the concept of the papacy in some New Testament documents and other early sources, but the lack of evidence for the office would be enough reason to not accept it, even if such contradictions didn't exist.

However, Protestants often focus on too narrow a range of contexts in which the papacy is absent in the early sources. A lot of attention is given to passages about Peter in the gospels and Acts and material about church government in the early sources, for example, but we ought to think more broadly about where a papacy could have been mentioned if it existed. A papacy wouldn't have to be mentioned at every conceivable opportunity. But the larger the number and variety of contexts in which a papacy could have been mentioned, but wasn't, the more likely it is that the office didn't exist. What I want to do in this post is provide a few examples of contexts that are often neglected.

The apostles sometimes discussed their upcoming death, what was being done to preserve their teachings, and how Christians should conduct themselves going forward (e.g., Acts 20:17-38, 2 Timothy 3:10-4:8, 2 Peter 1:12-21). If the papacy was considered the foundation of the church, the infallible center of Christian unity throughout church history, the absence of any mention of such a resource in passages like these is significant.

Another group of relevant contexts is the imagery used to refer to relevant entities, such as what imagery is used to refer to the apostles or the church. We get twelve thrones without Peter's throne being differentiated (Matthew 19:28), three pillars without Peter's being differentiated (Galatians 2:9), twelve foundation stones without Peter's being differentiated (Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14), etc.

The early Christians often interact with the objections of their opponents. The gospels respond to the charge that Jesus performed miracles by the power of Satan, Paul responds to his critics in his letters, Justin Martyr wrote a response to Jewish arguments against Christianity, Origen wrote a response to Celsus' anti-Christian treatise, and so on. See here regarding the lack of reference to a papacy in such contexts.

It's important for Protestants (and other opponents of the papacy) to bring up considerations like these, since the absence of early references to a papacy becomes more significant when the absence occurs across a broader range of contexts. If only two pages of early Christian literature were extant, the absence of a papacy (or whatever other concept) would be much less significant than its absence across two million pages. The number of pages matters (assuming the usual diversity of topics you'd get with an increase in such a page number).

One of the reasons why it's become so popular for Catholics to argue for the papacy by an appeal to something like typology or Old Testament precedent is that there's such a lack of evidence in the New Testament and the early patristic literature. So, there's a turn to other sources to try to find what isn't present where we'd most expect to see it.

The Significance Of Galatians 2:9

I've often discussed how unlikely it is that Galatians 2:9 would have been written if the earliest Christians had believed in a papacy. Not only is Galatians a good place to go when addressing the doctrine of justification, but it's also a good place to go when the papacy is being discussed. But notice that Galatians 2:9 is also significant in the context of the historicity of the gospels and Acts. Those documents portray Peter, James, and John as the most prominent members of the Twelve (for non-papal reasons), frequently putting Peter and John together, and Galatians 2:9 has Peter and John together as reputed pillars of the church (James the son of Zebedee being dead by then). And the prominence of James the brother of Jesus in Galatians 2:9 is what we'd expect from Acts. So is the placing of Paul and Barnabas together. There's other relevant material in Galatians as well, but 2:9 is a good passage to remember as one that concisely illustrates so much.

How Much The Early Sources Agree About The Apostles

In a recent post on Peter's prominence in the New Testament, I mentioned a significant similarity in how Matthew 14:29 and John 21:7 portray Peter. When people discuss agreements among the gospels and other early Christian sources, agreements about Jesus get the most attention, for good reason. But there are many agreements on other matters as well, including about other individuals. Peter is a good example, and I provide some illustrations in my post linked above (his impulsiveness, his outspokenness, etc.).

But something else should be noted, which doesn't get as much attention, and it's illustrated in the passages in Matthew 14 and John 21 mentioned above. Notice that the passages not only portray Peter behaving so similarly, but also agree about the behavior of the other disciples. They're more reserved, more hesitant to act, or however you'd put it. That's also reflected in another passage I cited in my earlier post, John 20:6. John refrains from entering the tomb, but Peter goes in. There are many examples of agreements like these in the gospels, Acts, Paul's letters, etc. That's a problem for skeptical views that involve less common ground among the early Christian sources, higher levels of carelessness, and so on.

