Yes, there are problems with an early dating of 2 Peter

And no, it did not come from a “post-modern” scholar but from St. Jerome:

“He 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.

You Might Also Like

2 Replies to “Yes, there are problems with an early dating of 2 Peter”

  1. 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.

    1. 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.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.