Changes

Lastly, critics often cite the lack of early attestation amongst ancient Christian sources as evidence of the letter’s late authorship, and the general hesitancy that the Church Fathers had in accepting the genuineness of the epistle.  Though there is admittedly a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, many scholars have found evidence of possible use of the epistle, or signs of its influence, in the writings of certain early Fathers.  This includes the works of [[Clement of Alexandria]] (d. ''c''. 211), [[Theophilus of Antioch]] (d. ''c''. 183), [[Aristides|Aristides the Athenian]] (d. ''c''. 134), [[Polycarp of Smyrna]] (d. 155), and [[Justin Martyr]] (d. 165).<ref>C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref>  Hence, the evidence before Origen’s time is best described as inconclusive,<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> and thus the evidence does not go nearly as far as the critics would wish to make it seem.  The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by [[Origen]] (''c''. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location.  As D. Guthrie put it, “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> Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>  Origen himself, in another passage, would seem to have considered 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>  It is unfortunate that the vague comments of Origen have been taken too far.  The first author of record to have professed his own doubts concerning the letter was [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] (''c''. 275 – 339), 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, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1.</ref>  Hence, the evidence from the authors may best be summed in the negative: "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>

Lastly, critics often cite the lack of early attestation amongst ancient Christian sources as evidence of the letter’s late authorship, and the general hesitancy that the Church Fathers had in accepting the genuineness of the epistle.  Though there is admittedly a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, many scholars have found evidence of possible use of the epistle, or signs of its influence, in the writings of certain early Fathers.  This includes the works of [[Clement of Alexandria]] (d. ''c''. 211), [[Theophilus of Antioch]] (d. ''c''. 183), [[Aristides|Aristides the Athenian]] (d. ''c''. 134), [[Polycarp of Smyrna]] (d. 155), and [[Justin Martyr]] (d. 165).<ref>C. Bigg, ‘The Epistle of St Peter and Jude’, in ''International Critical Commentary'' (1901), pp. 202-205; R. E. Picirilli, ‘Allusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers’, in ''Journal for the Study of the New Testament'' 33 (1988), pp. 57-83; J. W. C. Wand, ''The General Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude'' (1934), p. 141.</ref>  Hence, the evidence before Origen’s time is best described as inconclusive,<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 807.</ref> and thus the evidence does not go nearly as far as the critics would wish to make it seem.  The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by [[Origen]] (''c''. 185 – 254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location.  As D. Guthrie put it, “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> Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>  Origen himself, in another passage, would seem to have considered 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>  It is unfortunate that the vague comments of Origen have been taken too far.  The first author of record to have professed his own doubts concerning the letter was [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] (''c''. 275 – 339), 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, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), pp. 808-809, though the exception of the Syrian canon is noted, with acceptance occurring sometime before 509; cf. Jerome, ''De viris illustribus'' chapter 1.</ref>  Hence, the evidence from the authors may best be summed in the negative: "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection."<ref>Donald Guthrie, ''Introduction to the New Testament'' 4th ed. (Leicester: Apollos, 1990), p. 806.</ref>

== Notes ==

== Notes ==