Bleek refreshingly deals with the internal textual evidence of 2 Peter, a seemingly overlooked aspect of the more allegorical leaning NTI’s. He notes that although heavy hitters like Jerome have suggested 2 Peter was written first in Hebrew, this is improbable. This is supported by Peter’s heavy and consistent reliance on the LXX, making a proto-Petrine epistle in another language less likely. Additionally Peter’s themes display an awareness of James’ writings which is not surprising given the many interactions Peter apparently had with the other apostles but also with the other co-laborers closely associated with the apostles.
How this relates to canon is a fascinating look on the internal rationale of the canon itself. Much ink has been spilled to question the authenticity in terms of authorship of certain New Testament books; the Petrine Epistles, James, Jude and 1 Timothy are among the usual suspects. One begins to sense that the attack on the authorship of these books is really a sneak attack on the canon’s authority. The logic goes like this: since the orthodox position of the church is that the New Testament books are only those that are of Apostolic origin, if a book is found to be non-apostolic then it is to be considered non-canonical. If it is found to be non-canonical, then it is not authoritative or binding for doctrine or any kind of ethic. If doctrine is not found or derived from these books, it must be found from a smaller canon, a canon-in-a-canon approach, something that has a more neo-orthodox flavor, perhaps, in which case a path to liberalism has been paved, smoothed, and awaits to be trodden.
If my assertion is true, what is the threat that these few books poise on their own terms? Notably, most of the New Testament was not written by apostles-proper, but all of the New Testament is bound to the Apostolic voice, nevertheless. This is the New Testament counterpart to the Old Testament mark of canonicity which are prophetically marked books that spoke for God as God spoke through men (2 Peter 1:20-21). These books bear not only the marks of apostolicity in their content but revolve closely around the inner group of the Apostles that Bleek notes. 1 Peter’s awareness of James  extends the apostolic mark of authenticity to that book even if James is taken to be a different James other than the brother of Christ or whom Paul refers to in Galatians 1:19. If Peter did not believe what James was writing was scripture it is reasonable to suggest that Peter would have not shown such an awareness and may have even spoken against James as speaking presumptuously on behalf of God (Deuteronomy 18:22). Peter likewise extends his awareness of Paul’s writings as being scriptural, and to our relief, sometimes as difficult to understand (2 Peter 3:16). This extension is important, as Paul acknowledges and extends the apostolic mark of canonicity to Luke. Luke was not an apostle, but evident to Paul’s own quotation of the Old Testament, places Luke’s Gospel alongside of it (1 Timothy 5:18; Luke10:7). This line of reasoning continues as it is not a stretch to conceive that Jude, the half-brother of Christ, would likewise be closely associated with the Apostolic circle. This also brings into the fore the unknown author of Hebrews, who evidently knew Timothy (Hebrews 13:22-23) and is therefore also close to the apostolic circle.
If this short recap of Apostolic extension is to be sustained it presupposes that the Petrine Epistles, at minimum, are to be taken as authentically written by Peter. If they are not, though, and Paul did not write 1 Timothy and so on, then one must take seriously the logical consistency this will demand. If the present canon is not apostolic, it is not authoritative; if it is not authoritative it means that it is also not inspired; and if it is not inspired, then exactly what scripture was breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:15)? Which words were the ones that Jesus said would not pass away (Matthew 24:35)? The quest for the canon-in-the-canon will be endless while the authority of the canon will have localized itself to a few mere tenets, maybe some core truths that sounds suspiciously like this: 1) the fatherhood of God, 2) the brotherhood of man and 3) the infinite value of the human soul.
Bleek, Friedrich. An Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by A.J.K. Davidson. 2 vols. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1869-1870. Pg. 168.
 I find Kruger’s critique of competing canon models to be the most cogent. Although a neo-orthodox view of the canon falls under a more community determined model over and against the canon-in-a-canon approach which is more historically determined, both approaches suffer from a view of authority by which the canon becomes canon by means other than the terms the canon sets for itself. See Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012). Pg. 27-87.
 Coming from a different angle, Ridderbos observes the redemptive-historical categories as they are carried on by the Apostolic voice, i.e., the content of the apostolic message as it corresponds to 1) proclamation 2) witness and 3) doctrine. Herman N. Ridderbos, Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures, 2 Rev ed. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1988).
 To include James, Mark, Paul, Peter and Silvanus.
 This was also noted in the lecture on Wednesday October 26th.
 I find this reasonable given that Paul confronted Peter in Galatians 2, for example. I am making the assumption based of this that it would have been far less costly to confront non-apostles much less false teaching.
Paul says, λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφή in 1 Timothy 5:18 which gives Luke 10:7 on the same level of scriptural status as Deuteronomy 25:4.