ning of the
Christian era makes this theory credible.

We may sum up the evidence for and against 2 Peter as follows:--

1. The external evidence is meagre.

2. The internal evidence is perplexing, and may reasonably be
considered adverse.

On the other hand:--

1. The external evidence is not definitely adverse.

2. No convincing reason can be assigned for forging such an Epistle.
The critics who believe it to be forged, hold that it was written in
Egypt in order to oppose the Gnosticism of c. A.D. 150 or 160. But the
Gnosticism rebuked in 2 Peter cannot definitely be assigned to the 2nd
century. And it is very difficult to say that the heresy rebuked in 2
Peter belongs to the 2nd century without also maintaining that the
heresy rebuked in Jude belongs to the 2nd century.[4] Yet several
facts in Jude point so decidedly to the 1st century that some of the
ablest writers who deny the authenticity of 2 Peter strongly assert the
genuineness of Jude.

We can only conclude by doubting whether we know more about the problem
of 2 Peter than the Church of the 3rd and 4th centuries knew. Perhaps
we do not know nearly as much. And under these circumstances we cannot
effectively criticize the judgment of the Church which decided to admit
2 Peter into the Canon.

[Sidenote: To whom written.]

To the same readers as the First Epistle (iii. 1).

[Sidenote: Where and when written.]

It was probably written in Rome, and some of the earliest references to
it are by writers who lived in Rome. {252} Justin Martyr lived in
Rome, and if the references in Justin Martyr and other writers before
Hippolytus be considered doubtful, Hippolytus is a Roman witness of the
first importance.

The date is perhaps between A.D. 63 and 67. If it were later than 70,
we might reasonably expect to find a reference to the destruction of
Jerusalem after the allusion to God's retribution on the people of
Sodom and other malefactors of old times. The errors which are
denounced are akin to those which are denounced in 1 and 2 Timothy.
The allusion to St. Paul's Epistles in iii. 16 suggests that some
collection of these Epistles already existed, and that St. Paul was
already dead. It has been urged against the genuineness of the Epistle
that it includes the Pauline Epistles in _Scripture_ (iii. 16), and
that this would have been impossible in the apostolic age. But the
statement need not necessarily mean more than that the Epistles we