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.
54 Terrance Callan
describes the occasion when Michael did not bring a judgment of
slander against the devil, i.e., when the two contended over the body of
Moses. For some reason the specific incident mentioned by Jude did
not serve 2 Peter’s purpose, and the author replaced it with a reference
to the behavior of angels in general. Having used the adjective “boldâ€
in 2,10b, the author of 2 Peter omitted the cognate verb “dare†from
the main clause of Jude 9 and replaced it with “bringâ€. In addition, as
Fornberg observes, the author of 2 Peter changed the tense of the main
verb from the aorist of Jude 9 to present tense, transforming a
reference to a specific incident into a description of repeated behavior.
The author of 2 Peter also changed the quotation of Michael’s words
into the phrase “from the Lord†(27). Bauckham adds that the author of
2 Peter replaced Jude’s implication that the judgment of slander would
be against the devil with the statement that it would be “against
themâ€(28).
The author of 2 Peter may have made these changes because he
was unfamiliar with the incident mentioned in Jude 9 (29) or wary of
referring to an incident not recorded in the bible, and found only in
apocryphal writings (30). Or perhaps an incident in which Michael
refrained from bringing a judgment of slander against the devil did not
form a sufficient contrast to the behavior of the false teachers
described in 2 Pet 2,10b. The author adds that the angels are “greater
in might and powerâ€, either than the false teachers or than the glorious
ones (31), in order to sharpen the contrast between the false teachers and
the angels. The author of 2 Peter changed Jude’s “condemnation of
slander†into “slanderous judgment†in order to make the meaning of
the phrase clearer (32). All of this made the behavior of the angels a
clear contrast to that of the false teachers. However, the reader remains
uncertain on what basis the author describes the behavior of the angels
in this way.
Jude 10-11 are a further criticism of Jude’s opponents. 2 Pet 2,12-
16 is an adaptation of this material to continue 2 Peter’s description of
the false teachers, begun in 2 Pet 2,10. Jude 10 criticizes the opponents
(27) FORNBERG, Early Church, 54.
(28) BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 261.
(29) BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 260.
(30) KELLY, Epistles, 338; Neyrey, 2 Peter, Jude, 208.
(31) Kelly (Epistles, 338) and Fornberg (Early Church, 54) argue for the latter.
Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter, 262) regards it as “slightly more naturalâ€.
(32) BAUCKHAM, Jude, 2 Peter, 261.
FOLLOW US