Peter is dating proly
Origen himself mentions that there were some doubts as to its authenticity, but he himself did not deal with the problem which seems to imply that he didn’t take the doubts seriously. 35 Farkasfalvy, “The Ecclesial Setting of Pseudepigraphy,” p.
The Muratorian Canon did not contain 2 Peter, but it also omits 1 Peter, so this is not a decisive factor.
Their tendency was to place them on a pedestal, not call them “beloved brother.” Although critics would argue that this was simply an attempt by the author to give the letter credibility, it seems a little too bold.
Most conservative evangelicals hold to the traditional view that Peter was the author, but historical and literary critics have almost unanimously concluded that to be impossible.Each criticism will be explained and then examined as to its validity in order to determine if it is based on provable fact or assumption. 37 1 Peter says, “Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. There is no external evidence prior to Origen indicating that Peter wrote 2 Peter. Therefore, this could in fact refer to the same thing all the other references to the “historical fathers” refer. 24 Walter Bauer and others, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed.
These are the fathers such as Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The second problem with this argument is even if some critics insist that the author is referring to an unofficial, uncanonized collection of Paul’s writings, they are assuming this collection could not have been assembled until the second century.