The Simplest Explanation For Peter's Prominence

There are many places in the New Testament in which Peter is prominent for reasons that are obviously of a non-papal nature. I'll start with some examples in the gospels of Matthew and John that are striking in how similar they are, despite appearing in such different contexts. When Peter leaves the boat he's in and enters the water in Matthew 14:29 and John 21:7, while the other disciples remain in the boat, he does so because of the nature of his personality, not because he's a Pope. Similarly, Peter's entering the tomb, while John remains outside, in John 20:6 is best explained by Peter's personality, not a papal office. And so on. Peter was outspoken, impulsive, rash, and so forth, so that he would often stand out for reasons other than a papacy. There's no reasonable way to deny that Peter's prominence in the early sources is due partly to such personal traits.

And that's a problem for Roman Catholicism. Since Peter's personality explains his prominence so well, no papacy or any other concept of a similar nature is needed to explain that prominence. All other things being equal, we prefer simpler explanations. Simplicity isn't the only criterion we take into account, but it is one of the criteria we consider. Why seek a second explanation for Peter's prominence when the first one is sufficient?

Andrew Before Peter

Several years ago, I wrote a post responding to the popular Roman Catholic claim that Peter is always mentioned first in lists of the apostles. Something that I didn't mention there is that Papias lists several of the apostles in the early second century, and he places Andrew before Peter (in Eusebius, Church History, 3:39:4).

The Pauline Papacy In Ephesus

Nearly 20 years ago, I wrote a list of 51 proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy. The reasoning Catholics use to argue for a Petrine papacy and Roman primacy can also be used to argue for similarly ridiculous conclusions about Paul and Ephesus. I didn't include any material on 1 Timothy 3:15 in my list, but in light of my recent post discussing the relationship between that passage and Ephesus, my list could have included that passage. Other material could be added as well, like some of Ignatius' comments in his letter to the Ephesians.

Abusing Peter's Weaknesses To Establish A Papacy

I want to expand on Steve's recent discussion of Luke 22:32 and the papacy.

The passage is addressing Peter's restoration after a fall, not some sort of strength he had as a Pope. The work Peter is described as doing, in strengthening his brethren, not only is common to all of the apostles (Acts 18:23), but is common to individuals of a lower rank in the church as well (Acts 15:32). It's not something unique to Peter, much less is it papal.

Much the same can be said of John 21:15-17, another passage often abused to argue for a papacy. John 21, like Luke 22, is addressing Peter's need for restoration, as reflected in the parallel between the three affirmations of love for Christ and Peter's previous three denials of Christ. And, as with Luke 22, what Peter is called to do in John 21 is not only common to the other apostles, but also to individuals of a lesser rank (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2).

Neither Luke 22 nor John 21 suggests that Peter had papal authority, much less that he would pass on such authority exclusively to a succession of bishops in Rome. It's perverse to take these passages about Peter's weakness and need for restoration and use them to claim that he was being given papal authority.

The Catholic abuse of Isaiah 22 is of a somewhat similar nature. I won't repeat everything I've said in past discussions about the passage. See the comments section of the thread here. As I explain there, if Catholics were consistent in their appeal to Isaiah 22, they would have to conclude that neither Peter nor his supposed successors have the attributes Catholics allege. So, whereas seeing a papacy in Luke 22 and John 21 involves unverifiable speculation, seeing a papacy in Matthew 16's use of Isaiah 22 is even worse, since papal authority isn't just absent from Isaiah 22, but is even contradicted.

What we have with these three passages is a couple that refer to Peter's need for restoration after a fall (Luke 22, John 21) and another that would give Peter and his successors sub-papal authority if the passage were applied consistently (Isaiah 22). In that sense, all three passages are about the weaknesses of Peter, but are being abused to argue that he has the strength of a Pope. The common thread is that some of the terminology and concepts used in each of these passages can be made to sound papal if taken out of context. But none of the passages imply a papacy when interpreted as we'd normally interpret a document.

