Calvin on 2 Peter 3:15

[Jude24]

I was reading through Calvin's commentary on 2 Peter and I came across this statement regarding chapter 3 verse 15 (And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;).

Calvin-"We may easily gather from the Epistle to the Galatians, as well as from other places, that unprincipled men, who went about everywhere to disturb the churches, in order to discredit Paul, made use of this pretense, that he did not well agree with the other Apostles. It is then probable that Peter referred to Paul in order to shew their consent; for it was very necessary to take away the occasion for such a calumny. And yet, when I examine all things more narrowly, it seems to me more probable that this Epistle was composed by another according to what Peter communicated, than that it was written by himself, for Peter himself would have never spoken thus. But it is enough for me that we have a witness of his doctrine and of his goodwill, who brought forward nothing contrary to what he would have himself said."

If I am understanding what Calvin is saying here correctly, why would he think Peter himself would have not written this about Paul? It seems like Calvin gives a reason that Peter would have written this ("to shew their consent"), but then turns around and says that Peter would have never said it and it must have been penned by a scribe. What are your thoughts on what Calvin meant here, and would you agree with him?

 

[Phil D.]

Interestingly, that's actually one of the "internal evidences" that modern critical scholarship points to as indicting a non-Petrine authorship for 2 Peter.

 

[Jude24]

Interestingly, that's actually one of the "internal evidences" that modern critical scholarship points to as indicting a non-Petrine authorship for 2 Peter.

That's what I thought, so I was surprised to see Calvin suggesting it.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Calvin says lots of novel, innovative, and occasionally strange things in his commentaries. He was a creative guy, and with creatives one has to take the good with the bad. And on top of that, the commentaries are by-and-large ex tempore lectures, and not the result of careful planning and extensive study (beyond his general study and formation, which was in itself extensive).
Matthew Henry and Matthew Poole tend to be a little less innovative and a little more grounded.
Now, that's not to say "never read Calvin's commentaries." Occasionally he says something brilliant, and he says plenty that's helpful.