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.
50 Terrance Callan
does not recognize the story to which reference is being made. The
author of 2 Peter may have been trying to minimize reference to non-
biblical literature (20).
Jude 6 says that God “has kept [the angels] in eternal chains in
deepest darkness for the judgment of the great day†(21). 2 Pet 2,4 says
that God “cast the angels into hell and committed them to chains of
deepest darkness to be kept until the judgmentâ€. The author of 2 Peter
changed the main verb of the clause from “kept†to “committedâ€,
perhaps to emphasize that God was responsible for putting the angels
in chains, not merely for keeping them there. The author of 2 Peter
made this still more emphatic by adding a participle to say that God
cast the angels into hell (22). 2 Peter used a different word for “chainsâ€
than that used in Jude 6, and eliminated the adjective “eternalâ€,
perhaps because the idea that the chains are eternal conflicts with the
idea that the angels are subject to judgment in the future. 2 Peter also
changed “chains in deepest darkness†into “chains of deepest
darknessâ€, suggesting that the chains were not literal chains, but that
the chains consisted of darkness (23). 2 Peter changed the main verb of
Jude 6, i.e., “keptâ€, into a participle, using it to say that God was
keeping the angels for judgment. The author of 2 Peter omitted the
phrase “of the great dayâ€, which modifies judgment in Jude 6. Perhaps
he thought it added nothing to the meaning.
2 Peter’s second conditional clause (v. 5) cites the precedent of the
flood, “[If God] did not spare the ancient worldâ€. This obviously
provided another precedent for God’s punishment of evildoers.
However, it also allowed 2 Peter to introduce a precedent for God’s
salvation of the righteous, i.e., the salvation of Noah and his family.
This precedent is not found in Jude.
2 Peter’s third conditional clause (v. 6-8) cites the precedent of
Sodom and Gomorrah, “[If God] condemned themâ€. Jude 7 says
(20) KELLY, Epistles, 331.
(21) This echoes 1 Enoch 10:4. 6.11-14; 22:11; 91:15.
(22) He also makes use of a Greek verb, tartarovw = cast into hell, that is
reminiscent of the Greek myth of the Titans who were cast into hell, though he
probably derives its use from Hellenistic Jewish authors (KELLY, Epistles, 331;
BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 249). Neyrey says this usage suggests that 2 Peter was
written for a multi-cultural audience (2 Peter, Jude, 198, 202).
(23) BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 249. Fornberg argues that 2 Peter 2,4 says that
the angels were committed to pits (siroi'") of deepest darkness, rather than chains
(seirai"). He further argues that siroi'" is “religious vocabulary originally derived
'
from the Eleusinian Mysteries†(Early Church, 53).