I am certainly not opposed to making a video like this, I think that this information is something that has been covered by actual experts a decent amount already, so I wouldn't be offering anything "new" or from any unique perspective or anything. In terms of why I do think that 2 Pet is almost definitely the last work in the entire bible to be composed, written by someone different who wrote 1 Pet and written somewhere in the mid 2nd Century, I would point to things like how 60 percent of the vocabulary of 2 Pet is not found in 1 Pet, a point so jarring that even Jerome in the 4th Century remarked that the person who wrote 1 Pet did not also write 2 Pet. 2 Pet refers to the writings of Paul as scripture, so, clearly, this was not written while Paul was still alive. But Origen knew about 2 Pet (and knew that it was contested), so that means it was written sometime between 60 AD to 200 AD. The letters of Paul weren't referred to as scripture by other early 2nd century sources like Clement or Justin Martyr. The first time that we see Paul's letters being included in any canon that can be referred to as scripture is in the Muratorian Canon (165-185 A.D.). I am willing to say that 2 Pet is older than the Muratorian Canon, but its certainly not that much older. 2 Pet being written in 150, maybe as early as 130, seems about right to me. I got most of this from pages 761 - 771 of An Introduction to the New Testament by Fr Raymond Brown, so, this has been mainstream scholarship for years now so I am certainly not presenting anything unique or new here.
@@pigetstuck Some folks point to the infallibility of scripture, and how 2 Pet starts with "Hey, this is Peter". The author of 2 Pet also talks about "his own" upcoming death, and sure enough, the historical Peter was put to death, so it seems like the author knew that Peter was going to die, and some people point to this as evidence that the author was the real Peter. Some people point to quotes from Apostolic Fathers that appear to be quoting 2 Pet as evidence that 2 Pet was written in the first century, but truthfully, most scholars seem to think its the other way around, that 2 Pet is alluding to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Honestly, you will be hard pressed to find serious scholars who argue that Peter wrote 2 Pet. Bauckham, a well respected scholar and a conservative Christian himself, thought that 2 Pet belonged to a genre called "testament" where this genre was "transparently fiction" - ie, 2 Pet would have been clearly not written by Peter to anyone familiar with the genre at the time that 2 Pet was published. On page 767 of An Introduction to the New Testament, Fr Raymond Brown writes that it is "clear that II Pet is pseudonymous, written presumably by someone in the Petrine tradition. Indeed, the pseudonymity of II Pet is more certain than that of any other NT work". So, there honestly aren't a ton of "flip side" arguments here. Conservative and Liberal scholars alike seem to agree on this one, by and large.