The Gospels Corroborated In The Letters Of Peter

Skeptics sometimes tell us that Paul is the only New Testament author who claims to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead. But the fourth gospel also claims to have been written by a resurrection witness. See here, for example. And a document doesn't have to claim to be written by a resurrection witness in the main body of its text in order to justify the conclusion that the author is giving us his eyewitness testimony about seeing the risen Christ and other matters pertaining to the resurrection. If the traditional authorship attribution of the gospel of Matthew is correct, for example, then that document provides us with the testimony of an eyewitness of the risen Christ. If the evidence suggests that a particular individual was identified as a document's author by means of an oral report, a document title, a tag attached to a document, writing on the front or side of a codex, or some other means, we don't dismiss that author identification just because it doesn't appear in the main body of the document's text. For more about the evidence that the gospel of Matthew was originally attributed to that apostle and did come from him, see here.

Skeptics also sometimes claim that there isn't much corroboration of the gospels elsewhere in the New Testament. Supposedly, a lack of reference to gospel material in the letters of the New Testament, for example, casts a lot of doubt on the historicity of the gospels.

What I want to focus on in this post is what information we can gather from the letters of Peter regarding the subjects discussed in the two paragraphs above. The Petrine letters tend to be neglected in discussions of these issues.

I think both letters were written by the apostle Peter. But skeptics often reject Petrine authorship of one or both of the letters, and both documents would still be significant as early Christian sources if Peter didn't write them, so I won't refer to the author as Peter in what follows.

Both letters identify their author as an apostle named Peter (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1), which agrees with the testimony of all four gospels that Jesus had a prominent disciple named Peter. Since an individual had to at least be a witness of the risen Christ to be an apostle (Acts 1:21-22, 1 Corinthians 9:1), the implication is that the author of the Petrine letters is claiming to be such a witness.

And there's a reference to being an eyewitness in the context of the Mount of Transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18).

Jesus' crucifixion is mentioned as well (1 Peter 2:24).

The resurrection is mentioned prominently in 1 Peter (1:3, 1:21, 3:21). The phrase "from the dead" is used as a qualifier in 1:3 and 1:21. That qualifier makes the most sense as a means of emphasizing that what's in view is a return to life of the body that died. The resurrection the author has in mind isn't something like a non-physical resurrection or a resurrection involving a second body that replaces the one that died.

Both letters emphasize a high, traditional view of Old Testament prophecy and Jesus' fulfillment of it (1 Peter 1:10-12, 2 Peter 1:19-21). 1 Peter 2:21-25 is focused on Isaiah's Suffering Servant prophecy. That passage in Isaiah refers to a lot of details that are reported about Jesus in the gospels. Isaiah 53:9, which is quoted in 1 Peter 2:22, refers to the Servant's tomb and his being associated with a rich man in his death, and verse 10 of Isaiah 53 implies a physical resurrection. Notice that 1 Peter 2:21 introduces the references to Isaiah 53 by saying that Jesus set an example for us to follow. The implication is that the references to Isaiah 53 that come after that are about historical events in Jesus' life.

But what if 1 Peter 2 is only citing portions of the Suffering Servant prophecy without intending to apply all of it to Jesus? Maybe the author of 1 Peter thought Jesus only fulfilled part of the passage and did so in a secondary, typological way.

