Michael Green (2 Peter and Jude, TNTC): "The external evidence is inconclusive. No book in the Canon is so poorly attested among the Fathers, yet 2 Peter has incomparably better support for its inclusion than the best attested of the excluded books. It is not cited by name until Origen, at the beginning of the third century, who six time quotes it as Scripture. In short ‘Peter blows on the twin trumpets of his own Epistles’.2 Yet it was used in Egypt long before this.3 Not only was it contained in the Sahidic and Bohairic versions of the New Testament, dating from (?) the late second and fourth centuries respectively, but we are told4 that Clement of Alexandria had it in his Bible and wrote a commentary on it. This takes us back at least to the middle of the second century. The Apocalypse of Peter, written somewhere between AD 110–140, makes much use of 2 Peter,5 which throws the date of our Epistle back further still. Furthermore, there are possible or probable traces of 2 Peter in 1 Clement (AD 95), 2 Clement (AD 150), Aristides (AD 130), Hermas (AD 120), Valentinus (AD 130) and Hippolytus (AD 180)."
Green thinks a date of 68 CE is possible for the epistle, but likewise thinks we cannot be sure yet.
Duane F. Watson and Terrance Callahan (First and Second Peter, pages 136-137, Paideia Series):
"It seems likely that 2 Peter was written sometime between 100 and 140, perhaps about 125 (so also Mayor 1907, cxxvii; Senior 1980, 99). Other commentators assign different dates. Richard J. Bauckham (1988, 3740–42) gives the most comprehensive survey. Dates proposed by the commentaries I have consulted include the following:
ca. 60 (Bigg 1901, 242–47)
63 (Wohlenberg 1915, xxxvii)
mid-60s (Mounce 1982, 99)
64–110 (Davids 2006, 130–31)
ca. 65 (Moo 1996, 24–25)
65–68 (Harvey and Towner 2009, 15)
ca. 70 or 80 (Chaine 1939, 34)
80–90 (Bauckham 1983, 157–58)
ca. 90 (Reicke 1964, 144–45; Spicq 1966, 195)
late first or early second century (Perkins 1995, 160; Harrington 2003, 237)
ca. 100 (Schelkle 1961, 178–79)
100–110 (Kelly 1969, 237; Knoch 1990, 213)
100–125 (James 1912, xxx; Paulsen 1992, 94; Vögtle 1994, 128–29)
110–50 (Grundmann 1974, 65)
130 (Sidebottom 1967, 99)"
4 comments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/eeuv3j/early_extrabiblical_references_to_2_peter/
Problem is that this is a two way street and a number of instances where "scripture" is mentioned, the first statement made is NOT part of second Peter, but the follow on is. So it seems that another interpretation is in order.
γραφή apparently occurs just twice in 2 Peter (1:20; 3:16). Therefore, I'm not sure how the problem you mention arises.
You might find this volume interesting
http://bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/rethinking-the-dates-of-the-new-testament/399261
I know the majority opinion is that 2 Peter is pseudeographical and late, although I haven't really looked into why people believe that.
The only epistles I've really done deep research in are Colossians and James, and I'm persuaded about the authenticity of both.
But I do know that 2 Peter, Titus, and 1 and 2 Timothy are widely thought to be pseudographic, I know some of the arguments for 2 Timothy, but not 2 Peter.
Thanks, Roman. Looks like a good source. As usual, there is a lot of dissent about when 2 Peter was written, but there is warrant for taking it as a first-century writing.
Post a Comment