Editing Second Epistle of Peter (section)

== Canonical acceptance ==
{{See also|Development of the New Testament canon}}
The earliest undisputed mention of 2 Peter is by the theologian [[Origen]] (c. 185–254) in his ''Commentary on the Gospel of John'', although he marks it as "doubted"/"disputed".<ref name="lapham" />  Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. [[Donald Guthrie (theologian)|Donald Guthrie]] suggests that "It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical."<ref name="Donald Guthrie 1990 p. 806"/>  Acceptance of the letter into the canon did not occur without some difficulty; however, "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref name="Donald Guthrie 1990 p. 806">[[Donald Guthrie (theologian)|Donald Guthrie]], ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>

Origen, in another passage, has been interpreted as considering the letter to be Petrine in authorship.<ref>M. R. James, "The Second Epistle General of St. Peter and the General Epistle of St. Jude", in ''Cambridge Greek Testament'' (1912), p. xix; cf. Origen, ''Homily in Josh''. 7.1.</ref>  Before Origen's time, the evidence is inconclusive;<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> there is a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the [[Apostolic Fathers]], though possible use or influence has been located in the works of [[Clement of Alexandria]] (d. c. 211), [[Theophilus of Antioch|Theophilius]] (d. c. 183), [[Aristides the Athenian|Aristides]] (d. c. 134), [[Polycarp]] (d. 155), and [[Justin Martyr|Justin]] (d. 165).<ref>Bigg 1901, 202–205.</ref><ref>J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref><ref name=Picirilli/>

Robert E. Picirilli observed that [[Pope Clement I|Clement of Rome]] linked James 1:8, 2 Peter 3:4, and Mark 4:26 in [[First Epistle of Clement|1 Clement]] 23:3.<ref name=Picirilli/>{{rp|59–65}} [[Richard Bauckham]] and [[Peter H. Davids]] also noted the reference to “Scripture” in 1 Clement 23:3 matched 2 Peter 3:4, but make it dependent on a common apocalyptic source, which was also used in [[Second Epistle of Clement|2 Clement]] 11:2.<ref>Bauckham 1983, 283–84.</ref><ref>Davids, P. H. (2004). “The Use of Second Temple Traditions in 1 and 2 Peter and Jude,”  in Jacques Schlosser, ed. The Catholic Epistles and the Tradition, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 176; Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 426–27.</ref>

[[Carsten Peter Thiede]] adds to Picirilli's work authors such as Justin and [[Minucius Felix]] who would use 2 Peter directly and a new reference in Clement of Rome (1 Clem. 9.2 = 2 Pet. 1.17).<ref>Thiede, C. P. (1986).  [https://doi.org/10.1177/0142064X8600802605  A Pagan Reader of 2 Peter]: Cosmic Conflagration in 2 Peter 3 and the Octavius of Minucius Felix. Journal for the Study of the New Testament, 8(26), 79–96.</ref>
 
2 Peter seems to be quoted amongst apocryphal literature in [[Shepherd of Hermas]] (AD 95–160),<ref>Osburn, D. Carroll. (2000). "Second Letter of Peter", in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, pp. 1039.</ref><ref>Elliott, John. (1993). "Second Epistle of Peter", in Anchor Bible Dictionary 5. pp. 282–87, at 287.</ref> [[Apocalypse of Peter]] (c. AD 125–135),<ref>Elliott 1993, 283.</ref><ref>C. Detlef G. Müller (1992). "Apocalypse of Peter", in Schneemelcher, New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, pp. 620–38.</ref><ref>Bigg 1901, 207.</ref><ref>Spicq 1966, 189.</ref><ref>Bauckham 1983, 162.</ref> the [[Gospel of Truth]] (AD 140–170), and the [[Apocryphon of John]] (AD 120–180).<ref>Helmbold, Andrew (1967). The Nag Hammati Gnostic Texts and the Bible. Grand Rapids, pp. 61.</ref>

[[Eusebius of Caesarea|Eusebius]] (c. 275–339) professed his own doubts (see also [[Antilegomena]]), and is the earliest direct testimony of such, though he stated that the majority supported the text, and by the time of [[Jerome]] (c. 346–420) it had been mostly accepted as canonical.<ref>Donald Guthrie, 1990, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. Leicester: Apollos, pp. 808–9, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''[[De Viris Illustribus (Jerome)|De Viris Illustribus]]'' chapter 1.</ref>

The [[Peshitta]], the standard version of the Bible for churches in the [[Syriac Christianity|Syriac tradition]], does not contain the Second Epistle of Peter and thus rejects its canonical status.<ref>{{Cite book|title=ܟܬܒܐ ܩܕܝ̈ܫܐ: ܟܬܒܐ ܕܕܝܬܩܐ ܥܛܝܼܩܬܐ ܘ ܚ̇ܕܬܐ|publisher=United Bible Societies|year= 1979|location=[London]| chapter =Table of Contents|oclc= 38847449}}</ref>