tle of Clement, and is really a Roman homily of about A.D. 140.
The evidence of these passages is not positive, but if even one of them
is quoted from 2 Peter, it becomes quite impossible to assign 2 Peter
to A.D. 150-170, which is the date most favoured by those who deny its
authenticity. Nor is the omission of any mention of it in Irenaeus and
the _Muratorian Fragment_ a very destructive fact. The _Muratorian
Fragment_ is only a fragment, and does not mention 1 Peter, and there
is no passage in Irenaeus quoted from James. Yet it is certain that
those two Epistles belong to the apostolic age. The fact is that such
a very large amount of the literature of the 2nd century has been
destroyed, that it is always precarious to argue from omissions in the
books which are still extant. Therefore, although the evidence of
writers of the 2nd and 3rd centuries is certainly meagre in the case of
2 Peter, we cannot argue that comparative lack of evidence means
positively hostile evidence. A {249} notable step towards the
determination of the problem will be made if scholars eventually agree
to assign a very early date to the two great Egyptian versions of the
New Testament. Both these versions contain 2 Peter.

As to the connection between 2 Peter and Jude, it may be regarded as
certain that either they both depend on some previous document, or that
one of them depends on the other.

Compare Jude 6 with 2 Pet. ii. 4.
" " 7 " " ii. 6.
" " 8 " " ii. 10.
" " 10 " " ii. 12.
" " 11 " " ii. 15.
" " 12, 13 " " ii. 13, 17.
" " 16 " " ii. 18.
" " 17, 18 " " iii. 1-3.

An examination of these passages seems to prove that 1 Peter borrows
from Jude and not Jude from 2 Peter.[2] In Jude the connection of
ideas seems more simple and direct. Various verses in 2 Peter become
more intelligible in the light thrown upon them by the corresponding
verses in Jude. Thus Jude 10 alludes to the immorality which explains
why the heretics are called "animals to be destroyed" in 2 Pet. ii. 12.
Jude 13, by calling the heretics "wandering stars," explains why
"darkness" is said to be "reserved" for them in 2 Pet. ii. 17. Between
2 Pet. ii. 17 and 18 there is no direct allusion to Enoch as in Jude
14, but some of the material taken from the Book of Enoch still remains.

It will be obser