ved that this connection with Jude is confined to 2
Pet. ii. 1-iii. 7. Now, this passage must have been either inserted in
some ancient manuscript of this Epistle, or it was originally part of
the Epistle. If it has been inserted, the question of the authenticity
of the rest of the Epistle obviously remains {250} untouched. But if
it originally formed part of the Epistle, as appears to be the case,
can we regard this as a conclusive proof that St. Peter did not write
it? Surely not.[3] The fact that St. Luke inserts most of the Gospel
of St. Mark is not considered to be any argument against the
authenticity of St. Luke's work. Both in the Old Testament and the New
we are occasionally confronted by the same phenomenon. Writers repeat
what has been said by other writers when their words appear to them to
be the best possible words for enforcing a particular lesson.

The question of the authenticity of 2 Peter has lately become still
further complicated. There has recently been discovered part of the
Apocalypse of Peter mentioned in the _Muratorian Fragment_. This
Apocalypse is usually thought to have been forged in Egypt in the first
half of the 2nd century. It presents certain points of resemblance
with 2 Peter. These points of resemblance affect the first chapter of
2 Peter as well as the second chapter. They therefore furnish an
argument against the theory that ch. ii. is a late interpolation into a
genuine Epistle, and they suggest that the Epistle is either wholly
genuine or wholly forged. But the solution of the problem is not so
easy as it seems to many scholars. If we could positively say that the
Apocalypse was written in the 2nd century, and positively say that 2
Peter borrows from it, the question would be settled once for all. But
this is the very thing which we cannot do with confidence. Some
critics of great ability hold it certain that 2 Peter was forged by
some one who borrowed from the Apocalypse. Some think that the same
writer forged them both. Others think that the Apocalypse is partly
derived from 2 Peter. They can strongly support their view by the fact
that when Christians were familiar with both writings, it was decided
to reject the Apocalypse and {251} keep the Epistle. Lastly, it might
be reasonably held that the coincidences in both writings are due to
the use of one earlier document or a common stock of ideas and phrases.
The popularity of Apocalyptic literature at the begin