Does that go for 2nd Peter? We didn't get our Bible until 1611. The Word of God is the Word of God. But who wrote what can be disputed and is. Apparently the authorship of Second Peter is still in dispute. This from Eusebius that I am re-reading along with footnotes. I didn't write the below and I take no position, just passing it along:
Chapter III.—
The Epistles of the Apostles.
1. One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine.
578 And this the ancient elders
579 used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work.
580 But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon;
581 yet, as it has appeared profitable to many, it has been used with the other Scriptures.
582
2. The so-called Acts of Peter,
583 however, and the Gospel
584 which bears his name, and the Preaching
585 and the
134Apocalypse,
586 as they are called, we know have not been universally accepted,
587 because no ecclesiastical writer, ancient or modern, has made use of testimonies drawn from them.
588
3. But in the course of my history I shall be careful to show, in addition to the official succession, what ecclesiastical writers have from time to time made use of any of the disputed works,
589 and what they have said in regard to the canonical and accepted writings,
590 as well as in regard to those which are not of this class.
4. Such are the writings that bear the name of Peter, only one of which I know to be genuine
591 and acknowledged by the ancient elders
578 The testimony of tradition is unanimous for the authenticity of the first Epistle of Peter. It was known to Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias, Hermas, &c. (the Muratorian Fragment, however, omits it), and was cited under the name of Peter by Irenæus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, from whose time its canonicity and Petrine authorship were established, so that Eusebius rightly puts it among the
homologoumena. Semler, in 1784, was the first to deny its direct Petrine authorship, and Cludius, in 1808, pronounced it absolutely ungenuine. The Tübingen School followed, and at the present time the genuineness is denied by all the negative critics, chiefly on account of the strong Pauline character of the epistle (cf. Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 487 sqq., also Weiss,
Einleitung, p. 428 sqq., who confines the resemblances to the Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians, and denies the general Pauline character of the epistle). The great majority of scholars, however, maintain the Petrine authorship. A new opinion, expressed by Harnack, upon the assumption of the distinctively Pauline character of the epistle, is that it was written during the apostolic age by some follower of Paul, and that the name of Peter was afterward attached to it, so that it represents no fraud on the part of the writer, but an effort of a later age to find an author for the anonymous epistle. In support of this is urged the fact that though the epistle is so frequently quoted in the second century, it is never connected with Peter’s name until the time of Irenæus. (Cf. Harnack’s
Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 106, note, and his
Dogmengeschichte, I. p. 278, note 2.) This theory has found few supporters.
581 οὐκ ἐνδι€θηκον μὲν εἶναι παρειλήφαμεν. The authorship of the second Epistle of Peter has always been widely disputed. The external testimony for it is very weak, as no knowledge of it can be proved to have existed before the third century. Numerous explanations have been offered by apologists to account for this curious fact; but it still remains almost inexplicable, if the epistle be accepted as the work of the apostle. The first clear references to it are made by Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia (third century), in his Epistle to Cyprian, §6 (
Ep. 74, in the collection of Cyprian’s Epistles,
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Am. ed., V. p. 391), and by Origen (quoted by Eusebius, VI. 25, below), who mentions the second Epistle as disputed. Clement of Alexandria, however, seems at least to have known and used it (according to Euseb. VI. 14). The epistle was not admitted into the Canon until the Council of Hippo, in 393, when all doubts and discussion ceased until the Reformation. It is at present disputed by all negative critics, and even by many otherwise conservative scholars. Those who defend its genuineness date it shortly before the death of Peter, while the majority of those who reject it throw it into the second century,—some as late as the time of Clement of Alexandria (e.g. Harnack, in his
Lehre der Zwölf Apostel, p. 15 and 159, who assigns its composition to Egypt). Cf. Holtzmann,
Einleitung, p. 495 sqq., and Weiss (who leaves its genuineness an open question),
Einleitung, p. 436 sqq. For a defense of the genuineness, see especially Warfield, in the
Southern Pres. Rev., 1883, p. 390 sqq., and Salmon’s
Introduction to the N. T., p. 512 sqq.
586 The
Apocalypse of Peter enjoyed considerable favor in the early Church and was accepted by some Fathers as a genuine work of the apostle. It is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment in connection with the Apocalypse of John, as a part of the Roman Canon, and is accepted by the author of the fragment himself; although he says that some at that time rejected it. Clement of Alexandria, in his
Hypotyposes (according to Eusebius, IV. 14, below), commented upon it, thus showing that it belonged at that time to the Alexandrian Canon. In the third century it was still received in the North African Church (so Harnack, who refers to the stichometry of the Codex Claramontanus). The
Eclogæ or Prophetical Selections of Clement of Alexandria give it as a genuine work of Peter (§§41, 48, 49, p. 1000 sq., Potter’s ed.), and so Methodius of Tyre (
Sympos. XI. 6, p. 16, ed. Jahn, according to Lipsius). After Eusebius’ time the work seems to have been universally regarded as spurious, and thus, as its canonicity depended upon its apostolic origin (see chap. 24, note 19), it gradually fell out of the Canon. It nevertheless held its place for centuries among the semi-scriptural books, and was read in many churches. According to Sozomen,
H. E. VII. 19, it was read at Easter, which shows that it was treated with especial respect. Nicephorus in his
Stichometry puts it among the Antilegomena, in immediate connection with the Apocalypse of John. As Lipsius remarks, its “lay-recognition in orthodox circles proves that it could not have had a Gnostic origin, nor otherwise have contained what was offensive to Catholic Christians” (see Lipsius,
Dict. of Christ. Biog. I. p. 130 sqq.). Only a few fragments of the work are extant, and these are given by Hilgenfeld, in his
Nov. Test. extra Can. receptum, IV. 74 sq., and by Grabe,
Spic. Patr. I. 71 sqq.
