And no, it did not come from a “post-modern” scholar but from St. Jerome:
“He [Peter] wrote two letters, which are called general, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him” (De vir. ill. 1; see Ep. Hedib. 120 Quaest. 11).
There are plenty of reasons not to accept 2 Peter as authentic to a pre-68 authorship. The archaeological evidence of both text and tradition display a letter written in the early to mid-second century. Both Origen and Eusebius expressed doubts as to the authorship and these were long before the days of German critical scholars.
See more here but it does not mean I endorse all of the statements found therein.
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
I believe 2 Clement is also noted as dubious by Eeusebius, or is it Irenaeus, when describing it. When we read patristic literature closely enough we see many conversations about pseudonymity happening across their works. Though these aren’t necessarily definite conclusions against established authorship, they should I’ve us pause.
Agreed. There is a book out by a Catholic priest which posits 1 Clement as pre-70. Would be interesting to see what literary artefacts are hidden in there.