in the statement that: "When we examine historical documents, we are not granted exhaustive knowledge of the circumstances in which the document came into being. Therefore, we must postulate probabilities, and in some cases, of course, more than one scenario is likely. Moreover, in some cases the likely scenarios are not internally contradictory, but both constitute plausible answers to the problem posed. Suggesting more than one solution is not necessarily an appeal to despair, but can be a sign of humility". The scholar Simon J. Kistemaker on the other hand believes that linguistically "the material presented in both documents provides substantial evidence to indicate that these letters are the product of a single author", however, this view is very much in the minority. Most biblical scholars have concluded Peter is not the author, considering the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support. Early surviving manuscripts Some early manuscripts containing the text of this chapter are: Greek Papyrus 72 (3rd/4th century) Codex Vaticanus (B or 03; 325–50) Codex Sinaiticus ( or 01; 330–60) Codex Alexandrinus (A or 02; 400–40) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C or 04; c. 450; partial) Papyrus 74 (7th century; extant verses 3:4, 3:11, 3:16) Latin Codex Floriacensis (h; 6th century Old-Latin; partial) Relationship with the Epistle of Jude There is an obvious relationship between the texts of 2 Peter and the Epistle of Jude. The shared passages are: Canonical acceptance Acceptance of the letter into the canon did not occur without some difficulty; however, "nowhere did doubts about the letter's authorship take the form of definitive rejection." The earliest record of doubts concerning the authorship of the letter were recorded by Origen (c. 185–254), though Origen mentioned no explanation for the doubts, nor did he give any indication concerning the extent or location. Donald Guthrie suggests that "It is fair to assume, therefore, that he saw no reason to treat these doubts as serious, and this would mean to imply that in his time the epistle was widely regarded as canonical." Origen, in another passage, has been interpreted as considering the letter to be Petrine in authorship. Before Origen's time, the evidence is inconclusive; there is a lack of definite early quotations from the letter in the writings of the Apostolic