Terrance Callan, «Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter» biblica, Vol. 85 (2004) 42-64 page 42

Vol 85 (2004)

Terrance Callan, «Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter», Vol. 85 (2004) 42-64

Assuming that 2 Pet 2,1–3,3 is dependent on Jude 4-18, this essay describes in detail the way the author of 2 Peter has used Jude’s material. It is clear that the author of 2 Peter has not simply incorporated Jude, as is sometimes asserted. Rather, 2 Peter has thoroughly reworked Jude to serve its own purposes. 2 Pet 2,1–3,3 is best described as a free paraphrase of Jude 4-18. The relationship between the two texts is similar to the relationship between 1 Clem 36.2-5 and Heb 1,3-13.

See more by the same author

Page 42/64
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
›

Use of the Letter of Jude by the Second Letter of Peter It seems obvious to all readers that there is some kind of close relationship between Jude and 2 Peter. For good reasons it is now widely accepted that 2 Peter is dependent on Jude (1). This is so much the case that authors at times overstate this dependence, saying that 2 Peter has simply incorporated Jude (2). A closer examination shows that the relationship is not this simple. The author of 2 Peter adapted Jude 4-18 in 2 Pet 2,1â€“3,3. The purpose of this paper is to offer a detailed description and explanation of this adaptation. I will describe at the level of vocabulary and syntax the way 2 Peter has modified Jude and attempt to understand the significance of these modifications. For the most part 2 Peter has not adapted Jude by quoting it directly. While 2 Peter contains many of the words and some phrases found in Jude, no sentence of Jude is quoted in 2 Peter. However, twice clauses of Jude are used in 2 Peter with little change. These passages are Jude 13b / 2 Pet 2,17b oi|" oJ zovfo" tou' skovtou" eij" aijw'na oi|" oJ zofo" tou' skotou" tethrhtai. v v v tethrhtai v and Jude 17-18 / 2 Pet 3,2-3 1,17 uJmei'" dev, ajgaphtoiv, mnhvsqhte twn 3,2 mnhsqh'nai twn proeirhmenwn ' ' v rhmatwn twn proeirhmenwn uJpo; twn J v ' v ' rhmatwn uJpo; twn a'givwn profhtw'n kai; J v ' apostolwn tou' kuriou hJmw'n âˆ†Ihsou' j v v th'" tw'n apostolwn uJmw'n ejntolh'" tou' j v Cristou' kuriou kai; swth'ro", v (1) For this view see E.M. SIDEBOTTOM, James, Jude, and 2 Peter (NCB; London â€“ Edinburgh 1967) 68-69; J.N.D. KELLY, The Epistles of Peter and of Jude (HNTC; New York â€“ Evanston 1969) 226-27; D. SENIOR, 1 and 2 Peter (NTM 20; Wilmington, DE 1980) 102; R.J. BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter (WBC 50; Waco, TX 1983) 142-143; J.H. NEYREY, 2 Peter, Jude (AB 37C; New York 1993) 122; P. PERKINS, First and Second Peter, James and Jude (Louisville 1995) 178. D.F. Watson has argued for the priority of Jude on rhetorical grounds (Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter [SBLDS 104; Atlanta 1988] 160-187). (2) See for example, W. MARXSEN, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia 1968) 241; H. KOESTER, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadephia â€“ New York â€“ Berlin 1982) II, 56; B.D. EHRMAN, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (New York â€“ Oxford 1997) 394.