A few points should be made. First, even if 1 Peter 2 is only appealing to portions of the Isaiah passage without thinking that all of it applies to Jesus, we'd still have partial corroboration of what the gospels say about how Jesus' life aligned with what's in Isaiah. Secondly, the most likely meaning of the Suffering Servant passage in its original context is that it's about a future messianic, eschatological individual. See my post here about the first three Servant Songs and the other posts linked within that one. It's unlikely that an early Christian source who held such a high, Messianic view of Jesus, such as the author of 1 Peter, would have thought that only part of the Suffering Servant passage is applicable to Jesus. Third, the number and diversity of references to Isaiah 53 in 1 Peter 2 make more sense if the author of 1 Peter thought the entire passage applies to Jesus. It's less likely that the author would see so much of the passage as applicable to Jesus, yet reject the applicability of the rest of it. Fourth, other early Christian sources, sometimes individually and especially collectively, apply an even larger percentage of the Isaiah passage to Jesus (e.g., Acts 8:30-35). So, the point I just made about 1 Peter is even more relevant to early Christianity in general. And since 1 Peter was written in that early Christian context, that early Christian view of the Suffering Servant passage makes it more likely that the author of 1 Peter saw the passage that way as well. It seems likely, then, that the author applied all of Isaiah's passage to Jesus. And that involves a large amount of agreement between 1 Peter and the gospels.

Similar observations can be made about other Old Testament prophecies. Given the high view of Jesus' fulfillment of prophecy in the Petrine letters and given the high view of his fulfillment of Isaiah 52-53 in particular, what are the implications for his fulfillment of other prophecies, like the ones in Isaiah that are connected to the Suffering Servant passage (e.g., in chapters 9, 11, 42, and 49-50)?

2 Peter 3:15-16 refers to Paul's letters as scripture. Let's think about the implications related to one of Paul's letters, 1 Corinthians, as an example. There's widespread agreement that 1 Corinthians was written relatively early, sometime in the 50s, and we have evidence that it was broadly circulated and often discussed early on (e.g., ancient letter writing conventions; references in the Pauline letters to how those letters should be circulated; references to 1 Corinthians in First Clement, Ignatius, and other early patristic sources). So, it seems likely that 1 Corinthians was one of the documents the author of 2 Peter had in mind when he referred to Paul's letters. If 2 Peter 3 implies that 1 Corinthians is scripture, then it follows that what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:5-7 about resurrection appearances to Peter is being affirmed by the author of 2 Peter. Similarly, there's an implication that 2 Peter 3 is affirming what Paul said about the physical nature of Jesus' resurrection, the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances to other witnesses, the crucifixion, Jewish involvement in Jesus' execution (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15), the Last Supper (1 Corinthians 11:23-25), that Jesus had brothers (1 Corinthians 9:5), his Davidic ancestry (Romans 1:3), etc.

Notice the implications of giving a late date to 2 Peter. The later the letter is dated, the harder it becomes to exempt one or more of the canonical letters attributed to Paul from the implications of 2 Peter 3 discussed above.

Second language

In her commentary on 1 Peter, Karen Jobes offered an original and astute defense of Petrine authorship against the common charge that its Greek is too refined for a Palestinian Jewish fisherman. 

I recently ran across two examples that are analogous to her argument. There's a Chinese Christian blogger who's currently a student at an American seminary. 

Normally he writes in a very educated English style. As a rule, his English style is more complex and erudite than many native English speakers. 

I chalk that up to the fact that his English is heavily influenced by the kind of reading he does. Reading English-speaking theologians and Bible scholars. Academic prose. 

Recently, however, I read two essays by him that contained a number of grammatical errors. That made me suspect that maybe his command of English is not as good as I supposed. Perhaps his usual routine is to write a draft, then have someone smooth out the grammatical infelicities. But on this occasion, for whatever reason, he didn't have that assistance. 

In a related example, I was reading a Bayesian probability theorist (Tim Hendrix) commenting on atheist Richard Carrier. English is not Hendrix's native language. On the one hand, his comments contained some very technical vocabulary. On the other hand, they contained conspicuous grammatical errors (usually involving number agreement). 

In both cases we have writers for whom English is a second language. Their vocabulary is more sophisticated than many native English speakers. Yet they commit syntactical blunders that a native English speaker would not. 

Why Markan Authorship Wouldn't Be Fabricated

Here are some of the reasons why Christians who were lying or speculating about the authorship of the second gospel probably wouldn't have come up with Mark as the author: