Ehrman on Didymus on 2 Peter

Just a note to register my confusion over a comment in Bart D. Ehrman, Lost Christianities (2003). Yes, it's a 20-year-old book, and it's a bit sensationalistic, but it's also helpful in some ways. There is a chapter late in the book on the formation of the New Testament canon (ch. 11). Ehrman mentions Athanasius, and then explains that Athanasius did not settle the matter, partly because there continued to be disagreements, even in Alexandria. 

For example, the famous teacher of the late-fourth-century Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, claimed that 2 Peter was a 'forgery' that was not to be included in the canon. Moreover, Didymus quoted other books, including the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas, as scriptural authorities. (pp. 230–31) 

Ehrman's endnote references Metzger pp. 213–14—which is strange for two reasons. First, it is Ehrman himself who has written the classic article on the biblical canon of Didymus the Blind (1983), so I expected him to cite himself rather than Metzger's general treatment of the development of the New Testament canon. Second, Metzger does not seem to support Ehrman's claim about Didymus' treatment of 2 Peter. 

It is noteworthy that more than once Didymus quotes from 2 Peter as altogether authentic and authoritative. This circumstance requires reassessment of a statement made in a commentary on the seven Catholic Epistles heretofore commonly attributed to Didymus, a work now extant only in a Latin translation. In connection with a discussion of 2 Peter iii.5–8, a passage which does not suit the author, he says flatly: 'It is therefore not to be overlooked that the present Epistle is forged, which, though it is read publicly [in the churches], is nevertheless not in the canon.' (Metzger, p. 213)

In the footnote, Metzger provides the Latin for the quoted portion of the commentary, and then the reference: PG 39.1742a. (Metzger actually cites PL, but the correct citation is PG.)  

So, Ehrman (2003) says unproblematically that Didymus the Blind considered 2 Peter a forgery, and to substantiate the statement, he cites Metzger's discussion, which problematizes the notion that Didymus considered 2 Peter a forgery. Hmm. 

On the next page, Metzger cites Ehrman's classic article mentioned earlier. What does Ehrman (1983) say about the way Didymus treated 2 Peter? Ehrman (1983) mentions 2 Peter first on the opening page of the article: "occasionally a Latin commentary, presumed to be a translation of Didymus's work on the Catholic epistles, is quoted to show that he, at least, rejected 2 Peter" (p. 1). The endnote cites Westcott p. 448. This statement from Ehrman (1983) certainly sounds less confident than Ehrman (2003). 

Ehrman (1983) next addresses 2 Peter starting on p. 9. 

One of the most puzzling matters of this investigation has already been alluded to—the explicit claim, allegedly made by Didymus, that 2 Peter is a forgery and does not belong in the canon. This claim is found in a Latin commentary that, since its discovery in the sixteenth century, has often been thought to be that referred to by Cassiodorus (sixth century), namely, Epiphanius's translation of Didymus's work on the Catholic epistles (both the original Greek commentary and its translation having been lost for centuries). (Ehrman 1983, p. 9)

Ehrman doesn't give the exact reference to Cassiodorus, which is Institutes 1.8.6.  

The discussion of 2 Peter now continues for a couple pages in Ehrman (1983). He first collects the citations in the Tura commentaries of Didymus that show our author relying on 2 Peter and considering it genuine. "Several times in these exegetical works he affirms both the Petrine authorship of the epistle and its rightful place in the NT canon" (Ehrman 1983, p. 10). What about the Latin commentary? "Clearly it was written by someone other than Didymus." 

Ehrman (1983) concludes this discussion: "Contrary to the claims of several textbooks on the NT, this shows that Didymus himself did not reject either the genuineness or the canonicity of 2 Peter" (p. 11). 

So, what happened between Ehrman (1983) and Ehrman (2003)? 

I do not intend to do any sort of survey of Ehrman's intermediate works for the purposes of identifying a development in his views, nor a survey of his post-2003 publications that might have bearing on the matter. I merely note the oddity in Ehrman's oeuvre.